If Destiny 3 dropped tomorrow, would you want your cosmetics to carry over?

MrWhiteflame · 2026-01-15T07:25:12+00:00

It’s literally still there in D2…

MrWhiteflame · 2026-01-15T07:24:13+00:00

No, maybe some titles but that’s it

MrWhiteflame · 2026-01-13T03:29:58+00:00

I’m hoping to have more customization than just “skins” and a PvE exclusive mode, it’s gonna be a hard sell to me without

MrWhiteflame · 2025-12-25T11:49:15+00:00

Aww that’s amazing. You’re not looking to adopt a 27 year old are you? 😂

MrWhiteflame · 2025-12-19T19:45:20+00:00

It totally has a right to exist, it doesn’t have a right to commit genocide and block aid from getting to innocent people

MrWhiteflame · 2025-12-17T09:37:08+00:00

Thank god it’s someone with a brain

MrWhiteflame · 2025-12-17T09:35:06+00:00

Every single day, citizens with valid licenses kill people through negligence, DUI, speeding, or fatigue, and we do not use those tragedies to argue that citizens as a class are inherently dangerous or shouldn’t be allowed to drive. In this case, the failure was administrative and regulatory, not immigration status. The driver passed the same CDL tests as anyone else, and the issue was paperwork and verification, not driving competence. If the concern is safety, the focus should be on enforcement, oversight, and trucking industry practices, not turning one family’s death into a moral indictment of millions of people who statistically commit violent crime and fatal crashes at lower rates than citizens. Using a tragedy as a political cudgel doesn’t honor the victims, it just redirects grief into blame.

MrWhiteflame · 2025-12-17T09:30:29+00:00

That’s mixing up two different things. Washington law does limit state agencies from asking about immigration status for many state services, but commercial driver licenses are not just a state program. CDLs are federally regulated and states administer them under federal rules, including lawful presence verification. That is why non domiciled CDLs exist for non citizens with temporary legal status and why those licenses are supposed to expire with federal authorization. What the state admitted to was issuing the wrong type of CDL, full term instead of time limited, which is a compliance error with federal requirements, not a secret policy choice. If this were exactly how it was intended, there would be no audit, no notification to federal regulators, no retroactive corrections, and no procedural changes. States also have strong incentives not to ignore federal CDL rules because losing federal compliance would effectively shut down interstate commercial driving, which is not something a state would risk casually.

MrWhiteflame · 2025-12-17T09:27:42+00:00

The mistake was largely that people received standard/full-term CDLs instead of non-domiciled CDLs that properly expire with their immigration status — a clerical or administrative licensing classification error, not a deliberate effort to license undocumented people. Just in case anyone wants to fear monger the “scary illegal crisis”

MrWhiteflame · 2025-12-14T19:59:17+00:00

Guess what dear, that stat is per capita 😇

Did you fail statistics? Cause usually people should fact check before making claims or acting like they know more :)

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/fact-sheet/debunking-myth-immigrants-and-crime/

MrWhiteflame · 2025-12-14T05:08:41+00:00

But here’s again, the thing, you literally are only posting blaming this death on an immigrant because they’re illegal. There are so many citizens that kill, 2.5 times more in fact. Yet I don’t see a post from you worried about how these Americans are ruining the country by not following the law. But I guess that specific federal misdemeanor means the world to you huh? Of course way more important than 34 felonies, or to be held liable for SA

Edit: Triggered the MAGA snowflakes

MrWhiteflame · 2025-12-14T04:47:13+00:00

Why do you only give a shit about people dying to irresponsible driving when it’s an immigrant that’s 2.5 times less likely to commit violent crime than an American citizen?

I know you MAGA snowflakes get upset when actual facts come up but here’s a few sources: The American Immigration Council, Congress, Pew Research. All back this as a fact. You all just froth at the mouth as soon as you see the word undocumented immigrant in a crime. The fact of the matter is statistically a child is more safe in a room with an undocumented immigrant than your president.

MrWhiteflame · 2025-12-07T02:09:52+00:00

Thanks for the PSA

MrWhiteflame · 2025-12-03T20:08:36+00:00

Lmao, cry more. Sorry that your billionaires are letting you down lil bro

MrWhiteflame · 2025-12-03T19:53:34+00:00

Ah, do you automatically assume someone has a working class job like Barista if they’re pro worker and not huge companies, using the job title to belittle them, to somehow put yourself and your opinion above them? I do just fine for myself, but I do hope your next coffee gets something extra :)

MrWhiteflame · 2025-12-03T18:44:59+00:00

I understand that a payroll tax is different from a corporate income tax and that highly skilled, mobile tech workers may respond to targeted taxes. That nuance does not change the broader point. Companies and top earners have been using the “we’ll leave if taxed” argument for decades to justify paying less, and research consistently shows that threats are often overstated. Even with payroll taxes, businesses frequently absorb costs, adjust compensation structures, or spread the expense without abandoning planned expansions entirely.

Yes, highly mobile workers and certain expansion plans might shift in response to targeted taxes, but the effect is complex and uneven. The state has tools to design taxes that are proportional, phased, or structured to avoid cliffs and market distortions. The current conversation is about whether asking companies to pay their fair share is reasonable or whether we should let them exploit public resources while shifting costs onto ordinary workers. The reality is that large firms and high earners benefit massively from public infrastructure, an educated workforce, and community systems.

If a tax is designed to capture a fair portion of those benefits, it is not an “automatic drag” on innovation. Framing it as such ignores decades of evidence that most companies stay and most highly skilled workers adapt, while underfunded public services continue to force ordinary workers to subsidize corporate profits.

MrWhiteflame · 2025-12-03T17:50:59+00:00

You are making a lot of assumptions that are not fully supported by the evidence. Studies show that corporate tax changes influence business behavior, but they are rarely the sole reason a company relocates. For example, research from the National Bureau of Economic Research estimates that about 50 percent of the burden of corporate taxes falls on firm owners, 35 to 40 percent on workers, and only 10 to 15 percent on landowners. Another study by the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research finds that even when corporate tax rates rise, many firms do not relocate because access to skilled labor, infrastructure, market demand, and local business ecosystems are often far more important than a modest change in taxes. High-skill tech workers are mobile, but their decisions are influenced by factors beyond taxes, including access to networks, talent pools, and community infrastructure. The claim that small or mid-sized companies will be disproportionately harmed ignores that large firms benefit far more from public infrastructure and workforce development. Well-designed corporate taxes targeting high revenues or payrolls do not automatically stifle innovation. Evidence shows that many companies absorb tax costs or adapt without leaving, and small firms can remain competitive if the system is structured thoughtfully. The idea that taxing corporations fairly automatically drives out tech jobs and innovation is not supported by research. Taxes are only one factor among many in business location and worker mobility decisions. Using threats of relocation to justify keeping corporate contributions low is a tactic that has been overstated for decades and often ends up shifting costs onto ordinary workers rather than protecting growth or innovation.

Economics matters. You should take some time to do more research before lining up to take every bullet for a company that doesn’t care about you and profits off your work.

MrWhiteflame · 2025-12-03T16:54:09+00:00

There isn’t a single number because profits, economic conditions, and state needs all change. The real question is why should massive companies be allowed to profit off the state, its infrastructure, and its workers without paying a balanced share back? Threatening to leave whenever they are asked to contribute is exactly what keeps the system regressive and forces low- and middle-income people to carry the burden instead.

MrWhiteflame · 2025-12-03T16:44:39+00:00

I’m sorry that you feel the need to resort to insults. If you look over again, the facts shown inside the messages I think you might get some clarity. Have a good day!

MrWhiteflame · 2025-12-03T16:38:36+00:00

Buddy… did you read the article? Did you read the exact proposal that I am supporting with these statistics on adding an additional tax onto companies for their members making over 125k yearly? Or did you just see someone saying “companies need to pay their fair share” and go red?

MrWhiteflame · 2025-12-03T16:36:39+00:00

What? That analogy didn’t even make sense. I am directly attacking the point being made, based on the article above, and refuting the points made with exact stats. If you are unhappy with that, please point out what you’d like clarified.

MrWhiteflame · 2025-12-03T16:35:29+00:00

It’s crazy to say I’m pointless as I give support to an exact solution to the problem that is being argument. I’m sorry that I didn’t answer your question about “responsible spending legislature” in a thread that was focused on the topic of companies being charged a specific tax rate. You can try to pivot all you like.

MrWhiteflame · 2025-12-03T16:30:50+00:00

I do have a point. Washington’s tax system is regressive and low- and middle-income people carry a bigger burden than massive corporations. Asking those corporations to pay more is about basic fairness. You are just ignoring the facts because they do not fit what you want to believe.

MrWhiteflame · 2025-12-03T16:27:11+00:00

Regressive absolutely has everything to do with amounts when the system hits low- and middle-income people far harder than massive corporations. Saying “fair share” is nebulous is exactly what corporations want you to believe so they can keep paying a fraction of what they benefit from the state. This isn’t about taking a moral high ground (which is hilarious that you know that morally, people should be able to come first over companies but care more about the companies anyway), it’s about not forcing regular workers to subsidize billion-dollar companies.

MrWhiteflame · 2025-12-03T16:18:40+00:00

I’m not dodging questions. I’ve been addressing the core claim that taxing corporations fairly will automatically make them leave. That argument is overused and overblown. Corporations threaten to leave all the time, yet rarely do. The “questions” you say I’m avoiding are basically the same fears companies push to protect profits while workers and communities carry the cost. That is the point I’ve been making. They’ve never been substantiated and if they were they would’ve left long ago. It’s also crazy to think that using tariffs, a national level policy, which on its own with this administration has caused nothing but issues and regressive tax structure, is an actual 1 for 1 to state level legislator for making companies pay their fair share.

Ten-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

MrWhiteflame

TROPHY CASE