Frog-Brawler

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (3 children)

No, not that decision... this one is where the courts decided that individual states cannot remove him from the ballot. Where was this supreme court decision you mentioned that they decided he should not be in prison? You are clearly confused.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (5 children)

And you’re mentioning the outcome of a Supreme Court decision that never happened. Don’t worry about the Great Replacement; you and the rest of your ilk of degenerates will still be able to find a seat at the back of the classroom indefinitely.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (7 children)

Tunnel vision eh? Another horse with blinders. My statement yesterday was that the GOP should have put up a candidate without a criminal background.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

There’s also that pesky little $454 million dollar guilty verdict around the fraud case too.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (9 children)

I guess you forgot about the E. Jean Carrol case that he was found guilty in. That’s just one… I like my presidential candidates to not have criminal records.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (13 children)

The Supreme Court agrees that a single state doesn’t get to change a presidential ballot. The GOP’s candidate is in fact a criminal and should not be on the ballot for that alone; but that’s the best they can bring to the table.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (15 children)

Trump should be in prison along with all of the insurrectionists from January 6th. He shouldn’t even qualify to hold office at this point.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

I’m talking about the party that DID NOT send insurrectionists to the capital to attempt to keep their wanna-be-dictator in power after he lost. I’m talking about the party that does not want to end voting, that has forgiven some student debt, that hasn’t intentionally shifted more wealth to the richest among us, that wants to keep the EPA around so that there might actually be a future.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (20 children)

In a two party system where both options bad, voting against the option that wants to end democracy is your clearest route to one day electing a progressive. Not voting allows for one more vote for the guy that wants to end democracy to not be negated; to which point you’ll never have to concern yourself with voting again.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago

Probably for this exact purpose. It’s much less intimidating than the military vehicles.

view more: ‹ prev next ›