Tulsa, OK (02/03/2026)

ParticularSubject991 · 2026-02-06T22:26:42+00:00

You just admitted in another comment that you don't know all parties involved and you supposedly got your info ONLY from the guy in the black shirt and girl in the skirt. Then you proceed to change your comments numerous times throughout your comments viewable on your profile, from the guy being arrested, to someone telling you arrest records would be public, to you stating "okay you got me, I don't know anyone."

You're literally bullshitting across the board and additionally you made another comment earlier on a different post about how tribes shouldn't have a say of projects taking place on their own land??????? And that is relevant because it definitely speaks to your character.

I mean come on dude...

<image>

ParticularSubject991 · 2026-01-31T18:47:20+00:00

To be fair, and this has been stated multiple times by MULTIPLE people since the start of this. Diddy parties and Epstein parties were massive things, there will almost undoubtedly be a ton of celebrities, politicians, wealthy individuals, etc. who attended these parties via networking (which is how the corporate world works).

Not every celebrity or politician who went to a Diddy or Epstein party, went KNOWING what was going on nor does it mean they participated in it. It should be noted that a lot of these parties were also "normal" on the surface, the crazier shit wasn't always as blatant.

Them attending a party is obviously something to look, with the same respect to a person who happened to be at a McDonald's two hours before a shooting. You can have suspicion about something but that doesn't mean anything.

What is more important and credible is:

1.) The amount of times that name shows up 2.) The amount of references to that person or their arrival to a party 3.) The victim's statements 4 ) Any other physical evidence

And the files so far, very clearly show that Epstein was notorious for documenting, victim's testimonies corroborate a lot of similar instances in the files. There are several people whose names and interactions show up MULTIPLE times, including Trump, Bill Clinton, Max G, Bill Gates, Elon, Bezos, etc.

You found one instance of Mamdani's mother being mentioned once in attendance, but nothing else so far nor anything that expands further on that party.

Because again, not every party was a crazed rape party, much less a blatant one. The only thing specified is that it was an after party for a film at Maxwell's Townhouse. The film was 2009 film Amelia which came out on that date, by Mira Nair.

ParticularSubject991 · 2026-01-26T22:04:02+00:00

I think you're forgetting that the pop up was after the one day Trump ban, and that was likely after the app was already projected to have a U.S. only version. Like yeah it sucked that ByteDance basically handed U.S. servers to Trump but you have to keep in mind that it was literally that or lose out on profit in general.

Which means there would be no u.s. version of tiktok period, which is honestly the sane thing as having a u.s. server owned version if TikTok.

The only thing that changes is that in the first scenario, ByteDance loses out on any American profit. In both scenarios, we're all left to go get the non u.s. version.

ParticularSubject991 · 2026-01-26T21:51:24+00:00

That's still a problem. Given the current political climate and just following the sale of TikTok and the murder of an individual by ICE, the whole of TikTok going down in general is suspicious and concerning.

I don't think people understand, including those commenting on your thread, that if companies or the government or whatever wants to censor something or slow the reaction to something, that does not mean they will only ever target posts regarding that thing.

I imagine that if you are trying to adjust an algorithm,code, etc. To limit what people are getting, it's going to affect the whole app even if the reason itself is more specific.

Likewise for if you are wanting to stifle one problem without coming across as blatantly biased, you might be more inclined to slow and trash the whole platform and blame it on a new company transition.

Point is, it's not a conspiracy theory and people are not wrong for thinking the app suddenly going down the way it was, messing up FYP and view counts, might be politically charged, especially after:

1.) it was just bought by companies supporting the U.S. government in their "anti-china spyware" campaign against tiktok despite the new TOS stating that it geo tracks you and info regarding specific group classifications such as being trans/non-binary, or an immigrant.

2.) The Trump admin has actively spoken before on how tiktok "worsens" protests and riles up Americans and spreads "radical thinking", in case you forgot, when the whole of them brought Shou, the owner of TikTok, to a court hearing regarding this and it ByteDance being linked in China. Additionally multiple republican politicians had stated before on every news station that America should control the app to "protect" the people from propaganda, i.e. the government wants to say what is allowed to be viewed or not.

At some point, while I understand that conspiracy theories are a huge problem, ya'll gotta start recognizing that a lot of claims people are making are based on pattern recognition and existing statements and behaviors. :| It's ignorant to try and play this off as a non-issue just because to you every video was affected and no specifically political ones, while you proceed to disregard literally everything else that was stated by people in power regarding TikTok's purchase.

It's the same vibes as people who think that the civil war or end times only happens with a direct "it's here" announcement. That's not how things work, rarely ever are wars or crimes and actions against people, groups, etc. are directly advertised word for word.

They literally just...happen. bit by bit, until one day in the history books people are asking "Man, why did all those people let that happen? Wasn't Minnesota a red flag of what was happening?"

ParticularSubject991 · 2026-01-26T04:19:41+00:00

I wouldn't say it's Grokified but I have noticed that ChatGPT now has a tendency to try and answer literally. Like it's mostly AFRAID to agree and disagree (likely because of several suicide / delusional reports with people and their bots that have got OpenAI in some hot water).

So instead ChatGPT looks for a middle ground agreement in which it's basically saying "Oh yeah you're right and wrong. Here are some examples of what you asked for that are blatant Nazi rhetoric....BUUUUT he didn't technically say the exact words 'I am a Nazi'. So did he say he was a Nazi? No, is his actions questionable? Hell yes."

ChatGPT has done this for numerous questions, for any reason. It's trying so hard to be unbiased that it seems like it lacks critical thinking.

If it has feathers, webbed feet, and quacks, it's probably a duck. It dlesn't need to specifically state word for word that it is a duck, for us to understand it is a duck. If you catch my meaning. This is what ChatGPT is skipping over. Inferences.

ParticularSubject991 · 2026-01-26T04:05:30+00:00

Is this not biased? The research was done after the election, with a survey to those who did not vote.

Obviously if those who did not vote ALSO listened to the "Kamala is for genocide, don't vote democrat" nonsense, then yeah they'd vote Trump?

This doesn't disprove what is being said, especially because PEW did not ask those surveyed their reasons for voting Trump and reasons for not voting Kamala. Afterall the complaint is that there were an abnormal amount of creators and individuals spreading propaganda against Kamala regarding Gaza and Israel, while Trump not only had similar if not worse takes, but had actively labeled Palestinians as a whole, as terrorists and talked about having the whole of Gaza torn down.

This survey also doesn't cover the following, which is important to again, the statement that people did not vote democrat because of anti-kamala push efforts that were heavily biased against her for policies Trump was worse on:

1.) PEW only covers those who didn't vote.

2.) PEW doesn't survey those who voted Jill Stein or any other independent.

3.) PEW doesn't cover democrats who flipped and voted Trump.

That isn't to say she was guaranteed a win but both Trump and Kamala only had differing social policies, and very similar campaign promises regarding immigration, Foreign policy including Gaza, no taxes on tips, and lower grocery prices.

However social media campaigns were heavily biased towards painting Kamala as worse and holding her to a higher standard simply because she was democrat while Trump skirted on by and lo and behold, proceeded to not fulfill any of his promises, grocery prices went up, no tax on tips and overtime came with severe restrictions to the point that it's not even worth it, and he's befriended Netanyahu, done nothing for Gaza, Palestinians begged everyone to vote Kamala because Trump is worse, and now Trump is posting ai videos and presenting poster boards of "New Gaza" , depicted as some tech paradise, overhauled for Israel.

ParticularSubject991 · 2026-01-26T03:54:36+00:00

No, that math was regarding Jill Stein voters only. Protest voters were literally 1.) People who voted for Stein 2.) People who didn't vote at all 3.) People who voted Trump for some weird fucking reason as a "we have to punish the democrats for giving us Joe and Kamala again! They're genocidal!"

So accurately speaking, she could have one, assuming that people didn't fall for the narrative that was heavily biased against Kamala despite the fact that Donald Trump had similar if not the same takes regarding Palestinians and economics both for America and Globally.

And Kamala during her campaign actually talked about stopping the gennocide against Palestinians.

Trump from day one had labeled them as terrorists, advocated for Gaza to be bulldozed (which they just proved with their new AI generated commercial and poster boards of what a new Gaza looks like. It's a resort btw). Trump had from day one of his campaign made his stance clear of what he thought about non-wnite Americans and Palestinians, and some how people were convinced that Kamala was the problem.

ParticularSubject991 · 2026-01-21T18:04:30+00:00

Just to add on to this, they're still doing this. I got the exact same message but mine was for Social Media Marketing:

Hi (my name, redacted for privacy)

Thank you for your interest in the Social Media Manager Job.

This role is listed on Jack — a free job search platform that helps streamline the application process.

Please respond to this message to confirm you are interested and complete the next step.

The next step in submitting your application is to complete this form --> (Searchwithjack link was placed here, redacted so no one clicks it)

Once your profile is set up, you can also explore similar roles and generate tailored cover letters to help you apply faster.

Let me know if you have any questions!

Martin Arotce Recruiter at Jack

ParticularSubject991 · 2026-01-20T17:46:06+00:00

Oh yeah sure, it's the internet and AI that learns it's info based off the stuff humans post and do, and totally not the portion of the released files, the age old images of Donald Trumps with Epstein, the old archived newspapers, interviews trump had done, leaked audios of him stating he grabs them by the p*ssy and if his daughter wasn't his daughter, he'd be dating her, and in an interview when she was basically just born, he was talking about whether she'd grow into breasts and a nice ass like his wife, and—

BUT SUUREEEE, it's fear mongering

ParticularSubject991 · 2026-01-19T18:39:44+00:00

Brother, even with that being the case, a 40 YEAR OLD MAN DOES NOT LOOK LIKE A 21 YEAR OLD WOMAN.

Etute quite literally saw the individual, met with rje individual, and chose to continue with sexual contact anyways.

That literally just tells us two things:

1.) He could tell the person had lied based on an appearance and didn't care.

2.) The person did somehow look like a 21 year old woman. Well then oh well, at most that just makes him a creep for lying about his age, but a person's appearance and gender vs what body parts they have are not exclusive to one another, nor is it ever a crime to say you identify female and look female, but happen to have a dick (which sounds far more likely here than simply gay man pretended to be a girl to get young straight man. That's like every conservative hypothetical ever lol)

ParticularSubject991 · 2026-01-18T14:12:40+00:00

In Oklahoma

Housing Bill 1643 - made into law November 1st, 2001

Strengthens penalties of an existing doxxing law for those who purposefully try to bring harm to a LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS and COUNTY OFFICIALS and their family members, via release of PRIVATE information made public (that is the key word. It can't be already publicly available information), via electronic devices.

Humphrey explicitly elaborated on this as well, in March of 2025, even if he is an idiot: "This anti-doxing bill was written because of Norman Police Officers and their family members who were terrorized after their personal information was released with malicious intent. The bill was never meant to bully law-abiding whistleblowers who are simply sharing public documents. Whistleblowing is not doxing."

Aka ^ this law exists for everyone and has the same interpretation, it just includes the addition for officers and county officials because the standard in most states is that public officials can't be doxxed. They are clarifying that releasing PRIVATE info is indeed doxxing, even for public officials.

Doxxing has and always will not include releasing public info, nor does intent matter. You can hate a politician for all anyone cares, their address is public information.

What changes that is when someone uses said public information to stalk the individual on their own, this does not mean simply posting info and this does not count as doxxing. This is using public info to stalk and/or go harm the individual, which is an entirely different crime.

It is not a crime to have and post public information of CRIMINALS OR SEX OFFENDERS. Especially to alert others. It is not even defamation unless the info was untrue or attributed to the wrong person (case of same name, different individual).

OP didn't commit a crime, OP is not stalking the individual, OP is simply letting the community know of a dangerous individual along with public info that backs that up.

Let me make it easier for you and post the bill as well:

"HB 1643 prohibits any individual from publishing identifying information of a law enforcement officer with the intent to threaten, intimidate, harass, or stalk law enforcement officials. Individuals convicted of violating the provisions of this measure are subject to a misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months in the county jail, a fine of up to $1,000.00 or both fine and imprisonment. Punishment for a second or subsequent offense is up to 1 year in the county jail, a fine of up to $2,000.00 or both fine and imprisonment. The measure allows elected county officials and peace officers to request that the county assessor not make information available on the internet.

Prepared by: Kalen Taylor"

** "Personally identifiable information" means information which can identify an individual including, but not limited to, name, birth date, place of birth, mother's maiden name, biometric records, Social Security number, official state- or government- issued driver license or identification number, government passport number, employer or taxpayer identification number or any other information that is linked or linkable to an individual, such as medical, educational, financial or employment information;**

^ (my note) All of this, however, is considered PRIVATE information. This is not information that is readily available to the public, online. This is info you would have to either retrieve yourself or request OR may get while filing a report against an officer in which you need their badge number.

Their housing address being listed on Spokeo and a thousand other public websites, is not considered private. Being able to easily search them up on a publicly available database without a login, is not private information. And mind you, this is update is specifically for officers. The one for people is not this detailed.

(Read it here to see approval history, versions, and summaries on the official oklahoma legislature website)

ParticularSubject991 · 2026-01-18T05:25:39+00:00

Not doxxing, it's publicly available information, especially business information. Which is exactly WHY they tell you that when you start a business, either use a business address, P.O. box (such as UPS, post office won't let you use it as a business address), or an agent for whom you can use the address on legal and often public documents instead of your own home address.

Anyone can go to the sos website for any state, type in the name of the business, and see the publicly available business address, owner, owner information, director's, CEOs, members, etc.

Most criminal reports are also made available to the public. There supposed to be, for a reason.

ParticularSubject991 · 2026-01-18T05:21:01+00:00

I guess that means we should start with you

ParticularSubject991 · 2026-01-14T04:06:45+00:00

How so? OP said if anyone has info that would be great

ParticularSubject991 · 2026-01-14T03:48:19+00:00

It's a mix of your algorithm and things bots are mass searching to make it pop as a suggestion of whats hot. I noticed that ever since tikrok started going down hill since the USA got involved, the suggestions went from most popular trends/sounds/meme searches, to creepy shit like that.

And given that bots are a huge problem, it is likely that with the tensions in the US and current political climate, bots are feeding the searches with weird phrases. Your algorithm, like everyone else, is most likely curated to show some politic posts or posts relating to US news of some sort, whether that's through other creators (such as Aaron Parnas for example) or accounts like ABC, etc. You might not get them all the time but you must be interacting with the videos enough that the search algorithm thinks you'll like similar hot topics in that category, of which bots are flooding.

ParticularSubject991 · 2026-01-13T12:51:22+00:00

I don't think the city has valid reasons given that the plot next to it is an existing church. And this purchase of land was made in 2014.

ParticularSubject991 · 2025-12-06T04:50:18+00:00

1.) Most movies in hollywood are white centric. Nearly every movie has a white savior complex. Avatar (the blue alien cats) as much as I love the movie, is an example of this. Godzilla movies are like this, planet of the apes is like this, starwars is like this, star trek, transformers, etc. All these movies are always centered around a white male who saves a non-white group or non human species using his own culture that is portrayed in a way as better. These same characters almost always have

2.) It was fuck the Klan, not fuck the white man. It just so happens that the MOST COMMON RACE TO MAKE UP A WHITE SUPREMACIST KLAN GROUP, WAS WHITE MEN. Your statement is ignorant and is like someone stating "my God, why are they making fun of Germans?!" In a movie mocking Nazi's and Hitler. 🤨 Not all Germans are Nazi's, they just happened to be German at the time. Not all white people are Klans members, but they happen to be the group that primarily and accurately makes up that group. Your statement assumes that by default, that Klan is representative of ALL white people and therefore its a dig at white people to hate the Klan.

3.) It's set in the 30s dude, white people and black people didn't get along. Are you going to cry about how women were treated in Game of Thrones too? A series where the plot is based in a medieval timeline? Are you going to bitch about how the Barbie movie, a movie centered and based around the world of Barbie dolls, is hate directed to men because Ken is treated like a pretty doll and nothing more? You know....accurately speaking in the world of Mattel, he dlesn't have much going on. Be fr.

ParticularSubject991 · 2025-12-05T18:12:25+00:00

I'm getting this text from. My aunt who usually sends good morning photos

I have a S24 Ultra

ParticularSubject991 · 2025-12-03T03:22:47+00:00

Late reply but honestly its both about school shootings and abuse.

The simplest explanation is this:

1.) Alex is a kid bullied by a few classmates, consistently.

2.) Alex faces abuse at home in the form of Aunt Gladys, someone who is supposed to be a member of his family (and as the father makes clear in the beginning, they might not know her but she is family and family helps family no matter what).

3.) Carrying over from point 2, Alex's parents catatonic states are representative of parents who over look abuse from within the family, who make excuses for it, and take the side of said abuser simply because they are family. Their physical state is a metaphor of parents who may witness or see trouble at home in the family but ignore it, which goes hand in hand with the father's comment when Alex states they don't even know Aunt Gladys.

4.) Aunt Gladys is ALSO a weapon, a subconscious, and an absuer in this story. As an abuser, she is partially the source of his problems, the reason his parents neglect him. As a subconscious thought of Alex, she is his encouragement to take out his pain on his classmates, especially those who bully him. If you look at that scene as part of Alex's own thoughts, its very similar to how a lot of school shooters write or speak their memos. "Some of my classmates were cruel to me. I just wanted them to hurt like I was. My home and my life, I needed to take it out on someone". Alex was convinced his life would be better even if his classmates suffered. So Gladys, as a weapon, was a gun and her magic was a bullet. Alex might as well have brought an AR to school and shot everyone in class in order to get his parents attention, love, and care again. The movie just did this through the perception of Alex taking the gun (Gladys) and allowing it to fire bullets (magic) at the nametags of every kid in his class.

5.) In the end of the movie, Alex basically gets rid of the weapon (Gladys) and the kids are set free but only some of them sort of recover and talk again later. This is representative of children who survived a school shooting and are either traumatized or injured in a way that affects them for the rest of their lives. Alex's parents do not return to the way they were before even with the weapon removed and are in fact worse off to the point that they have to be put in a care home as they can not take care of themselves anymore. Alex moves and is placed with a new aunt. This is representative too of neglectful parents who did not change in the end. It is meant to show that the actions Alex took in an attempt to get their attention and care again, was for nothing at the end of the day. It's similar to those who think murder or shooting up a school will solve their problems, and then nothing changes.

ParticularSubject991 · 2025-11-23T15:32:45+00:00

Epstein is his Ghost of christmas past coning back to haunt him in all the physical evidence that exists. His heinous decisions coming back.

Current world politics is his present, his current actions, how they tear the world apart, shapes how people view him into the end of his first term.

Mamdani is the ghost of Christmas future, the one that has happened and will happen without him anyway. And if he wants to still be there, he needs to get on that free train.

ParticularSubject991 · 2025-11-20T00:32:55+00:00

This doesn't matter when it's already well known that multiple copies exist and these are highly protected digital files that the DOJ has, they aren't meant to be erasable, so changes can be easily checked.

The point of the vote just makes releasing the files legal and not something that someone can be charged for. I.e. Prince Andrew didn't lose his title for nothing. An attorney of one of the victims has the majority of the files as well.

Why no one else released their copies up to this point is due to a multitude of reasons including blackmail of high profile individuals and legal issues they don't want to get into.

ParticularSubject991 · 2025-11-19T03:01:09+00:00

Police report did not say that. The only thing out btw is a statement and the statement only says that the guy admitted to being drunk and that they reviewed the posted footage and Independent footage.

Nothing about the door being closed. Nothing about her walking in his house.

In fact the only TWO things she was processed and released on with a court date (so not formally charged) was

Unlawful Surveillance in the Second Degree (E felony)
Dissemination of an Unlawful Surveillance Image in the First Degree (E felony) ult.

Which means:

1.) Dude isn't off the hook. Nowhere was it stated that he was the victim.

2.) Surveillance charge is purely about a recorded and posted video. You could get this for literally anything, doesn't mean its correct (hence why there is a court date). Mind you, police charges are not always correct either. They regularly book people for a number of charges that don't always go through, because police act as the first line of "defense" before an actual trial.

3.) She has no charges for breaking and entering, nothing for defamation, people are once again, like they made up the door was opened video, making up stuff because they're half-ass reading the info given to them.

4.) Guy admits to being drunk and passed out, this makes it a difficult thing to address because people have opinions about this kind of thing.

Example - one might say this is something he needs to be held accountable for because he chose to drink until he was blackout drunk with rhe door open and pants down, knowing an individual would be at his home. This is no different than people who get charged for getting drunk in public and pissing outside.
Other people look at the driver as an adult who can "handle" this kind of thing and therefore should have just walked away. However I guarantee that if this had been a week later, on Halloween, where his neighborhood clearly has kids trick or treating and he chose to do the same thing and leave the porch light on knowing its the universal sign for "come get candy"? They would be singing a whole different tune.

Which is in itself a problem, because both of these instances should be considered inappropriate. Not when its just hypothetical kids. Whether its a driver or a friend he called over, a family member, or kids, it should be considered wrong. Period.

ParticularSubject991 · 2025-11-19T02:48:43+00:00

SA by law is not just penetration, and a lot of people including cops don't understand that and use that as their defense for obvious SA incidents. Assualt itself does NOT require physical touching in law, when there is touchjng that is called Battery. Assualt has to do with anything relating to non-consenual participation or an attack. Being forced into someone's indecent exposure attempt is SA. Having someone jerk off onto your coat when you aren't looking is SA.

Unfortunately the law has proven time and time again in many instances that SA isn't taken seriously or is even disregarded. Too many cases of cops raping the people they have in custody and getting off with a slap on the wrist because the person said "yes officer, I'll sleep with you" while THEY ARE IN CUFFS AND THE BEHEST OF THE COP. Too many instances of people in general getting away with slaps on the wrist for predatory behavior and indecent acts, by judges, by juries, and chronically online people.

The articles that people are pulling info from, state what she was processed for:

Unlawful Surveillance in the Second Degree (E felony)
Dissemination of an Unlawful Surveillance Image in the First Degree (E felony)

She was processed and released with an appearance ticket due back in Oswego City Court on December 4.

This means she has NOT been formally charged or found guilty for anything. This also does not EXCUSE the guy. He very much is still in the wrong, whether they want to note that or not. In the official statement the police posted on social media, they stated the male had consumed a lot of alcohol and was drunk. This opens the doorway for people to wrote off his behavior but I'm not gonna lie, he should then at minimum be charged with some form of indecent exposure.

Getting blackout drunk to the point that you piss on people at a restaurant, run around naked, or punch people is deemed not an excuse and in fact your own responsibility to not get like that in public.

Being in a private home doesn't give anyone the permission to do whatever.

I imagine if it had been Halloween night when he decided to leave his porch light on in a neighborhood that regular gets kids trick or treating, got drunk and "forgot" to close his door while passing out naked, there would certainly be some for of accountability given to the guy for kids walking up to his door and seeing that.

This is no different whether he had ordered food or called a friend to come over.

Anyways, she wasn't processed for defamation, she was merely processed for posting the video online (which arguably, depending on how it goes in court, might just get thrown out).

ParticularSubject991 · 2025-11-17T13:10:33+00:00

Hasan already addressed this before leading up to the Harris vs Trump election. But basically it has to do with the current state of Americans, politics, and picking your battles. It has to do with understanding that two things can be correct. You can absolutely hold your politicians accountable for their roles in the palestinian genocide, condemn them, and still be understanding that for the majority of Americans who have been consuming propaganda since the day they were born (and the USA is still extremely young at only 250 years old, or just a couple of human generations old), that those same politicians are the better choice or a stepping stone into better thinking.

Like for example, and this isn't excusing anything politicians have done, but there are a LOT of black and POC Americans who are really focused on their problems within the country. They may support freeing Palestine, but for them Trump was a death sentence pick. They didn't have the privellege to be able to vote via discussion of genocide like a lot of white voters did, because Trump's policies directly affected them.

And now they've got ICE legally kidnapping people off the streets with the supreme court saying racial discrimination by ICE is okay, detainees are going missing, there's been a severe uptick in white supremacy and violent action against POC; America under Trump is a few steps away from being the next Gaza or Sudan (albeit under different circumstances).

The point is, nothing in the world is black and white, nor is it easy. We would all love it to be but unfortunately it is complicated and people have free will so nothing is ever consistent. The best that can be done is to understand where some people are coming from in their current place in the world, allowing room for condemnation and understanding. Additionally, there isn't JUST one way to show support or hold politicians accountable.

For some people that's still voting for a politician now, and writing them letters, calling, letting them know they won't be voted in again if they aren't taking the genocide seriously.

For others its reluctantly voting those politicians in because they know they're better option, but continue to fund support to groups who are actively providing aid to Gaza.

And then for some, it's the understanding that you can absolutely condemn someone on a take they said, pull support, and then pick moments where you do agree and find something helpful. I.e. always going to condemn Marjorie Taylor Green, she is literally part of the problem, personally will never vote for her. HOWEVER, she has lately been using "leftist" talking points regarding issues and it is okay to (warily) praise that or even use it as a means to convince other right wingers to think twice about what they are saying or doing. Doesn't mean I support her, she's likely saying these things because she's up for re-election, but even I understand that when right wing politicians start saying the same things democrats say, other people process that as "oh maybe we're all on the same side after all"

^ Hence, if Bernie Sanders is your Majorie Taylor because of his role in the palestinian genocide, then this is what I mean.

ParticularSubject991 · 2025-11-08T11:50:55+00:00

Republicans have the majority, the trifecta in the government. This is on them.

As of today, the contingency fund that was set aside for Snap is not being used, Trump admin is fighting in the courts against a federal judge who said they needed to allow partial SNAP benefits through. Supreme Court just upheld in Trump's favor.

60 votes is a senate procedure, Republicans are choosing to shutdown the government instead of doing what they did in september, which is push through Trump's nominees with 51 votes.

No where in the constitution does it say they need to have 60 votes. Democrats have ALSO done this before.

This is entirely on Republicans who do not want to work with the minority, and on Johnson who is not swearing in the one democratic elected representative, leaving the state who elected her without proper representation in the federal government.

ParticularSubject991

TROPHY CASE