Plenty of "legal" fraudsters who need to be denaturalized and deported
Hell, look at Mamdani
Here in South Dakota I voted right at 8 o'clock for Toby Doeden. Really hope he wins. I really scrutinized city council and school board candidates. It's hard to find info on those people, at least around here. South Dakota has a lot of corrupt RINOs on the ballots. I have a feeling their primary challengers won't win. The only one that really has a chance is Doeden
"I think that's one of the main reasons so many people feel like we're not where we should be by now"
You said it fren. I can barely afford to live and I'm wondering when America will be great again. I've been waiting 10 years. When a guy waits ten years and nothing happens he starts to think it never will.
People can call me a doomer all they want but I've been on this board since 2020 and nothing substantial has changed for this country. People tout "wins" but as long as people like Bill Gates are still unleashing bioweapon ticks on the population we are not winning. At this point I'll believe that something will be done about these evil pedo fucks when I see some damn arrests. Until then, I'm not holding my breath.
"just for the normie to point out this was from April 2025, and absolutely nothing happened as a result"
Two moar weeks, this time an investigation is REALLY gonna do something!
It's not an "affordability hoax", I can see it with my own two eyes. People can not fucking afford to live now. My life has not gotten any easier since 2016. This is coming from a 3x Trump voter. I support Trump but something big needs to change soon.
And people wonder how we ended up with crony capitalism and bailouts.
The banks/companies that have the government by the balls want their cut, and laws that are written to benefit them
"The high cost of living has been solved and prices for everyday items, such as groceries and rent, are plummeting."
Yeah, on opposite day, maybe. I just spent $30 on a few gallons of gas and I work 25 minutes outside of town. Keep telling yourself that there's no affordability problems, though.
Country of origin: United States
Someone explain this to me like I'm 5. How are we deporting "aliens" who were apparently born in the United States?
I have tried to use LLMs in historical research and ended up abandoning it because it was lying to me constantly.
I tried to use LLMs to help me rewrite one scene in a script I'm doing and the dialogue was nonsensical
I'm convinced that as they are now, LLMs have no place in our world today. None. They're too unreliable for me to trust them to do basically anything without significant overhaul.
I caught ai lying to me repeatedly when I was asking it questions about Hebrew translation
LLMs are gay
Ai sucks balls at best and is destructive at worst. Why anyone would WANT to use it to replace the workforce is beyond me
"You're right to be angry, I lied about the plane being safe for takeoff and now 300 people are dead. Would you like to learn more about safe air travel?"
The more I use "AI" the more I realize something
It can't think. It's literally incapable of thought. I wish people would quit calling it "AI" and start calling it what it actually is: an LLM.
You can flat out tell it something that will make it admit it was wrong but then it will tell you the same exact thing it just said was wrong. It can't learn because it can't think.
You spent 4 hours on that? LOL
If that's true, then you clearly didn't read the sources you cited. I'll go through it and explain why the claims are bs.
1: "The claim that the concept of a future treaty is unique to Darby is false". Essentially what you/the AI are doing is citing figures who spoke of the antichrist and using that to claim that they believed in the concept of a future treaty.
"Fathers like Hippolytus explicitly taught that the Antichrist would "make a covenant with many for one week" at the end of the age."
Well let's just see, shall we? I actually bothered to look up what Hippolytus claimed since you apparently didn't in your "four hours" of research: "For this reason, then, the angel says to Daniel, “Seal the words, for the vision is until the end of the time.” But to Christ it was not said “seal,” but “loose” the things bound of old; in order that, by His grace, we might know the will of the Father, and believe upon Him whom He has sent for the salvation of men, Jesus our Lord. He says, therefore, “They shall return, and the street shall be built, and the wall;” which in reality took place. For the people returned and built the city, and the temple, and the wall round about. Then he says: “After threescore and two weeks the times will be fulfilled, and one week will make a covenant with many; and in the midst (half) of the week sacrifice and oblation will be removed, and in the temple will be the abomination of desolations.” For when the threescore and two weeks are fulfilled, and Christ is come, and the Gospel is preached in every place, the times being then accomplished, there will remain only one week, the last, in which Elias will appear, and Enoch, and in the midst of it the abomination of desolation will be manifested,1316 viz., Antichrist, announcing desolation to the world. And when he comes, the sacrifice and oblation will be removed, which now are offered to God in every place by the nations. These things being thus recounted, the prophet again describes another vision to us. For he had no other care save to be accurately instructed in all things that are to be, and to prove himself an instructor in such." -Commentary on Daniel
NO. MENTION. OF. A. PEACE. TREATY. NONE. What he DOES say is that the Antichrist will come to stop the sacrifices "which now are offered to God in every place by the nations." In the 3rd century, church fathers commonly viewed Christian prayer, the Eucharist, and global worship as the spiritual "sacrifice and oblation" offered by the nations. Hippolytus is saying the Antichrist will sweep across the earth to abolish Christian worship and replace it with demonic self-worship.
I did the same with Irenaeus:
"And then he points out the time that his tyranny shall last, during which the saints shall be put to flight, they who offer a pure sacrifice unto God: And in the midst of the week, he says, the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and the abomination of desolation [shall be brought] into the temple: even unto the consummation of the time shall the desolation be complete. Daniel 9:27 Now three years and six months constitute the half-week. From all these passages are revealed to us, not merely the particulars of the apostasy, and [the doings] of him who concentrates in himself every satanic error, but also, that there is one and the same God the Father, who was declared by the prophets, but made manifest by Christ. For if what Daniel prophesied concerning the end has been confirmed by the Lord, when He said, When you shall see the abomination of desolation, which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet Matthew 24:15 (and the angel Gabriel gave the interpretation of the visions to Daniel, and he is the archangel of the Creator (Demiurgi), who also proclaimed to Mary the visible coming and the incarnation of Christ), then one and the same God is most manifestly pointed out, who sent the prophets, and made promise of the Son, and called us into His knowledge." -Against Heresies (Book V, Chapter 25)
Hmm, isn't that strange? Again, no mention of a peace treaty anywhere. Irenaeus identifies the people who are targeted by the antichrist as "they who offer a pure sacrifice unto God". I.E. Christians who fulfill Malachi 1:11. Irenaeus was fighting the Gnostics (specifically Marcionites and Valentinians). The Gnostics claimed that the God of the Old Testament (the Creator/Demiurge) was an evil, lesser deity, and that Jesus came from a different, higher, loving God to rescue us from the physical world. Irenaeus is using Daniel 9:27 and Matthew 24:15 as a theological hammer to prove that the Old Testament and the New Testament are completely unified. His argument is: "Look, Daniel's prophecy about the end times is explicitly validated by Jesus in the Gospels, and interpreted by Gabriel, the same angel who announced Jesus to Mary. Therefore, the God of Daniel is the exact same God as the Father of Jesus."
Irenaeus also speaks that the saints were forced to run, which contradicts the dispensationalist view of a pre-tribulation rapture. The early church fathers believed the church would go through that tribulation. They had no concept of a secret, pre-tribulation Rapture where Christians vanish before the treaty is signed. They did not teach a sharp division between Israel and the Church, or a 'parenthesis' Church Age. Those specific ideas, which are required to get the modern 'Middle East Peace Treaty' prophecy framework, were created by Darby in the 19th century. Even if Irenaeus and Hippolytus DID predate Darby in creating the idea of a peace treaty (they didn't), that doesn't reflect a greater trend on how the early church interpreted this passage, because the early church did not teach dispensationalism.
"The futurist framework was revived by Jesuit scholars Francisco Ribera (1585) and Manuel Lacunza (c. 1790) to counter the Protestant Historicist view that the Pope was the Antichrist. Lacunza’s work, translated by Edward Irving in 1827, directly influenced the Albury Park conferences where Darby formulated his views." This, again, is INCREDIBLY misleading. It's also a bait and switch. This argument conflates a general timeline (futurism theology) with a highly specific, modern political interpretation (the 7-year Middle East peace treaty). Lacunza and Ribera were futurists, yes, but I can't find ANYTHING that says they believed the idea that the antichrist would broker a seven year peace treaty. This idea came much later. All Lacunza and Ribera did were use scriptural prophecies about the antichrist to refute the protestant claim that the pope is the antichrist (which can't be the case, since the antichrist will claim to BE the true Messiah and reject Christ, unlike the pope/bishop of Rome, who claims to be Christ's vicar and the successor of Peter). Essentially all Lacunza and Ribera did to influence the the Albury Park conferences and dispensationalism were to emphasize that the antichrist wasn't alive yet. Jesuits are not dispensationalists, buddy. Trust me on this. The day you'll see a dispensationalist Jesuit is the day you'll see a Jewish rabbi at a rib-fest.
2: "Misleading via Chronological Snobbery". Calling Darby's "gap theory" a minor tweak or a "historical necessity" is wild theological gymnastics. Before Darby, virtually no one in church history taught that God had two separate plans for two separate peoples (Israel and the Church) and that the Church was a "parenthesis" or a "mystery pause" in God's timeline. The system of Dispensationalism, the exact timeline taught in books like The Late Great Planet Earth or the Left Behind series, is absolutely a recent interpretation dating back to the 1830s. Saying it has "ancient roots" is like saying the modern automobile isn't a recent invention because the Romans used wheels. As established by their own texts (Against Heresies and Commentary on Daniel), both men believed that the 70th week of Daniel was an event slated for the absolute end of the world, featuring a literal, final Antichrist figure. If that makes them futurists, sure. But the AI admitting that they "lacked Darby’s specific 'gap' theory" is a vast understatement. They didn't just lack the gap theory; their entire worldview left absolutely no room for it. The early Church Fathers expected the 70th week to occur immediately at the end of history as the natural culmination of human events. They did not view the Church as a "parenthesis" or a "mystery stop-gap" that paused God's real clock for Israel as dispensationalists interpret it. You cannot use the early church writers to justify dispensationalism, because their theology doesn't line up with it at all. The "gap theory" is a 19th-century invention. Before John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Brethren in the 1830s, this structural concept just plain did not exist in orthodox Christian theology.
3: "Dispensationalism is the only view that preserves the inerrancy and effectiveness of the Old Testament promises without spiritualizing them away". Your AI literally admitted I was right about the vast majority of Christians both worldwide today and historically do not interpret the Bible the way dispensationalists do, but then it turns around and claims that dispensationalism is the "only view" that is consistently literal and preserves biblical truth? That is a highly partisan, dogmatic statement, not to mention a matter of OPINION. Non-dispensationalists (once again, the vast majority of Christians) argue quite fiercely that they are the ones who are truly honoring the Bible by letting the New Testament define how Old Testament prophecies are fulfilled, which makes a lot more sense than Darby's nonsensical OT interpretations.
4: "Attributing the state's creation to Darby’s theology is a historical overstatement." That's just flat out wrong. American politicians who supported the creation of the State of Israel were heavily motivated by Christian Zionism, which is heavily linked to dispensationalist theology. They were motivated to create the state of Israel to fulfill a dispensationalist interpretation of scripture. Harry Truman, influenced by his evangelical upbringing, literally compared himself to KING CYRUS (the Persian ruler who returned the Jews to Jerusalem) after his administration recognized the state of Israel, but it's a "historical overstatement"? The president of the United States was motivated by dispensational ideology to create the state of Israel so he could be the modern day Cyrus but it's a Genetic Fallacy? You're telling me you put four hours of research into this? lmao
The vast majority of Christians worldwide and throughout history do not read Daniel 9 this way. For almost 2000 years, the dominant view of Daniel 9:27 was that Jesus Christ is the one who confirmed the covenant through his death, putting an end to the need for animal sacrifices. In the middle of this week (3.5 years, roughly the length of his earthly ministry), Jesus puts an end to the Old Testament sacrificial system. His crucifixion, the ultimate, perfect sacrifice, supersedes and renders the Temple sacrifices obsolete. The abomination of desolation mentioned by Daniel is typically interpreted to refer to the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, which occurred in 70 AD under the Roman general Titus and his father, emperor Vespasian. Jesus warned his followers to flee when they see this desolation unfold during their lifetimes.
The tl;dr is that Darby's nonsensical interpretation of Daniel 9 is very recent and a dispensationalist view not held by the vast majority of Christians in the world, in the Catholic, Orthodox and protestant churches.
Okay first of all you can't use AI to refute arguments because 99% of the time it makes shit up. I've seen this happen COUNTLESS times
Secondly I'll have to go over all this slop when I get to work tonight but Jesuits of all people interpreting the passage to refer to the antichrist's peace treaty seems HIGHLY unlikely
"you think he is doing what Pelosi did?"
I was driving to work (work nights) and heard on the radio that Trump is investing in companies that are directly impacted by his policies (like Nvidia). I don't have an opinion one way or another, but it LOOKS really bad, which is why I was asking for clarification on here. I just posted the first article I could find, Yahoo.
Pelosi used her insider information to trade stocks, which I've seen people bitch about on this forum ad infinitum. I don't really see why I should be angry about that but okay with Trump doing (at least from what I can tell) similar things just because he's "betting on American prosperity". Maybe I'm off the mark on this but I don't really think anyone in politics should be trading stocks
Trump outsourcing his own trading makes a lot of sense here
This is a research board! I was at work and wanted to know if anyone had heard anything about it. Not sure why I'm the asshole for asking for opinions on this which is the whole point of the post
It's important to remember too that the "middle east peace treaty" comes from dispensationalism and John Nelson Darby. It's a very recent interpretation of Daniel (only dating back to the mid 1800s), and a great deal of Christians around the world do not interpret Daniel 9 to refer to a literal 7 year peace treaty brokered by the antichrist. Dispensationalism is very widespread here in the states, which is part of how Israel is able to have so much sway over our politics, and part of why the state of Israel was created in the first place.
First off, it's called "Revelation". Singular. Translation of the Greek word Apocalypsis. If you're gonna lecture me at least get that part right.
Secondly, yes I'm aware that the NT slings its fair share of criticism towards the Jews (especially Acts) but I'm saying looking for OT passages that criticize Israel (like OP did with Micah) is like looking for water in the ocean. Pretty much the entire OT is criticizing Israel, to a much greater extent than the NT.
First we've got to get Iran to agree to it which looks like it's not going very well.
I wouldn't worry too much about the "Trump is muh antichrist" theory
I swear some people are so blinded by their hate for Israel that they would be okay with Iran continuing to be run by Islamic extremists who finance terrorism.
Q was no fan of Israel but he didn't have anything positive to say about Iran either. Both are terrible