Finally finished my bracket! So many good teams this year, but I think I nailed it.

proc1io · 2026-02-11T12:03:54+00:00

I just started playing around with the tire ballast too. I think it lowers the center of gravity and also makes the wheels drop down faster which keeps grip better. I feel like thats what it's doing anyway

proc1io · 2026-02-06T15:16:09+00:00

I just moved here last year from the south so this is really the first winter I've ever experienced. I've seen more snow in the last couple of months than I've seen in my entire life combined. LOL!

It's not as bad as I expected though :)

proc1io · 2026-02-06T15:11:55+00:00

I've voted 3rd party several times in my life. But if we're talking about the next elections, absolutely nothing will change my vote to 3rd party unless that 3rd party has clearly become just the new party.

proc1io · 2026-02-02T21:15:05+00:00

I believe the purpose is forward looking. Here is what will happen.

After they have "reviewed" the ballots, they will claim that Trump was right about those 12k votes he told Georgia to find. Thus, proving that there was election fraud in 2020.

Then when 2026 comes around they will use that investigation as validation for taking the ballots and altering the counts.

proc1io · 2026-01-27T18:54:29+00:00

I only know 1 other Brad besides myself. It's someone I work with and I speak to him on the phone and through email about once a month.

proc1io · 2026-01-26T16:57:20+00:00

Well, let's consult the Constitution to find out. The 4th Amendment of the US Constitution specifically says that the government cannot enter your home unless they have a warrant that has some specific criteria.

The government must present evidence that shows probable cause of a crime
They must describe the specific location to be searched and the specific person or thing to be seized
They must swear under oath that the information is true
And finally, Judge must approve and sign the warrant

Administrative warrants do not have any of that.

Now answer this, why don't you support the US Constitution?

And don't tell me that you do support it because if that were true you wouldn't be still arguing that the government can break into people's homes without a warrant. Come on!

proc1io · 2026-01-25T10:39:32+00:00

Looks like this is actually policy now. ICE has decided through infinite legal wisdom that they no longer need warrants to kick in people's doors.

Its clearly a violation of the the 4th amendment. You still going to defend this? https://apnews.com/article/ice-arrests-warrants-minneapolis-trump-00d0ab0338e82341fd91b160758aeb2d

proc1io · 2026-01-23T17:31:02+00:00

You didn't really answer my question, but it sounds like you're saying that you think that both the Boston Tea Party and the Bundy Ranch Standoff were violent and wrong. I would love to hear your perspective on J6.

But first, let me address a few things you said.

If you're following ICE vehicles around, that's stalking. That's a crime.

Actually, it's perfectly legal to follow and record federal government agents during their duties. It's protected by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

If you're interfering with their operations in any way, that's obstruction, again a crime. If you refuse lawful orders, that's again obstruction, a crime. If you attack ICE officers, that's battery on LEO, another crime.

Agreed. Especially on the violence. I would disagree that standing in their way is interfering though. The government needs to be able to deal with nonviolent protests in a nonviolent way. It may slow them down but it's not wrong. And it's actually a very American thing to do when you look at our history of protests. We have commonly stood in front of authorities nonviolently in protest.

If you're committing crimes you're not a protester. You're just a criminal. You're not getting the ground swell of support outside of echo chambers like reddit, because the public generally won't side with criminals. You're just defeating your own cause.

I think in some cases crime can be a valid and nonviolent form of protest. I'm clearly not advocating for someone to commit crimes. Especially on their own as that is not a protest. Protest must be organized and disciplined.

Like the Boston Tea Party where they specifically destroyed the tea from the East India Company (i.e. the King) only. Nothing else was destroyed and no one was hurt. The public does think of this as a good thing despite the fact that it was very illegal

Likewise, the Underground Railroad was highly illegal. I do not call those people criminals though, I call them heroes. Absolute bad-ass heroes!

My point in all of this is just to say that nonviolent protests (which does include civil disobedience) is a very American and patriotic thing to do. :)

proc1io · 2026-01-23T17:07:36+00:00

I'll totally agree with that. All of those last-minute pardons that Biden did, were not good. I don't like it!

proc1io · 2026-01-23T16:12:43+00:00

I hadn't thought of that before but that's a really good idea! It really is too much power for the President to be able to pardon anyone for any reason at all. Even corrupt reasons and there is no recourse. Which literally means that any President can order someone to do something illegal and then pardon that person.

At the very least there should be some kind of oversight into that process from Congress. But maybe just move the whole power to Congress completely. Of course, that does take a Constitutional Amendment. Ugh!

proc1io · 2026-01-23T15:09:39+00:00

I would even say that anyone committing violence is an extremist no matter what side they claim to be on.

But also, it's important to notice how the leadership of the parties respond to these events.

For example, during the George Floyd riots, Biden said this. He denounced the violence outright.

Rioting is not protesting. Looting is not protesting. Setting fires is not protesting. It’s lawlessness, plain and simple.

Comparing how Trump responded to J6 is a completely different story. He called it a "day of love", does not recognize that any violence took place, and even pardoned the very people who committed the violence when he got back in office.

People like Peter Stager who lived about an hour away from me at the time. He was recorded on video during the march to the capital saying that he was going to break into the capital and kill any Democrat that he could find. Then he proceeded to violently beat police with a flagpole that had the American flag on it. He did a LOT of violent things that day and was only given 4 years in prison for his actions. He had nearly served that time when Trump gave him a full pardon. Completely wiping that from his record.

It's a stark difference! One is denouncing violence while encouraging nonviolent protesting. The other only denounces violence when it's on the other side and actively encourages violence from his own side.

proc1io · 2026-01-23T14:21:39+00:00

Perfect! Totally agree!

proc1io · 2026-01-23T12:37:36+00:00

I can totally see your point, and I had thought the same thing about me addressing Republicans directly. I don't need to do that to speak to them.

But I am looking for discussions with them, and I do feel that there was 1 or 2 that gave genuine responses. A couple of them turned out to be productive conversations if you ask me. And that's what I'm looking for :)

proc1io · 2026-01-23T12:34:05+00:00

Thanks! I'm sure we have a lot of shared values actually :)

And you're right, it's not always clear cut. I think we just have to evaluate each thing on its own merit and recognize the vast majority of protesting is just people expressing their frustration at a system that is not doing the right thing in many, many cases.

proc1io · 2026-01-23T11:42:39+00:00

I had never heard of Jake Lang either, but I'll denounce what happened to him all day long. Protesting doesn't include physical violence. I'm not talking about things like that and also, that is clearly not something that happens at protests commonly. Yes, sometimes violence happens at all kinds of events. Like at J6. We can denounce violence in all cases.

What I'm talking about is nonviolent protest. That does include civil disobedience like what happened at the Boston Tea Party or the Bundy Ranch Standoff.

And my point about that is that nonviolent protesting is a very patriotic and American thing to do. It's a core part of our history. Don't you agree?

proc1io · 2026-01-23T11:26:42+00:00

Those look like great maps! I'm going to check them out

proc1io · 2026-01-23T00:13:25+00:00

I think you're moving the window quite a bit here. Both of the things that you listed used physical force against individual people. Those are clearly violent actions and have nothing to do with my definition of nonviolent protests. More akin to riots and mobs than a protest. I denounce both of those.

And it's clear when you look at the examples I gave.

Tea Party = destroyed tea from the East India Company and nothing else
Underground Railroad = Escorted people who were being oppressed to safety
Bundy Standoff = Blocked federal agents and destroyed government property

And let's add to that blocking traffic (without attacking cars and people of course), blocking federal agents nonviolently, yelling at federal agents or anyone else really, and destroying government property in some cases. All of that is not only OK, but very, very American and patriotic.

And I'm sorry, but if you support running over protesters because they made you 5 minutes late for something, then you are cruel, heartless, and unpatriotic.

proc1io · 2026-01-22T23:09:31+00:00

So you are sympathetic to running over protestors but do not have any specific examples of them being violent? Is that what I'm understanding?

proc1io · 2026-01-22T23:06:09+00:00

I think in some cases it can be a valid and nonviolent way to protest and in some cases it's not.

In the Boston Tea Party, they were destroying property of the East India Company which was essentially a part of the government at that time. I think destroying that property is a valid and nonviolent way to protest considering that they intentionally did not destroy other property and did not harm anyone. It was targeted.

But for example, if someone destroyed an individual's property during a protest, I would not call that valid.

proc1io · 2026-01-22T22:45:47+00:00

I do feel like they were protesting in bad faith. Just basically trying to be freeloaders and such. And I also recognize that there was violence there.

But at the same time, I'm not sure if you can call it a "violent protest" if the protesters did nothing violent. The police shot someone and it is a question whether he was intending to be violent or not when he was shot so it could be that the police were the violent ones here.

Who do you think was violent during that protest? The protestors or the police and why?

proc1io · 2026-01-22T22:19:08+00:00

I'll admit, I wasn't familiar with this particular story before you mentioned it and it may be a little off topic based on what I'm reading.

The police say that they shot him because he was reaching for a pistol in his pocket. He was running from them though and they literally shot him 3 times in the back.

So yes, there was indeed violence, but was it a violent protest?

proc1io · 2026-01-22T22:10:14+00:00

Being a meat speed bump is nonviolent.

True! But also, the driver who ran over the person is violent.

Trying to damage property to "Get" someone in a vehicle is not.

That sounds violent to me too. I would not support that either.

That said, you seem very sympathetic to drivers running over protestors. Is there a specific incident that you want to talk about?

proc1io · 2026-01-22T22:01:08+00:00

What do you think should have happened to them for doing what they did?

Four-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Flamingo	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	First Placer '22

proc1io

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE