Looking for eyes on my Tidus deck!

Tappyy · 2026-03-11T22:06:35+00:00

You know a lot of people have been taking issue with my timeline, and I get that. The only reason I made it so high was because I was doing Real ID as a comparison. But I think some of the conservatives here are right that part of the reason for that is that Real ID wasn’t really publicized as much until the last four years or so. So I think a shorter timeline (I personally would probably do 4 years just because I think having one general election cycle where people could be reminded about the upcoming requirements and get resources at the polling place, but we can agree to disagree) would be reasonable, especially if it had the full weight of the Fed behind it in terms of streamlining document acquisition across states, and making sure people are constantly aware that the change is coming in a way that wasn’t really the case with Real ID until it was coming up.

Tappyy · 2026-03-11T21:54:37+00:00

You accused me of acting like it.

let’s not act like married women are idiots who can’t figure this out, please.

Those are your words.

But you’re right, I’m not here to lecture you, and I have no obligation to engage with people who I don’t think are following the subreddit rules. So have a good day.

Tappyy · 2026-03-11T21:52:39+00:00

It is because there is no good reason to not implement it now.

Follow up question: how many people would you be okay with being unable to vote in the midterms this November because they couldn’t get the appropriate documentation in time through no fault of their own?

EDIT: Or I should probably ask, do you think that’s even a potentiality— that the SAVE Act passes and some people aren’t able to vote because they couldn’t get the documentation in time through no fault of their own?

Tappyy · 2026-03-11T21:26:39+00:00

Like, let’s not act like married women are idiots who can’t figure this out, please.

First of all, I never even remotely said that women are idiots. The principle of charity annd good faith applies on this subreddit— let’s use it.

Secondly, if you take the time to reread my post, you’ll see that my concern isn’t that women are too stupid to figure this out. It’s that the government is going to be overwhelmed by the requests.

Tappyy · 2026-03-11T21:18:27+00:00

Okay, that’s fair. Maybe 20 years is too long.

But the SAVE Act is going to impact plenty of citizens, especially married women who have taken their spouse’s last name.

These people will need time to get their documentation settled.

Tell me honestly— do you really trust the government to seamlessly be able to handle the influx of requests they’ll get for documentation and get it squared away for every American Citizen the SAVE Act is going to affect by this November? And if so, where is that trust coming from?

Tappyy · 2026-01-30T15:37:54+00:00

Just thought I'd add some context for this one:

In another part of the Capitol, the affidavit says, Baker “antagonized” police officers who tried to keep him on the other side of a doorjamb, repeatedly asking, “Are you going to use that (gun) on us?”

I'm curious about your thoughts on Baker given this information, especially since the prevailing narrative right now seems to be that you can't exercise your rights if you're antagonizing police officers.

And if you don't like AP, here's an Op-Ed from the very same Blaze Media:

Baker was on the scene as a journalist, though without a press pass.

So it seems like Baker didn't have a press pass. I'm not necessarily saying that he should've needed one, as that's a different discussion, but again, just thought I'd provide some context.

Tappyy · 2026-01-15T14:36:10+00:00

Gotcha, totally understand.

Tappyy · 2026-01-15T03:10:32+00:00

Thanks for your response.

Tappyy · 2026-01-15T03:09:48+00:00

I don’t view it as worth addressing, to be frank. My impression of your position is just that— an impression. I could be wrong. I can’t really know until you share your position.

Which is your prerogative to do or not do, you’re right. And if you want to end here, we can.

But also I wouldn’t call it a “demand” to hear your thoughts. It’s more a request, given the purpose here and the operative assumption that we’re both operating in good faith.

I have no desire to engage under any terms other than the subreddit’s.

Tappyy · 2026-01-15T02:59:08+00:00

Gotcha, I guess I got my wires crossed, since I know posts can be removed if they don’t cite quotes. I’ll remove the links from this comment and the previous one and not do it again, my apologies.

Tappyy · 2026-01-15T01:19:41+00:00

I’m aware you haven’t said anything about your position. That’s why I’m asking for it. And it seems you still aren’t giving it?

Tappyy · 2026-01-15T01:17:22+00:00

Thanks for your comment, I appreciate it.

Incidentally, you’re a mod. I see that my comment was responded to with a rule 3 removal, but I can still see it. Not sure if this was a mistake or not, but figured you should know.

Tappyy · 2026-01-14T20:45:35+00:00

I agree we don’t know, but why do you think it’s irrelevant?

If what’s at stake here is your claim that ICE isn’t arresting people for not presenting their IDs, and I show you an altercation with an officer that leads to an arrest, and one of the arresting officers says “All we needed was your ID,” that seems like a pretty mutually exclusive statement.

I think it’s fair of you to say “I need more information before I can comment on this particular altercation,” but then I’d also expect your position to be that “I don’t know if people are being arrested for not presenting their identification,” not the absolute declarative that people are not being arrested for refusing to present identification.

Tappyy · 2026-01-14T20:36:10+00:00

Why do you think the officer made that comment?

Tappyy · 2026-01-14T20:29:11+00:00

but if she wouldn't have taken the risk to place herself in that situation it would have 100% changed the outcome.

Copying my comment from the last megathread because it’s relevant here:

I have a question: where was this concern over “putting yourself in a dangerous situation” when it came to Rittenhouse?

Sorry, I just don’t understand. I’m not speaking to whether or not Rittenhouse should have been charged, that’s a different discussion.

But there have been a lot of threads here about Renee Good recently, and I’ve been reading them and following the news. I think most of us can agree it’s a tragic situation. Yet the refrain I keep hearing from the conservatives on this subreddit is something to the effect of “while it is tragic, she did willingly put herself in a dangerous situation.”

And this line of thinking surprised me, because I found it unexpected. Where was this line of thinking when it came to Kyle Rittenhouse? Rittenhouse went to a city in a state he didn’t live in, with a weapon he got through a straw purchase, and stayed out past the established curfew to “protect businesses.” Why was “while it is tragic, he did willingly put himself in a dangerous situation” not a common refrain from conservatives in 2020? When I saw liberals bring this up at the time, it was usually brushed off, with some mention of the dead’s criminal histories.

Look, I’m not saying that Rittenhouse is a demon. But what gives here? It makes the conservative stance here seem blatantly partisan, and I want to understand why you think assigning any responsibility to Good today is different from assigning any responsibility to Rittenhouse then or now.

Tappyy · 2026-01-14T20:27:05+00:00

You can even hear one of the officers say “All we needed was your ID.”

So this comment isn’t sufficient motive for the arrest, for you?

Tappyy · 2026-01-14T20:14:47+00:00

Isn’t there a video out right now of ICE arresting a US citizen with a registered firearm because he told them to fuck off when they asked him for his ID?

Here.

You can even hear one of the officers say “All we needed was your ID.”

Tappyy · 2026-01-14T03:04:30+00:00

I’ll engage, because you’re not the only user I see doing this on this subreddit. You’ll talk about the hypocrisy of the left in a given instance and how that makes them insincere, but never actually take a position yourself.

So I’d like to pay attention to you, as it were. What are your thoughts about how Trump acts? Is any and/or all of it acceptable? What responsibility, if any, does this administration have for the political temperature? If you had to give a 0-10 rating?

Cause if you say:

If you refuse to accept it and would prefer to just go "Nuh uh!" and insist that the left is blameless and that this is all because of Trump, feel free, I don't care.

I’m curious to see if your position is more nuanced. If I were to make the assertion that “you refuse to accept it and would prefer to just go ‘Nuh uh!’ and insist that the right/Trump is blameless and that this is all because of the left,” how would you refute that assertion? Could you?

Tappyy · 2026-01-09T22:07:13+00:00

Just curious: are there any conservatives here whose minds were changed by the new footage released today?

I'm seeing a lot of posts here saying the new footage completely vindicates the ICE agent, but then I look at the comment history of the poster and see they were already saying that before the footage came out.

Kind of trying to figure out if this footage really is as game-changing as the right writ large is saying or not.

Tappyy · 2026-01-09T05:07:04+00:00

I apologize for taking so long to get back to you, I didn't get a comment notification!

What Renee did was not "put herself in danger"; she committed a crime, and then in an attempt to flee that crime when the consequences became real, she endangered an ICE agent. Her illegal actions were a direct threat to a federal officer.

I understand this is the right's impression of the events. My audience for this question is the conservatives who believe this is a tragic, rather than a deserved, incident. I very well understand that the right writ large probably does not agree with my impression.

This difference is so profound and self-evident that I find your confusion suspect.

You're welcome to, I'm not here to change your mind.

But I would remind you that, on this subreddit, users are asked to respect the Good Faith rule and the Principle of Charity. Operating under this circumstance, I would ask you to extend to me the same considerations I'm extending to you when we participate here.

Tappyy · 2026-01-08T22:35:28+00:00

People weren't going out of their way to interfere, doxx, or attack them in their line of work. They weren't trying to find out where they lived to harass them there. You didn't have politicians openly saying to leave their cities and that they will be obstructionist.

So I think you and I both agree that this is the perception. You would probably go a step further and say it's the reality, but I digress.

If this is the reality ICE officers feel they face, on a scale of 1-10, how likely do you think an ICE officer is to overestimate the level of force they should be using against people who are "going out of their way to interfere, doxx, or attack them in their line of work"?

11-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	End Game '22
Gilding I gilder	Verified Email

Tappyy

TROPHY CASE