 |
Re: Undocumented Democrats Log New Mileage
Author: El Trolio
Date: 01-25-2024 - 15:51
> Have you noticed that the biased, left-leaning, corrupt Main Stream Media is as much in favor of illegal immigration as you are? Libs who love illegal immigration treat "Angel Moms" like excrement. You're in favor of illegal immigration so I'm sure you wouldn't give an "Angel Mom" the time of day.
No I haven't, and all appearances are that I read more and better fact-checked media than you.
> Let's see some sources for these allegations. CNN and MSDNC don't count.
In that case, absolutely none of your insecurity links count.
>> Okay, wise ass, explain to us why the Democrat party works so hard at making sure voters don't have to show photo I.D.
Voters do, particularly to register.
> This oughtta be good. Let me get some popcorn and pull up a chair.
OK, fatso, but don't forget the 12 pack of brewskies.
>> Not unless they're citizens.
> How do you know? Let's see a source for your assertions.
Personal experience.
> When I said "a few other selected applications" that would involve someone in your situation.
Yadda ydadda yadda
> If it turned out that I was home on election day, I would walk to the poling place up the street and insert my ballot in the same dropbox where the ballots cast at the polling place were collected. The precinct workers always politely declined to do this on my behalf. My name no longer appeared on the list of those eligible to vote at this polling place.
> We should go back to voting the way we voted back in the 1960s or 1970s. It wasn't until the Dems started changing all the specifics of how we vote that things started getting _ ucked up.
In your way of thinking, "_ucked up" is another way of saying "I suddenly realized conservatives are a minority party".
>>>> voting-by-ballot harvester
>>>> Which is illegal.
>> Wrong. It's done in California and several other states --- all blue of course.
>Are you accusing the USPS of ballot harvesting?
> No dipwad. It's 100% legal in California and it doesn't involve the USPS. Do some research.
No it is not. The return envelopes for my absentee ballots (in California) have always had plain language printed on them to prohibit such practices.
> B u l l s h i t. We won't have honest elections until we go back to the way we voted 40 or 50 years ago. Explain to me why all the changes were made. Convenience? _uck convenience. Honest elections are more important.
You've just proven my point: you (and your GOPlo-MAGA clowns) want to make voting as inconvenient as possible for your political enemies.
>> Then why all the GOPlican shenanigans with reapportionment and what-not?
> So the GOP has reapportionment and the Dems have dead people, ficticious people and illegal aliens vote.
Then why have so many GOPlican reapportion maps been successfully challenged in the courts?
>>>> The cheating tactics worked like a charm four years ago.
>>> Some sixty court rulings disagree with you.
>> The courts ran away from the issue -- like they'll probably do again.
>You're just sore that they didn't rule the way you wanted them to. Courts can be funny in this respect.
More disinformational insecurity links, please.
>>>> The Republicans will have to hold some more hearings
>>> In order to find some paltry excuse to impeach Biden.
>> Tit for tat, if nothing else.
Aha! you just admitted that the Biden hearings are for revenge. Comer Pyle and Gym Jordan haven't been making much headway.
>>How about money laundering with the Chinese?
>Are you referring to President Trump and his son in law?
> Joe and Hunter Biden's problems are increasing and President Trump's problems are decreasing. Fani Willis' case is so problem and scandal-plagued that it will probably be tossed completely any day now.
OOeeOOOwww! OOeeOOOwww! The out to lunch alarm just went off.
>> How about allowing the country to be invaded by MILLIONS of people?
> Hasn't happened, although I sure you'll swear up and down on a stack of bibles that it has.
> It has.
How predictable and incorrect.
> Much as you'd like to think they do, the Dems don't defy judges like President Trump does.
> Wrong again.
> [www.washingtonexaminer.com]
Ahh, one of the paragons of spin doctoring and unbiased reporting
> it blows me away that you're in favor of illegal immigration.
To intellectually disadvantaged fearmongers such as yourself, a lack of outright condemnation of illegal immigration is always (mis-)interpreted as approval. This is done for the sole purpose of stirring up s**t among the uninformed.
For the record, I'm against illegal entry into the US, and I find it most peculiar, not to mention illuminating, that the GOPlicans have been consistently stonewalling the appropriation of funds necessary to bring the problem under control.
No I haven't, and all appearances are that I read more and better fact-checked media than you.
> Let's see some sources for these allegations. CNN and MSDNC don't count.
In that case, absolutely none of your insecurity links count.
>> Okay, wise ass, explain to us why the Democrat party works so hard at making sure voters don't have to show photo I.D.
Voters do, particularly to register.
> This oughtta be good. Let me get some popcorn and pull up a chair.
OK, fatso, but don't forget the 12 pack of brewskies.
>> Not unless they're citizens.
> How do you know? Let's see a source for your assertions.
Personal experience.
> When I said "a few other selected applications" that would involve someone in your situation.
Yadda ydadda yadda
> If it turned out that I was home on election day, I would walk to the poling place up the street and insert my ballot in the same dropbox where the ballots cast at the polling place were collected. The precinct workers always politely declined to do this on my behalf. My name no longer appeared on the list of those eligible to vote at this polling place.
> We should go back to voting the way we voted back in the 1960s or 1970s. It wasn't until the Dems started changing all the specifics of how we vote that things started getting _ ucked up.
In your way of thinking, "_ucked up" is another way of saying "I suddenly realized conservatives are a minority party".
>>>> voting-by-ballot harvester
>>>> Which is illegal.
>> Wrong. It's done in California and several other states --- all blue of course.
>Are you accusing the USPS of ballot harvesting?
> No dipwad. It's 100% legal in California and it doesn't involve the USPS. Do some research.
No it is not. The return envelopes for my absentee ballots (in California) have always had plain language printed on them to prohibit such practices.
> B u l l s h i t. We won't have honest elections until we go back to the way we voted 40 or 50 years ago. Explain to me why all the changes were made. Convenience? _uck convenience. Honest elections are more important.
You've just proven my point: you (and your GOPlo-MAGA clowns) want to make voting as inconvenient as possible for your political enemies.
>> Then why all the GOPlican shenanigans with reapportionment and what-not?
> So the GOP has reapportionment and the Dems have dead people, ficticious people and illegal aliens vote.
Then why have so many GOPlican reapportion maps been successfully challenged in the courts?
>>>> The cheating tactics worked like a charm four years ago.
>>> Some sixty court rulings disagree with you.
>> The courts ran away from the issue -- like they'll probably do again.
>You're just sore that they didn't rule the way you wanted them to. Courts can be funny in this respect.
More disinformational insecurity links, please.
>>>> The Republicans will have to hold some more hearings
>>> In order to find some paltry excuse to impeach Biden.
>> Tit for tat, if nothing else.
Aha! you just admitted that the Biden hearings are for revenge. Comer Pyle and Gym Jordan haven't been making much headway.
>>How about money laundering with the Chinese?
>Are you referring to President Trump and his son in law?
> Joe and Hunter Biden's problems are increasing and President Trump's problems are decreasing. Fani Willis' case is so problem and scandal-plagued that it will probably be tossed completely any day now.
OOeeOOOwww! OOeeOOOwww! The out to lunch alarm just went off.
>> How about allowing the country to be invaded by MILLIONS of people?
> Hasn't happened, although I sure you'll swear up and down on a stack of bibles that it has.
> It has.
How predictable and incorrect.
> Much as you'd like to think they do, the Dems don't defy judges like President Trump does.
> Wrong again.
> [www.washingtonexaminer.com]
Ahh, one of the paragons of spin doctoring and unbiased reporting
> it blows me away that you're in favor of illegal immigration.
To intellectually disadvantaged fearmongers such as yourself, a lack of outright condemnation of illegal immigration is always (mis-)interpreted as approval. This is done for the sole purpose of stirring up s**t among the uninformed.
For the record, I'm against illegal entry into the US, and I find it most peculiar, not to mention illuminating, that the GOPlicans have been consistently stonewalling the appropriation of funds necessary to bring the problem under control.
