Kamala and decertification

 

As for you right-wingers out there, I just wonder how many of you fucking geniuses still think it's a good idea, to be able to "decertify" a federal election?  At least, if it is the job of Mike Pence, who has now left the Trump train for good, the past year.

C'mon, where are all you brain boxes.  A complete, fucking embarrassment to the conservative movement. 

C'mon, comment on this.  Please . . .

Here's a question for you idiots from four years ago, and in particular you ones who thought Pence could decertify the election for President.

That's right, I don't want you to get what you like, because you're not going to like what you get or the old saying I can't really remember how it goes.

What if Kamala Harris would decertify the election?

Think about that for a moment.  What would stop her?  And PLEASE don't talk any shite to me about; "It's different now."  or "Uh, she has no right to do that!"

Really?  

According to you lot, she DOES have that right.  And who knows this could be the ace up their sleeve, and you lot have NO reason to complain.  Don't you?

This has been bothering me for SOME time.  LONG before, I believe, Dan Bongino brought this up recently.

Why not? Why won't she do it?

Yeah, I heard all you geniuses back then, and well, you were told that four years ago that that, wasn't the case, and that he (Trump) should not have even tried it.  That it was completely bat shit crazy for you to try it and now it could easily come back and bite you in the ass, correct?

But the big question is, why wouldn't she?

In fact, it actually seems like a very good idea, but then again what would happen?

You probably have various different possibilities;

1) She decertifies the election.  This would then mean that Joe Biden remains President.

2) On the other hand, Biden never ran, so wouldn't that mean, that she would be President, after all, she is the sitting Vice-President.

3) But she can't be President, because she actually lost the election?

4) Biden resigns, Kamala becomes President (just like Gerald Ford did, after Nixon resigned), and with an "invalid" election, she remains President?

WTF?

As before, four years ago, I am not only at a loss of what could / would happen, but still furious, that any idiot would have actually believed that it would've been a good idea, even if permittable, to "invalidate" an election.

Recht

Why are liberals always so nice? And why do they always expect the best of people? Is this their flaw?

 

I met a friend recently who actually thought that Joe Biden resigned, not because he was being chased and pushed to resign, but that he actually was a decent human being, and felt that it was the moral thing to do, due to his health (and let Kamala take over)!

That is simply ridiculous!  And I thought to myself how anyone could actually think like this? Sure enough, this friend of mine is a liberal and they naturally can't think like that.  They could only think the best of Biden; besides Biden being a career politician for the best part of 50 years, MUST be so self-less, and a person into public service.  My friend literally knows NOTHING about the American political process, and even LESS about just how corrupt the Biden Crime family are.

When I finally told them that Biden was pushed by his fellow Democrats, and that at one time, he had no intention whatsoever to resign, until apparently, Nancy Pelosi had to tell him that his own party would push for the 25th Amendment to be used; he looked shocked.  Honestly!  He was genuinely shocked!

But then they slowly realised that they were wrong and that we were correct with our explanations.  It was a very, strange experience.

At the same time, I appreciated their genuine "goodness".  This particular friend does not really have a mean bone in their body, but, in this case, I simply had to burst their bubble. 

Equally, I watch a lot of GB news; a "far right" TV network in the United Kingdom. 

It's not!  There are a good deal of leftists on the network, but it is then balanced with many from the right, or as I would label it, the Centre / Centre-Right.

On it there is a particular man called Josh Howie, who also suffers from this; I'm so nice type of syndrome - that I find that many from the left suffer from.

Time and time again over the past few years, he's always taken the side that people are good, that people are decent and all they need to do is listen to a certain logical argument and they will change their mind or come to a good, decent decision or viewpoint. And time and time again, he's proven wrong - and at times is exasperated by the Left's intolerance.

My point, that like above, when Howie has been confronted with the facts about things,  normally he changes his mind.  The below shows this:

He is still a Labour (reluctant) supporter, though he has admitted that his vote for them in the British 2024 Parliament election was a mistake.  

But once he saw -

1) Many of the Left are NOT into Free Speech!  (He is)

2) COVID hurt his family / children's education & the vaccines did little, if anything to help.

3) The economy was destroyed, as opposed to a country like Sweden.

4) How he was attacked / cancelled due to his classic liberal views.

And after the above were all proven true, and that we should NEVER have locked down, he changed his mind, and at times the last few years, loses it on his broadcasts.

Who knows, my point is maybe, just maybe, certain people on the Left DO look at facts / other opinions, and will come to a viewpoint that it more aligned to the right.

I don't know if I'll hold my breath though.

Recht

A simple question about dogs; How does a normal person answer it, as opposed to a Leftist freak?

 

I'm fascinated by the difference between us normal people, and the Leftist freaks in the world.

So much so, that I've always considered what would happen if a liberal or a right-winger saw a dog crossing the street and suddenly a car, turning into the street, ran over it—not a bicycle, but a car (Editor: You love them bikers!).  I love ALL people!

First, I KNOW this is a simple question.  I KNOW that there are multiple viewpoints.  I KNOW that the two views can be swapped here as well.  But, this is done only to generalise about two distinct groups.

I believe the reactions from either side highlight the differences between the two "sides". 

I'm not saying which side is correct, as in this case both may be partly right and wrong, but it does show how they think, feel, and perceive things.

A Conservative Perspective: A conservative might view it like this: the dog crosses the street, the car comes around the corner and accidentally hits it. From a neutral perspective, we might say that there was nothing the driver could have done—the dog is not human—and that we should pay our respects and move on with life.

A Leftist Perspective: On the other hand, the leftist would undoubtedly see it in a completely different manner. 

They would likely react emotionally, thinking, "How can this possibly happen in this day and age? How could a dog, something as sweet as Fido, suffer death and be taken from its owner?" 

They would question the driver's actions, saying, "What was wrong with the car driver? How dare they not take all due care and have compassion for the dog? How dare they make the turn?" and so on, ad nauseum.

They would express this with such intensity as if the driver was completely in the wrong, and anyone who questions them would be labelled a fascist, Nazi, or a Trump supporter. They would simply never consider that these accidents happen, that the car owner and driver likely took all reasonable care and respect for the dog, but did not see it until the last second, and that everyone should just get on with life.

They would NEVER react like this.  They would persuade themselves, and at the same time attempt to persuade anyone near them, that they were in the right.  And that the case was settled and that the dog and their owner(s) were the victims, ripe for some form of compensation.

My Explanation: To anyone who actually examines these two opinions or anyone with common sense, the first opinion is literally the only reasonable one. 

Yes, it explains the behaviour correctly.  Yes they (the driver) did not try to kill the dog.  Yes, these are accidents, and yes, please don't notify the police. 

But if you do wish to bring cops into this (the Leftist opinion), I thought you didn't like the police?

Therefore, I'd believe that the matter is over and done with.  If the dog is registered; contact the owner. If the owner was with the dog; have sympathies - there was no foul play. 

Just could everyone PLEASE accept this, and do NOT try to assign blame!

The case is closed.

Thoughts on the recent British general election - Three key points; Immigration, Proportional Representation, and the Pollsters.

Immigration - 

Keir Starmer has largely avoided addressing immigration, for instance, even after one of his MPs, Jess Phillips, was subjected to abusive shouting after winning the election. 

He's pitiful and will EASILY be pushed around, quite rightly, by the incoming Trump administration.

When asked about this incident, Phillips denied that it was related to Islam and instead attributed it to a general dislike of women by some men. This response seems dismissive of the specific context of the abuse.

Once again, they are not even in denial, but are absolutely PETRIFIED of being called a racist; like Kryptonite to Superman.

And I can only say, that this WILL bring this government down in the future, ie. their denial of a growing Islamic presence in the UK, and a kowtowing even to the most radical elements of it.

Proportional Representation (PR) -

It was interesting to see the press reaction to the Labour victory. They seem to avoid reporting certain facts and are instead focusing heavily on Keir Starmer. Notably, while Labour received only a third of the vote, they now hold two-thirds of the MPs, highlighting the urgent need for a proportional representation (PR) system. 

Keep in mind, we did indeed have a vote on this some years back, but it was soundly defeated, although it was really not a true PR system according to many.

Voting Totals:

Labour’s position of holding two-thirds of MPs with only a third of the vote is unacceptable. There's evidence showing that Labour and Keir Starmer’s supporters needed around 24,000 votes to secure one MP, while the Conservative Party required approximately 56,000 votes for the same result. This disparity is outrageous and underscores the necessity for a PR system.

PR would benefit parties like Reform, which received 14% of the vote but with only 5 MPS, but then again Nigel Farage has always been a supporter of PR.  The Liberal Democrats, who have also always supported PR, would be fairly represented, and even the Conservatives, with around 24% of the vote but only about 19% of the MPs, would benefit from a fairer system.

It's something that should be immediately put to the public vote. 

Pollsters and Polls - 

Despite Labour having 34% of the vote compared to the Conservatives' 24%, the pollsters' predictions were wildly inaccurate. 

At one point, polls suggested (The YouGov poll of 7-8 May) a Labour landslide with a lead of 30 percentage points!  This misrepresentation may have been intended to demoralize Conservative voters, leading them to believe they had no chance.

The low voter turnout of around 52-59% suggests that many Conservative supporters might have been dissuaded from voting due to these skewed polls. It is crucial to address this manipulation by pollsters to ensure fair and transparent elections in the future.

Fun times indeed lie ahead as we navigate these challenges.

Recht

Woke for this month of May - Ridiculous Adverts

Just when you thought the advertising in the Western World, and particularly here in the UK, could not get worse; it does!

Here's my faves for this past month of May:

Park Run – A Saturday fun run, up and down the UK; and naturally ALL the volunteers are black, Muslim women!?

Flash cleaner – Correct; only middle-age Black men clean the house!  What?

Language Application Busuu – That’s right, all mathematics teachers are young, black men!?

And something truly preposterous, the only children in Glasgow, Scotland, are BME!  Really?

From the University of West London, only male, black has-beens, will ever attend yoonis in this awful country or ours!

According to Google’s advert, on the CBS sports website, all the entrepreneurs using Google, are young, black females!

And finally, according to the GlasgowLive website, and ScotRail, mixed race couples are always on trains, enjoying the delight of them. 

Again, ain’t no room for cracker male (Public Enemy #1)!

How ridiculously insulting.

Recht