@raphjd said in California decides to MANDATE gender-free toy aisles:

Hey, I admitted that Newsome got 1 thing right. That does not mean he can't be criticized on all the shit he fucks up or is that too complicated for your liberal brain?

Go back and re-read your your idiotic, circuitous rant! You weren't praising him for getting something right, you were attempting to roast him - for doing what you (most probably) would have WANTED him to do!

THAT was the point of my reply! Comrade, your English translator is way too old! Try https://translate.google.com - it will do a better job of translating your native Russian into readable, cogent English (assuming it was readable, cogent Russian to start with!)

I won't take any lectures from YOU of all people about straw men.

"Any fool can criticize, complain, and condemn... and most fools do."

• • Andrew Carnegie

"There are 2 ways to be fooled: One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."

• • Kierkegaard

You are the person I am "looking for" because you are a liberal, which is why you defend virtually every liberal thing I mention.

Silly Comrade: you again show your unworthiness with the English Language. When I argue against your lies, I do not argue against your position, only the lies you tell!

When you claim that Biden is an old fool and a pedophile, I am not supporting him when I criticize you for calling him a pedophile... and indeed, I wouldn't even dream of denying that he's an old fool! You really need to work on your education. Your communication skills are for SHIT!

More word games to justify your crack whore stance on not giving a fuck about legal and human rights for people but losing your rag when your BFF Newsome passes a law against a business.

I couldn't tell you 3 things about CA Gov Newome... I can tell you that he vetoed a piece of shit liberal monstrosity of a bill recently - because you told me and I confirmed it! I can tell you he survived a recall election: a big surprise in a state that is 65% Democrat!

OK, I was wrong - I DO know a 3rd thing... he's the Governor of California - and that makes him a Democrat! LOL

You are just fucking clueless about privacy rights in the US and the UK, even before Brexit.

I don't know Comrade - I provided actual references to where privacy rights originated in the EU. I also admitted to not knowing (or caring) about privacy rights in the UK post-brexit (that's YOUR chosen hell-hole, not mine!). And I provided AMPLE examples of how "privacy rights" in the US are fluid - and dangerous thing to make assumptions about!

In the US, you generally have no right to privacy in public. However, according to SCOTUS, you have the right to privacy in a public bathroom and other areas that a reasonable person would expect privacy.

That may be as-of one decision. There is also a US Supreme Court decision that says you have a right to same-sex marriage (because of your privacy rights) and another that says a woman has a right to an abortion in the first trimester of a pregnancy (because of her privacy rights)... ALL of those can be overturned on a whim by a zealous Federal Judge or by an alternative interpretation by the full Court - which is now packed with "originalists" - and as I pointed out, those jurists are usually pretty adamant about the founders' position that privacy is NOT a right worthy of Constitutional protections!

But where I have references and documentation, you have... your word and your considerable legal experience... I guess you win...

In places like bathrooms (public or private), there is an expectation of privacy. This includes any type of recording (photo, video, audio).

Many (but not all) STATES have these kinds of laws - and I mentioned that in my posting. But there is no FEDERAL or CONSTITUTIONAL protection of those privacy rights! Indeed, the current conservative court could well go WAY-WAY right-wing on this and find that the Constitution, by way of the founders NOT including it, PROHIBITS the Governmental protection of privacy! It'd be a stretch, but such a ruling could wipe out all of those individual State's privacy laws.

Photos and video recordings allow for less privacy than audio recording, in general.

Again, in the US, it all depends on where you are: Florida vs. Texas vs. California vs. Vermont! All VERY different from each other!

You do not have the right to actively record someone else's phone call that you are not a party to, in the general sense. If you accidentally catch some of it as you're walking by, then that wouldn't violate the SCOTUS ruling.

You wouldn't think so... However, according to US Supreme Court 1928: Olmstead vs United States, you are FLAT WRONG: The US Supreme Court, in a 5-4 opinion written by former POTUS WH Taft, found that wiretapped conversations - even those made by the Government - were not protected - not under privacy, not under the 4th Amendment (search & siezure), and not under the 5th Amendment (self-incrimination).

The fact that this ruling was overturned by 1967: Katz vs. United States is just evidence of what I'm saying here: Because it's not in our Constitution - anywhere - our right to privacy is NOT GUARANTEED in the US! There may be laws, or even court cases from time to time, but they can be (and often ARE) overturned and/or reversed!

You have to create your expectation of privacy, in public. Say you are at an internet cafe and you walk away from your laptop and someone walks by and looks at the screen, that's on you. If you close the laptop when you walk away, no one has the right to open it to have a look. This came from a case where a cop left his car-mounted laptop was left open and a passerby looked at it through the window and was arrested. If you ever watch "audit" videos, they mention this SCOTUS ruling.

And I can find you dozens of SCOTUS rulings that state that there IS NO right to privacy... again, Comrade, if you could READ ENGLISH you would realize that I'm not saying we don't have any privacy rights at all! I'm saying that what privacy rights we DO have ARE NOT PROTECTED rights! They can be taken away at any time.

Want an example? Look at the 2001 Patriot Act! Tell me THAT monstrosity didn't violate your privacy! And it overrode ALL State laws designed to protect your privacy!

Likewise with conversations in public. If you are being loud and shouty, you can't expect to not be heard and/or recorded.

If you're in a public place, and the Government has a reason to want to, they can use a recording device from across the street and record every word you say. You are in a public place - and even a privacy rights amendment likely wouldn't "solve" that problem - you're in public!

Everything I said, does not apply to warrants and other legal measures.

Everything you said comes from you watching TV shows... notorious for their deep research into legal quagmires! LOL

I don't pretend to be a lawyer - which is why I'm not saying what privacy rights you have and don't have... indeed, all I'm trying to get across is that in the EU, Russia, and 150 other countries around the world (there are only about 192), there is the equivalent of a Constitutional protection for a right to privacy.

There is no Constitutional protection in the US. Instead, we have an ever-shifting landscape of court opinions and different State laws about privacy.

Do you remember, Comrade, when I pointed out the 3 different classifications of different State laws on private wiretapping? In some of those States, you DO NOT NEED a warrant, and you DO NOT NEED consent! Those States hold that you have no privacy on the phone. Period.
In other states, only 1 party needs to know and consent to being recorded. So, the cops can get your ex to sit with them, agree to be recorded, and then call you and talk about all the robberies you've been doing - and you're screwed! They had her consent, so yours didn't matter.
And in still other states, phone conversations are deemed to be, by default, private conversations. You (whether a person or a government) have to have consent from all persons on the call to record it, or a court order permitting it.

We NEED uniformity, and we NEED a Constitutional right to privacy! Written in the typical Constitutional way: short, sweet, to the point, and open to some degree of interpretation.

@raphjd said in (CA) Gov Newsome vetoed Cal Grant expansion bill:

@bi4smooth

UMM, you need to get out more. Cunt is a term that is used against men, and to a lesser extent women, in many areas of the "western" world.

You really do have an obsession with Putin.

By "Western World", did you mean St. Petersburg, where you did your KGB training?

Comrade, my only interest in Putin is in your fealty and devotion to his KGB!

@raphjd said in Where are the Biden supporters?!:

@bi4smooth

OK, let's play the word games for a bit.

You still say that people don't have human rights when it comes to issues that you don't think they should have, like mask mandates. And you certainly don't think people have rights when your beloved dirty ass pigs want to violate them.

Comrade, again you have problems using the English language:

Wearing a facemask is not a human right, and neither is NOT wearing one! Not one country in all of the World lists NOT wearing clothing - of any kind - as a "human right".

Again, you have this FUNDAMENTAL misguided misunderstanding of the difference between a RIGHT and a FREEDOM! People who don't want to wear masks are protecting for the FREEDOM to make that decision... however, the Government - as it has to do sometimes - has decided that THAT PARTICULAR FREEDOM has to be curtailed for a while, in the interest of public health. This isn't at all unlike when the police close a highway - a highway you are normally FREE to take - because of an accident or damage to the roadway. Your freedom to take that road will be returned - but not until it is safe... safe for all involved. It's basic health and safety!

But also, Comrade... your wording is so awkward and your meaning is not what you intend it to be... and your slang is 60 years out of date! Liberal protesters of the 1960's called the police PIGS.... You are playing the part of a Conservative protester in 2021! Conservatives in 2021 do not hate the police! In fact, they have special flags - with BLUE lines - to proudly proclaim their SUPPORT for the police!

Every time I post about people's rights being violated, you don't give a fuck.

Comrade, you do not usually post about people's rights being violated. Rather, you complain (end-less-ly) about people who have used their freedom to say or do something - something that you like, or support, or at least agree with... But then someone else uses THEIR freedom - the freedom to run their business as they see fit (and NOT the Government - that's an IMPORTANT distinction!) - and remove it... and you object.

There is no trampling of people's rights here, there are competing expressions of people's freedoms!

Let's take the technology out of it... let's say I own a property with a large wall down a public street. Let's say I publicize that I'm fine with artists and people painting on my wall! It's great at first - awesome paintings, some slogans, even some gang insignia I'm not fond of... but it's all good!

But then someone comes and paints a picture of my daughter and calls her a whore! Do I have some legal requirement to leave that offensive artwork on my wall? I still own the wall! If I paint over that part of the wall, have I "violated the rights" of the "artist"? Or have I used the freedom that I have - as the owner of the wall - to remove the artwork I found offensive.(Answer: I can paint over it - it's my wall!)

Now maybe I'm not as open in that above example... maybe people who draw religious symbols on my wall get them painted over... doesn't matter to me:crosses, swasticas (Egyptian ones, not Nazi ones), stars of david, islamic crescents... I hate them all! I won't allow religious symbols on my wall... is that legal? (answer: YES! As the owner of that wall, I can repaint my wall whenever I please!)

What if I put up cameras and I only allow black people to draw on my wall... when whites or hispanics or asians paint on my wall, I take it down... is that legal? (answer: YES! As the owner of that wall, I can repaint my wall whenever I please! Remember?)

Now, Comrade... here's the kicker, and probably why you can't seem to tell the difference between a FREEDOM and a RIGHT:

Let's say I'm the City Parks Manager, and that wall is along the side of a city park! We (the City - or I, in my capacity as an employee of the city) advertise that people can paint on our wall freely!

Now, let's look at those examples again:

• YES, I can still paint over the picture of my daughter with the caption calling her a whore... it's a violation of public decency, and the message is not political or religious in nature - so it is not protected. Paint right over it!
• NO, I cannot paint over the religious symbols - Governments (and as I work for the Government, and this is my Government job, so I am representing the Government) cannot discriminate against religious symbols... when I let everyone paint there, it had to be everyone! If I paint over their religious symbols (as a Government), then I am violating their 1st Amendment rights!
• NO, I cannot allow ONLY black artists to paint on my wall! That's discrimination (by the Government) against people based on race! In addition to the 1st Amendment rights mentioned above, this action would ALSO violate the 14th Amendment.

However, I COULD put out a request for proposals for artists to volunteer to paint my (our) wall - and only ALLOW those APPROVED artists to paint on our wall. Now, it's not a PUBLIC space, it's a Government space where only permitted people are allowed to paint/draw. Any others who do so might be charged with defacing Government Property, vandalism (or worse).

Every time it's mentioned that business's do bad things or that some idiot signs an idiotic law, you screech like a crack whore in church.

Businesses can, within reason, do whatever they want. There are still private clubs throughout the US South that do not allow female or non-White members! And it's LEGAL! (Lookup the US Master's Golf Tournament - the hosting golf club only very recently allowed black or female members! When Tiger Woods won the Masters in 1997, blacks had been allowed for only 7 years (since 1990).

There are exceptions for "public accommodations" - which is how restaurants and other businesses that cater to "the General Public" can be stopped from illegal discrimination.

Recently in the US, some Vrbo, Airbnb, and other "gig economy" hotelliers got into trouble because they allowed the owners (albeit private property owners) to discriminate against guests based on criteria otherwise not allowed by "public accommodations" - like race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. The case was going to go to US Courts, but the companies unilaterally agreed to STOP "hosts" from being able to discriminate illegally. The companies AGREED to the stipulation that their "hosts" were not "private property owners", but rather were offering "public accommodations"...

I know you are too fucking ignorant to get that.

I think it's clear who is the ignore-a-moose!

@raphjd said in (CA) Gov Newsome vetoed Cal Grant expansion bill:

@bi4smooth

Ah, so you are just a combative cunt, stalker.

That explains a lot.

Kiss Dear Father for me.

Ah, dear Comrade... you need to brush up on your American insults! You call the females "cunts" - because it is a crude reference to their vagina! You call the males other things... often calling them "fags" or "faggots," (both of which refer to sticks, so we don't really know their origin/value in being an insult) will get an outraged response. Also, in keeping with the American fascination with genitalia, calling a man a "dick" or a "cock sucker" will get the outrage you are seeking.

Also, again, you confuse your Mother Russia's great fondness for Putin, and the fatherly reverence you pay to him with how Americans do things. We shout down our leaders, often with meaningless chants. We throw things at them, and vote them out of office! (Honestly, we Americans just can't make up their minds about who we want for leaders! They're CONSTANTLY changing! I know - this is so confusing for a good Russian like you! I know you miss the consistency of always praising Putin - at least until he dies - but here in the US, we just use-them-up and discard them!)

@raphjd said in California decides to MANDATE gender-free toy aisles:

@bi4smooth

Ah, so it's fascist when I do it, despite you constantly doing it.

Comrade, here you are again with using the wrong words in English! You see, this is how we KNOW you are Russian, and not Chinese or N Korean: you are so sloppy! Chinese agents have a much better grasp of American English!

Just because some cunt did 1 good thing, doesn't mean everything else is worthy of ridicule.

My dear Comrade, YOU are the one who authored the thread - saying right in the headline: Gov VETOed Cal Grant bill... I am not the confused individual here...

Also, not to belabor the point Comrade, but your ACTUAL sentence there actually says the opposite of what you MEANT for it to say... You really must study harder in your English classes!

You just make up shit and argue that. That's classic straw man.

Comrade: making up facts is not creating a "straw man" - making up BELIEFS and/or ACTIONS and attributing them to someone who doesn't exist is a "straw man".

• Arguing that people with red hair and blue freckles are pedophiles and practice human sacrifices is a "straw man" argument - because there are no people with red hair and blue freckles!
• Arguing that my Nazi forefathers were secretly Jews and betrayed their race is a "straw man" argument because you already know that my forefathers were not Nazis, and that I am not even Jewish... all of those "attributes" you made to me didn't apply, so it was a "straw man".
• Arguing that the Gov of California is a liberal who does terrible and awful (liberal) things is NOT a "straw man" argument - he really is a liberal, and you are just voicing your opinion about him.

Making an argument about non-existent people, though, DOES let you proclaim your disdain for things - especially things that don't really exist at all! (Pink elephants are queer haters!)

Perhaps NOW you will understand what I mean when I say "I am not the Straw Man you are looking for" - it means you are attributing things (beliefs, statements, or actions, for exmaple) to me that you already know are untrue, usually just so that you have an example of something - something that may not actually even exist at all - that you want to talk about. (In your case, it's virtually always something you want to complain about. Yet ANOTHER example of your Russian-ness coming through... Chinese and N. Koreans seldom, if ever, complain! Russians complain a LOT - especially about their vodka!)

I don't give a fuck as much about the make-believe "human rights" of businesses, but I do care about the very real human rights of actual people. You are the complete opposite. You have admitted that you do not believe that people have human rights when you don't want them to have them, but you cry like a bitch over some stupid shit about toy aisles.

Oh my, Comrade, here you go again - this must be the 5th time you have pasted the same drivel. You must re-learn your computer skills too. But start with the English lessons, first. You really MUST improve your English vocabulary!

Businesses in the west do not have special rights, they have freedoms. I think the Russian word for those 2 concepts must be the same, because you get them confused a lot.

Practice, practice, practice! You'll be able to pass as a westerner yet, if you just get enough practice! Keep working at it! You have a long way to go, but there is an old English proverb (stolen, like most things English, in this case from the Chinese & translated): A journey of 1000 miles starts with the first steps.

You, Comrade, have taken a few baby-steps towards being able to pass as a knowledgeable, reasonable, western-educated adult... but you have MUCH work to do! Your Russian-ness still shines VERY BRIGHTLY!

Yeah, I forgot that you get your "news" from leftist outlets and they don't talk about stuff like Sen Sinema.

I would imagine, Comrade, that your Russian media is very fond of Sen. Sinema - as she is helping to stop the Biden Administration's legislative agenda. Without her vote(s), he will possibly go down in history as one of the most INEFFECTIVE US Presidents ever!

On this, Comrade, we can agree - this would be a good thing! For America, and for Mother Russia. However, do not mistake my admiration for Sen. Sinema's blockage of Pres. Biden's agenda as a desire for the return of your nasty bitch Trump. That was a mistake - for you, and for us!

You are a complete dipshit. In general, you have no right to privacy in public, but there are places, such as bathrooms where you do. That is according to the US Supreme Court. I know, I know, you don't give a fuck about the human and legal rights of actual people.

Comrade... you have no explicit "right to privacy" in the United States.

• You DID have this right guaranteed to you when you lived in the EU (Convention 108+). Whether you do or not now that the UK has left the EU, I do not know.
• You DID have this right guaranteed to you when you lived in Mother Russia (Article 45).
• There are a few other countries (150, as counted by the UN) that have an explicit "right to privacy" in their government's highest documents

But, alas, not in the United States of America! While there are some States within the United States who have passed some laws ATTEMPTING to create a right to privacy (California's CCPA, for instance), there is no guaranteed right to privacy in the US Constitution or in US Law. There have been attempts to pass them, but those are usually fought AGAINST by US law enforcement (who rely heavily on surveillance and have invested heavily in those technologies) and the far Right (esp. religious fundamentalists - see below).

For example, there are 3 classes of US States with respect to recording of phone conversations:

• States where it is legal - period (no right to privacy)
• States where is is legal so long as one of the parties has consented to being recorded (limited privacy rights)
• States where is is only legal if both (all) parties consent to being recorded (stronger privacy rights)

This is precisely because there is no US Constitutional right to privacy - only some Supreme Court decisions that imply or deny privacy rights, depending on the "mood of the country" at the time.

The early founders of the US considered privacy rights, (1890 Law Review article by original Justices Warren and Brandeis)... but it has never been codified into the US Constitution. Instead, US courts have - over the past 240+ years - implied (to a varying degree) that there is (or is not) a right to privacy using the other documents written by the founders, and using a legal principle called penumbras - meaning it is implied from a combination of other parts.

There was some SIGNIFICANT MOVEMENT towards GETTING a fundamental right to privacy in the US back in the 1960's and 1970's. (1965: Griswold v Connecticut & especially 1973: Roe v Wade), but prior to then, it was generally held that NO right to privacy existed in the Constitution.

Because privacy rights are only implicit (and not explicit) in the US Constitution, there has always been an argument (legal argument) that it was NOT INTENDED to be an important right - important enough to be protected - by our founders! US "fundamentalist" and "originalist" jurists often point to the fact that privacy rights were NOT overlooked by the founding fathers - in fact, historical records show precisely the OPPOSITE! They were ACTIVELY DISCUSSED! Therefore, the act of omitting privacy rights from the Constitution MUST have been intentional.

However, PROPONENTS of a right to privacy got a little more ammo to work with in the form of the 1st clause of the 14th Amendment - the due process clause. Nevertheless, it is still an IMPLIED right, which means that judicial arguments about the validity of that right continue to this day!

The CURRENT DAY finding that there IS a fundamental right to privacy stems from a series of US Supreme Court decisions in the 1960's and 1970's... decisions that were controversial then, and remain so to this day. Overturning that legal finding could have drastic legal repercussions:

• 1973: Roe v. Wade (ruled that a woman's privacy rights protected her right to an abortion, so long as it was within certain limits - which introduced the term trimester!). Overturning Roe might result in many of these other rulings also being overturned. Creating an explicit right of privacy might enshrine Roe forever!
• 2003: Lawrence v. Texas (ruled that sodomy laws were a violation of people's individual privacy rights). Do we want the return of sodomy laws?
• 1967: Katz v United Stated (ruled that warrantless wiretapping was a privacy violation). Interestingly, that ruling reversed 1928: Olmstead v. United States that had held that no right to privacy was in the Constitution and allowed wire taps to be entered into evidence, regardless of whether they were approved or not. (It also had 4th & 5th Amendment issues).
• 2015: Obergefell v. Hodges (ruled that the Government infringed upon people's privacy rights when they attempted to limit, unreasonably, whom they could and could not marry. Overturn Roe, and you likely will soon overturn Gay Marriage on the same legal principals.)

BUT, dear Comrade - as much as you clearly wish there were a clearly defined US Constitutional right to privacy, were there to be one - say, a 28th Amendment? There would be some fundamental changes:
The entire country would come under something akin to, but not exactly like the CCPC (California's Privacy Act).

• You would have a right to know what personal data is collected about you (EU citizens have this right, but we US Citizens to not)
• You would have a right to know if your personal data was bought, sold, or disclosed (on purpose, by accident, or by breach) and to whom (you learn of this currently ONLY when there are breaches or companies are sued and notification is part of the settlement)
• You would have the right to prohibit the sale or disclosure of your personal data (you ONLY have this right about your HEALTH data today - HIPAA laws)
• You would have the right to examine any personal data that anyone might have about you - including the Government, businesses, or individuals.
• You would have the right to request that a business delete any personal information (with some limits) collected from a consumer
• You could not be discriminated against for exercising your privacy rights.

Additionally, a great deal of the surveillance that we, as Americans, endure would have to cease. You would have to consent to, or at least be notified about, any time you were being recorded - video or audio - outside of "general public locations" (think: security cameras, etc).

So, Comrade - once again, you have tipped your hand. You incorrectly assumed that Americans had more rights - rights of all kinds - than you had in Mother Russia. As you can see, this is not the case. You should report back to your handlers that future agents should be made aware of this. Improve their training and indoctrination!

@raphjd said in FUCK SCIENCE says Instagram:

@bi4smooth

AGAIN, you are a whore to the fake (like you) "human rights" of businesses, but you could not care less about the real human rights of people.

Comrade, your translator is stuck again. You're posting the same drivel in multiple threads.

Check your vocabulary, Comrade... I don't know the Russian word for it, but you are confusing the English words "right" (as-in: human rights) and "freedom". Look them up!

Your beloved child molesting Dear Father and his mouthpiece love to brag that they are working directly with "Big tech" on who and what to ban.

Again, Comrade... you're repeating yourself. YOU are the one who REVERES individuals: Czar Vladimir and Czarina Trump (the crown-bitch of Putin!)

I can only imagine how gaping and sloppy your ass is with all the whoring you do for business's "human rights".

Thankfully, my business (I own my own) has the freedom to choose it's customers, choose its offerings... and every once in a while, we get to do fun things: like FIRE CUSTOMERS! (I did this just last month... a customer who consistently pays late, lies about "the check is in the mail" and "oh, our records say we paid that"... They got 3-months behind so I gave them 30 days to get current or they'd be cutoff... well, 30 days came and went... and they're out! If they want us back, they can pre-pay from now on... AFTER they pay back invoices.

I know things like that don't happen in Mother Russia - you just report the non-payers, and the KGB handles it - though you ALSO lose the customer that way... our way is less bloody though...

@raphjd said in AG Garland and conflict of interest:

@bi4smooth

You can stop slurping Garland's back vag, he won't do the same for any business you are part of, because it doesn't benefit his family.

In my experience, Trumpites do not like ANY kind of law enforcement that might include "investigation" or "research" - mainly because they build most everything they do out of paper mache, mirrors, and deception. "Investigations" reveal these things, so NONE of the investigative arms of law enforcement are "good" for the Trumpites...

I personally expect Merrick Garland to enforce the laws of the United States - regardless of who comes under scrutiny: whether a streetwalker or the person the street is named after - up to, and including, POTUS: current and former (all of the former)! That's all! Not a big task. I think he's up to it (as I think Jeff Sessions was up to it, as were Eric Holder and Bill Barr - I don't honestly remember any others that far back.... and isn't that the point? Other than maybe the Kennedys, who remembers the AG? They're not supposed to be "famous" - they're just supposed to do the damned job!)

The Trumps are crooked and DEATHLY afraid of investigations... you can COUNT on their raising a huge stink when the AG comes knocking (not likely until after the Jan 6 commission finishes up).

@raphjd said in YouTube is at it AGAIN:

@bi4smooth

As always, you only care about the fake "human rights" of businesses but don't give a fuck about actual people unless they are "non-conforming, gender fluid" penis possessing skirt wearers.

Here you go again, Comrade - YouTube doesn't have the RIGHT to take down videos - they have the FREEDOM to do so! It's their platform - they could change the terms and make it "All Barney - All Day" (Barney being the annoying, ear-worm spewing purple dinosaur on childrens TV)... It's not their RIGHT to do so, its their FREEDOM to do so!

You still slurp Fauci's back vag, claiming he's a saint.

Let's clear something up here: Fauci is a scientist. A former medical researcher who rose through the ranks to become a leading voice & administrator in medical research in immunology and disease mitigation.

He made a significant mistake in 2019 and 2020 - he ALLOWED Donald Trump to politicize his role in the NIH and allowed himself to be duped into becoming the "faceman" for the Trump Administration's originally well-intentioned, but eventually woefully inadequate response to COVID-19.

But: He's a man... he's just a man. (Thanks Yvonne Elliman!)

You and he share some of your experiences, however. You are also being duped into being an unwitting tool of the Russian KGB - who are feeding lies and twisted news stories into our Western Culture in an attempt to defeat us from within. So far, you and your ilk are winning - just as Germany & Japan initially made great strides in WW-II. But you WILL fail. Real FREEDOM is a bell that cannot be un-rung! You will be defeated!

Sadly, you are completely oblivious to the role you're playing because you allow yourself to be spoon-fed lies that feed into your basic cultural fear: that your "supremacy" as a white male is being challenged and will soon be replaced. You don't think you'll be as successful without the "white privilege" you've been raised with, and you're MORTALLY TERRIFIED that others will treat you - as a white male - as poorly as you have treated them!

Whether you are capable of independent thought, critical thinking, or basic problem solving is immaterial: you refuse to apply them to the drivel you spread, and you become infuriated with people who point out the OBVIOUS flaws in your "stories" (that's all most of them are: made up stories based on tiny fragments of truth - an entire garden of lies around a single chicken-nugget that you call a "chicken salad").

@raphjd said in Arizona Audit report presentation, Cyber Ninjas share their results of election audit:

@bi4smooth

You refused to watch the Steven Crowder video that proved fraud, with official Wayne County documentation, while you claimed that voter fraud doesn't happen.

You REALLY need to refresh your English reading comprehension, Comrade... I have repeatedly pointed out that the presence of SOME fraud is common. It's not that there IS fraud, it's about HOW MUCH fraud is present.

Talk to me when you can read English on a 5th Grade level...

Now, once again, you refuse to watch another video, by the party, you claim to be a part of because it doesn't show what you want it to show.

This is not a Republican video - this is a Trumpist video. My party - the Party of Lincoln (who JOINED this country into a single, non-Slave-owning, FREE country), and Reagan (who also JOINED the parties of this country into ONE - he received almost as many Democrat vote for President as the Democrat nominee!)...

Trump is a DIVIDER. He plays on race, ethnicity, and religion to sow FEAR into people... fear of anyone not like "you"... I, and most "traditional" Republicans reject that.

So once again, you LOVE voter fraud, when it goes in favor of your beloved Dear Father, aka Bejing Biden to us normal people.

Comrade, you might want to check your translator... you're repeating yourself. I think maybe your cut/paste buffer didn't refresh right...

@raphjd said in Louden County VA high school tried to hide sex assault in bathroom:

@bi4smooth

Stop being a total twat, if you can help it.

Ouch - be careful, Comrade - you're hurting my feelings!

LOL - NOT! Drawing your ire here is a BADGE of HONOR!

What does "investigating" a criminal matter have to do with a dirty ass pig grabbing someone for something that is not a crime?! Clearly, our previous discussion about the current state of policing was nothing but you being a liar.

Here you are again, Comrade, mixing up how things work in Mother Russia and over here in the Western Democracies.

I know, back in Russia, they would just send all the bad policemen to prisons in Siberia and forget about them! But here in the West, we try to FIX broken things - without throwing them away completely.

Back in Russia, you would just "eliminate" the bad police force and replace them with the Army while you found new lackys who would tow the Government line more appropriately. But, here in the West, it's illegal to use the Army that way (Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 - yeah, just 100 years after our founding!)...

So... we rally don't have much choice, but to let the police do the policing, while we try to fix things about their departments. Besides, not ALL police are bad guys!

However, in this case, the DAD in question had said his piece, over-extended his allotted time to speak, and had been asked to move so that the next citizen could speak.

I know - in Russia, this wouldn't have been a problem - he'd have been BEATEN by the political police before he even GOT there! But this isn't like Mother Russia! He had a right to say what he wanted to say, but then he had to move aside and let the NEXT person speak... and when he wouldn't move, the POLICE grabbed his arm to move him out of the way.

I know - again, In Russia, they would have knocked is skull in, but I keep telling you: THIS ISN'T LIKE RUSSIA! The policeman grabbed his arm to move him aside, and he... well, he reacted badly and the policeman arrested him.

I haven't said that there isn't a possibility that the girls have lied. You made that shit up because you are a limp wristed liberal.

What? You and your news source made it CLEAR! The PERPETRATOR here was the Trans girl, and the message was equally clear: if s/he hadn't been allowed to use the GIRL'S restroom, this would never have happened!

Get your messaging straight Comrade! Putin is watching!
Trans people are ALWAYS the aggressors! They are ALWAYS the bad people! Come on, they're TRANS! Shit, man it's so simple! Even Igor remembers that, and he was the DUMBEST one in your KGB classes! Are you dumber than Igor?

Pull your head out of your twat. I never said that the police should not investigate, you fucking liar.

OK, YOU didn't say that, specifically - but you DID fault the school and the school board for not taking action (just a guess here - against the trans girl!) and for not sharing all the details (in spite of their being an open police investigation)...

Forgive me Comrade - I took the presence of lemons, sugar, and water to mean you were making lemonade! I did not stop to consider that you were perhaps going to make lemon wedges covered in sugar and then would drink the water separately. My apologies! Please don't shoot me in the head, this isn't Russia!

If you got your head out of your ass, you would know that I balked at the dirty ass pigs GRABBING the dad, when they had no legal right to other than under the bullshit Qualified Immunity that protects dirty ass fucking pigs.

Yes, Comrade! There you go! Back on message: American Police are BAD... ALWAYS BAD! Worse than KGB!

Oh wait - he was just being pulled away from the podium where his time was up... OOPS! Sorry! But, COPS ARE STILL BAD, RIGHT?? ALWAYS BAD!

Yeah! That's the ticket!

Your bias was clearly spelled out when you said you had 2, maybe 3 foster kids that were trans/gender fluid.

No - I said they were QUEER. I'm QUEER. At least here in the US, that's a synonym for ALL of the LGBTQ+ community!

I will cut you some slack there tho - they do use the term "Gender Queer" to describe gender-fluid people... but Queer (without the word Gender in front) is anywhere in the LGBTQ+ spectrum.

• My 30 y/o daughter is a married & divorced lesbian
• My 22 y/o daughter is a self-avowed asexual/pansexual
• My 15 y/o son is a self-avowed queer (gay male)
• I am a 57 (almost 58) y/o self-avowed hyper-pan-sexual

So, not trans - tho not for lack of trying! As a foster parent, we took in the "hard cases"...

UMM, you are the fuck headed leftist, so "Just Believe" and "Me Too" is your religious dogma. I was just asking why you are suddenly, in a case against a "non-conforming, gender fluid" person with a penis is accused of rape and sexual assault. By your own religion, this proves you hate "females" whether they have a penis or cervix. You are a rape apologist and probably a rapist in your own right. I mean, that is your religious dogma, or have you conveniently changed religions just for this single case?

Um... we've never EVER discussed my religion in this forum. I have a term for my sexuality - not one for my "religion" per se - because I don't follow any "organized" religion - I don't go to any "church" regularly.

As for RAPE - how that has a religious component in your Russian head is beyond my ability to comprehend. I admit I don't know a LOT about your Mother Russia, but I had no idea rape and religion were intertwined. I'm feel sorry for you, you sick fucker!

With 5 daughters, 2 grand-daughters (and an ex-wife), I can assure you that I am not a rape apologist. Making valid rape claims can be terrifying - albeit eventually empowering - for the abused MEN AND WOMEN who are victims of rape and other sexual assault.

However, there have been many instances where false rape accusations have been made to attack or rebuke an otherwise innocent person. Care has to be taken in rape accusations that you get it right - because a LOT of damage can be done to the ACTUAL victim - whether that's the accuser or accused!

Clearly, you people hate when your own religious dogma is used against you.

If you know my religious dogma, I'd like to know it too - please share! As far as I know, I don't have one... (woof!)

Maybe your actual issue is that you are getting drunk off Pelosi's gin-soaked pussy farts and you can't keep track of what is going on. Maybe you should consider not being her panty shield and you'd sober up.

Funny thing about my sexuality - I LOVE to rim a smooth ass on a hot guy... I don't eat pussy... DISGUSTING! Intellectually, a vagina is WAY CLEANER than an asshole - even IMMEDIATELY AFTER CLEANING!... but tell that to my dick!

Seriously - they only support I'd give Nancy Pelosi is a hand to hold onto while she gets into the car taking her away from Washington - forever! I respect here for her ability to herd cats (democrats), but politically we agree on almost nothing... ALMOST nothing - we did both agree that Trump was a danger to our Democracy.... but I didn't agree with impeaching him - EITHER time... You gotta be sure the cure isn't worse than the disease!

@lololulu19 said in AG Garland and conflict of interest:

@raphjd Garland is self destructing, losing whatever credibility he had. He certainly is far more interested in protecting himself than doing his job.

I think they should hang Garland on the White House Christmas Tree!

Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!

Trumpites don't like the Attorney General!

News at 11! Dog chases cat!

The Trumpites didn't like THEIR OWN Attorneys General, WTF makes you think they'll like a DEMOCRAT one?

Well GOOOOLLLLLYYYY! Gee Sergeant! I never thought of it THAT way! Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!

@raphjd said in Where are the Biden supporters?!:

@bi4smooth

OK, liar.

You do not call out the shit the DNC does.

Um... I lied by NOT saying something?
Comrade, you're having trouble with your English translator again! To lie, you have to actually SAY something!

For example... quietly accepting that Trump lost another election (by popular vote) in 2020, but believing that he should have won in the Electoral College again isn't lying...
it's WRONG - factually - but it's not lying.

Saying out loud (or writing) that Trump won the 2020 Election by a landslide... that's a lie! It's factually untrue!

We can start on some more English lessons another time - I'm running short on time today.

Oh no, instead you do nothing but downplay things I post about your "Dear Father" and Co doing.

Comrade, we in the Western Democracies don't "revere" our leaders like you do in Mother Russia... we don't consider them "Father" or "Mother" figures - they're just politicians - all of whom can only serve for limited terms.

Trump's followers, who actually do revere him, are an abomination of Western Culture.... he's an outlier.

Be patient, Comrade - It'll take time - I know that while Trump was in office it was hard to distinguish between a Trump Administration and a Putin Administration from back home, but we Western Democracies don't like dictators - eventually Trump's supporters will turn on him... you'll see!

You have absolutely no issue with the shitting all over the human rights of actual humans, but you get butt hurt when they tickle a business' non-existent "human rights".

There you go again, Comrade... mixing up the ideals of "human rights" with the ideals of "freedom". Here in our Western Democracies, businesses don't have "rights", only "freedoms". People have rights... and people IN business have rights, but only those rights given to people to begin with.

But unlike Mother Russia, Comrade, businesses don't get SPECIAL rights - because they're NOT part of the Government here! Still, we believe in FREEDOM - and that includes allowing businesses the FREEDOM to sell both Coke AND Pepsi - in the same store!

In time, you'll get used to it! Still - practice your English, and work on your vocabulary words!!

@raphjd said in (CA) Gov Newsome vetoed Cal Grant expansion bill:

@bi4smooth

LIAR.

YES, you do have extreme TDS, thanks to your drug laces chop suey.

You don't start threads because you don't have a problem with what your "Dear Father" and the rest of the liberals do, except when they violate a business' "human rights".

If your delusions were true, then simply applying a little Critical Thinking and/or Problem Solving (2 skills you are WOEFULLY inadequate in), you would have thought that during the Trump Administration, I'd have been creating thread after thread railing against him!

Nope... even then, I mostly posted my "true conservative" alternatives to your bloviated and hyperbolic Trumpist version of conservatism.

Tell Vladimir I said "Hi and F*CK YOU!", will you? Please?

@raphjd said in California decides to MANDATE gender-free toy aisles:

@bi4smooth

You may not have been here then, but it does sound exactly like the crap you say.

Guilt by association - how very FASCIST of you! Thanks! Putin must be SO PROUD of you!

OK, since you are soooo incredibly slow; I can agree with something someone says/does but be against everything else they do/say. DUH!!!!!!

Really? That's not what happened in the OTHER GOV of CAL thread here - the one YOU started: where he VETOed a piece-of-shit legislation and you railed against him anyway!

Tell me ONE thing you disagreed with Trump about - better yet, tell us one thing CURRENT that you disagree with Trump about!

You are a liberal DNC whore because you defend everything they do or say, except on a minute few occassion, like violating a business' "human rights" but you have no issue when they violate an actual person's human rights.

You continually conflate business with Government. THIS is how we KNOW you're a RUSSIAN AGENT! In the west, we have laws that say that the GOVERNMENT is restricted in ways that businesses and people are not!

Most people raised here (in the Western Democracies) understand that easily. People raised in environments where the Government runs EVERYTHING (like Mother Russia) have a hard time coming to terms with that! Freedom can be SO CONFUSING to people like you!

Speaking of Sen Sinema, you were, as always, totally silent when your fellow lunatic liberals (both persons with penises and cervixes) followed her into the bathroom to harass her and your beloved self-proclaimed dictator downplayed.

I hadn't heard any story of Sen Sinema being accosted in the bathroom. People have the right to protest their Government - and its officials, but they (individually) ALSO have rights! Sadly, however, we don't have a RIGHT TO PRIVACY in this country... something I have rallied for on many occasions.

IT IS NOT OK to follow someone into the bathroom to protest against them - not even a public official!

Again, sadly, many in my own party REFUSE to support a right to privacy - mostly because they fear it could be used to support abortion rights. But I'm sorry, 2 wrongs do NOT make a right, and we - ESPECIALLY in the INTERNET AGE - NEED A RIGHT TO PRIVACY!

@raphjd said in FUCK SCIENCE says Instagram:

@bi4smooth

We have had censorship discussions before and you always sided with whichever business or industry is involved.

And you have always had difficuly understanding the difference between a BUSINESS censoring its own content on its own platform vs the GOVERNMENT telling a business what can and cannot appear on its platform!

An illustrative point: recall the "de-platforming" of Parler (the Trumpite alternative to Twitter):

• Amazon (owner of AWS) told them they were in violation of their terms of service, which Parler ignored
• Amazon warned them they were in danger of being turned off (de-platformed), which Parler ignored
• Amazon turned off Parler - and they screamed like a poked pig! Then again, in about a month (delayed only because of their own focus on portraying themselves as victims) they were back up on another platform.

Those are the facts. YOU thought the Government should intervene and FORCE AWS to keep Parler.

I said AWS was within their rights to "cancel" the Parler account. It was a business decision - and one that angered many AWS "tenants" (and endeared others).

UMM, are you forgetting that the person you voted for has been open that he is working directly with big tech on who and what topics to ban? Both Biden and Jen Psaki has gleefully admitted to it.

I don't mind the President saying he'd like certain things taken down: Trump certainly did it! Facebook, Twitter, etc. can take advise from anyone they want - even YOUR Boss, Comrade Putin! I don't object to their "accepting" advise from any source!

I would object to the Government FORCING them to do the President's bidding! They are private businesses! Their "job" is to grow the business and make money for their investors.

Businesses are FREE to be as political or apolitical as they want (under most circumstances - Government Contractors cannot be overtly political). Being a Conservative, I'm generally used to being in the "good graces" of big business. Trump has arguably changed (or at least STARTED to change) that equation. Time will tell - but business will (and should) continue to do what's best for their shareholders and stakeholders - not any political party! (Not even MY political party!)

We shouldn't be surprised that you liberals are never, ever consistent in your dogma.

You, Comrade, are the one with dogma whiplash! Let there be NO Government interference when things are going your way, but when they DON'T, why THEN, the Government needs to intervene!

Instagram is NOT THE GOVERNMENT. Not Federal, not State, not local, not even Global or InterGalactic! Thus, you have no 1st Amendment rights there... the 1st Amendment protects you from GOVERNMENT infringement of free speech! Individuals (and businesses) are NOT also "controlled" by the 1st Amendment.

READ IT: "Congress shall make no law...*" It doesn't say "People shall not...." or "Businesses shall not..." - it only applies to the Government - even more specifically, the FEDERAL Government - it can apply to State & Local Governments only in so far as they also include free speech protections - but those are not the same as 1st Amendment protections, tho they are often conflated).

"BURN THE WITCH" for not following the science that you like and "BURN THE WITCH" for following the science you hate.

I mean, we aren't talking the bullshit non-science crap the homophobic NARTH put out in the 1980s - 2000s. NARTH's state goal was to uphold the ultra far-right's agenda on all topics and they would use science to do it. From memory, in 35ish years, they only had 1 successful peer-reviewed study and that said that kids of gay parents suffered because other people treated them like shit. They used that to prove why LGBs (especially gay men) should be banned from having kids.

SOCIAL SCIENCE is soft, pseudo-science (shit, NAMBLA had studies that showed the pedophilia was psychologically GOOD for the young boys who were abused! SICK!)

MEDICAL SCIENCE is not a LOT BETTER, but it's making headway. Some of Medical Science is "hard evidence" (like when you can measure levels of antibodies), but some of Medical Science is "soft" - like when they tell you what the "good" levels of cholesterol are - because they're purely "observational".

MATH (including STATISTICS) is mostly HARD SCIENCE - like the ability to count 81-million votes AGAINST Trump, and just 74-million FOR Trump in 2020! LOL (I couldn't resist!)

CHEMISTRY is mostly HARD SCIENCE (mix Chlorine and Ammonia and you get a DEADLY gas - every time, not just some of the time!)

POLITICAL SCIENCE is an oxymoron

@raphjd said in YouTube is at it AGAIN:

@bi4smooth

I have no problem with YouTube making a profit, but they are doing it off of my work.

I used to be monetized and got maybe $200 a year.

YouTube, changed its rules and I no longer qualify to monetize. It's not because they targeted me specifically, but they targeted smaller video makers.

YouTube runs ads on my videos and keeps all the money.

Easy solution: post your videos somewhere else.

Problem solved

As for censoring stuff, they censor stuff to control the narrative so it suits their political and social agenda. All of "big tech" does this, as Tim Pool pointed out to Jack Dorsey and Twitter's top lawyer (Indian woman, can't remember her name) on the Joe Rogan podcast. Their rules directly discriminate against conservative voices. "But men aren't women though" and the like will get you a ban on all of the big tech platforms.

Easy solution: point your web browser somewhere else. Alternatively, download different apps to your "devices"

Problem solved

Posting about a peer-reviewed scientific study ordered by the IOC will get you banned because "big tech" doesn't like the results of the study despite if being validated by the peer-review.

"Follow the science" is only true when the science suits the liberal agenda.

Easy solution: point your web browser somewhere else. Better yet, stop trying to use SOCIAL MEDIA as a NEWS SOURCE!

Problem solved

"Follow the science" isn't what Fauci did during the AZT scandal where he killed a lot of people because he lied about AZT. Despite the"science" declaring AZT as a drug of last resort, St Fauci of Can Do No Wrong pushed it as a drug of first choice.

Fauci caused a lot of gay/bi men to die, but liberals (including you) demand we ignore that and worship him because, as you people claim, all he does is follow the science.

Your demons run deep, Comrade... Your fixation on Fauci and his AZT past get dragged into more posts than Trump!

Tell your Russian Handlers you need therapy! This is likely some kind of PTSD...

@raphjd said in Arizona Audit report presentation, Cyber Ninjas share their results of election audit:

@bi4smooth

BULLSHGIT, YOU LIAR!!!!

You constantly defend fraud.

Comrade, you need to fix (or update the software in) your English to Russian translator! I've never defended fraud - especially the BIGGEST fraud: the attempt to STEAL the election by making hundreds of BOGUS claims of fraud - claims that the Trump Attorneys couldn't defend in court because they were worried about losing their law licenses for bringing such bullshit into court!

Going back to an earlier analogy - when we count your $100 in change and find a slug-nickel, I don't claim your entire bankroll is fraudulent! Just that one nickel... and if what you wanted only cost $75, you're still good to go!

So, in the election of 2020, when Trump lost by over 7-million votes - and you can find fraud covering (being VERY generous here) 100,000 votes - you can't claim the whole election is a fraud!

There were over 160-million votes cast, about 155-million in the Presidential race (yes, some people "sat out" the Presidential contest - in disgust!).

Biden won with 51+% of the vote (a Damn-SITE better than Trump won with in 2016 - 46% of the vote!)... Start finding evidence of fraud getting close to 1% of the vote (that would be 1.6 million votes - put away the calculator!) and we've got something to look into!

But when ALL of the fraud Trumpites CLAIM to have uncovered don't even rise - even when all combined - to 1% of 1% (.01%), how can you expect to be taken seriously?

But let's also distinguish between FRAUD (intentional swaying of the vote by illegal means) and ERROR. When the 250 or so people in Florida were told they were eligible to vote because their Civil Rights had been restored after their felony conviction's complete sentences were completed - per the new Florida constitution - they did so "in good faith".... that it was LATER determined that they shouldn't have been allowed to vote meant they voted in ERROR, not FRAUDULENTLY.

When the workers in the GA precinct first counted the TEST BALLOTS in with the REAL BALLOTS and came up with vote totals HIGHER than the total number of voters in the district, it was an ERROR (one that was corrected before official results were posted), not FRAUD!

Every time I posted about another proven case of voter fraud, you get butt hurt and screechy demanding it is ignored because it helped Creepy Uncle Joe win.

No voter fraud should be ignored - but you're conflating "not enough to overturn or invalidate the election results" with "who cares" - and that's YOUR problem, not mine!

The only one who gets butt-hurt here is you, Comrade!

DUMB ASS, I never implied or stated a fucking thing, other than what I said here and in previous discussions on this topic.

The issue was over 1 part of NJ, no fucking duh. BUT, it involved EVERY election on the fucking ballot for that area. Of course, the presidential election was perfect in every way despite every other part of that ballot was so rampant with fraud that it had to be done again.

So it's clear - the process in NJ worked - they DISCOVERED the attempted fraud.

But let's be clear here, Comrade Nut-Job: the tainted election was held in May - and it was a City Council race. They actually did not re-run the Presidential results - but because they didn't exist, not because they were OK with the results! Trump wasn't on the ballot (which is a better explanation for his getting 0 votes in that election than fraud!)

Put away your almanac, Comrade - the US holds Presidential elections in NOVEMBER, not May!

AND AGAIN, you are doing the "voter fraud should be ignored if I like the way voter fraud went".

The next time you go to the bank to deposit coins, let's keep your mentality (or lack thereof) in mind... you dump $100 in change into the counter - it says you have $99.95, not $100 - so it confiscates your entire deposit - you'll have to re-do it later.

As always, you have your face buried so deep in the collective unwashed vags of the DNC. Me being against voter fraud for as long as I can remember has nothing to do with Trump because I doubt I even knew his name when I first became aware of voter fraud.

Your concepts of higher math (percentages), much less higher math (like statistics) is amazing! (for a 3rd Grader, anyway!)

I'll re-wind, Comrade: EVERY election has some level of fraud - perfect elections don't even happen in High School Prom elections!

That's why they REALLY CLOSELY scrutinize elections where the results get closer than about 1%... but fraud and errors SELDOM reach the level of even 0.01%, so in most cases, these really close elections are actually VALIDATED.

The 2020 Presidential election wasn't THAT close... only in the minds of Trumpites who cannot BELIEVE that their candidate LOST does a handful of irregularities, a few minor cases of fraud (all detected and prosecuted), and rise to the level of INVALIDATING an entire election!

BTW: In case you missed it back when you were DREAMING that the AZ audit would discover the MASSIVE FRAUD that would have changed the outcome of the AZ results... the FEDERAL election system has NO MECHANISM for re-running an election. EVEN IF it is later determined that fraud happened, once the Electoral College vote is certified by Congress, it's done. Signed, sealed, and delivered. See you again in 4-years. Until then, enjoy the 25th Amendment to figure shit out.

NJ can re-run their elections all they want... in the Presidential election, they submit their approved electors to the Electoral College, or they don't vote at all. There are no provisions for delays, re-dos, recounts, or audits... up to 538 votes can be cast (and it's an important election, so exactly 538 are normally cast)... and once they are, it's a done deal. If someone wins, they win. If there is NO winner, the new House and Senate decide (with constitutionally defined rules!)... and once they decide, THAT's a done-deal... no re-do, recount, audit, or reversal... again: see you in 4-years, please see the 25th Amendment for further directions.

I remember way back during Carter, dirty ass politics in Chicago, where you could go to each fire station and look at their memorial wall and be sure that each one would vote Dem in the next election. Same with the police. Likewise in Detroit and every other DNC run area.

ROFL - yes, there were areas of the country where fraud was rampant... but the Dems weren't the only ones "fixing" elections... We Republicans did our fair share of "vote rigging" ourselves (the prisons bear this out!). No one is claiming we've got this permanently "fixed" or "foolproof' - but the fact is, we have professionals who run these things - professionals from both parties... and while it still isn't perfect (because these are PEOPLE we're talking about here!) we DO get better at it year over year!

AND, I still know you refuse to watch the video because it goes against your Biden worshipping claims.

I'll watch that video if you watch "Roger and Me" with your eyes open! LOL

The 'audit' was performed by partisan amateurs - amateurs so DUMB they couldn't even get the REVISED counts right! SHIT, GUYS! Your guys were hired with ONE JOB: Show the fraud! Even if they had to make it up - everyone - even the Dems - expected them to SHOW FRAUD! SHOW A HUGE TRUMP WIN! Even if it's totally (even LAUGHABLY) bogus... YOU HAD ONE JOB GUYS! And you came up with MORE votes for BIDEN and fewer for TRUMP! I mean, come one, guys - ONE F^CK^NG JOB!!!

FAIL

@raphjd said in California decides to MANDATE gender-free toy aisles:

@bi4smooth

BItch, puhlease.

I make a thread specifically about some stupid shit you BFF, Honest Joe did and the first thing you do is defend him to the hilt and drag Trump into it.

I haven't looked but I bet you were one of the liberal ass clowns that demanded that no one mention Obama while Trump was in office because they didn't want whataboutism.

I suggest you DO LOOK! It'll be hard to find, because i wasn't a user on this Forum until after Trump was in office... but YOU GO BOY! LOOK! FIND IT! IT'S THERE!

And your spin is off there Comrade: The OTHER recent thread about CAL is illustrative:

• You post that the Dem Gov of CAL actually VETOES a piece-of-shit bill that you didn't support - but you pepper the post with lies and rantings that don't even support your own story.
• I point out where your Comrades got things wrong - and point out that the Dem Gov did exactly what you would have WANTED him to do (save for the part about having the CAL legislature shot in the head and replaced - but honestly, Comrade that's not how we do it in the US... that might work in Mother Russia, but we don't DO that here!)
• You claim I'm a liberal because I think the DEM GOV did the right thing - even if it was a VETO of an ultra-liberal, left-wing-nutjob of a law! Why? Because I said something nice about a Dem! Oh my! What you must think of me when I support the Dem Senators who are holding up the Biden Agenda because it's "too expensive" and at the same time support the ULTRA-LEFT Dems in the House who are holding up the pared-down Biden Agenda because it doesn't "Spend Enough!"

Well, you ignore-a-moose, by those 2 sets of Dems "sticking to their principals" they're getting NOTHING done!

I know this is a shocker - but as a Conservative, the LESS the Liberal Administration can get done in these next 2-years before the mid-terms, the BETTER!

So: Yay Manchin and Sinema in the Senate! and Yay KFC (or whatever her initials are) in the House! You STAND for those principles! (In the meantime, ain't SHIT of the Biden Agenda goin' anywhere! LOL! WINNING!

@raphjd said in (CA) Gov Newsome vetoed Cal Grant expansion bill:

@bi4smooth

Of course, you are not "my straw man", you are a Biden loving liberal.,

We have seen your posts, we know what you believe.

You claim I'm a Russian and Chinese troll, but you are the one that believes the government can trample our rights at any turn, as they please.

AGAIN, since you are an idiot.

You have never, ever made a thread calling out your lord and savior, but you have made them about Trump.

True, i don't start that many NEW threads here - I'm too busy trying to defend actual conservative principles against your bastardization (Trumpization) of them...

Your Russian influences have become clear, Comrade... your confusion about how Western Civilization works is in-line with the lack-luster, mediocre educational system in Mother Russia, not the exacting precision of the Chinese! There is no more confusion! Your handlers are Russians to be sure! If only because of the ERRORS they make!

Show me a Biden proposal I've supported!

Your 2-dimensional Trumpian mind equates anything NOT aligned with your false, Russian-aligned Propaganda in support of Trump as being FOR Biden.... NEWS FLASH COMRADE! There are other points of view than Biden or Trump!

@raphjd said in Where are the Biden supporters?!:

@bi4smooth

LIAR!!!

You voted for Biden/Harris.

You refuse to call out Biden's and Harris' wrongdoing because they are doing the agenda you support.

Thanks for the personal inventory, Comrade! Your understanding of my thought processes about my first vote for a Democrat for President in 40 years is SPOT ON! You're a fuckin MIND READER! AMAZING!

Can you tell me what your Russian Handlers will accuse me of next?

I call out the Biden Admin's bullshit all the time... but, you moron, unless you've been hiding in the Siberian Snow Banks for the past year, you'd have noticed the Biden Agenda is going NOWHERE! Even shaving it down to less than HALF of what they wanted, it's TOO HOT for some in his party, and TOO COLD for others... and being Dems, they can't agree to a WIN unless it's a TOTAL WIN!

They'll have control of Congress until Jan, 2023 - at which point Biden and his Dems become as USELESS as Trump was in 2019 & 2020! Except they WON'T have the Senate on their side...

Why is that important you ask Comrade?

Well, in OUR form of Government, the Senate has to approve of Supreme Court nominees... and once the Dems lose the Senate, any liberal justice the Dem President might want to appoint will be voted down! They'll just wait for 2024 and a new President (assuming it's NOT TRUMP! Outside the still-shrinking Republican Party, he's downright TOXIC as a candidate!).

Anyway - that's one of the many ways the Republican Leadership ALWAYS out-maneuvers the Dems - we think about the FUTURE, and leverage our CURRENT powers to their FULLEST extent FOR THE FUTURE!

Those silly Dems just look to the future... they can't pass PART of Biden's plans because... because... well, it's not EVERYTHING they were PROMISED if they won! (simulate crying temper-tantrum here) If they can't have their "dessert" they're just not going to "eat" at all! WAH!

Meanwhile, the clock is ticking! Their window of opportunity is rapidly closing! Then the Biden Presidency will be one of the MOST IMPOTENT in HISTORY!

Oh wait! I'm supposed to be FOR the liberal! Sorry to disappoint you Comrade... I just can't seem to overcome my 40-year history of enjoying Dem infighting stopping them from getting anything actually done (Obamacare being an exception) in the short historical periods when they actually get power!