The liberal march towards EXTREME fascism

The Nazi insert "socialist" into their party's name simply as a lure to discontented workers.
Hahahahahahahahaha!!!! Once again, the facts prove that Regent is either ignorant or a liar.
One, socialism has never succeeded anywhere, including the Marxism-Leninism of the Soviet Union, the National Socialism of Nazi Germany, the Maoism of Communist China, the Chavez-Maduro socialism of Venezuela. It has never come close to anywhere near Marx’s ideal of a classless society.
Oops! Seems like the entire world realizes that the Nazis nationalized just about everything because they were socialists. Fascism is exclusively a left-wing ideology. It's totalitarianism - and you cannot have right-wing totalitarianism. Fascism cannot be to the right of libertarianism and Sovereign Citizens. Period.

3 of the Most Telling Failures of Socialism
The quote was from 1933 "Time" magazine. The purpose of the quote was to illustrate that even then people were on Hitler and his claim of socialism. An Editor of "Time" must have thought that with a poor history background people might have trouble believing that Hitler brought socialism to Germany. But only a few uneducated Americans believe that today. How about you?
 
So, which party today is for or against racial diversity?
The Dumbocrats are vehemently against "racial diversity". Thank you for reminding us of another trait that indisputably proves that fascism is exclusively a left-wing ideology.
Screen Shot 2019-09-22 at 5.22.19 PM.png
 
The quote was from 1933 "Time" magazine.
No it wasn't. That quote was directly from the article. You should really click a link and read it before commenting on it.
So what was the article that the quote was directly from? Of course I read it before commenting. But you no longer seem to make sense. I didn't need a link because I had the original.
 
So, which party today is for or against racial diversity?
The Dumbocrats are vehemently against "racial diversity". Thank you for reminding us of another trait that indisputably proves that fascism is exclusively a left-wing ideology.
View attachment 280536
Did democrats accept donations from him after Ed Buck crimes were known?

compare to GOP accepting John Childs donations.

Does the criminal behavior of donors represent policy? Only if the crimes are known.
 
The Nazi insert "socialist" into their party's name simply as a lure to discontented workers.
Hahahahahahahahaha!!!! Once again, the facts prove that Regent is either ignorant or a liar.
One, socialism has never succeeded anywhere, including the Marxism-Leninism of the Soviet Union, the National Socialism of Nazi Germany, the Maoism of Communist China, the Chavez-Maduro socialism of Venezuela. It has never come close to anywhere near Marx’s ideal of a classless society.
Oops! Seems like the entire world realizes that the Nazis nationalized just about everything because they were socialists. Fascism is exclusively a left-wing ideology. It's totalitarianism - and you cannot have right-wing totalitarianism. Fascism cannot be to the right of libertarianism and Sovereign Citizens. Period.

3 of the Most Telling Failures of Socialism
The quote was from 1933 "Time" magazine. The purpose of the quote was to illustrate that even then people were on Hitler and his claim of socialism. An Editor of "Time" must have thought that with a poor history background people might have trouble believing that Hitler brought socialism to Germany. But only a few uneducated Americans believe that today. How about you?

Hitler and his National Socialist did bring Socialism!
 
The left has embraced fascism to the fullest extent. They not only will not tolerate free speech, they won't even tolerate a hat.

Cops nab suspect for allegedly assaulting a man wearing a Russian MAGA hat
NYC will fine you $250 for promoting hate by saying Illegal Aliens.
Oh I know. I posted that yesterday (or the day before - can't remember now). Complete and total infringement of 1st Amendment rights. Fuck NY.

Hitler and Stalin's mustaches each get a little fuller every time the "American" Left moves further to Fascism
 
Ask yourself why the left is so desperate to stop We the People from deciding on our own leaders. They engage in voter fraud. They try to keep candidates off of ballots. They engage in propaganda campaigns. A whole lot of effort to obtain power and control over people.

Trump Celebrates Winning Legal Fight to Stay on California Ballot

Interesting. Recalls the time the Democrats kicked Strom Thurmond off the ballot in South Carolina when he first ran for Senate. He had to run as a write-in, which he did, and won, becoming the first of only two Senate runs to do that (the other being Lisa Murkowski).

But this of course is a state law, not a party. Let's have a look under the hood. From the link:

>> “[W]hile this Court understands and empathizes with the motivations that prompted California,” England said in his decision, “the Act’s provisions likely violate the Constitution and the laws of the United States.” <<​

Weak, weak argument, since NOWHERE in the United States Constitution does that underlying document call for any kind of popular Presidential election AT ALL. And it never has. What the COTUS does say is this:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress

That's called "Article II" if you're scoring at home Buttsoiler. Or even if you're by yourself, it's still called Article II.

To break this down into tiny words that even a Buttsoiler can figure out, it means each state gets to pick its electors ANY WAY IT WANTS. It can require tax returns to hold an election; it can require shoe sizes to hold an election. It can not bother to hold an election AT ALL.

It can throw darts at pictures of candidates, pick names out of a hat, or consult a Ouija board. It can take a random telephone poll. "In such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" means exactly what it says. And we've been through all this in examinations of the Electoral College and how it works, Buttsoiler, while you were over in the corner playing with yourself.

Whelp --- the state of (in this case) California passed this law as part of a Manner it may direct, exactly as the Constitution lays out. So there is literally NOTHING in the Constitution to "violate". One also can't help noticing the use of the qualifier "likely" in what's purported to be a legal decision. Legal decisions can't be made on the basis of "likely". That's the whole point of having laws and Constitutions --- exactitude. Everything's spelled out. That a judge can muddle through his job without knowing all this is kind of disconcerting, but I guess when you're desperate you reach for whatever you can grab, huh Buttsoiler?
 
Ask yourself why the left is so desperate to stop We the People from deciding on our own leaders. They engage in voter fraud. They try to keep candidates off of ballots. They engage in propaganda campaigns. A whole lot of effort to obtain power and control over people.

Trump Celebrates Winning Legal Fight to Stay on California Ballot
Weak, weak argument, since NOWHERE in the United States Constitution does that underlying document call for any kind of popular Presidential election AT ALL. And it never has.
Bwahahaha! I've bolded my key comment above in blue. As everyone can see, nowhere did I say anything about it being "unconstitutional".

Everyone notice how Homo has to create a straw man every time she posts? She desperately wants to distract from the basic question: why is the left so afraid to allow We the People to choose our own leaders? That was the question I posed. That was the question she ran from.

(Hint: We the People overwhelmingly reject the bat-shit crazy ideology of the left)
 
Ask yourself why the left is so desperate to stop We the People from deciding on our own leaders. They engage in voter fraud. They try to keep candidates off of ballots. They engage in propaganda campaigns. A whole lot of effort to obtain power and control over people.

Trump Celebrates Winning Legal Fight to Stay on California Ballot
Interesting. Recalls the time the Democrats kicked Strom Thurmond off the ballot in South Carolina when he first ran for Senate. He had to run as a write-in, which he did, and won, becoming the first of only two Senate runs to do that (the other being Lisa Murkowski).

But this of course is a state law, not a party. Let's have a look under the hood. From the link:

>> “[W]hile this Court understands and empathizes with the motivations that prompted California,” England said in his decision, “the Act’s provisions likely violate the Constitution and the laws of the United States.” <<

Weak, weak argument, since NOWHERE in the United States Constitution does that underlying document call for any kind of popular Presidential election AT ALL. And it never has. What the COTUS does say is this:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress

That's called "Article II" if you're scoring at home Buttsoiler. Or even if you're by yourself, it's still called Article II.

To break this down into tiny words that even a Buttsoiler can figure out, it means each state gets to pick its electors ANY WAY IT WANTS. It can require tax returns to hold an election; it can require shoe sizes to hold an election. It can not bother to hold an election AT ALL.

It can throw darts at pictures of candidates, pick names out of a hat, or consult a Ouija board. It can take a random telephone poll. "In such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" means exactly what it says. And we've been through all this in examinations of the Electoral College and how it works, Buttsoiler, while you were over in the corner playing with yourself.

Whelp --- the state of (in this case) California passed this law as part of a Manner it may direct, exactly as the Constitution lays out. So there is literally NOTHING in the Constitution to "violate". One also can't help noticing the use of the qualifier "likely" in what's purported to be a legal decision. Legal decisions can't be made on the basis of "likely". That's the whole point of having laws and Constitutions --- exactitude. Everything's spelled out. That a judge can muddle through his job without knowing all this is kind of disconcerting, but I guess when you're desperate you reach for whatever you can grab, huh Buttsoiler?
Bwahahaha! I've bolded my key comment above in blue. As everyone can see, nowhere did I say anything about it being "unconstitutional".

YOUR OWN LINK DID, Buttsoiler. As you can fucking SEE from the restored post that you edited down because you couldn't handle it as given. I made it REAL FUCKING BIG so that even a cretin like you can't dance around it.

Fucking moron.
 

Forum List

Back
Top