Phantom Roxas

It seems more likely that Rogers was being investigated for something else, and while raiding his home and gathering evidence, they found Copeland. He was discovered for his text messages, so if anything, you should be wondering why they were investigating Rogers in the first place. Dismissing this as just a distraction for something bigger frankly means that you're doing more to spread propaganda than the "anti-Republican" narrative any media has supposedly made so far. And really, what was the "anti-Republican propaganda" there? The only time "Republican" came up was when his defense attorney was saying to describe him. It was a way of saying he's just an ordinary guy with a hobby, arguing against the claims of him being a domestic terrorist. Him being a Republican was brought up to defend him, and that comment wasn't being misconstrued or used to attack Rogers. Absolutely none of that qualifies as "anti-Republican propaganda". Or are you just going to keep repeating "propaganda" enough times until it finally means something? Because it seems like any article just using the word "Republican" in any tone, even a positive or neutral one, is all it takes for you to label the piece "propaganda". At most, the "something bigger" you're talking about does more to implicate the groups that they were working with. You keep trying to indulge in a theory that they were merely working for a larger threat, while also fearmongering about the media using them for "anti-Republican propaganda". You want to be mad at the media for making an example out of them to generalize a larger group, while you're using them as an example to suggest a larger group is behind this. You're doing exactly what you're pretending to be mad at the media for allegedly doing. Sorry, but you can't have this both ways.

https://johnglidden.com/2021/07/20/wife-blocks-release-of-vallejo-man-accused-of-plotting-to-bomb-democrat-hq/ https://www.kcra.com/article/jarrod-copeland-sacramento-democratic-headquarters-detention-hearing/37081688 I realize that I'm asking a lot from you by linking articles, especially when the second has a pop-up that you could easily ignore and still read the substance of the article. The evidence includes messages from both men's phones. Copeland's wife's defense was that it was just talk between two "macho" guys. Now that you're moving the goalposts to whether two people openly talk about something like this, there is literally evidence that they were talking about it. However, no one was saying that they were talking about it in public. This was all done through text, which you would have known if you actually bothered to read the article at the beginning of the thread instead of imagining something else, then reacting to the fictional coverage you created for an alternate version of these events. So no, this isn't applying a bit of logic to it. You want these men to be innocent, and then you're trying to retroactively add excuses so you can blame pretty much anyone except Rogers and Copeland. https://abc7news.com/ian-rogers-napa-man-arrested-british-auto-repair-benjamin/10070341/ You'll probably dismiss this report offhand as you do with everything else, but I still prefer to at least back up my arguments. Rogers had already been arrested back in January. Copeland is a more recent addition because the FBI was investigating him due to his connection to Rogers. In Rogers's case, I'd say six months is a bit too long to just "wait and watch" for it to suddenly turn out to be propaganda. I'm fine with just saying that they're idiots. Maybe you should actually start looking at what's going on instead of constantly jumping from fantasy to fantasy. As much as you keep acting like there's some other shoe that needs to drop that "reveals" whether this story is true or false, that already happened six months ago. You can't pretend to keep your mind open for this to go either way after it's already gone one way.

"If the story is legit" What more do you need before you'll accept that this story is legitimate? Two men were plotting to blow up buildings and murder people over politics. If you're concerned what people will make of their support for Trump and their connections to extremist militias, then that's not the fault of the media's coverage. You seem to be getting mad at the media for potential coverage you've projected onto them, rather than anything they've actually done yet. You're lying about the reaction to Sandy Hook so you can make this about your own vendetta against "the media". Sandy Hook wasn't "forgotten" until the memorial. It's just you claimed that it was forgotten, but then I showed you that the memorial is under construction. Since your initial position was that it was forgotten, and you don't want to change your position or admit that you were wrong, you moved the goalpost so your latest lie is that it was only now remembered because of the memorial. You keep mentioning narratives, but what other narrative is there beyond just informing people that the memorial is under construction? As soon as you're told that a memorial is being created - specifically so it won't be forgotten - you act like "the media" has some nefarious agenda. Sandy Hook was not a part of this discussion at first. That's not because it was forgotten or anything; it was just not pertinent to this discussion. You're the only one here taking advantage of Sandy Hook to fit an a narrative. You invented a trend, used a fictitious version of "the media's" coverage of Sandy Hook as an example of it, and so you're pretending to warn us how the coverage of this story will continue that false "trend". You have a preexisting bias against "the media", so you're not talking about what you expect to happen. You're talking about how you want the story to be covered because you hope that will confirm your biases against that media. However, you already dismissed the articles presented to you in this thread as propaganda without even looking at them. Not because the substance of their stories actually qualifies as propaganda, but because you appear to automatically dismiss any article from arbitrarily selected sources as propaganda. You had no intention of even reading the stories before judging what they must be. And that's all because you're afraid of what "the media" will say because two men were charged with plotting an attack. Why do you need "the media" to prove your confirmation bias when you were already going to consider this story "propaganda" no matter what?. No, it just seems that you're fishing for a reason to absolve them of guilt. Two men were caught plotting acts of domestic terrorism, and your gut instinct is to "wait and watch".

Trump patting himself on the back really doesn't support your argument. That's not at all what happened with Sandy Hook. It's literally one of the most significant examples people continue to point to when discussing mass shootings. Again, you still need to learn how to make an argument without lying. https://abc7ny.com/sandy-hook-shooting-elementary-school-memorial-newtown/10905382/ For crying out loud, we are only now getting a memorial constructed for the people murdered at Sandy Hook, and that was because people were persistent in ensuring that it was remembered. It's genuinely disgusting that you would invoke it just to treat it as something that was "forgotten and never spoken about again", just because you want to deny reality and wish that two men getting arrested for plotting to blow up building was propaganda, all because you're afraid of how this story could reflect on a wider group. If anything, this topic is like Sandy Hook because it did in fact happen, but conspiracy theorists are denying it happened at all, just to be contrarian.

Strange that there's absolutely no such protections that were implemented by Trump and overturned by Biden. If anything, I think Trump has done far more to restrict and condemn minorities, and Biden is overturning them to protect minorities from Trump's policies. Not that it matters. If you want to talk about those protections, there's a thread for the Biden administration's actions here. Or you could make a new thread instead of trying to derail this discussion with something that we've already beaten to death in other threads. Congratulations, Winter, you have made the most worthless post in this thread so far. A non-sequitur about a separate FBI investigation into a different group of MAGA domestic terrorists is irrelevant to this discussion. This is about as helpful as telling someone not to eat apples, and attempting to justify your position by pointing to some oranges without elaborating on anything. Like with Horu, complaining about something else is just going to derail the discussion. Ian Rogers and Jarrod Copeland have no grounds for claiming entrapment, so your false equivalence means nothing.

I'm not at all surprised that you still sympathize with domestic terrorists, and now you want to pretend that they're martyrs for your "cause". Your opinion shifted because Cow literally had to post a screenshot of the article for you, since you weren't going to read the article otherwise. Maybe you should have actually just read the article from the beginning instead of making assumptions about it just because Republicans get criticized for other things. Both men were members of the Three Percenters, and contacted the Proud Boys. If anything, those connections have been emphasized far more than whether they're Republicans. They support Trump, but despite the significant overlap, Trump supporters are not always Republicans, and vice versa. The only part that's relevant is that they supported Trump and were planning to murder people just because Trump lost. If you're uncomfortable with how you believe this story could be "twisted", then can we at least agree that the Three Percenters and Proud Boys are domestic terrorists? While both groups are on the far right, I don't think you'd like to see anyone use them to judge Republicans as a whole. I don't think it's rational to dismiss this as "anti-Republican propaganda" when they are connected with terrorist groups.

That's nice, but all the media is doing is just reporting that these guys were arrested. If you have an issue with a trend of articles critical of Republicans, it isn't relevant to this discussion. I agree with this. I have no further comment to add, I just wanted to address each point individually and thought that it would be bad form to leave this part out. I was wondering when you'd blatantly lie about how you totally never said something in this thread, except I can directly quote you saying exactly that. So yes, you did mention the arrest being based on politics. You were explicitly trying to accuse the arrest of being based on politics. If you want to argue against my point, you can do so without lying. Note that I quoted your first post from this thread, so you were talking about arresting them based on politics and accusing this story of just being propaganda before ever expressing disgust with their plans. How is reporting that two men were arrested propaganda? https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/two-charged-conspiracy-scheme-attack-democratic-headquarters-sacramento I'm sorry, but saying that they were arrested for planning to blow up a building is just a statement of fact. Wishing for this to be propaganda is just denying reality on a very basic level.

I think it's likely that he deliberately chose not to read the article and was calling it propaganda only because of the title of this thread. The only time he directly commented on the article itself was when you posted a screenshot from it. He assumed that this must be anti-Republican propaganda, despite Republicans not being mentioned until the very end, in a fairly neutral statement. "The memo says Copeland and Rogers were infuriated after Joe Biden was declared the winner of the 2020 presidential election, and they “understood they would be viewed as domestic terrorists” if they carried out their vision to overturn the US government." They knew they were planning terrorism. In this case, they were not arrested for their own political beliefs, but they were planning to murder people for their political beliefs. When their plan includes blowing up a building, the arresting officers are not doing so because of what these two believe. Horu, for once I would like you to focus on the subject at hand, rather than projecting your frustration with other circumstances onto something else. Asking this story to be more than "anti-Republican propaganda", but actually wishing that it was is forcing a question about this story that no rational person should be demanding.

Do people even play these two decks together? This seems like the most random combination. I like that they're designing it so it belongs to both archetypes without having an awkward name, so it relies on a similar condition like Raider's Knight, but at least it made sense to have deeper connections between Phantom Knights and Raidraptors. This feels more like just combining two archetypes because they're constellation-themed robots. They still have some room for another Ritual and Synchro or two in Burst of Destiny, so maybe we'll see a new Drytron Ritual and Ursarctic Synchro?

Welcome back! I know it's been a long time, but I'm happy to see you again.

Rudy Giuliani's law license has finally been suspended. https://apnews.com/article/rudy-giuliani-new-york-law-license-suspended-c67f4504a22f8642d6096f29e3a5c51e?utm_campaign=SocialFlow He will also be appearing in a court alongside Sidney Powell and Mike Lindell today for their motions to dismiss. https://abcnews.go.com/US/rudy-giuliani-sidney-powell-mypillow-ceo-due-court/story?id=78451887

Happy to see Dragon Link take some hits while I get Miragestallio back.

Oh, this could work nicely with Penguins. Also glad that they added an additional effect so it's more than just a beatstick. Although, this makes me wonder what they would do with Thunder Knight, since I could see that doing wonders for Thunder Dragon.

Doesn't the bill include penalties for the people who count the votes? I would think that would cover your problem with the bill.

The audits have long reached that point where they became stupid. I doubt that there would be a way to salvage this bill as something Abbott would want to sign. Democrats were right to kill this bill.

Horu, this is the last time I'll tell you this. Republicans keep doing audits because they cannot accept that Trump lost, and since they can't hold a new election, they're trying to invalidate the one we had. You have your answer, now stop asking the same question over and over again if you're only interested in ignoring any answer people give you.

And does it only target illegal votes? How does it determine which votes are legal or illegal? What measures does the bill take to only ensure that illegal votes are stopped, without risking legitimate votes being blocked as a consequence? Unless I missed something, the bill includes no mechanism for determining whether votes were illegally votes or disqualifying. Instead, it imposes arbitrary restrictions for when and how people can vote. That does not prevent illegal votes; it blocks random types of voting methods and time slots solely because votes cast through those methods or at those times were blamed for Trump losing. I'm guessing you were fine with Trump asking Raffensperger to "find" 11k votes. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-georgia-phone-call-recording-secretary-of-state-raffensperger-audio/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/06/01/fact-check-georgia-audit-hasnt-found-30-000-fake-ballots/5253184001/ https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/weve-found-systemic-fraud-overturn-election-georgia-secretary/story?id=74560956 Raffensperger was saying that there were not enough instances of fraud to change the outcome of the election. Those 70k votes really do not contradict that statement, since you seem to be confusing votes cast in the Senate runoffs with some alleged influx during the Presidential election. Those 200k votes were also ballots that had yet to be counted as of Nov. 7, not a measure of votes he was off by when he made that statement about fraud on Dec. 6. You need to distinguish when these events happened and what the numbers corresponded to. I'm concerned that you are not able to separate them. You would be better served in life if you were more willing to change your position when presented with new information.

You're still asking for penalties for actions that either did not happen or were legal. It is true that Biden's victory was legitimate and he can still criticize the voting bill. https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/29/politics/texas-voting-rights-senate-bill-7/index.html This article gives a good rundown on how it disproportionately affects either areas where black people live, or lean Democrat. The goal is to throw out an entire election if the outcome just ends up the way Republicans don't like, or it's actively preventing people from voting legitimately. This isn't about preventing voting fraud, it's about preventing certain demographics from voting at all. Claiming that this is just preventing 2020 from happening again plays into the lie that the 2020 election was somehow illegitimate, and makes for a convenient pretense that ignores how the bill is deliberately discriminating against people. It's about controlling the outcome of the election. In other words, the only reason to support this would be to support rigging the election in favor of Republicans. It's easy to accuse Democrats of something they did not do in 2020 to pretend that this is somehow giving them a taste of their own medicine. It's easy for Republicans to make a false narrative, then claim that they're turning the tides, because their base still will not let go of dead conspiracy theories, so Republicans will allow this because they think this is preserving the election integrity they like to pretend they care about. https://washingtonmonthly.com/2021/03/26/no-more-pretending-republicans-admit-vote-restrictions-are-all-about-winning/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/01/mitch-mcconnell-admits-that-republicans-lose-when-more-people-vote/ You say that the people who count the votes should be held accountable, but those people do not make affect the outcome nearly as much as how many people are actually allowed to vote. Republicans get angry when Democrats want people to vote. When Democrats want more people to vote, the right cries foul. When Republicans want less people to vote, the right is cool with it. Seems like the issue isn't whether people are voting illegally, that votes weren't earned by their candidates, or that people counted those votes improperly. It's that people voted for the Democratic candidate at all, and he won, so Republicans would rather screw over the whole electoral process as much as possible just because they're sore losers. https://www.vox.com/22242411/trump-impeachment-constitution-senate-trial-william-belknap Democrats did have the votes to proceed with impeachment; they just didn't have the votes to convict Trump. You also seem to be misrepresenting Constitutional law by suggesting that Trump remains president so long as the impeachment case is ongoing, when it should be that he wouldn't have been removed from office until a conviction. By your logic, any case where the defendant is acquitted would have been illegal. Although Trump was no longer president, he still has the potential to run again in 2024, so the goal was to disqualify him from office. Why should police stations and court houses handle voter registration and counting votes?

Again, we actually don't need the audits. It's just Republicans complaining because they're unhappy with the results. Republicans being bitter and holding a grudge because their candidate lost does not mean the audits are needed at all. You need to understand that these audits are happening because Republicans have a vendetta, not because these audits are necessary. And, again, these were audits that already happened. Okay, so we can once again dismiss the idea that they stopped counting votes. I know we had already debunked that about seven months ago, so maybe it would better if you dropped it permanently if you still can't back up that claim even now. Spending any more time digging up dead conspiracy theories gets us further off topic. You can dislike that he got impeached, but the impeachment was legal. As I've already told you, a use of Constitutional power is not illegal just because you don't like it. Either way, this is also completely unrelated to the voting bill. [Source: Dude trust me] You're still complaining about 2020 despite the majority of your claims having been debunked alongside Horu's (again, seven months ago), so not complaining about another election while endorsing voting restrictions isn't really the brag you want it to be.

Prove that Trump's votes went from 220 to 202. It's not that they were being called out on voter fraud, it's just that Republicans refused to accept the results of the election, demanded audits, and when the audits proved that the election was legitimate and the results were correct, people still demanded audits. Just because they keep demanding audits doesn't mean that they'll eventually find the results that they demand. It's not that we're seeing new areas for audits, either. Republicans just want yet another audit in Maricopa. You're glossing over how Republicans picked a handful of areas and just keep demanding audits in those same areas, ignoring that those audits are entirely partisan. So, no, these restrictions aren't necessary. If anything is insane, it's the Republicans who still won't accept the results of the election.

I like that they gave Dragonroid an effect that explains why Syrus would actually run it regardless of Cyberdark. The non-WIND qualifier is kind of amusing, though I supposed they need to stop this from also supporting Speedroids.

Barr issuing the warrant still violates the First Amendment, and even though he was Attorney General, it was still an abuse of power. What articles? Nothing about these reports actually say what articles caused these reporters to be targeted. Again, there were no attempts at defamation, so I'd like to ask you to focus. I frankly have no reason to believe the story the DOJ is saying, because it sounds like trying to give a weak excuse to cover for invasion of privacy.