The Democrats, Its Past, Present and Future Direction

[a fan]

I guess they want to militarize the govt and take out the SCOTUS? Is trump rubbing off on them as new fascists and authoritarian

Damned whackos on both sides.

https://x.com/rncresearch/status/180788 ... a82I2GssRg

Keep tellin' ya, YA. The reason your party keeps waving this Trump stuff through----Court packing, weirdo SCOTUS decisions, Trump trying to fix the election by pressuring election officials-----is that they're convinced this stuff will always lead to outcomes that they love.

Nope. You cats caught the car, as many are pointing out. Buckle up for the rough ride. The SCOTUS has legalized Trumpism, and R's don't think we'll ever have a far left Trump in America.



I'll just remind you: the .01%ers who run the world, and who the SCOTUS is ruling for, are NOT your friends, and do NOT have the average Republican (let alone average American) best interest at heart.

These people don't shop at grocery stores, if you know what I mean. The don't feel the impact of these rulings behind their gates and personal security systems.

[a fan]

Next up, Cori Bush: After Jamaal Bowman defeat, pro-Israel donors pivot to Missouri
AIPAC texted its followers, after Jamaal Bowman lost in New York, that Missouri Rep. Cori Bush was next.
By RON KAMPEAS/JTA JULY 2, 2024

This ruins your theory that the Dems hate the Jewish people, Wregget.

Bowman was primaried. Seems Dem voters didn't like what he said and did.

[LaxFan2311]

Happy Trump has immunity Tuesday!

Your daily reminder of how pathetic and horrible the Democrat Party is:

The Democrat party is unrecognizable today. Democrats today support:

High inflation
Endless wars
Believe men can be women (What the heck) (why don’t Democrats trust the science of biology and bodily anatomy?)
Democrats think masking works and so do 12 booster shots for a COVID virus that is the flu. ( why don’t they trust the science here?!?)
Democrats support pornographic books being promoted and read to children in school.
Democrats support grooming of children.
Support open borders
Support illegal aliens over law abiding citizens
Support illegals replacing the American electorate to maintain power
High taxes on the middle class
Support enslaving black people to their causes. Democrats are the party of racism, slavery and the KKK. What good have Democrats ever done for black people besides keep them as slaves? Democrat policies have destroyed the black nuclear family and created a culture that glorifies violence. The vast majority of violent crime per capita is committed by black men. That’s all due to the Democrat Party replacing the breadwinner of the black family with government welfare.
Democrats Support pedophilia, incest and rape ( all things Biden has committed- he raped his own daughter and molested countless others with video and photographic evidence to prove it)
They support voter fraud and fraudulent elections to maintain power (fascism)
They support imprisoning their political opponents (fascist)
They support censoring free speech (fascism)
They support killing babies via abortion up to and after birth
Democrats support putting America and its citizens last.

The whole country knows that now after the debate Trump utterly destroyed Pedophile Joe Biden.

MAGA is about putting America First. Trump showed power, command and strength. He was under control and provided a sense of security for the country and its people. Voting for Trump means a return to normalcy and success for all Americans.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

Next up, Cori Bush: After Jamaal Bowman defeat, pro-Israel donors pivot to Missouri
AIPAC texted its followers, after Jamaal Bowman lost in New York, that Missouri Rep. Cori Bush was next.
By RON KAMPEAS/JTA JULY 2, 2024

This ruins your theory that the Dems hate the Jewish people, Wregget.

Bowman was primaried. Seems Dem voters didn't like what he said and did.

I never said the Dems hate Jews. I may have posted the opinions of others who say that, but I wouldn't make a sweeping statement like that. I know there are strong supporters of Israel and the Jewish people in the Congress and the Senate. Without a doubt, there were other issues that led to Bowman's ouster, but hating the Jews and denying Israeli women suffered rape at the hands of Hamas figured prominently among them.

[a fan]

Next up, Cori Bush: After Jamaal Bowman defeat, pro-Israel donors pivot to Missouri
AIPAC texted its followers, after Jamaal Bowman lost in New York, that Missouri Rep. Cori Bush was next.
By RON KAMPEAS/JTA JULY 2, 2024

This ruins your theory that the Dems hate the Jewish people, Wregget.

Bowman was primaried. Seems Dem voters didn't like what he said and did.

I never said the Dems hate Jews. I may have posted the opinions of others who say that, but I wouldn't make a sweeping statement like that. I know there are strong supporters of Israel and the Jewish people in the Congress and the Senate. Without a doubt, there were other issues that led to Bowman's ouster, but hating the Jews and denying Israeli women suffered rape at the hands of Hamas figured prominently among them.

You've implied it. Choose your words a bit more carefully, and I won't come to that conclusion, my man.

My point is: CLEARLY Dem voters didn't like Bowman's rhetoric, and voted him out. Therefore, Dem voters are just fine, and these are EXTREMISTS we are dealing with here.

This should give you some comfort. Folks aren't putting up with this antisemitic sh*t in America.

And the minute Bibi is done doing whatever it is he thinks he's accomplishing? The protesters have lost their headlines, and have to move on. As I said...this river to the sea group is DECADES old, and show up when Israel is in the headlines.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

You've implied it. Choose your words a bit more carefully, and I won't come to that conclusion, my man.

May I ask for an example, please? I strongly disagree with "You've implied it." But I am willing to look at it if you can show me an example.

My point is: CLEARLY Dem voters didn't like Bowman's rhetoric, and voted him out. Therefore, Dem voters are just fine, and these are EXTREMISTS we are dealing with here.

This should give you some comfort. Folks aren't putting up with this antisemitic sh*t in America.

And the minute Bibi is done doing whatever it is he thinks he's accomplishing? The protesters have lost their headlines, and have to move on. As I said...this river to the sea group is DECADES old, and show up when Israel is in the headlines.

No issues with the rest of what you wrote here.

[a fan]

You've implied it. Choose your words a bit more carefully, and I won't come to that conclusion, my man.

May I ask for an example, please? I strongly disagree with "You've implied it." But I am willing to look at it if you can show me an example.

Sure.

Right here.....

I'll concede the point. Yes, she's exaggerating the numbers. But she's still correct about the demonstrations, and she's correct about the Dems supporting them. Winking at these hateful marches, which sometimes turn violent and destructive, isn't cheering them on (though some in the Dems are). But if nothing is being done by the Dems to crack down on the threats and persecution and violence being done to American Jews, does the distinction really make a difference?

Part of the deal with a forum instead of an in person discussion, is that there's gonna be miscommunications. We all fall prey to thinking that we're communicating clearly...when we're not.

Easy to fix....."that's not what I meant....what I meant was xyz".

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

You've implied it. Choose your words a bit more carefully, and I won't come to that conclusion, my man.

May I ask for an example, please? I strongly disagree with "You've implied it." But I am willing to look at it if you can show me an example.

Sure.

Right here.....

I'll concede the point. Yes, she's exaggerating the numbers. But she's still correct about the demonstrations, and she's correct about the Dems supporting them. Winking at these hateful marches, which sometimes turn violent and destructive, isn't cheering them on (though some in the Dems are). But if nothing is being done by the Dems to crack down on the threats and persecution and violence being done to American Jews, does the distinction really make a difference?

Part of the deal with a forum instead of an in person discussion, is that there's gonna be miscommunications. We all fall prey to thinking that we're communicating clearly...when we're not.

Easy to fix....."that's not what I meant....what I meant was xyz".

Thanks for the example, but I don't see anything in what I wrote that implies "the Dems hate Jews." If you take it that way--that's up to you. But saying the entire Democratic party hates Jews is asinine. I would never say that.

I would like to request that in the future, if you could ask me what I mean first before telling me what I meant or implied, in the interest of helping to communicate clearly, I would appreciate it. Makes it a lot easier to have a conversation.

[a fan]

You've implied it. Choose your words a bit more carefully, and I won't come to that conclusion, my man.

May I ask for an example, please? I strongly disagree with "You've implied it." But I am willing to look at it if you can show me an example.

Sure.

Right here.....

I'll concede the point. Yes, she's exaggerating the numbers. But she's still correct about the demonstrations, and she's correct about the Dems supporting them. Winking at these hateful marches, which sometimes turn violent and destructive, isn't cheering them on (though some in the Dems are). But if nothing is being done by the Dems to crack down on the threats and persecution and violence being done to American Jews, does the distinction really make a difference?

Part of the deal with a forum instead of an in person discussion, is that there's gonna be miscommunications. We all fall prey to thinking that we're communicating clearly...when we're not.

Easy to fix....."that's not what I meant....what I meant was xyz".

Thanks for the example, but I don't see anything in what I wrote that implies "the Dems hate Jews." If you take it that way--that's up to you. But saying the entire Democratic party hates Jews is asinine. I would never say that.

I would like to request that in the future, if you could ask me what I mean first before telling me what I meant or implied, in the interest of helping to communicate clearly, I would appreciate it. Makes it a lot easier to have a conversation.

Sure!

I ask In return: be more specific with your language. You just say "the Dems" in the above post. Not "some Dems" or "Dems in Los Angeles", or better still "the Dem Mayor of Los Angeles".

Then it's clear you're not talking about the entire party.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

You've implied it. Choose your words a bit more carefully, and I won't come to that conclusion, my man.

May I ask for an example, please? I strongly disagree with "You've implied it." But I am willing to look at it if you can show me an example.

Sure.

Right here.....

I'll concede the point. Yes, she's exaggerating the numbers. But she's still correct about the demonstrations, and she's correct about the Dems supporting them. Winking at these hateful marches, which sometimes turn violent and destructive, isn't cheering them on (though some in the Dems are). But if nothing is being done by the Dems to crack down on the threats and persecution and violence being done to American Jews, does the distinction really make a difference?

Part of the deal with a forum instead of an in person discussion, is that there's gonna be miscommunications. We all fall prey to thinking that we're communicating clearly...when we're not.

Easy to fix....."that's not what I meant....what I meant was xyz".

Thanks for the example, but I don't see anything in what I wrote that implies "the Dems hate Jews." If you take it that way--that's up to you. But saying the entire Democratic party hates Jews is asinine. I would never say that.

I would like to request that in the future, if you could ask me what I mean first before telling me what I meant or implied, in the interest of helping to communicate clearly, I would appreciate it. Makes it a lot easier to have a conversation.

Sure!

I ask In return: be more specific with your language. You just say "the Dems" in the above post. Not "some Dems" or "Dems in Los Angeles", or better still "the Dem Mayor of Los Angeles".

Then it's clear you're not talking about the entire party.

Consider it done. Thanks for the civil discourse, AF.

[a fan]

You've implied it. Choose your words a bit more carefully, and I won't come to that conclusion, my man.

May I ask for an example, please? I strongly disagree with "You've implied it." But I am willing to look at it if you can show me an example.

Sure.

Right here.....

I'll concede the point. Yes, she's exaggerating the numbers. But she's still correct about the demonstrations, and she's correct about the Dems supporting them. Winking at these hateful marches, which sometimes turn violent and destructive, isn't cheering them on (though some in the Dems are). But if nothing is being done by the Dems to crack down on the threats and persecution and violence being done to American Jews, does the distinction really make a difference?

Part of the deal with a forum instead of an in person discussion, is that there's gonna be miscommunications. We all fall prey to thinking that we're communicating clearly...when we're not.

Easy to fix....."that's not what I meant....what I meant was xyz".

Thanks for the example, but I don't see anything in what I wrote that implies "the Dems hate Jews." If you take it that way--that's up to you. But saying the entire Democratic party hates Jews is asinine. I would never say that.

I would like to request that in the future, if you could ask me what I mean first before telling me what I meant or implied, in the interest of helping to communicate clearly, I would appreciate it. Makes it a lot easier to have a conversation.

Sure!

I ask In return: be more specific with your language. You just say "the Dems" in the above post. Not "some Dems" or "Dems in Los Angeles", or better still "the Dem Mayor of Los Angeles".

Then it's clear you're not talking about the entire party.

Consider it done. Thanks for the civil discourse, AF.

Ditto! Have enjoyed the conversations.....

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

Biden railing against Trump at a rally in North Carolina the day after his debacle…er, debate performance.

“I know how to tell the truth!”



He does?? “The Border Patrol endorsed me”. The border patrol couldn’t pick up their phone quick enough to tweet out something along the lines of “Read our lips—we never have, nor will we ever endorse Joe Biden.” During the debate they tweeted this out! How embarrassing. “No service members died under my watch….”(except 13 during the USA’s withdrawal from Afghanistan).

What do the Dems say now?
“Well we lie, but our lies aren’t as bad as Trump’s lies.” ??
"Don’t pay attention to our lies—just keep focusing on Trump’s lies." ??

Both Trump and Biden lie. So they can take that off the table as a talking point. If Trump is smart he’ll have his campaign come up with a fact check ad showing Biden making claims at the debate, and debunking them with the actual facts written below.

The jig is up. The Biden camp is, and has been, lying to us all along--with the full consent and participation of the media. Where is the respect for the intelligence of the American people? I thought all the gullible people wore MAGA hats. The subterfuge has been exposed. Not because secret documents were leaked, or a secret conversation was taped and released to the media, but because we’ve all seen, and continue to see, with our own eyes, how Biden’s mental and physical capacity have been greatly diminished. Their pathetic attempts to continue to run cover for Joe are just laughable. Can he even make his way on and off the stage anymore without his wife’s guidance and assistance? No more claims (read: bald-faced lies) of “Cheap fakes”. Again, an insult to the intelligence of those supporting the Dems, let alone the rest of America. We can see it for ourselves. He is deteriorating before our eyes. As Maureen Dowd wrote in the Times, “This (deteriorating mental capacity) only goes one way as one grows older.” In other words, he’s only going to get worse.

And now the Dems are scrambling to regroup, frantically trying to get on the same page, spinning and gaslighting into absurdity. I’m sure they’re working round the clock on another October Surprise. Drawing up a Hail Mary in the waning moments of Biden’s presidency.

AF (that’s “a fan” to you) affirms Trump will get a 2nd term. I sure hope he's right. Things are undeniably trending that way.

[dislaxxic]

ONW, you see nothing at all different about Trump? His Big Lie is just and honest belief that fraud cheated him out of relection? His predilections and his motivations? Nothing at all different or unique about him?

..

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

So the Day-Glo crazies on the far (far?) left are now putting it out into the ether that assassinating Donald Trump would be a perfectly rational response to the ruling passed down by the Supreme Court. In the interest of preserving democracy and saving the United States from a megalomaniacal dictator, of course. Swell. Can you imagine the outrage if this was coming from the right?

edit: 2 corrections. 1 for grammar, 1 for spelling.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

ONW, you see nothing at all different about Trump? His Big Lie is just and honest belief that fraud cheated him out of relection? His predilections and his motivations? Nothing at all different or unique about him?

On the whole, I'm with Woody regarding politics...



But to answer your questions--I see a world of differences between Trump and Biden. Trump is indeed unique. But he's no more a crook and a liar than Biden. From my perspective--Trump is the better choice for Israel, for the US, and the World. That's my opinion. I won't proselytize for Trump or browbeat those who want Biden. I've seen both in the Oval. I'm voting for Trump.

[NattyBohChamps04]

So the Day-Glo crazies on the far (far?) left are now putting it out into the ether that assassinating Donald Trump would be a perfectly rationale response to the ruling passed down by the Supreme Court. In the interest of preserving democracy and saving the United States from a megalomaniacal dictatorship, of course. Swell. Can you imagine the outrage if this was coming from the right?

The right already tried violence 3.5 years ago. Imagine if they got their hands on pence or Pelosi or other lawmakers...

You've already done it.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

So the Day-Glo crazies on the far (far?) left are now putting it out into the ether that assassinating Donald Trump would be a perfectly rationale response to the ruling passed down by the Supreme Court. In the interest of preserving democracy and saving the United States from a megalomaniacal dictatorship, of course. Swell. Can you imagine the outrage if this was coming from the right?

The right already tried violence 3.5 years ago. Imagine if they got their hands on pence or Pelosi or other lawmakers...

You've already done it.

And this is what I keep saying--both parties are guilty of the same kinds of lies and deception and recklessness. No more moral high ground for the left. They've been exposed. The jig is up. Both parties are seething with corruption and radicalism.

[njbill]

So the Day-Glo crazies on the far (far?) left are now putting it out into the ether that assassinating Donald Trump would be a perfectly rationale response to the ruling passed down by the Supreme Court. In the interest of preserving democracy and saving the United States from a megalomaniacal dictatorship, of course. Swell. Can you imagine the outrage if this was coming from the right?

You are trolling again. People are saying that under the ruling he could be assassinated not that he would.

Contrast that with Trump‘s statement that Liz Cheney should be executed for treason.

[dislaxxic]

So the Day-Glo crazies on the far (far?) left are now putting it out into the ether that assassinating Donald Trump would be a perfectly rationale response to the ruling passed down by the Supreme Court. In the interest of preserving democracy and saving the United States from a megalomaniacal dictatorship, of course. Swell. Can you imagine the outrage if this was coming from the right?

You are trolling again. People are saying that under the ruling he could be assassinated not that he would.

Contrast that with Trump‘s statement that Liz Cheney should be executed for treason.

Agree. It's "smooth trolling". Reasonable-sounding whataboutism. Ukrainians, Palestinians, women writ large, the "other"...you know, those from shirt-hole countries and other third-world places...all of them, and more, would most certainly NOT be better off in a 2nd Trump term. The characters he would bring into government under Project 2025...hell, that WHOLE notion, would radically remake our government in Trump's image. That's bad, in my opinion, and is WAY different than what we have now. There is much to dislike and distrust establishment politics and governing models...but the conservative MAGA vision of "governance" is WAY different and WAY more scary (for me) than that which our Trump-voting friend is calling "all the same"...

..

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

So the Day-Glo crazies on the far (far?) left are now putting it out into the ether that assassinating Donald Trump would be a perfectly rational response to the ruling passed down by the Supreme Court. In the interest of preserving democracy and saving the United States from a megalomaniacal dictator, of course. Swell. Can you imagine the outrage if this was coming from the right?