As you can probably tell, in Trump world "communism" is just another way to say "government policies I don't like". It has nothing to do with actual communism.
This is who the media is trying to sell to me as the best candidate?
- Thread starter SavedByBlood
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
What a silly question for one who lives in a "relatively" free country.
So here's the reason why Communism should have been banned in the USA after WWII. Communism is actually TYRANNY by a small elite over the general population. American patriots in the 18th century shed their blood and gave their lives to stop the establishment of British tyranny in the colonies. Thus the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution with liberty and justice for all.
But if you prefer tyranny then you should actually move to Cuba, or Venezuela, or Brazil, or China. Why are American Communists not moving to Communist countries? Because they want to establish tyranny in the USA.
Because the courts (including SCOTUS) refused to examine the actual evidence. Bill Barr refused to examine the actual evidence. They were all afraid that MASSIVE ELECTION FRAUD would be exposed, and the "election" overturned.
Why don't you check this out before talking nonsense? It was all in the news from conservative news sources, not the lying MSM.
Oh, okay. Which case did Trump's team submit evidence of voter fraud or other shenanigans and the court refused to even look at it?
Actually I have, but I may have overlooked something, so I'm very interested in what info you can provide me.
Thanks in advance.
T
Tamarisk
Guest
But we are not a communist government. Are you saying that Americans with ideals you feel are communist should be deported?
Not quite yet maybe.
But the Bolsheviks/Marxists/Maoists burrowed deeply into the rump of the Democratic party are sure laboring strenuously to that end.
Same goes for their BLM/Antifa brown shirt army.
"Similarly, on Dec. 12, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a long-shot lawsuit by the state of Texas and backed by Trump, which sought to throw out voting results in four states ( here ). In a brief order, the justices said Texas did not have legal standing to bring the case." -- Reuters. It was not just Texas either. "17 states and Trump join Texas' lawsuit. It's still a doomed Supreme Court stunt." -- NBC News.
The solemn duty of the Supreme Court was to examine the actual evidence. "2000 Mules" is just one example, but there was a lot of other evidence including what was done with the voting machines. However, the case was not organized properly and documented properly in detail (with the actual videos showing fraud) and that should have been a top priority for Trump and all those states. They all could have worked on this jointly to make a solid case, and if SCOTUS refused to examine that, they could have been published the full report for all to see. That would have embarressed SCOTUS.
The Supreme Court could have easily set up an independent commission to thoroughly investigate what happened. And the evidence would have proved the reality. If there was no evidence that too would have been reported. But for SCOTUS to claim that states had "no standing" was completely bogus, and they knew it.
Sez who? Have you not been following any news? When a government weaponizes itself against political opponents, that is raw Communism. That is what Stalin did. He set up gulags and so did the Biden government. All the "lawfare" against Trump was the same thing. So why don't you start dealing with reality? Shutting down and censoring free speech is another Communist strategy. And it happened under Biden.
But in that case, they made no claims of voter fraud or shenanigans regarding vote counts, etc.
Their argument was that other states shouldn't have been allowed to change how they conduct their elections (in response to the pandemic). The SCOTUS ruled that states don't have a say in how other states conduct their elections.
But again, they did not make any claims of voter fraud in that case.
So we're back to my original question. In what case did the Trump team submit evidence of fraud and/or other shenanigans, but the court refused to even look at it?
What would you expect?
She is a post turtle useful idiot DEI hire washout who is an alcoholic floozie with entirely Marxist proclivities.
And ultimately a puppet just like Biden is.
Intelligence and cunning is neither necessary nor desirable as far as her handlers are concerned.
What is your disproof/refutation of this claim? Its up to you to convince me otherwise bub.
And good luck trying. I must have several terabytes of proof and evidence locked away in my frontal lobes.
T
Tamarisk
Guest
I know you believe he was not guilty but let’s just say he was guilty. Wouldn’t the conviction be exactly what you would want to happen to him if he was indeed guilty?
First, that has nothing to do with communism.
Second, what if the "political opponent" committed crimes? Are they immune from accountability?
No you are not. Not really.
Because if you actually WERE interested, you would already have reached the same conclusion as I have.
T
Tamarisk
Guest
I’m just trying to see things from your point of view. It doesn’t mean I have to believe the same as you. However if we understand one another’s position better it can help us communicate and understand one another.
We are both Americans and it’s Beneficial for both of us to be on good terms politically.
