A new Homeland Security report details orders to connect protesters arrested in Portland to one another in service of the Trump's imaginary antifa plot.
Of course it’s someone from ml that can’t take a joke
Of course it’s someone from world who posts perfect “poes law” bait and then cries about ml users. I literally started with
I hope you’re being sarcastic…
The followed with
If you really think
So here’s a tip for the future.
if
1 of 2
conjunction
ˈif
əf
1
a
: in the event that
b
: allowing that
c
: on the assumption that
d
: on condition that
that I didn’t call Biden a genocidal fascist.
Cointelpro and government crackdown on any opposition to the right wing liberal order goes well beyond Biden, it just continued under him. You’re showing your absolutely unserious and reactionary team sport mentality.
That implies that they are doing the same thing, but for Biden. Obviously.
No it doesn’t. They could be implying it was a Trump specific policy.
“they did this specifically for Trump, they probably don’t do it anymore”
Vs
“They probably don’t specifically do it for Trump anymore”
Without knowing them or making assumptions I can’t fill in which interpretation they went with, hence why I said “I hope you’re being sarcastic”, implying I hope they were more in line with the 2nd interpretation.
You won’t see what I chose not to say here. I don’t often have random vitriol for internet strangers, but goddamn.
If this is what broke you down, I really don’t believe that lol.
Of course it’s someone from world who posts perfect “poes law” bait and then cries about ml users. I literally started with
The followed with
So here’s a tip for the future.
if 1 of 2 conjunction ˈif əf
1 a : in the event that b : allowing that c : on the assumption that d : on condition that
Cointelpro and government crackdown on any opposition to the right wing liberal order goes well beyond Biden, it just continued under him. You’re showing your absolutely unserious and reactionary team sport mentality.
Their comment specified “For Trump”
That implies that they are doing the same thing, but for Biden. Obviously.
How do you not get that?
You won’t see what I chose not to say here. I don’t often have random vitriol for internet strangers, but goddamn.
No it doesn’t. They could be implying it was a Trump specific policy.
“they did this specifically for Trump, they probably don’t do it anymore”
Vs
“They probably don’t specifically do it for Trump anymore”
Without knowing them or making assumptions I can’t fill in which interpretation they went with, hence why I said “I hope you’re being sarcastic”, implying I hope they were more in line with the 2nd interpretation.
If this is what broke you down, I really don’t believe that lol.