@dbmhoosier correct. Dems are pure garbage. Support criminals over public safety. Welfare over self support. On and on and on. Just pure garbage. Freak weirdos. I’m so done with Dem freaks. When you can’t celebrate kids because thug Iwasntdounnuffins are shooting around the stadium wearing scram bracelets we’ve lost the plot. Dems don’t do the very basic stuff to maintain a society. Mamdani AOC and the rest are just pure scum of the earth
They'll do exactly what they're doing in Alaska and then look you straight in the eyes and say Republicans are anti democracy.
They'll do exactly what they're doing in Alaska and then look you straight in the eyes and say Republicans are anti democracy.
Huh?
Please tell me how Dan Sullivan, registered Republican and who is fighting to be on the ballot to be elected over Dan Sullivan, incumbent Republican senator, is an example of how Democrats will do anything to win?
The challenger was thrown off the ballot because the incumbent made the claim that the challenger was not seriously running for the office and was only doing it as a joke and sow confusion amongst the voters. The judge ruled that the challenger can stay on the ballot because 1) How do you know that his intention was a joke? No evidence (witness testimony) was provided that proved that his interest in the job was not genuine and 2) He went through the process of filling out paperwork and getting signatures to get on the ballot, which seems like a lot of work to go through just for a joke.
I though this was a pretty reasonable take from a judge.
...and as far as I can tell, has absolutely nothing to do with the Democratic party at all.
They'll do exactly what they're doing in Alaska and then look you straight in the eyes and say Republicans are anti democracy.
Huh?
Please tell me how Dan Sullivan, registered Republican and who is fighting to be on the ballot to be elected over Dan Sullivan, incumbent Republican senator, is an example of how Democrats will do anything to win?
The challenger was thrown off the ballot because the incumbent made the claim that the challenger was not seriously running for the office and was only doing it as a joke and sow confusion amongst the voters. The judge ruled that the challenger can stay on the ballot because 1) How do you know that his intention was a joke? No evidence (witness testimony) was provided that proved that his interest in the job was not genuine and 2) He went through the process of filling out paperwork and getting signatures to get on the ballot, which seems like a lot of work to go through just for a joke.
I though this was a pretty reasonable take from a judge.
...and as far as I can tell, has absolutely nothing to do with the Democratic party at all.
He's a Dem being paid by the Dems to help steal the election.
"You're leaning into exactly what the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) and the incumbent Senator Dan S. Sullivan have been shouting from the rooftops. The timing and the optics certainly caused a massive political firestorm in Alaska.
While there is no definitive proof that he is a "paid Democrat shill" or that his campaign was officially directed by the Democratic Party, the connections discovered by investigators are exactly why Republicans are certain it was a coordinated strategy.
The situation with Daniel J. Sullivan (the challenger) involves several compelling facts that have fueled this theory:
### The "Smoking Gun" Metadata
The strongest piece of evidence pointing toward Democratic involvement came down to digital footprints. When the challenger, Dan J. Sullivan, put out his initial press release announcing his run, the document's metadata revealed it was created by **Amber Lee**. Lee is a well-known Democratic political strategist who has publicly and actively supported former Democratic Representative Mary Peltola (the main challenger to the incumbent senator).
While Peltola’s campaign and the Alaska Democratic Party have formally denied any involvement, the metadata directly linked a Democratic consultant's computer to the challenger's campaign launch.
### The Paper Trail Changes
Beyond the consultant connection, the state's Division of Elections originally flagged a few details that made them question if the candidacy was a genuine, "good faith" run:
* **Party Flipping:** Dan J. Sullivan (a 69-year-old retired teacher from Petersburg) had been a registered member of the Alaskan Independence Party for decades, and then was "undeclared." He changed his party affiliation to Republican right when he filed to run.
* **The Ballot Request:** He initially filed to appear on the ballot simply as "Dan Sullivan" without a middle initial, which would have matched the incumbent's ballot name exactly.
* **Website Mirroring:** His early digital footprint and campaign materials were noted by state officials as being eerily similar in color and layout to the incumbent Senator's actual branding.
### The Legal Counter-Punch
Because of these overlaps, the Alaska Division of Elections explicitly tried to kick him off the primary ballot, calling his run a "sham candidacy" designed purely to trick voters.
However, the legal system stepped in. The Alaska Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that the state cannot enforce a subjective "good faith" standard to block someone from running. Legally, he meets the constitutional requirements (age, citizenship, and residency) to run for office.
### The Strategy Behind the Chaos
Whether he was explicitly recruited or just seized an "instant megaphone" as he claims, the strategic impact of having two Dan Sullivans on the ballot is a major headache for Republicans under Alaska's unique voting system.
Because Alaska uses a nonpartisan, open primary where the top four vote-getters move on to a ranked-choice general election, having a second "Dan Sullivan, Republican" on the ballot has a high mathematical probability of siphoning votes away from the incumbent simply due to voter confusion. Elections officials are now scrambling to figure out how to design the ballot to visually differentiate the retired teacher from the sitting senator."
@goat fully co-sign with the caveat that only one side is really calling for and has taken violent action
Maybe, but I think they feed off of each other.https://twitter.com/jrobfrommn/status/2068344872474415594?s=46&t=Csl_r88muvNMBV79b5VS-Q
This is true & faaar more dangerous to America thanTrump
The lunatics on either side are always responding to something they don't like. When the right became more nativist, it was because they saw shifting demographics, made some connections with crime trends, and drew the obvious conclusions. When the left became more socialist, it was because they saw the destruction of the working class American dream, and the widening of the wealth gap to epic proportions, and drew their obvious conclusions.
When those on one side want to scream that the other side has been brainwashed by the media, but also wants to pretend their side is just rationally responding to real-time problems, that's a sign that they've lost objectivity. The Jacobins didn't take power because of a rational debate of the facts and possible policy solutions. They took power because people were so angry, they collectively snapped. You could say the same thing about the Nazis, the Stalinists, etc.
This is not a one side only problem. But it's also not a both sides problem. It's a broken society problem. Our society is fucked up, and it's fucked up in a lot of different ways, and different groups of people are going to respond to that big fuckupery in different ways. But unfortunately, very few of them seem to be responding with, "Let's see how we can work together to fix it." Instead, most seem to be responding with "Off with their heads!"
Edit to add: All of this becomes a moot point when the machines take over, anyway, of course.
when is the last time CNN complained about Soros being a billionaire?
“When you figure the answer to my question, you’ll have the answers to your questions.”
@goat fully co-sign with the caveat that only one side is really calling for and has taken violent action
Historically, the left and right have been more comfortable with violence coming from very different places. The left was always more likely to have violent activists, while the right was more likely to use state-sponsored violence. But then, history has exceptions. The "excesses of the French Revolution" as they are often politely termed, were certainly the result of the left finding itself in power. And conservative southern whites during reconstruction didn't need state support for their violent tendencies.
But, yeah, I mean right now we have a situation where the left feels completely outside the halls of power, which is a place they've always been most comfortable with violent rhetoric, anyway, so I would expect more violent rhetoric from them.
FWIW, my post was just about the extremists in general, not the violent ones specifically.
@goat fully co-sign with the caveat that only one side is really calling for and has taken violent action
Historically, the left and right have been more comfortable with violence coming from very different places. The left was always more likely to have violent activists, while the right was more likely to use state-sponsored violence. But then, history has exceptions. The "excesses of the French Revolution" as they are often politely termed, were certainly the result of the left finding itself in power. And conservative southern whites during reconstruction didn't need state support for their violent tendencies.
But, yeah, I mean right now we have a situation where the left feels completely outside the halls of power, which is a place they've always been most comfortable with violent rhetoric, anyway, so I would expect more violent rhetoric from them.
FWIW, my post was just about the extremists in general, not the violent ones specifically.
Rhetoric? Is this meant to imply it’s not been acted on far more frequently than the right as of late?
@goat fully co-sign with the caveat that only one side is really calling for and has taken violent action
Historically, the left and right have been more comfortable with violence coming from very different places. The left was always more likely to have violent activists, while the right was more likely to use state-sponsored violence. But then, history has exceptions. The "excesses of the French Revolution" as they are often politely termed, were certainly the result of the left finding itself in power. And conservative southern whites during reconstruction didn't need state support for their violent tendencies.
But, yeah, I mean right now we have a situation where the left feels completely outside the halls of power, which is a place they've always been most comfortable with violent rhetoric, anyway, so I would expect more violent rhetoric from them.
FWIW, my post was just about the extremists in general, not the violent ones specifically.
Rhetoric? Is this meant to imply it’s not been acted on far more frequently than the right as of late?
No, just trying to be inclusive. Political violence is a threat to the stability of a society, even when the violence is only offered in words.
@goat fully co-sign with the caveat that only one side is really calling for and has taken violent action
Historically, the left and right have been more comfortable with violence coming from very different places. The left was always more likely to have violent activists, while the right was more likely to use state-sponsored violence. But then, history has exceptions. The "excesses of the French Revolution" as they are often politely termed, were certainly the result of the left finding itself in power. And conservative southern whites during reconstruction didn't need state support for their violent tendencies.
But, yeah, I mean right now we have a situation where the left feels completely outside the halls of power, which is a place they've always been most comfortable with violent rhetoric, anyway, so I would expect more violent rhetoric from them.
FWIW, my post was just about the extremists in general, not the violent ones specifically.
Rhetoric? Is this meant to imply it’s not been acted on far more frequently than the right as of late?
No, just trying to be inclusive. Political violence is a threat to the stability of a society, even when the violence is only offered in words.
Is it safe to say then that you agree that immigrants that engage in political violence, including rhetoric, should be treated as threats to society & deported?
@goat fully co-sign with the caveat that only one side is really calling for and has taken violent action
Historically, the left and right have been more comfortable with violence coming from very different places. The left was always more likely to have violent activists, while the right was more likely to use state-sponsored violence. But then, history has exceptions. The "excesses of the French Revolution" as they are often politely termed, were certainly the result of the left finding itself in power. And conservative southern whites during reconstruction didn't need state support for their violent tendencies.
But, yeah, I mean right now we have a situation where the left feels completely outside the halls of power, which is a place they've always been most comfortable with violent rhetoric, anyway, so I would expect more violent rhetoric from them.
FWIW, my post was just about the extremists in general, not the violent ones specifically.
Rhetoric? Is this meant to imply it’s not been acted on far more frequently than the right as of late?
No, just trying to be inclusive. Political violence is a threat to the stability of a society, even when the violence is only offered in words.
Is it safe to say then that you agree that immigrants that engage in political violence, including rhetoric, should be treated as threats to society & deported?
Legal proceedings shouldn't be carried out against classes of people, but against individuals. But certain criminal activity, including some forms of speech that don't enjoy 1A protections, are already a legal basis for deportation. I do think it is appropriate to give green card holders a little more consideration than non-immigrant visitors or undocumented aliens, but until you get your naturalization papers, that's always going to be something you have to watch out for.
https://twitter.com/essenviews/status/2072224771362730454
Here you go, Hick.
You want to know how to lose a midterm...
Tell hard working people that are just scraping by that you're better then them.
https://twitter.com/essenviews/status/2072224771362730454
Here you go, Hick.
You want to know how to lose a midterm...
Tell hard working people that are just scraping by that you're better then them.
The video was by Cosmic’s favorite source and part of me believes Nehls was screwing with a reporter…but otherwise…oof
https://twitter.com/essenviews/status/2072224771362730454
Here you go, Hick.
You want to know how to lose a midterm...
Tell hard working people that are just scraping by that you're better then them.
The video was by Cosmic’s favorite source and part of me believes Nehls was screwing with a reporter…but otherwise…oof
People aren't going to care who the reporter is. The questions were pretty clear, as were his answers.
Pubs are going to have to have to acknowledge that people are struggling and not play it off like its a non-issue. I don't know if they can do that though since it would paint a different story then what our president is constantly trying to portray.
https://twitter.com/japan_nobunaga/status/2072380967457886523?s=46&t=Csl_r88muvNMBV79b5VS-Q
Meanwhile Dems are worried about who has too much money while their policies get innocent people killed every day…