Drawings will occur when the value of tickets purchased reaches 1.2x the value of the current supply pack. ⏰
🎟️ Ticket Details
💵 $100k = 1 Ticket
👍 1 ticket = 1 consecutive number in the drawing.
⛔ Max 10 tickets per player per drawing
🧮 Example: Buying 5 tickets early might get you numbers 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.
🔁 Once the value of tickets purchased reaches 1.2x the value of the supply pack, I run a random number generator from 1 to the total number of tickets. The matched number wins the current supply pack!
🎟️ Any tickets purchased that exceed the maximum amount will be refunded! You are welcome to purchase up to 10 again on the next drawing!
🎉 We are on Drawing #7! 🎉
🎁 Current Supply Pack 🎁
Drug Pack 🎟️ 19/50 🎟️
🎁 Next Supply Pack 🎁
Cutesy Cache 🎟️ 0/41 🎟️
✅ How to Enter
💬 Leave a comment with how many tickets you want to buy 💸 Send the cash to Stanimal 👍 Once I like your post, you’re officially in!
Let's set aside for a moment whether you mourn or celebrate Charlie Kirk's assassination. The posthumous discourse online regarding his beliefs and what he spoke about is what gives me pause. There are people online who act like he got shot for "having a different opinion," which is a dishonest oversimplification of his role in American Politics. He represented what we thought was a dying ideology, which is loud and blatant white supremacy. He believed black people in the work force were inferior, and regularly insulted their general intelligence and qualifications. I don't think anyone can disagree that being able to have political disagreements in a civil manner is important, but I personally draw the line at something as insane as white supremacy, which isn't a political opinion; you're just a racist.
In response to Charlie's death, I'm seeing a lot of who I can only presume to be alt-right individuals saying someone like Nick Fuentes will pick up where he left off. Fuentes is a loud and proud mysogynist and racist white supremist. There's no arguing that, he makes no attempt to mask what he believes. People who think he'll pick up where Charlie left off lead me to believe they didn't like Charlie because of the way he encouraged discourse, but for what he said. And if they think Nick Fuentes also says things they disagree with, I think that's a troubling reveal.
I can't believe people like these have become so many's idols. This kind of hate has no place in the America I thought we were all working towards, and what Kirk's death has done is remove the curtain behind which these people could hide. If Trump's hate was pulling it back slowly, Kirk's death violently tore it down.
I would hope we can collectively agree that racism, homophobia, and antisemitism are bad. It would seem that is not the case.
I despise Charlie Kirk, and I do think the world would be a better place without people who think and act like him. That being said, I won't be cheering for his death. He himself condoned a small number of gun-related deaths if it meant keeping his second amendment right to bear arms, so it really shouldn't come as much of a shock.
I think a positive is that this should remind the most intolerant and hateful of the conservative persuasion that there are consequences for being so outspokenly hateful. The racism/sexism/anti-intellectualism he regularly spewed towards impressionable young adult audiences is reprehensible, and hopefully this is a step towards making people think twice before they speak the hate in their hearts.
A negative is of course, that this is a life lost. That's terrible for his friends and family. More importantly though, it's terrible for the American people. With us being a stone's throw from martial law in DC, this will certainly accelerate our descent into fascism. We'll see how long it takes for the Republicans to demonize democrats and the "radical left" (which does exist, do not get me wrong) for this. It's just more justification to militarize every major city in the country. Strange how many children die in schools with little to no political or legal change to protect them. Let's see how our benevolent lawmakers react to the death of a white, conservative, MAGA, man.
I'm starting a Supply Pack Lottery. Here's how it works!
My inventory and pricing is below. Choose a type and quantity of supply pack, and send me the money. Make sure to leave a comment below stating how many of what you are buying.
I will open the Supply Pack(s) for you and share a screenshot for full transparency.
If the value of the items inside is less than the price of the supply pack, I keep both the contents and your money.
If the value of the items inside is more than the price of the supply pack, I send you the items AND your money back. Essentially, you've just gotten a free supply pack.
Some considerations:
I will send copies of my logs showing when I opened the supply pack(s) and what the items inside are, for absolute transparency. I can even send a screenshot instead, just so you know I haven't doctored the log.
I am checking pricing against the item market, to ensure fairness of pricing, and consistency with what you would spend elsewhere. I'm also rounding down for the sake of ease in sending money. Better shot at winning too!
I am using TornTools to calculate the value of the items in the supply packs. I will send a screenshot upon opening at your request.
The point of this is to have some fun with the supply packs, and as I gain more money over my time in Torn, I plan to stock some more expensive ones to really up the stakes! This system is essentially double or nothing, so I hope we get some winners! If you participate, please leave a like on this post so others know it's legit! Thank you!
Coinpurse - $3,200 - 100 in stock
Old Wallet - $7,000 - 50 in stock
Cardholder - $8,000 - 50 in stock
Zip Wallet - $9,000 - 50 in stock
Billfold - $37,000 - 50 in stock
Box of Medical Supplies - $230,000 - 10 in stock
Six Pack of Alcohol - $900,000 - 4 in stock
Happy Gambling! :)
Gubbin [3318526] bought x50 Clutch, 7 of which were profitable, earning him $75,860, 6 Credit Cards, 5 Drivers Licenses, 2 Pepper Spray, 2 Lipstick, 2 Tampons, 5 Medical Bills, 2 Bank Statements, and 1 Cosmetics Case!
It sounds like a joke, but let's not forget what happened to immigrants when Trump declared illegal immigration a "national emergency." Words matter, and I think the abstract nature of targeting a movement rather than an actual organization makes this all the more dangerous. He's not targeting a group, he's targeting an idea, and the idea is anti-fascism. He's making his desires glaringly clear, and it's to put down any political dissidents. If you speak out against the regime, you can be labeled a fascist and therefore a "member" of ANTIFA.
No one is safe unless you bend the knee and kiss the ring. If Trump doesn't get you, one of his weaponized Civil-war-seeking lackeys will.
Let's set aside for a moment whether you mourn or celebrate Charlie Kirk's assassination. The posthumous discourse online regarding his beliefs and what he spoke about is what gives me pause. There are people online who act like he got shot for "having a different opinion," which is a dishonest oversimplification of his role in American Politics. He represented what we thought was a dying ideology, which is loud and blatant white supremacy. He believed black people in the work force were inferior, and regularly insulted their general intelligence and qualifications. I don't think anyone can disagree that being able to have political disagreements in a civil manner is important, but I personally draw the line at something as insane as white supremacy, which isn't a political opinion; you're just a racist.
In response to Charlie's death, I'm seeing a lot of who I can only presume to be alt-right individuals saying someone like Nick Fuentes will pick up where he left off. Fuentes is a loud and proud mysogynist and racist white supremist. There's no arguing that, he makes no attempt to mask what he believes. People who think he'll pick up where Charlie left off lead me to believe they didn't like Charlie because of the way he encouraged discourse, but for what he said. And if they think Nick Fuentes also says things they disagree with, I think that's a troubling reveal.
I can't believe people like these have become so many's idols. This kind of hate has no place in the America I thought we were all working towards, and what Kirk's death has done is remove the curtain behind which these people could hide. If Trump's hate was pulling it back slowly, Kirk's death violently tore it down.
I would hope we can collectively agree that racism, homophobia, and antisemitism are bad. It would seem that is not the case.
I despise Charlie Kirk, and I do think the world would be a better place without people who think and act like him. That being said, I won't be cheering for his death. He himself condoned a small number of gun-related deaths if it meant keeping his second amendment right to bear arms, so it really shouldn't come as much of a shock.
I think a positive is that this should remind the most intolerant and hateful of the conservative persuasion that there are consequences for being so outspokenly hateful. The racism/sexism/anti-intellectualism he regularly spewed towards impressionable young adult audiences is reprehensible, and hopefully this is a step towards making people think twice before they speak the hate in their hearts.
A negative is of course, that this is a life lost. That's terrible for his friends and family. More importantly though, it's terrible for the American people. With us being a stone's throw from martial law in DC, this will certainly accelerate our descent into fascism. We'll see how long it takes for the Republicans to demonize democrats and the "radical left" (which does exist, do not get me wrong) for this. It's just more justification to militarize every major city in the country. Strange how many children die in schools with little to no political or legal change to protect them. Let's see how our benevolent lawmakers react to the death of a white, conservative, MAGA, man.
On all accounts, peace talks seem to be going decently enough, but I don't see them ending in a peaceful fair conclusion for Ukraine. Putin seems dead set on taking more territory from Ukraine, and Zelenskiy seems dead set on not giving it up. It would appear as if Trump is trying to appease Putin, which I understand you want to do to an extent, but allowing Putin to control these "peace talks" sets a negative precedent, as I've asserted in P&L before.
I also think it's interesting that the agreements we're coming to surrounding a potential period of "long-term peace" involve sending Ukraine more air support and putting European boots on the ground to help protect Ukraine. I'm not saying that's a bad idea; I'm all for the military support of Ukraine (but happy to hear Trump has explicitly said no to sending US troops). But it seems to me that what we're planning for is the continued Russian offensive, not peace.
The way I see it, one of two things will happen:
A tri-lateral meeting will occur, and Zelenskiy will be forced to fold under the pressure of Putin and his lapdog of an American President, conceding far too much land, and agreeing to never join NATO. Russia will become emboldened and empowered by this victory, which I think long-term is a dangerous precedent, and an unjust end for the Ukrainian people.
A tri-lateral meeting will occur, and Zelenskiy will stick to his guns, while Putin demands more than he has any right to. They will not agree to any peace terms, and war will continue, except now it's been expanded with additional support from the US and other Western Nations.
Either way, I'm not hopeful. I'm not simply contrarian; if Trump manages to come to a peace deal that I like, I'll say that. I just don't foresee a happy ending for Ukraine either way, and I don't think Putin will accept anything less than total victory on his end.
I agree completely, and I think that Putin is such a force both politically and socially in Russia that his desire to absorb and take control of Ukraine is one that a lot of Russians have gotten behind, or at least are too afraid to oppose. But as you said, I'm certain most of the people on the front lines of either side would agree that the fighting needs to end. I just want to see Ukraine get justice. I know that Putin won't ever be satisfied, and while I'm not hoping for nuclear war, I think appeasing them now saves us from a war now so that we can have one later.
Giving Putin the territory he started a war to get tells him that starting wars works, and he can essentially march on anyone he wants. I think the other Eastern Nations need to remain strong in the face of Russia, and stand up for Ukraine and their interests in a peaceful fashion.
I used quite a lot of "I" statements in that post, pretty clearly stating my opinion. Care to enlighten me as to what I said that was objectively and factually false?
So what I said is that I'm confused how anyone is of the belief that Trump's approach to this war is going to force a peaceful conclusion. I'm not sure what you think I'm not understanding, as it seems we agree on that point, since your post implies that either way nuclear war is a possibility. I'm familiar with both of the concepts you shared, but I do appreciate the refresher.
With recent developments, it's becoming increasingly clear to me that a peaceful conclusion is unlikely. Trump and Putin seem to be working together to convince Zelenskiy to cede even more land to Russia. If that's a "peaceful" conclusion, it certainly doesn't seem to me to be a just one. What does a good ending here look like to you?
I think the word asylum in this context has a negative connotation, and it's hard for me morally to justify forcing someone to help themselves. Especially because that kind of treatment usually doesn't take if the person isn't willing to help themselves. I personally view homelessness as more of a systemic failure than a personal one in most cases, but I can agree that there are people who refuse help (not because they love life as a homeless drug addict, but because they are afflicted by addiction). I think there is a world where publicly funded programs and institutions reduce homelessness, but I think it starts with a shift in our mindset.
I think right now, the fight to end homelessness is more about getting them out of the way, and less about seeing the individual and meeting their needs. There are people in this country who can't afford basic necessities, and because of our system's predatory approach to the lower class, it becomes very difficult to climb out of that hole. I don't believe homelessness is freedom, I believe it is a direct result of a society that doesn't prioritize helping the people who need it.
I think Trump's attack on homelessness in DC is a perfect example. The national guard and police don't have housing the homeless in mind, that's not what they're there to do. I think based on that fact alone, whatever is to come will be a massive failure.
They celebrate the federal takeover of the DC/Metro police, and the deployment of the national guard to crack down on criminals and homelessness. I don't want police patrolling DC killing teenagers, I want legislation in place that prevents teenagers from acquiring firearms. I don't want a police-state in DC, I want a bustling city full of third places to deter the crime that grows in their absence. I don't want the national guard "removing" homeless people from public parks, I want higher minimum wage and more effective programs in place to help those afflicted with drug addiction to reduce the likeliehood of becoming homeless in what should be a great city.
They've successfully identified a real problem, something the Trump adminstration doesn't always do, and they've come up with a totally backwards solution to fix it. He can blame Newsom for LA's response to the deployment of the National Guard, but if Trump himself is taking control of DC, who will he blame when innocent people start dying there?
I myself am not religious or spiritual in any way, and while I don't agree religion has no place in our society, I do believe it has no place in situations like this. Using religion as justification for any political or military move will always be viewed in retrospect as an atrocity. Think of the Crusades, or Manifest Destiny.
Israel has been treated with kid gloves for a long time because of the world's fear of being viewed as antisemitic, and as a result they have grown far too bold. What's happening in Gaza is terrible, and Israel's expansion policy that plans to continue to push, like you said, has to end immediately. My hope is that as more countries' leadership becomes public about condemning Israel, others follow suit, the most vital of which is the United States. I don't see Trump condemning Israel ANY time soon, but I think that's how we'll know things are about to boil over. Whatever happens then, hopefully a peaceful two-state solution is on the other side of it. Free Palestine.
Most Americans are too short-sighted to even see the long-term negative affects these tariffs will have on us as a country. Look at what happened in India; Trump increased their tariffs to 50% in response to their continued use of Russian oil, and now they've halted a billions of dollars arms deal with the US. This just in, when you impose historically high tariffs on your trade partners, they don't want to trade with you anymore. If Brazil's economy can handle cutting off the US entirely, I'd imagine they will.
