LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Who watched the Speech?

Politruk said:
DEI is not institutionalized discrimination against whites. Neither was affirmative action.
Click to expand...
Way too late for facts, friend. When Bobo the Welfare Cheat internalizes something, it's over.
He'll posit "2+2=5!" from now until the heat death of the universe.
...and if you don't agree with him you're a 'Fascist' or a 'Communist'....sometimes both.
 
RobDownSouth said:
Way too late for facts, friend. When Bobo the Welfare Cheat internalizes something, it's over.
He'll posit "2+2=5!" from now until the heat death of the universe.
...and if you don't agree with him you're a 'Fascist' or a 'Communist'....sometimes both.
Click to expand...

Rob on another delusional schizophrenic meltdown LOL
 
Trump's racism is also manifest in his anti-immigrant feeling. He wouldn't mind, if the immigrants were Canadian -- and that is not because Canadians speak English.
 
Trump had so many bright spots but the best was when he pointed to the D party while he was talking about taking down the human traffickers. It was classic and if you look at all of their faces as he ponted.....can anyone say scared shitless? 1000002556.jpgDoes he have a plan? I guess we will all find out. In the meantime, let's all enjoy March Madness. I know who I'm picking to win it all! Enjoy the games!🏀🍿🏀🍿
 
KingDJT said:
Trump had so many bright spots but the best was when he pointed to the D party while he was talking about taking down the human traffickers. It was classic and if you look at all of their faces as he ponted.....can anyone say scared shitless?
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: That shit again?!
 
Last edited:
In Responding to Trump’s Speech, Democrats Tacked Right

During parts of his address to a joint session of Congress last night, Donald Trump sounded like a comic book villain. Referencing the assassination attempt he survived last summer, he said that he believed he’d been “saved by God” in order to inaugurate a new “golden age.” He said the United States needs Greenland for its national security and that “we’ll get it one way or the other.” He directed a number of schoolyard taunts at the opposition party, including referring to a sitting US senator (Elizabeth Warren) as “Pocahontas” to her face. Meanwhile, his supporters frequently interrupted even mundane utterances with boisterous applause and chants of “USA! USA!”
Early in the speech, Trump claimed that last November’s election “was an electoral mandate such as has not been seen in many decades” and that he had “won the popular vote by big numbers.” In reality, Trump won a plurality rather than an absolute majority of the popular vote, and in both absolute and proportional terms his margin of victory was much narrower than Biden’s had been four years earlier. In response, Texas congressman Al Green stood up and shouted, “You have no mandate to cut Medicaid!” He was dramatically ejected by the sergeant at arms amid more shouts of “USA! USA!”
Green’s impulse to emphasize that Trump is an unpopular president pursuing destructive and deeply unpopular economic policies made sense. It’s far more challenging to understand the official Democratic response, delivered by my former congresswoman (and now Michigan’s junior senator) Elissa Slotkin.
The choice to have Slotkin deliver the response is itself deeply revealing. Putting a former CIA agent and a notorious national security hawk forward as the party’s representative is hard not to read as the Democrats doubling down on the same disastrous strategy that led Kamala Harris to spend much of last year trumpeting the support of Dick and Liz Cheney for her campaign as Trump was getting points with swing voters for allegedly being “antiwar.”
Slotkin included some half-hearted stabs at economic populism, but that part was fairly muted. Other parts of her speech were catastrophically bad. At the low point of the response, she said:
[Trump] believes in cozying up to dictators like Vladimir Putin and kicking our friends like the Canadians in the teeth. . . . As a Cold War kid, I’m thankful it was Reagan and not Trump in office in the 1980s. Trump would have lost us the Cold War. Donald Trump’s actions suggest that, in his heart, he doesn’t believe we’re an exceptional nation. He clearly doesn’t think we should lead the world.
Click to expand...
It would be difficult to imagine a worse message either in strategic terms or on its merits. Ronald Reagan was, by any sane reckoning, a poisonous figure. He illegally armed contra death squads in Nicaragua and bloodthirsty Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan. He invaded Grenada for the crime of building an airport. On the home front, he crushed labor unions and demonized “welfare queens” to further his austerity agenda. He presided over the “Greed Is Good” era of Wall Street hedonism. American politics is still deeply disfigured by his legacy.

And Trump has massively benefited from the widespread belief that he’s a different kind of Republican, one who wouldn’t cater to Wall Street or start bloody wars to assert America’s right to “lead the world.” It’s impossible to understand the Trump phenomenon without understanding the profound backlash, even among Republican voters, against George W. Bush’s seemingly endless wars in the Middle East (which were continued by Barack Obama). After years of working-class Americans coming home in flag-draped coffins, Trump benefited precisely from the impression that he didn’t believe America has some special mystical destiny to “lead the world.”

What the Democrats Should Have Said​

Abetter response to Trump’s address would have been to point out that the political substance of what he was offering was little more than warmed-over Reaganism. His tariffs can be seen as a rejection of free-trade orthodoxy (although even Reagan was far more protectionist than people today often remember). But the domestic economic vision outlined in his speech sounded like a demented remix of something out of an ’80s Reagan speech — or for that matter a Newt Gingrich speech from the “Contract with America” years or a Paul Ryan speech at the height of the Tea Party.
Trump repeated a long-debunked lie about Social Security benefits continuing to be paid out to recipients who are long dead and made a series of bizarre claims about government waste (at one point, he claimed that several million dollars had been spent on “making mice transgender”). Just as Reagan’s lurid stories about the supposedly lavish spending of “welfare queens” were designed to justify rollbacks of social services, Trump’s unfounded claims about 160-year-olds being fraudulently listed on the Social Security rolls can’t be separated from his agenda of imposing some degree of austerity even on this most sacrosanct program. This isn’t mere speculation: the Trump administration has already been making administrative cutbacks in the Social Security Administration that could hamper its ability to function.
In other parts of the speech, Trump enthusiastically promoted a new round of tax cuts for the rich and lavishly praised oligarch and virtual copresident Elon Musk’s slash-and-burn attacks on the regulatory and welfare states. In a bizarre elevation of his subordinate, Trump even encouraged the assembled Republican congressmen and senators to turn around to direct a standing ovation to Musk. No nineteenth-century robber baron could have dreamed of exercising as much direct and undisguised personal power over the federal government as Musk, the richest human to have ever lived, exercises in the Trump administration.
In foreign affairs, Trump laid out an agenda that made Reagan look like a pacifist. It’s hard to know how to parse the claim that we’ll “get” Greenland “one way or the other” except as a threat of military force against Denmark. He also claimed without evidence that Panama had violated the treaty by which the United States had returned the Panama Canal and promised that the canal would return to American hands. Decades after the handover, that could only be accomplished by reinvading that country.
Trump also gloated about having officially designated the Mexican drug cartels as “foreign terrorist organizations.” This means, he said, that they’re now “officially in the same category as ISIS,” which won’t be “good for them.” What could that mean if not that drone strikes (or even more intense forms of military intervention in Mexico) are on the table? As with US drone strikes in countries like Pakistan and Yemen, it’s an absolute certainty that the majority of deaths in any drone offensive would be Mexican civilians. As Kurt Hackbarth and José Luis Granados Ceja pointed out in the most recent episode of their Mexican politics podcast Soberanía, it’s hard to overstate how catastrophic this would be, not only in terms of escalation between the United States and Mexico (and the immediate human consequences in Mexico) but also because of the certainty that this would bring cartel violence into the heart of American cities.
Unsurprisingly, given the sheer number of possible new interventions he was floating, he called for beefing up the military and our “defense-industrial base” and building a giant missile defense shield over the United States. This last item was, as Trump himself mentioned, a failed project of the Reagan administration. But, Trump assured us, the technology “wasn’t there” in the 1980s. It is now, he said, and we should go for it.
Just about the only bright spot in all of this is that he didn’t bring up his recently unveiled plan to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from Gaza, level all the buildings there, and transfer it to “long-term” American “ownership” so we can remake the world’s bloodiest conflict zone as “the Riviera of the Middle East.”
The response to all this from Democrats could have been to denounce Trump as Reagan’s successor in all the worst possible ways — as an enemy of the American working class and a profoundly dangerous hawk. And that’s exactly what the response would have been if we had an opposition party that was worth a damn.
 
DeluxAuto said:
Most of those who watched are MAGATs which means only 76% of his built-in base approve of his incoherent rambling.
Click to expand...
Keep it and when the midterms roll in half the dims will be gone. You dumb fuckers just dont get it at every issue. Your only issue is you hate Trump, how did that work for Joetator?
 
Politruk said:
In Responding to Trump’s Speech, Democrats Tacked Right

During parts of his address to a joint session of Congress last night, Donald Trump sounded like a comic book villain. Referencing the assassination attempt he survived last summer, he said that he believed he’d been “saved by God” in order to inaugurate a new “golden age.” He said the United States needs Greenland for its national security and that “we’ll get it one way or the other.” He directed a number of schoolyard taunts at the opposition party, including referring to a sitting US senator (Elizabeth Warren) as “Pocahontas” to her face. Meanwhile, his supporters frequently interrupted even mundane utterances with boisterous applause and chants of “USA! USA!”
Early in the speech, Trump claimed that last November’s election “was an electoral mandate such as has not been seen in many decades” and that he had “won the popular vote by big numbers.” In reality, Trump won a plurality rather than an absolute majority of the popular vote, and in both absolute and proportional terms his margin of victory was much narrower than Biden’s had been four years earlier. In response, Texas congressman Al Green stood up and shouted, “You have no mandate to cut Medicaid!” He was dramatically ejected by the sergeant at arms amid more shouts of “USA! USA!”
Green’s impulse to emphasize that Trump is an unpopular president pursuing destructive and deeply unpopular economic policies made sense. It’s far more challenging to understand the official Democratic response, delivered by my former congresswoman (and now Michigan’s junior senator) Elissa Slotkin.
The choice to have Slotkin deliver the response is itself deeply revealing. Putting a former CIA agent and a notorious national security hawk forward as the party’s representative is hard not to read as the Democrats doubling down on the same disastrous strategy that led Kamala Harris to spend much of last year trumpeting the support of Dick and Liz Cheney for her campaign as Trump was getting points with swing voters for allegedly being “antiwar.”
Slotkin included some half-hearted stabs at economic populism, but that part was fairly muted. Other parts of her speech were catastrophically bad. At the low point of the response, she said:

It would be difficult to imagine a worse message either in strategic terms or on its merits. Ronald Reagan was, by any sane reckoning, a poisonous figure. He illegally armed contra death squads in Nicaragua and bloodthirsty Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan. He invaded Grenada for the crime of building an airport. On the home front, he crushed labor unions and demonized “welfare queens” to further his austerity agenda. He presided over the “Greed Is Good” era of Wall Street hedonism. American politics is still deeply disfigured by his legacy.

And Trump has massively benefited from the widespread belief that he’s a different kind of Republican, one who wouldn’t cater to Wall Street or start bloody wars to assert America’s right to “lead the world.” It’s impossible to understand the Trump phenomenon without understanding the profound backlash, even among Republican voters, against George W. Bush’s seemingly endless wars in the Middle East (which were continued by Barack Obama). After years of working-class Americans coming home in flag-draped coffins, Trump benefited precisely from the impression that he didn’t believe America has some special mystical destiny to “lead the world.”

What the Democrats Should Have Said​

Abetter response to Trump’s address would have been to point out that the political substance of what he was offering was little more than warmed-over Reaganism. His tariffs can be seen as a rejection of free-trade orthodoxy (although even Reagan was far more protectionist than people today often remember). But the domestic economic vision outlined in his speech sounded like a demented remix of something out of an ’80s Reagan speech — or for that matter a Newt Gingrich speech from the “Contract with America” years or a Paul Ryan speech at the height of the Tea Party.
Trump repeated a long-debunked lie about Social Security benefits continuing to be paid out to recipients who are long dead and made a series of bizarre claims about government waste (at one point, he claimed that several million dollars had been spent on “making mice transgender”). Just as Reagan’s lurid stories about the supposedly lavish spending of “welfare queens” were designed to justify rollbacks of social services, Trump’s unfounded claims about 160-year-olds being fraudulently listed on the Social Security rolls can’t be separated from his agenda of imposing some degree of austerity even on this most sacrosanct program. This isn’t mere speculation: the Trump administration has already been making administrative cutbacks in the Social Security Administration that could hamper its ability to function.
In other parts of the speech, Trump enthusiastically promoted a new round of tax cuts for the rich and lavishly praised oligarch and virtual copresident Elon Musk’s slash-and-burn attacks on the regulatory and welfare states. In a bizarre elevation of his subordinate, Trump even encouraged the assembled Republican congressmen and senators to turn around to direct a standing ovation to Musk. No nineteenth-century robber baron could have dreamed of exercising as much direct and undisguised personal power over the federal government as Musk, the richest human to have ever lived, exercises in the Trump administration.
In foreign affairs, Trump laid out an agenda that made Reagan look like a pacifist. It’s hard to know how to parse the claim that we’ll “get” Greenland “one way or the other” except as a threat of military force against Denmark. He also claimed without evidence that Panama had violated the treaty by which the United States had returned the Panama Canal and promised that the canal would return to American hands. Decades after the handover, that could only be accomplished by reinvading that country.
Trump also gloated about having officially designated the Mexican drug cartels as “foreign terrorist organizations.” This means, he said, that they’re now “officially in the same category as ISIS,” which won’t be “good for them.” What could that mean if not that drone strikes (or even more intense forms of military intervention in Mexico) are on the table? As with US drone strikes in countries like Pakistan and Yemen, it’s an absolute certainty that the majority of deaths in any drone offensive would be Mexican civilians. As Kurt Hackbarth and José Luis Granados Ceja pointed out in the most recent episode of their Mexican politics podcast Soberanía, it’s hard to overstate how catastrophic this would be, not only in terms of escalation between the United States and Mexico (and the immediate human consequences in Mexico) but also because of the certainty that this would bring cartel violence into the heart of American cities.
Unsurprisingly, given the sheer number of possible new interventions he was floating, he called for beefing up the military and our “defense-industrial base” and building a giant missile defense shield over the United States. This last item was, as Trump himself mentioned, a failed project of the Reagan administration. But, Trump assured us, the technology “wasn’t there” in the 1980s. It is now, he said, and we should go for it.
Just about the only bright spot in all of this is that he didn’t bring up his recently unveiled plan to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from Gaza, level all the buildings there, and transfer it to “long-term” American “ownership” so we can remake the world’s bloodiest conflict zone as “the Riviera of the Middle East.”
The response to all this from Democrats could have been to denounce Trump as Reagan’s successor in all the worst possible ways — as an enemy of the American working class and a profoundly dangerous hawk. And that’s exactly what the response would have been if we had an opposition party that was worth a damn.
Click to expand...
LOL my 8 yo knows how to cut and paste
 
rainsol said:
Keep it and when the midterms roll in half the dims will be gone.
Click to expand...
In the 2026 midterms, there will be such a blue wave as we haven't seen since FDR! Dem candidates will only have to say, "Give us the power to stop Trump!" And that alone will be enough to win, in the reddest states and districts!
rainsol said:
Joetator
Click to expand...
You are an idiot.
 
Last edited:
KingDJT said:
Trump had so many bright spots but the best was when he pointed to the D party while he was talking about taking down the human traffickers. It was classic and if you look at all of their faces as he ponted.....can anyone say scared shitless? View attachment 2507478Does he have a plan? I guess we will all find out. In the meantime, let's all enjoy March Madness. I know who I'm picking to win it all! Enjoy the games!🏀🍿🏀🍿
Click to expand...
Nice try but he’s pointing to the Repub side of the chamber. You know, the spineless ones.
 
Politruk said:
Trump's racism is also manifest in his anti-immigrant feeling.
Click to expand...

But he's not anti-immigrant.

He's anti ILLEGAL immigrant. So no.

Politruk said:
He wouldn't mind, if the immigrants were Canadian -- and that is not because Canadians speak English.
Click to expand...

You're just engaging in ascription because you can't actually support your lies.

Politruk said:
Only an authoritarian executive -- like that shitbag proto-Nazi Andrew Jackson -- would disregard a court order or decision.
Click to expand...

Nope. Because Courts aren't in charge of POTUS .....CONGRESS is.

It's like you and the rest of the Democrats never made it past 3rd grade.

Politruk said:
In the 2026 midterms, there will be such a blue wave as we haven't seen since FDR!
Click to expand...

LMFAO!!! yea.......better hope all those FUCKING WHITE PEOPLE and god damn men come back to support you.
 
RobDownSouth said:
This site could make a lot of money if they sold Jingo Lingo Bingo cards each time Welfare Fraud Chad had one of his trademark meltdowns.

In this thread alone, we've seen:
  • Nuh uh Nuh Uh NUH UH!
  • But but dictionary say!
  • Ascription!
  • White people ONLY victim of racism!
  • But but WOKE!
  • But but DEI !
  • Authoritarianism!
  • Nationalism GOOD!
No references to 'Open Borders' or "Orange Man HITLER lololol' yet but its still early.
Click to expand...
The Democrats are lost. It was a pitiful sight to behold, dead-eyed Nancy chewing her cud with a death grip on her cane, Al Green waving his own like a mad prophet, looking like a crazed homeless man in a stolen suit, and the pink clown force of performative outrage screeching on cue. The so-called "Resistance" looked more like a dazed ping-pong team, lobbing the same tired talking points back and forth, missing every shot. They huddled together, unified only by their shared confusion and a desperate need for relevance, flailing like wind-up dolls running out of batteries. It wasn’t a party, it was a political nursing home talent show.
 
Politruk said:
In Responding to Trump’s Speech, Democrats Tacked Right

During parts of his address to a joint session of Congress last night, Donald Trump sounded like a comic book villain. Referencing the assassination attempt he survived last summer, he said that he believed he’d been “saved by God” in order to inaugurate a new “golden age.” He said the United States needs Greenland for its national security and that “we’ll get it one way or the other.” He directed a number of schoolyard taunts at the opposition party, including referring to a sitting US senator (Elizabeth Warren) as “Pocahontas” to her face. Meanwhile, his supporters frequently interrupted even mundane utterances with boisterous applause and chants of “USA! USA!”
Early in the speech, Trump claimed that last November’s election “was an electoral mandate such as has not been seen in many decades” and that he had “won the popular vote by big numbers.” In reality, Trump won a plurality rather than an absolute majority of the popular vote, and in both absolute and proportional terms his margin of victory was much narrower than Biden’s had been four years earlier. In response, Texas congressman Al Green stood up and shouted, “You have no mandate to cut Medicaid!” He was dramatically ejected by the sergeant at arms amid more shouts of “USA! USA!”
Green’s impulse to emphasize that Trump is an unpopular president pursuing destructive and deeply unpopular economic policies made sense. It’s far more challenging to understand the official Democratic response, delivered by my former congresswoman (and now Michigan’s junior senator) Elissa Slotkin.
The choice to have Slotkin deliver the response is itself deeply revealing. Putting a former CIA agent and a notorious national security hawk forward as the party’s representative is hard not to read as the Democrats doubling down on the same disastrous strategy that led Kamala Harris to spend much of last year trumpeting the support of Dick and Liz Cheney for her campaign as Trump was getting points with swing voters for allegedly being “antiwar.”
Slotkin included some half-hearted stabs at economic populism, but that part was fairly muted. Other parts of her speech were catastrophically bad. At the low point of the response, she said:

It would be difficult to imagine a worse message either in strategic terms or on its merits. Ronald Reagan was, by any sane reckoning, a poisonous figure. He illegally armed contra death squads in Nicaragua and bloodthirsty Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan. He invaded Grenada for the crime of building an airport. On the home front, he crushed labor unions and demonized “welfare queens” to further his austerity agenda. He presided over the “Greed Is Good” era of Wall Street hedonism. American politics is still deeply disfigured by his legacy.

And Trump has massively benefited from the widespread belief that he’s a different kind of Republican, one who wouldn’t cater to Wall Street or start bloody wars to assert America’s right to “lead the world.” It’s impossible to understand the Trump phenomenon without understanding the profound backlash, even among Republican voters, against George W. Bush’s seemingly endless wars in the Middle East (which were continued by Barack Obama). After years of working-class Americans coming home in flag-draped coffins, Trump benefited precisely from the impression that he didn’t believe America has some special mystical destiny to “lead the world.”

What the Democrats Should Have Said​

Abetter response to Trump’s address would have been to point out that the political substance of what he was offering was little more than warmed-over Reaganism. His tariffs can be seen as a rejection of free-trade orthodoxy (although even Reagan was far more protectionist than people today often remember). But the domestic economic vision outlined in his speech sounded like a demented remix of something out of an ’80s Reagan speech — or for that matter a Newt Gingrich speech from the “Contract with America” years or a Paul Ryan speech at the height of the Tea Party.
Trump repeated a long-debunked lie about Social Security benefits continuing to be paid out to recipients who are long dead and made a series of bizarre claims about government waste (at one point, he claimed that several million dollars had been spent on “making mice transgender”). Just as Reagan’s lurid stories about the supposedly lavish spending of “welfare queens” were designed to justify rollbacks of social services, Trump’s unfounded claims about 160-year-olds being fraudulently listed on the Social Security rolls can’t be separated from his agenda of imposing some degree of austerity even on this most sacrosanct program. This isn’t mere speculation: the Trump administration has already been making administrative cutbacks in the Social Security Administration that could hamper its ability to function.
In other parts of the speech, Trump enthusiastically promoted a new round of tax cuts for the rich and lavishly praised oligarch and virtual copresident Elon Musk’s slash-and-burn attacks on the regulatory and welfare states. In a bizarre elevation of his subordinate, Trump even encouraged the assembled Republican congressmen and senators to turn around to direct a standing ovation to Musk. No nineteenth-century robber baron could have dreamed of exercising as much direct and undisguised personal power over the federal government as Musk, the richest human to have ever lived, exercises in the Trump administration.
In foreign affairs, Trump laid out an agenda that made Reagan look like a pacifist. It’s hard to know how to parse the claim that we’ll “get” Greenland “one way or the other” except as a threat of military force against Denmark. He also claimed without evidence that Panama had violated the treaty by which the United States had returned the Panama Canal and promised that the canal would return to American hands. Decades after the handover, that could only be accomplished by reinvading that country.
Trump also gloated about having officially designated the Mexican drug cartels as “foreign terrorist organizations.” This means, he said, that they’re now “officially in the same category as ISIS,” which won’t be “good for them.” What could that mean if not that drone strikes (or even more intense forms of military intervention in Mexico) are on the table? As with US drone strikes in countries like Pakistan and Yemen, it’s an absolute certainty that the majority of deaths in any drone offensive would be Mexican civilians. As Kurt Hackbarth and José Luis Granados Ceja pointed out in the most recent episode of their Mexican politics podcast Soberanía, it’s hard to overstate how catastrophic this would be, not only in terms of escalation between the United States and Mexico (and the immediate human consequences in Mexico) but also because of the certainty that this would bring cartel violence into the heart of American cities.
Unsurprisingly, given the sheer number of possible new interventions he was floating, he called for beefing up the military and our “defense-industrial base” and building a giant missile defense shield over the United States. This last item was, as Trump himself mentioned, a failed project of the Reagan administration. But, Trump assured us, the technology “wasn’t there” in the 1980s. It is now, he said, and we should go for it.
Just about the only bright spot in all of this is that he didn’t bring up his recently unveiled plan to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from Gaza, level all the buildings there, and transfer it to “long-term” American “ownership” so we can remake the world’s bloodiest conflict zone as “the Riviera of the Middle East.”
The response to all this from Democrats could have been to denounce Trump as Reagan’s successor in all the worst possible ways — as an enemy of the American working class and a profoundly dangerous hawk. And that’s exactly what the response would have been if we had an opposition party that was worth a damn.
Click to expand...
The Democrats never should have listened to people like you—that’s exactly why they fail every time they try to assert a heckler’s veto. They are driven by hatred, not principle, and they have abandoned every core American value in favor of divisive, authoritarian tactics. They are completely out of step with this nation, functioning less like a political party and more like a foreign-backed insurgency, obsessed with tearing America down from within. Every policy they push, every law they pass, every narrative they spin is designed to weaken this country, divide its people, and dismantle its foundations.

And Americans see it. That’s why, despite the media’s best efforts to gaslight the nation, even the emotionally dead suits at CBS had to admit the truth, a 74% approval rating for Trump’s speech. No amount of spin, censorship, or screeching from the usual suspects could change reality: the American people are waking up, and they’re rejecting the failed, anti-American agenda of the Democratic Party.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1897158639590535663
 
Last edited:
Rightguide said:
They are completely out of step with this nation, functioning less like a political party and more like a foreign-backed insurgency, obsessed with tearing America down from within. Every policy they push, every law they pass, every narrative they spin is designed to weaken this country, divide its people, and dismantle its foundations.
Click to expand...

They aren't called the "America LAST" party for no reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rightguide
Al Green And AOC Both Shot Down By Their Own Party
Replies
20
Views
362
YDB95
YDB95
Rightguide
Why Does Jerry Nadler Stink To High Heaven?
Replies
13
Views
190
Fuzzy1975
F
butters
mace introduces bill aimed at keeping transgender member out of the ladies' bathroom
19 20 21
Replies
513
Views
8K
Politruk
P
Rightguide
The Battle Of Defectors
2
Replies
27
Views
706
Chernosoth
Chernosoth
P
Adam Kinzinger -- "The Last Republican"
Replies
22
Views
828
PaxNurgle
P
Back
Top