Neo-nazi-like democrat/socialists out of control - hate spreading like a zombie apocolypse

[calfoxwc]

https://www.theblaze.com/news/pastor-blasts-leftist-thought-in-progressive-worship-song-that-mocks-trump-supporters

https://www.theblaze.com/news/public-school-teacher-allegedly-tweets-its-awesome-that-cancer-stricken-rush-limbaugh-is-dying

https://www.theblaze.com/news/ice-slams-california-sanctuary-law-after-data-shows-thousands-of-illegal-immigrant-inmates-released-in-one-county-alone

 

Democrat Strategy? Rage, Smear, Lie, and Cheat

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/08/...

Aug 21, 2018 · The Democratic Party, driven by rage at their loss in 2016, continues to use fear (all Republicans are racists, Nazis, etc.). ... like nearly every prop analyst on the network and cable news ...

Jewish Conservative: Top 10 Ways Democrats Are Like Nazis

https://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/2014/04/jewish_conservative_top_10_ways...

Apr 29, 2014 · Don Feder, a Jewish conservative extremist, two days before Christmas, posted to a Tea Party website  an asinine screed, the “Top 10 Ways Democrats Are Like Nazis,” which, given his religion, is an especially unfortunate assault. The ludicrous attack by Feder, of the ultraconservative World Congress of Families, includes right wing flash points like “Solyndra,” and “Jeremiah …

The Rage of the Democrats - American Thinker

https://tmp.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/01/the_rage_of_the_democrats.html

The Democrats have thrown all their eggs into the "Hate Trump" basket, but that doesn't seem to be helping their poll numbers. It is obvious that the Democrat Party is at war with America, and Democrats are not interested in stopping any time soon. The radical left enjoys controlling people from cradle to

 

 

[calfoxwc]

 

[calfoxwc]

Rush Limbaugh: Democrats Use “Hitler’s Playbook, Are Like ...

https://matzav.com/rush-limbaugh-democrats-use-hitlers-playbook-are-like-nazi-party

Home News Breaking News Rush Limbaugh: Democrats Use “Hitler’s Playbook, Are Like “Nazi Party ... Now, what are the similarities between the Democrat Party today and the Nazi Party in Germany? Well, the Nazis were against big business. They hated big business and of course we all know that they were opposed to Jewish capitalism.

[calfoxwc]

THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW NAZI PARTY - The Freedom …

https://ronbosoldier.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-democrats-are-new-nazi-party.html

THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW NAZI PARTY Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats. Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it. breitbart.com. Posted by

[calfoxwc]

https://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/opinion-columns/victor-joecks/victor-joecks-sanders-campaign-workers-want-to-guillotine-the-rich-send-republicans-to-gulags-1948876/

VICTOR JOECKS: Sanders campaign workers want to ‘guillotine the rich,’ send Republicans to gulags

[calfoxwc]

Sanders Clarifies His Gulags Will Be Democratic Gulags ...

https://babylonbee.com/news/sanders-clarifies-his-gulags-will-be-democratic-gulags

Sanders Clarifies His Gulags Will Be Democratic Gulags DES MOINES, IA—After a Bernie Sanders organizer waxed poetic over the beauty of gulags and the need for reeducating the people, Sanders clarified that his gulags will actually be democratic gulags.

Bernie Sanders's refusal to fire violent pro-gulag ...

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/01/bernie_sanderss_refusal_to_fire_violent...

Bernie Sanders has spent years convincing voters that his Soviet honeymoon, his support for the Nicaraguan Sandinistas, his admiration for Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez were all a misunderstanding.

[calfoxwc]

Bernie Sanders Field Organizer Threatens To Put Trump ...

https://defconnews.com/2020/01/14/bernie-sanders-field-organizer-threatens-to-put...

Jan 14, 2020 · One of Bernie Sanders’ field organizers was caught on hidden video saying if the elderly socialist is elected, he will put Trump supporters in gulags. If Bernie Sanders doesn’t win, the plan is to burn down all of the cities and kill police officers. Now we …

Sanders Not Asked About Gulag-Supporting Staffer During Debate

https://www.theepochtimes.com/sanders-not-asked-about-gulag-supporting-staffer-during...

Jan 15, 2020 · Bernie Sanders was not asked about a staffer who expressed support for putting supporters of President Trump in gulags and promoting violent

[hoorta]

3 hours ago, calfoxwc said:

Rush Limbaugh: Democrats Use “Hitler’s Playbook, Are Like ...

https://matzav.com/rush-limbaugh-democrats-use-hitlers-playbook-are-like-nazi-party

Home News Breaking News Rush Limbaugh: Democrats Use “Hitler’s Playbook, Are Like “Nazi Party ... Now, what are the similarities between the Democrat Party today and the Nazi Party in Germany? Well, the Nazis were against big business. They hated big business and of course we all know that they were opposed to Jewish capitalism.

Substitute Mexicans for Jews- there's the  Trump's playbook. Two can play the Nazi game Cal....  Make America WHITE again obviously resonates with a lot of the populace....  

 Come on Cal- I know you can say it- HEIL TRUMP!!!!   

[Vambo]

3 hours ago, hoorta said:

Substitute Mexicans for Jews- there's the  Trump's playbook. Two can play the Nazi game Cal....  Make America WHITE again obviously resonates with a lot of the populace....  

 Come on Cal- I know you can say it- HEIL TRUMP!!!!   

Adam Schiff sill making stories up...

[OldBrownsFan]

4 hours ago, hoorta said:

Substitute Mexicans for Jews- there's the  Trump's playbook. Two can play the Nazi game Cal....  Make America WHITE again obviously resonates with a lot of the populace....  

 Come on Cal- I know you can say it- HEIL TRUMP!!!!   

And that kind of rhetoric is destroying our country. The difference though Hoorta is when you have actual evidence of campaign workers for Sanders saying the things they are accused of. Then it needs to be addressed.

When I see those on the left seemingly lose their minds with hatred towards Trump I realize what is likely behind it is the left wing media constantly telling them Trump is Hitler incarnate and the inflammatory rhetoric they are using which would make their listeners go over the edge with emotions.

If someone wants to claim Trump is a dictator or Hitler then give the facts why they believe that and the facts can be debated but just throwing out that inflammatory rhetoric is bad for our country.

 

[MLD Woody]

38 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

And that kind of rhetoric is destroying our country. The difference though Hoorta is when you have actual evidence of campaign workers for Sanders saying the things they are accused of. Then it needs to be addressed.

When I see those on the left seemingly lose their minds with hatred towards Trump I realize what is likely behind it is the left wing media constantly telling them Trump is Hitler incarnate and the inflammatory rhetoric they are using which would make their listeners go over the edge with emotions.

If someone wants to claim Trump is a dictator or Hitler then give the facts why they believe that and the facts can be debated but just throwing out that inflammatory rhetoric is bad for our country.

 

There are plenty of "blank is Hitler" or "blank is a Nazi" claims on this board. Do you know where the vast majority of them come from?

[OldBrownsFan]

1 minute ago, MLD Woody said:

There are plenty of "blank is Hitler" or "blank is a Nazi" claims on this board. Do you know where the vast majority of them come from?

I am not against using that kind of rhetoric if you have valid reason to believe it. We have those on the board who think Trump has taken everything over and become a king when in fact he is constrained just like Obama was by the limits of power given to a president by our constitution. We had no reason to fear Obama would be a king and there is no reason to fear Trump being a king either. That is because of the wisdom of the founders of our country and the constitution they put in place and the reason I fear those on the left wanting to change the constitution such as the electoral college.

[MLD Woody]

52 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

I am not against using that kind of rhetoric if you have valid reason to believe it. We have those on the board who think Trump has taken everything over and become a king when in fact he is constrained just like Obama was by the limits of power given to a president by our constitution. We had no reason to fear Obama would be a king and there is no reason to fear Trump being a king either. That is because of the wisdom of the founders of our country and the constitution they put in place and the reason I fear those on the left wanting to change the constitution such as the electoral college.

The Constitution has changed many times. It's more dangerous to act like nothing should ever change, Imo. But then again that's literally what "conserving" would be. Those wise founding fathers also built in a means to modify the Constitution for a reason. 

[OldBrownsFan]

12 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

The Constitution has changed many times. It's more dangerous to act like nothing should ever change, Imo. But then again that's literally what "conserving" would be. Those wise founding fathers also built in a means to modify the Constitution for a reason. 

On the electoral college issue the democrats want to change it only because they have lost a couple of elections due to the electoral college. The Founders knew by putting in an electoral college there would be times we would have a president who would not win the popular vote but win the electoral college. So why did they put in the electoral college? They were always worried about concentration of power. They did not want a few heavily populated states having concentrated power at the detriment of smaller states. I was really impressed recently when the democrat controlled state legislature of Nevada passed the electoral college compact to do away with the electoral college and it went to the democrat Nevada governor to sign. It seemed like a slam dunk but the democrat governor vetoed it saying it would be harmful to the smaller state of Nevada (and he was right).

[TexasAg1969]

I do see a lot of hate on the polyboard. It's almost always in the titles like this. Just change your addresses to 666 Whatever Street and King trumpy will "pray'" for you to follow him "home".😈🤴

[calfoxwc]

10 hours ago, hoorta said:

Substitute Mexicans for Jews- there's the  Trump's playbook. Two can play the Nazi game Cal....  Make America WHITE again obviously resonates with a lot of the populace....  

 Come on Cal- I know you can say it- HEIL TRUMP!!!!   

oh, for gosh sakes. lol I can compare pre-WWII nazi behavior - with that of the current democrats now, and the similarities are worrisome. I even showed others have noticed it - prominent voices in the media.

   It's silly to compare wanting to stop ILLEGAL immigration with anything nazi. I just showed the illegals are far, far too often dangerous gang members, drug cartel spreading members, criminally and violently insane (who I think are let into our country so WE can deal with them forever in prisons and pay all THAT money instead of them)....

   Now, Hoorta, you're a very smart guy, but you can't legitmately establish any link between Pres Trump and nazi behavior.

[calfoxwc]

5 hours ago, OldBrownsFan said:

And that kind of rhetoric is destroying our country. The difference though Hoorta is when you have actual evidence of campaign workers for Sanders saying the things they are accused of. Then it needs to be addressed.

When I see those on the left seemingly lose their minds with hatred towards Trump I realize what is likely behind it is the left wing media constantly telling them Trump is Hitler incarnate and the inflammatory rhetoric they are using which would make their listeners go over the edge with emotions.

If someone wants to claim Trump is a dictator or Hitler then give the facts why they believe that and the facts can be debated but just throwing out that inflammatory rhetoric is bad for our country.

 

• Thanks

 Like

[calfoxwc]

3 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

The Constitution has changed many times. It's more dangerous to act like nothing should ever change, Imo. But then again that's literally what "conserving" would be. Those wise founding fathers also built in a means to modify the Constitution for a reason. 

Oh, stop Woody. Here is the difference, AGAIN:

Our Constifution is a GUARANTEE OF OUR GOD_GIVEN RIGHTS. You reference amendments to our Constitution that include the loss of rights as you think it should be. "change" it so we don't have the electoral college - then smaller, less populated states would have insignificant representation in elections. Or, getting rid of our 2nd Amendment. Same tragic, profound loss of our God-Given RIghts.

   The simple conclusion is, our Constitution can be adjusted to inlcude/reinforce our rights.

the liberal notion that since rights can be further established/refinforced/added ...in changes to our Constitution, doesn't mean that

rights can also be taken away by "changes". The latter would defeat the sole purpose of the Constitution in the first place.

" The Second Amendment is our last defense against tyranny. The right to keep and bear arms is a doomsday provision to be used as a last resort when all other rights fail. The founders saw firearm ownership as so necessary that they enumerated this right second in the Bill of Rights, immediately after defining the right to free speech. "

https://leadershipbygeorge.blogspot.com/2011/12/right-to-bear-arms-government-tyranny.html

[MLD Woody]

I'm not advocating going purely on popular vote btw. I just hate the all or nothing nature of the current system. It's dumb and makes many, many votes pointless. 

[calfoxwc]

56 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

I'm not advocating going purely on popular vote btw. I just hate the all or nothing nature of the current system. It's dumb and makes many, many votes pointless. 

well, how else can you do it? If you allocate based on the popular vote for delegates. you still do the same thing - you relegate states like S. and N. Dakota, etc, to having no fair representation at all.

[MLD Woody]

34 minutes ago, calfoxwc said:

well, how else can you do it? If you allocate based on the popular vote for delegates. you still do the same thing - you relegate states like S. and N. Dakota, etc, to having no fair representation at all.

Each state is valued like they are now in the electoral college. That gives small states relatively more weight than they would with just pure popular vote. Within each state though those electoral college points are split up by popular vote. 

Ex, Ohio is worth 18 votes. If the Dems win 51% to 49% then they get all 18 votes. In my system both the R and D candidate get 9 votes.

Another example, Cali is worth 55 votes. It's super blue. Any R voter in that state is basically meaningless. With this system, their vote still matters. Getting 30% of the Cali votes gets the R candidate 16 votes.

Additionally, it makes candidates have to emphasize states more equally. An R candidate would still have a reason to visit a state that is solidly R. 

 

It's the best compromise IMO. 

[hoorta]

2 hours ago, calfoxwc said:

" The Second Amendment is our last defense against tyranny. The right to keep and bear arms is a doomsday provision to be used as a last resort when all other rights fail. The founders saw firearm ownership as so necessary that they enumerated this right second in the Bill of Rights, immediately after defining the right to free speech. "

https://leadershipbygeorge.blogspot.com/2011/12/right-to-bear-arms-government-tyranny.html

Yeah Cal- but. That "right" has been limited in the present day. Don't tell me you have the "right" anymore to own a 30 caliber machine gun, an RPG launcher with ammo. or a tank. Sort of ineffective to take on the US Army with your trusty 12 gauge.    

[hoorta]

2 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

Each state is valued like they are now in the electoral college. That gives small states relatively more weight than they would with just pure popular vote. Within each state though those electoral college points are split up by popular vote. 

Ex, Ohio is worth 18 votes. If the Dems win 51% to 49% then they get all 18 votes. In my system both the R and D candidate get 9 votes.

Another example, Cali is worth 55 votes. It's super blue. Any R voter in that state is basically meaningless. With this system, their vote still matters. Getting 30% of the Cali votes gets the R candidate 16 votes.

Additionally, it makes candidates have to emphasize states more equally. An R candidate would still have a reason to visit a state that is solidly R. 

It's the best compromise IMO. 

Exactly Woody. If it went popular vote, candidates would hardly bother visiting low population states like Wyoming and Alaska.  

[calfoxwc]

6 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

Each state is valued like they are now in the electoral college. That gives small states relatively more weight than they would with just pure popular vote. Within each state though those electoral college points are split up by popular vote. 

Ex, Ohio is worth 18 votes. If the Dems win 51% to 49% then they get all 18 votes. In my system both the R and D candidate get 9 votes.

Another example, Cali is worth 55 votes. It's super blue. Any R voter in that state is basically meaningless. With this system, their vote still matters. Getting 30% of the Cali votes gets the R candidate 16 votes.

Additionally, it makes candidates have to emphasize states more equally. An R candidate would still have a reason to visit a state that is solidly R. 

 

It's the best compromise IMO. 

Thank you. I'll have to think about that one. Offhand, it would make a bit of sense, except I think that big cities are definately in the grasp of the welfare democrats/socialists. And states that don't have most of their population in cities, would lose out every single time. Cities would always rule. We need the entire state to vote and decide. But I take your point, and I'll think on it.

[calfoxwc]

6 hours ago, hoorta said:

Yeah Cal- but. That "right" has been limited in the present day. Don't tell me you have the "right" anymore to own a 30 caliber machine gun, an RPG launcher with ammo. or a tank. Sort of ineffective to take on the US Army with your trusty 12 gauge.    

granted. That we might ever get to a point where we would need that RPG launcher, etc...is pretty silly.

    But it isn't just one guy with a 12 gauge vs our entire army. The lesson learned by the Founding Fathers was, six or seven, two or three British soldiers could just start firing at settlers... and did, if provoked. Because the settlers didn't have guns.

Or, so the British thought. They hid them. But the tyranny they suffered could happen again one day, especially if we were all dis-armed.

Mexico, Britain - live in fear because they have been disarmed. Nobody thinks the cartels don't have the latest, most dangerous weapons. Meanwhile, violent crime is freaking everywhere.

that doesn't fly when America has our 2nd Amendment. But in the scenario where the Constitution is suspended for "climate change" excuses, that is when I'd like to legally own an RPG.

Just sayin. Red Dawn is only a movie. The reality is, someday, it could happen to a lesser degree. with democrat socialist sombeitches.

 

[MLD Woody]

2 hours ago, calfoxwc said:

Thank you. I'll have to think about that one. Offhand, it would make a bit of sense, except I think that big cities are definately in the grasp of the welfare democrats/socialists. And states that don't have most of their population in cities, would lose out every single time. Cities would always rule. We need the entire state to vote and decide. But I take your point, and I'll think on it.

People vote, not square footage

[Vambo]

2 hours ago, calfoxwc said:

Thank you. I'll have to think about that one. Offhand, it would make a bit of sense, except I think that big cities are definately in the grasp of the welfare democrats/socialists. And states that don't have most of their population in cities, would lose out every single time. Cities would always rule. We need the entire state to vote and decide. But I take your point, and I'll think on it.

It's basically the same if there is more of one party than the other they win it's the reason why Dems are importing votes.

  If it's not broke don't fix it.

Just look at the Iowa voting.

[calfoxwc]

12 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

People vote, not square footage

I meant that people are fewer in rural areas and wouldn't have a chance of being taken seriously. I suppose candidates would only campaign in the cities - always more delegates to be gotten.

[MLD Woody]

54 minutes ago, calfoxwc said:

I meant that people are fewer in rural areas and wouldn't have a chance of being taken seriously. I suppose candidates would only campaign in the cities - always more delegates to be gotten.

Right, they'd campaign more where more people are.. because people vote and politicians (are supposed to) represent the will of the people. 

6 people in a city count the same as 6 people in a rural area. 

 

If anything I said gives those rural voters more of a voice if they're currently in a state that has its votes go however the big cities vote.

[calfoxwc]

3 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

Right, they'd campaign more where more people are.. because people vote and politicians (are supposed to) represent the will of the people. 

6 people in a city count the same as 6 people in a rural area.

If anything I said gives those rural voters more of a voice if they're currently in a state that has its votes go however the big cities vote.

Thoughts - offhand, of course.

The Founding Fathers were brilliant - they lived in those times, and their complex solution, ironed out by debate, was our Constitution and Bill of Rights. In Congress, the House has reps per census. (hence the left wanting illegals to be counted, giving them a giant advantage). However, in the Senate, every single state, no matter how populated, has only two Senators.

   I bring that up because there's a brilliant balance. State's representation and State's population representation by count. Our government, brilliantly, is set up in terms of checks and balances in terms of power.

   Therefore, establishing the checks and balances brilliance of the Founding Fathers, here is more reasoning,

from

************************************

https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/faq

"CA - 8,753,788 Democratic votes cast vs 4,483,810 Republican votes cast = 55 Democratic electors

PA - 2,926,441 Democratic votes cast vs 2,970,733 Republican votes cast = 20 Republican electors

TX - 3,877,868 Democratic votes cast vs 4,685,047 Republican votes cast = 38 Republican electors

Total - 15,658,117 Democratic votes cast vs 12,139,590 Republican votes cast for the national popular vote, but 55 Democratic electors vs 58 Republican electors appointed based on each State's popular vote."

*************************************

For arguments sake, let's guess that maybe the reps got 11? delegates, in California. and the same for PA - we'll say a split - 10 rep delegates and 10 dem delegates. and for TX - let's just guess 25 rep delegates and 13 dem delegates.

   IF that were to be the way it was, you would have totals of Rep delegates at 46, and Dem delegates at 67.

Completely out of whack from what the actual totals were: 55 Democratic electors vs 58 Republican electors appointed based on each State's popular vote."

of course, if I gave the Reps more of a split vote, in California, an extra 11 votes, to 22 total, then it would be REP Delegates 57, and DEM Delegates only 56. But California is very heavily democratic, I just think that the first example is more correct.

Anyways, in the long run, we already have very narrow voter results for Presidential elections. and all the controversy and angst and lawsuits and nitpicking on questionable voter rolls, and Obamao trying to send out voter ballots LATE to our troops and trying to keep the ones back later not counted, the lawsuit in Florida between Bush and Gorish, question (george soros funded) voting machines......

      So, in conclusion, our current system works very, very well. Not perfect, but the American people have seen 1 term of a disaster president, Jimmy Carter, then eight years of Ronald Reagan. Then 4 years of Bush H, and then eight years of Bill Clinton. THEN,

eight years of Bush W., and then eight years of ObaMao.

and of course, ....eight? years of Trump.

   Notice, that as I see it, the Great Ship America keeps turning "right" and "left" to correct it's long term direction, to keep on course.

The current system really does work for the American people. I just think that tinkering with the Electoral College as you mentioned as a possiblity (actually good question), might very well lend itself to benefiting the left only, because of the dramatic affect of the possibility of giving all illegals the right to vote. They don't know our Constitution/Bill of Rights, they ...often don't know English, they are ...often totally dependent on our government to survive...and our taxes are already "too damn high".

   So, as the article states, it is actually up to the states. But I think most states won't buy into it, for reasons I have stated that are my own, and the facts laid out in the excellent article.

   But it is an interesting question, and an interesting thoughtful exercise. But it seems after taking a long look at it, that it would be a change that would make every election ALSO close and challenged every presidential election.

Which brings me to one more very important point - *glaringly important*  fact in the article:

***************************************

What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 electoral votes?

If no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, the Presidential election leaves the Electoral College process and moves to Congress.  

The House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each State delegation has one vote and it is up to the individual States to determine how to vote. (Since the District of Columbia is not a State, it has no State delegation in the House and cannot vote).  A candidate must receive at least 26 votes (a majority of the States) to be elected.

The Senate elects the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most electoral votes. Each Senator casts one vote for Vice President. (Since the District of Columbia is has no Senators and is not represented in the vote).  A candidate must receive at least 51 votes (a majority of Senators) to be elected.

If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House.

*********************************************************

Pretty cool to find THAT out. I never knew. I'll pass on the Congress thing.

As it stands, the HOuse is controlled by a corrupt dem majority, and for example,

if Pres Trump, with your suggested change, only ended up with 268 votes, instead of the requred 270,

the HOUSE DEMOCRATS would get to choose the president between Sanders, Buttplug, and Warren?

Let the way it is stand, imho, because we don't need THAT fiasco every single 4 years!

The Founding Fathers were truly brilliant.

My cowboy coffee is done.