That’s not grammar. That’s spelling.
As far as doing what he wants with impunity, look at the shit Trump does(and try not to drool while you’re at it). And the blatant hypocrisy of the GOP as they fight for space around Trump’s rectum.
There is only one program I know of where a first-year immigrant gets to vote. That is only after they avail themselves of the Expeditious Naturalization Program. Under the ENP, when the resident alien family member’s sponsor takes a posting overseas with the federal government, the resident alien family member will be naturalized immediately and then must accompany their sponsor at the overseas posting. The vast majority, of course, of those getting naturalized this way are family members of our service members. You know those folks, right? They’re the ones Trump and the GOP are fucking over at the exact same time they pretend to help, honor, and practically worship teh Armed Forces.
I don’t think he’s drooling, although he is a moron. I think he’s probably creaming.
I see. How about you pick one thing from the Democratic Party Platform and discuss how you think it’s worse than eternal damnation for all mankind?
Heh, it’s like a response one might give to a claim that “under God” was put in the Pledge of Allegiance by Jesus himself.
Pretty sure it’s not. You might be upset at all the nasty things the mean old Democrats in your head are doing, but upsetting you is not a crime.
I already told you if it was only about healthcare, I’d be all for it. But it’s not.
Your party leaders are openly campaigning on literally taking citizens rifles, by force if needed.
Eternal damnation it is. I’d rather see a crater where DC used to be before voting for a tyrant and a tyrannical party.
That article was so good I literally bought a subscription to the guy’s newsletter. Thanks!
When “your party” is also in agreement with one aspect of the issue, one has to conclude that you are an ignoramus.
The alternative isn’t eternal damnation, it’s fascist buffoons who are fucking your country seriously up for personal gain. That’s when they’re not stuffing kids into concentration camps where they can encourage flu epidemics.
I agree. Excellent, informative, and witty. Thanks.
You are flat out wrong. This isn’t a semantic argument. Politics is a competition between groups of people that both want to be in power. You would hope both parties want what is overall best for the country, but that is not guaranteed.
Re-read the OP. I can find dozens of articles that talk about Trumps bumblings, failings and cluelessness and how he is going to be the architect of his own downfall. The last 3 years, and to a certain extent his entire life, have shown that just isn’t going to happen. So, despite all the claims that he is a moronic clown who eats crayons, there he sits, in the presidency, immune from facing any consequences to anything he does. That isn’t a semantic definition of winning in terms of politics. That is flat out winning. He is playing the game against the entire Democratic party and he is untouchable.
If you want to semantically define winning to mean his policies are bad for the US, go head. Trump won’t care. He is enriching himself and his family and no one can stop him.
Pretty well the only thing half-sensible thing you’ve said so far.
Nope. Immigrants have made the left the foundation of their long term plan, considering the right has become too racist for them.
Project away from all your awesomely, weaselly, trocky self.
Can’t capture the white nationalist vote?
There - FTFY.
Um, the intent is sanctuary from unlivable situations where the migrants came from.
Pretty weaksauce trolling if you feel the current state of the electoral college is still a legitimate enterprise.
Riiiiiight, sorta like what President Annoyed On Kneepads For Trump had hoped to do.
And more shittier-than-fuck trolling if you think voter ID laws do not disenfranchise minority communities. Sure, democrats gerrymander too, but nowhere near to the grotesque extent that the GOP has, which I know you know.
Possibly some of the most gregioiusly hypocritical “badly in need of a mirror” horseshit I’ve read in a while.
It’s not a crime. It’s effortless.
And Trump is not a tyrant? Hah!
This doesn’t make you look intrepid or principled: it just makes you look openly delusional.
The real-life choice is not between “tyranny” and “a crater where DC used to be”, much less “eternal damnation”. The realistic choice is between
a) somewhat more humane, representative, and fiscally responsible politics-as-usual, with some slight bipartisan-supported increase in gun control, under the Democrats; and
b) increasingly irresponsible and destructive flailing that destabilizes the economy, sabotages foreign relations, and infringes the rights and undermines the wellbeing of Americans—with some slight bipartisan-supported increase in gun control—under Republican Trumpism.
So did I! Nice work there.
I just read some twitter drama with Beto and Swalwell, Beto stating (and selling merch with the same slogans) that he’s gonna take our guns. Another politician chimes in and states he can come get his, and they both dog piled and stated this politician is the reason we need fucking red flag laws, and that Beto is gonna report him to the damn FBI.
So Beto is gonna take our guns, and if we dislike it, he would red flag us and report it to the god damn FBI.
They are, quite literally, asking for and pushing for a war.
Quite possibly the most infuriating political exchange I’ve seen in a while, and quite tyrannical.
What you type, and what the reality of what they want to do, and would do given the chance, is drastically different. Tyrannical.
And would no doubt kill thousands and thousands of otherwise law abiding Americans & create hundreds of Waco’s and Ruby Ridges.
The left wasn’t even this open about it in the events preceding the first AWB, and there are millions more guns and thousands more militia members.
But hey, you guys go for it. Push this noise front and center and wonder why Trump wins.
There was no mystery to Trump’s win and why he might win again, just disappointment in the failings of America.
Failings of the Democrat Party is more accurate.
They lose and will very likely lose again to an orange man with a retarded comb-over who talks like a complete moron.
What does that say about the other party? All they have to do is not be tyrants and fake, pandering psychos and they can’t do it.
And the cats out of the bag. They had 2 years to get a plan together and what do they do? Go even more extreme left.
Say what you want about Trump but you’re REALLY shit if you’re losing to the guy.
Democrat Party?
Cite, though? What exactly is the phrase “take our guns” being used to mean in this context?
If Beto or any other politician is using it to mean “summarily taking away all legally-owned guns from everybody”, that’s flat-out unconstitutional as the 2nd Amendment currently stands, and the vast majority of Americans (including me) would oppose it. It’s not going to happen, realistically speaking, and no politician with any hope of actually being elected would seriously propose it.
If, on the other hand, it just means “slightly increase restrictions on the types of guns that can be owned or eligibility for owning a gun”, that’s not necessarily unreasonable or unconstitutional. If elected legislators have the support of their constituencies for enacting such measures, well, that’s part of the principle of majority rule in a republic. Gun owners should recognize and accept the ups and downs of (legal and constitutional) majority rule, rather than throwing tantrums about alleged “tyranny” any time a law is passed that they don’t like.
If gun owners are willing to make the enactment of some additional constitutional and legal restrictions on gun ownership an excuse for literally starting a war, that’s on them, not on the politicians or voters supporting such restrictions.
If you’re saying “Any attempt to make gun ownership even slightly more restricted in any way is an intolerable act of oppression against gun owners, and I intend to respond to any such restrictions, however legally and constitutionally enacted, with armed and violent resistance”, then your political opponents are not the ones looking tyrannical and bloodthirsty here.
If you are responding to proposed legal and constitutional restrictions on gun ownership with raging aggressive rhetoric about how you’ll refuse to comply with any such restrictions even if it means starting a god-damned war or whatever, I can see how the FBI would consider it reasonable to red-flag you.
On the other hand, if you make a reasonable case why you think a particular proposed legal and constitutional restriction on gun ownership would be a bad idea, while at the same time as a law-abiding rational gun owner you acknowledge you need to comply with legal and constitutional restrictions even if you don’t like them, then you’ll be more likely to get moderate gun-ownership supporters like me defending your position.
But if you’re simply raging that you’re going to go to war if anybody does anything that could be remotely interpreted as “taking your guns” in any way, no matter how legally and constitutionally, then you come across as paranoid and dangerous. I’m not gonna defend that.