Dade512♠️ @Dade512

@clackid99 @TeamTrump47 @McBrideLawNYC Since Trump's second term began, I've genuinely been amazed by how many far-right ultra Nationalists there are with military service in their bios. Honestly, kind of disturbs me - seems like a form of radicalization.

@TeamTrump47 @McBrideLawNYC It's amazing how Trump supporters are willing to be apologists for rapists and human traffickers and pedophiles.

@GA_Hillbilly1 @MarieAr61139879 @RandPaul Thanks, it's effortless

No. The CDC was created in 1946 as the Communicable Disease Center, growing out of the wartime Malaria Control in War Areas program. Its initial mission was controlling malaria, typhus, and other infectious diseases - not developing biological weapons. The CDC’s own history and the National Archives both document that plainly. You’re also switching categories again. Congress funding infectious-disease research, outbreak preparedness, or regulation of dangerous pathogens does not mean Congress is funding biological weapons. The CDC’s Select Agent Program regulates who may possess, use, and transfer especially dangerous agents so that legitimate diagnostic and medical research is conducted securely. “Pathogen research exists” is not evidence of weaponization. A weapons claim requires evidence of offensive intent, delivery research, or an actual weapons program - not merely the existence of laboratories. So please feel free to provide the specific program, appropriation, project, and evidence that it was offensive weapons work. “Look it up” is not a substitute for having looked it up.

You’ve now moved from “she lied” to “Trump had secret exonerating evidence the court wouldn’t allow,” without identifying the evidence, the ruling, or why the appellate court upheld the verdict. The actual record is straightforward: a civil jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll. The judge later explained that the conduct the jury found amounted to rape in the ordinary sense, though not under New York’s unusually narrow statutory definition at the time. That is not a criminal conviction, and I never said it was. It is a civil finding based on evidence heard by a jury, later upheld on appeal. Your response is basically “every institution that reaches a conclusion I dislike is part of the hoax.” That is not rebuttal. It is a universal adapter for avoiding evidence.

I asked for definitions. You replied with Lucifer, Canaanites, communists, Nazis, and a claim that political disagreement is caused by people who don’t believe in God. That tells me you aren’t using these terms descriptively. They’re just interchangeable labels for “people I dislike.” Nazism, socialism, communism, democratic socialism, Democrats, and Republicans are not synonyms, and invoking supernatural infiltration does not make them so. I think we’ve reached the point where asking you for evidence would only produce another season of the mythology.

“The same people” is doing an impressive amount of unpaid labor in that paragraph. Who, specifically? Names, organizations, documents, and evidence connecting them - not a century-long collage of banking, oil, the Balfour Declaration, Israel, and Five Eyes. The Federal Reserve was created by an act of Congress after repeated U.S. banking panics. The Balfour Declaration was British government policy. Israel emerged through the end of the British Mandate, a UN partition proposal, a declaration of independence, and war. Five Eyes grew from U.S.–British wartime intelligence cooperation. Those are separate institutions, countries, motives, and decades - not proof of one immortal committee running the planet. And the 1979 Iranian Revolution had identifiable domestic causes: repression by the Shah, SAVAK, political exclusion, economic disruption, religious opposition, and broad public unrest. Foreign interference belongs in the history, especially Britain and the U.S., but “the same people did everything” explains nothing. So again: who, what did they do, and what evidence connects them? “Right?” is not a citation.

You were asked what Trump has done for America, and answered with a profanity-laced campaign flyer. Border encounters are not 25 million unique people who entered and stayed. USAID had real oversight problems, but “hundreds of billions laundered” is an accusation you haven’t supported. And the IAEA was still reporting unresolved issues with Iran’s nuclear program in June, so apparently “eliminated” now means “still requires international monitoring.” You also credited Trump with ending wars, stopping riots, fixing immigration, rebuilding the military, defeating Iran, and exposing practically all corruption everywhere. At this point he isn’t a president in your story; he’s a downloadable expansion pack for the federal government. I asked for specifics, not a testimony at the Church of Donald. Try again - preferably with evidence, distinct categories, and roughly 80% fewer adjectives.

@0ivankaTrump1 Elon wanted to party on Epstein's island of little kid molestation and rape. I think what he wants for little kids is irrelevant.

one of the most interesting 5th gen ggs but they never get enough credit

@Deancain No one cares... You're washed up and irrelevant.

@McBrideLawNYC No, they deserve everything they have reaped.

@NocIntellect @AmandaRNelson @gtconway3d Genuinely curious since you toss these words around, define the following in your own words for me: 1) Republican 2) MAGA 3) Democrat 4) Democratic Socialist 5) Socialism 6) Communism 7) Nazi Party 8) Radical Islamist Thank you in advance

That same argument applied to Iran before Trump blew up the nuclear agreement. The IAEA repeatedly verified Iran was complying with the JCPOA’s enrichment limits and inspections. Trump withdrew anyway, reimposed sanctions, and Iran then expanded enrichment. Even in 2025, U.S. intelligence still assessed that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon and had not reauthorized its weapons program. Meanwhile, 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers were Saudi nationals, and Saudi-based individuals and charities were major sources of al-Qaeda financing. The 9/11 Commission did not find that the Saudi government itself funded the attack - but the Saudi connection was hardly imaginary. So the question remains: if enrichment capability is too dangerous for Iran, why is comparable nuclear latency acceptable for Saudi Arabia? “The UAE isn’t threatening us today” doesn’t answer that, and comparing Saudi Arabia to Britain - a longstanding nuclear treaty ally - is not remotely equivalent.

You didn’t identify a lie. You speculated that “they all knew,” then substituted anonymous nurse stories for evidence. Ventilators can cause complications, which is why they’re used only when respiratory failure becomes severe and less-invasive support is insufficient. But the patients placed on them were also the sickest patients. A high death rate afterward does not prove the ventilator caused the deaths. That’s confusing treatment selection with causation. COVID care also changed as evidence developed: high-flow oxygen, proning, dexamethasone and other treatments improved outcomes. Dexamethasone specifically reduced mortality most clearly among patients needing oxygen or mechanical ventilation. So name the allegedly lethal protocol, provide comparative outcome data, and show that it caused excess deaths after accounting for how sick those patients already were. “Some people online claiming to be nurses said so” isn’t that evidence.

Serious question: do you also oppose the military requiring recruits and service members to receive multiple vaccinations for readiness and deployment? If not, then your principle is not really “no one has the right to require any vaccine.” It is “I objected to this vaccine under these circumstances.” That is a different argument - and a much more honest one. And I’m sorry your family went through that. But an (presumably) elderly person suffering a serious fall, spending five months in rehabilitation, and dying later of heart failure does not by itself establish that a vaccine caused the death. Falls, prolonged immobility and deconditioning can be devastating in older adults, and heart failure may exist before it is diagnosed. (Heart failure is a form of heart disease, heart disease does not need to exist in some form before hand.) That question requires medical records and clinical evidence. A vaccination occurring earlier is chronology, not proof of causation.

@Tmendy2 @RandPaul Point to his 'extremely negligent and dangerous actions'. Point out exactly where he lied and what he said.

People's ignorance and inability to pay attention are not Fauci's fault. People have been getting flu vaccines for years, they understand that it protects against only the dominant strain that it was designed for and that it is updated on a yearly basis based on what is expected to be dominant. People, I would hope after all these years, understand that they can still catch the flu, but it's quite likely to not be as severe The covid vaccine is the same thing.

That is not how vaccines are defined. Vaccines train the immune system and reduce the risk or severity of disease. They do not have to create perfect, permanent, sterilizing immunity that stops every infection. Flu vaccines do not stop every flu infection either. They are still vaccines. COVID vaccines provided some protection against infection and transmission, though it waned as immunity faded and variants changed. Their strongest benefit was reducing severe illness, hospitalization and death. “Not 100% effective” does not mean “not a vaccine.” It means biology is not a force field.