Heh, the Rat Fires Another Rat

[ajax18]

He will either find a way to not hold the next election, or limit who can vote to weight the election heavily in his favour, or he will manipulate the count and just announce fictional numbers (as he has done with other metrics already).

That's what you said back in 2020. Why should we trust your opinion now given how wrong you were? Don't get me wrong, had Biden never been elected we'd have been far better off. But even with the terrible inflation, mass importation of poverty, and scamdemic economic destruction we knew would follow, we allowed democracy to take us down the path of American decline out of respect for the true meaning of democracy, a meaning that the left doesn't even adhere to themselves.

You ain't getting rid of this guy by assuming he will simply walk away if the democratic process tells him to. He learned a lot first time round. You've made a massive, generational mistake in electing him again.

No, you'll be getting JD Vance, Marco Rubio, or Don Jr, which is probably what you really mean by saying that Trump will remain in power. Will I ever be able to vote for a candidate I like more than I liked Trump? Probably not, but you're not going to get rid of MAGA by assassinating or imprisoning Donald Trump, something Democrats seem to have learned during Trump's second term.

He says one thing, does another. The examples of that are plentiful. The nonsense that comes out of his mouth should make you embarrassed. The obvious lies he tells aren't even clever. He promised to not start any wars, right? How's that going? He's rinsing the tax payers' coffers for as much as he can get away with. And you're letting him. ajax18 if you voted for this guy, supported him, don't regret doing so, and still think he's doing a good job, then you are a complete idiot.

I'm happy with the way the war in Iran is going. I hope we occupy it, annex part of it, and take the oil. And contrary to Democrat talking points in the 2024 election, MAGA has not allowed Russia to overrun Ukraine uncontested. We've rejected the Bush doctrine that in order to hold the moral high ground we're not allowed to take oil and other resources to cover the costs of ridding ourselves of threats to our national security.

[I Have Questions]

I'm happy with the way the war in Iran is going. I hope we occupy it, annex part of it, and take the oil.

It appears I’ve done idiots a disservice…

[I Have Questions]

He will either find a way to not hold the next election, or limit who can vote to weight the election heavily in his favour, or he will manipulate the count and just announce fictional numbers (as he has done with other metrics already).

That's what you said back in 2020.

No I didn’t. But let’s be clear. He tried to stay in power despite the result. You’re not arguing with me. You’re not arguing with Democrats. You’re arguing with well established facts. Which makes you a delusional fool. Good luck.

[huckelberry]

What Democrats mean by saving democracy is that all voters either voluntarily or at gunpoint, accept and embrace the democratic socialist ideology. To me this sounds a lot more like an authoritarian dictatorship by Democrat party leaders, who will do anything and everything with no holds barred to gain and retain power. But to you, that's what democracy means.

I have followed what democrats seek and do for decades and this picture you have, Ajax, is foreign to what I see. It is a large country so one can find a few people who seek socialism. They are a tiny minority unless you want to say government road and highway systems are socialism. I am in favor of not having our highways privately owned. But I am not in favor of socialism and neither are democrats as a group.

I felt puzzled why you would describe democrats in such a mistaken way. Puzzled, but then I thought perhaps what you know does not come from democrats but sources like Fox. That source inclines to seek extreme individuals and build a picture out of those small fragments.

[ajax18]

What Democrats mean by saving democracy is that all voters either voluntarily or at gunpoint, accept and embrace the democratic socialist ideology. To me this sounds a lot more like an authoritarian dictatorship by Democrat party leaders, who will do anything and everything with no holds barred to gain and retain power. But to you, that's what democracy means.

I have followed what democrats seek and do for decades and this picture you have, Ajax, is foreign to what I see. It is a large country so one can find a few people who seek socialism. They are a tiny minority unless you want to say government road and highway systems are socialism. I am in favor of not having our highways privately owned. But I am not in favor of socialism and neither are democrats as a group.

I felt puzzled why you would describe democrats in such a mistaken way. Puzzled, but then I thought perhaps what you know does not come from democrats but sources like Fox. That source inclines to seek extreme individuals and build a picture out of those small fragments.

Do you think that criminally prosecuting ICE agents for deporting illegal immigrants when Democrats get back in power is an extreme position? Do you believe this is even constitutional?

[huckelberry]

I have followed what democrats seek and do for decades and this picture you have, Ajax, is foreign to what I see. It is a large country so one can find a few people who seek socialism. They are a tiny minority unless you want to say government road and highway systems are socialism. I am in favor of not having our highways privately owned. But I am not in favor of socialism and neither are democrats as a group.

I felt puzzled why you would describe democrats in such a mistaken way. Puzzled, but then I thought perhaps what you know does not come from democrats but sources like Fox. That source inclines to seek extreme individuals and build a picture out of those small fragments.

Do you think that criminally prosecuting ICE agents for deporting illegal immigrants when Democrats get back in power is an extreme position? Do you believe this is even constitutional?

???? If you are talking about breaking laws or shooting people, yes. If they stayed within the law, of course not.

[ajax18]

???? If you are talking about breaking laws or shooting people, yes. If they stayed within the law, of course not.

Most Democrats would call deporting an illegal immigrant an abuse of human rights. That's what Eric Swalwell, Gavin Newsome's office and many other Democrats mean when they promise to prosecute ICE officers when they retake power. They say this because such a radical and unconstitutional position is necessary to win their Democratic primaries. So it's not just a few fringe Democrats. It's the same with Democrat antisemitism. Most Democrats are in favor of partisan political prosecution of their political opponents for the purpose of disenfranchising voters that they disagree with. That's not democracy and it's certainly not constitutional.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Every. Accusation. Is. A. Confession.

[huckelberry]

???? If you are talking about breaking laws or shooting people, yes. If they stayed within the law, of course not.

Most Democrats would call deporting an illegal immigrant an abuse of human rights. That's what Eric Swalwell, Gavin Newsome's office and many other Democrats mean when they promise to prosecute ICE officers when they retake power. They say this because such a radical and unconstitutional position is necessary to win their Democratic primaries. So it's not just a few fringe Democrats. It's the same with Democrat antisemitism. Most Democrats are in favor of partisan political prosecution of their political opponents for the purpose of disenfranchising voters that they disagree with. That's not democracy and it's certainly not constitutional.

When serving on a grand jury I voted to deport specific illegal aliens many many times. Deportations have been done legally for a long time now.

[huckelberry]

Most Democrats are in favor of partisan political prosecution of their political opponents for the purpose of disenfranchising voters that they disagree with. That's not democracy and it's certainly not constitutional.

Ajax I do not know of any Democrats who are in favor of this. To prosecute somebody far enough to stop them voting you. Need to convict them of a felony and get them in jail. This requires a target to cooperate by committing a crime and getting caught. Then how would you be sure who this disenfranchised voter would have voted for?

I guess there might happen instances of Republican leaders helping by committing crime.