Maga is so quick to rewrite history that they forget the hype doesn’t withstand their constant reality check.

Voting only on Election Day. Paper ballots, no electronic voting machines.
Worked for decades and usually had the actual results by next day

There is no solution as long as anybody with a pulse is allowed to vote

So who should decide who represents us if not people with pulses? The dead? The unborn? Children? generally, speaking these people do not vote.

I never said it was going to change, just that the general voter is not able to understand the consequences of their actions

So the pos was a political crook for 45 years and no one saw it coming…

The electorate is full of dumbasses

Don’t you mean the popular vote?

The electoral vote is thankfully what at least levels the playing field for whom can win a presidential election and can at least give the Republicans a fighting chance. Even Trump.

Remember, it is because we’re a republic that we don’t have democratic presidential elections and I’m not so keen on changing that any time soon. For someone who thinks not all votes should count equally, you should take at least some comfort in that.

I can at least agree that all votes should count equally but if the general public was as nuanced about elections and their choices; I would be more supportive of that idea. Our votes should count equally but we don’t all equally care about whom we vote for.

I think the bigger issue is the party conventions, the wasted money in PACs and Super PACs, etc.

I more than understand that we are a capitalist society, and generally speaking we should stay that way, but I think most people, including MAGA, also agree that money shouldn’t be a huge factor in how we determine who is qualified to represent our country. And that doing so only increases the corruption that is being lamented by those severely concerned by it.

Most people on the right say we need term limits and most of the left says we need to eliminate the electoral vote. And while those might help, as long as money decides who can be our candidates; these changes won’t prevent the corruption. And if we chose candidates that the public actually cared about, and wanted, and were qualified only by their ability to govern successfully… then maybe we wouldn’t need the electorate.

But it all just sounds too good to be true. I’m not so sure the public will ever be mature enough to select their own representatives given the state of politics. Not just from Maga, but any person who treats politics and political parties as if they were a sport team.

And yes, I think we shouldn’t even have a party system. Not a multiparty or a uniparty; or this half-assed bi party system we currently have. A no party system where all candidates were independent.

But even that is a pipe dream.

It appears to be human nature to form groups and oppositional groups.

You’re funny

Evidence not allowed to be entered into the courts

No, it’s a fact. Google it.

TDS confirmed

When the options are narrowed down to two:

WEF Democrat
or
WEF Republican

The winner is advancing the WEF Globalist Agenda every time.

So, if I don’t vote for Donald Trump in the primaries then, I’m supporting WEF and I can’t be voting for any other candidate for any number of other reasons?

Are you so sure that I’m the one that’s deranged?

EVERY candidate is WEF
and has been for quite some time.

Well, if every candidate is WEF, I guess that includes Trump so…

What’s your point then?

Who Knew?
The Woke Can Awaken.
Carry On Mate.

I doubt the left would describe me as woke. Fanatics on the right might. To them, anyone not complaining about what they were told to complain about is on the left.

Incorrect as usual, PUwU.

Sanders voters filed a lawsuit against the DNC for rigging the primary against Bernie... They wanted their donation money back... LOL

I did and so did half the country, Skeezeeks.

Just like you got over it when he won in ‘16?

Are you still trying to claim she was a martyr? An innocent civilian.

Yeah, no sane person is going to buy that when looking at the facts.

To compare her to revolutionaries is as absurd as to compare Confederates to revolutionaries. To claim she is a victim is absurd as claiming British Loyalists were victims of the American Revolution.

She is not Paul Revere.

She is Benedict Arnold.

Good to know.

To Avian-Aves and his cohorts with shoes that have stepped in something,

CRISPUS ATTUCKS was a "Domestic Terrorist"

*Allegedly

Are you just putting our responses in ChatGPT and then copy/pasting what it vomits up?

Not an insult.

A serious question.

Crispus Attucks is to Ashli Babbitt,
what armed with Rocks & sticks is to unarmed

To you, killing her is justified. Most already can gather that.
Shame shame shame. The action of killing an unarmed woman is shameful. Period.

You've already stated that she stuck her head through an opening she did not create.

Also, were there others that entered that space and other 'restricted spaces' that were not killed?

Like the guy with his feet up on Pelosi's desk. Was that not restricted space?

Why shoot her and not him?

If what you state is correct, then it ought to apply to all, not selectively just Ashli.

One Imagines it appears as if someone might consider CRISPUS ATTUCKS
A DOMESTIC TERRORIST
and might just accuse Paul Revere of Propaganda with his illustration of events in Boston.

Here is where we concur:
The unarmed mob did not pose the same danger while unarmed, as the armed officer willing to use his weapon.
Certainly, Ashli did not pose an equal danger while unarmed to her armed killer.

"...made the right choice. Stopping her from hurting people."
Really? Hurting people with what?
A tongue lashing with her words, or giving them water?

One presumes some think she was gonna go all Chuck Norris, or Rhonda Rousey, and start an MMA cage match on the floor of the house of representatives. What folly.

If she were a U.S. Marine, maybe, but an Air Force Gate Security Guard?
Certainly, that Lethal Force Threat of her imaginary fighting skills deserved the bullet she took to some peoples way of thinking. One imagines that as pitiful, and to some even vile.

Ashli might have killed them with kindness, had she been allowed to enter the room.

* Always remember:
The act of killing an unarmed woman is shameful under any circumstance. Period.

"The fact that she was trying to forcefully break into a restricted area"
Not sure which video one watched, yet never saw her forcefully break anything. Maybe the water bottle she opened the lid to was "forcefully breaking it open" to offer a drink to quench the thirst of a stranger next to her. Placing ones head through an opening in a window forcefully broken by a few other people, is not exactly applying that force herself.

"presumably with the intention of harming."
"...most likely to hurt people."
Because Ashli was next to agitated men giving them water out of her backpack, one presumably assumes her intention was to provide aid and comfort for the disgruntled strangers near her.

One presumes that by that expressed line of reason in presuming, Mary Magdalen ought have been run through with a sword by The Romans while providing water for the tried and convicted criminal during His crucifixion.

"I assume you haven't seen the video" because there is only one correct interpretation and many get bent out of shape when it is not aligned with their assuming narrative.

"You're confusing (and intentionally so) unarmed with not posing a danger to people"

How about when one compares and contrasts armed vs. unarmed people.
Please elaborate upon the ability to" pose a danger" by each.
Ashli Babbitt = unarmed
Mike Byrd = armed

Seems like Mike posed more of a danger to Ashli, than she did him.
"...the rest were given the wake up call they needed."
...if they were armed insurrectionists, then that point would be moot.

Not just to him. To anyone who believes in law and order and knows the context of her actions and why they had such lethal justifications.

We live in a country with several assassination attempts on our representatives and no one can describe the entire mob as completely peaceful.

Why Maga rally behind a known antifa obama supporter is anyone’s guess. The fact is her death saved many lives that day. Not the representatives but those in the mob that needed a wake up call to the potential immediate consequences of their actions.

You would say the same thing against any rioting BLM with intent of harm. I certainly would. While, yes, the fact she was unarmed is concerning, no one can credibly call her actions peaceful or justified without obscuring or denying facts.

Why not shoot Richard Barnett for sitting in Pelosi's office?

Because news photographers usually shoot pictures, not the subject in them posing for them.

Either that or:
Air Force Veteran Honorably Discharged,
attempting to redress her grievance with her elected official in person.

An Unarmed Woman killed on public property, charged, tried, convicted, and executed
without trial nor a jury of her peers.
...while the site was in the process of conducting public business. She posed no threat.

When one stoops to labeling a complainer as a 'Domestic Terrorist' to justify and advocate for the State Killing of their neighbors, one is no better than Mussolini, Lenin, Castro, or Stalin adherents.

Yup... the cowardly cop murdered an unarmed woman... no warning shot... a not by the book shooting according to his colleagues... no customary shooting hearing... it was a whitewash... along with the Jan6 kangaroo committee's refusal to hear eyewitness accounts of the shooting...

TDS confirmed in the Avian-Aviary terrarium

So warm in here

While she was alseep in bed and they busted in with a warrant for someone else who wasn't there because he didn't live there?

oh, wait,,,

So much for law and order. Guess we should disarm all cops, huh?

No, don't do that. You do not honor her memory by making a farce out of what she was doing.
We know nothing about her intent other than her entering a restricted area, but pretty sure it wasn't to have a face to face discussion regarding some grievance with her rep.

Brilliant Observation and assumption !!!

Is there anything more to add?

ASS
U
me

Party affiliation is immaterial

Climbing a barricade while an angry mob breaks off from what could be considered a peaceful protest is not how someone addresses their elected officials.

No one is shooting complainers.

Rioters is another story threatening to kill people is another story.

Great line of questioning.

What is it about an unarmed woman in public, that threatens anyone to the point of using
lethal force?

If a person is a hero for killing Ashli Babbitt, then we no longer possess a free society

Shame is a recurring fate that haunts.

Her death is not justifiable, no matter how fervently one tries to explain with words that only fall upon deaf ears.

Ashli's life was apparently vibrant, loving, and caring.

It is shameful she is no longer living her life. She did not commit suicide.
She appears to have intended to live as a free citizen, and desired to redress her grievances

Some people at times are very quick to assume several dreams in flights of fancy.

& to the likes of apparently very brilliant minds with minimal feelings of empathy,
doing something illegal and in a stupid way is worthy of capital punishment on site.

Always remember that even Mary Surrat had her day in court.

Ashli Babbitt is no Mary Surrat

TDS confirmed

When the options are narrowed down to two:

WEF Democrat
or
WEF Republican

The winner is advancing the WEF Globalist Agenda every time.

Oh please. You don’t even know what WEF is, care about it, let alone even care to vote. Screaming about your ignorance and then turning around and complaining about being powerless with zero solutions is hardly something worthy to actually contribute to politics. You can critics WEF all you like, but I doubt you even know the implications other than WEF bad.

Brilliant !!!
Is there anything more to add?

I fail to see how pointing out every candidate who supports WEF makes it unreasonable to vote for them.

I understand not supporting WEF but there are other issues at play here.

It seems to me the point is rather insidious. Promoting non-viable candidates who might not support WEF are probably non-viable candidates and thus we would be wasting our vote, and risk other serious policy and legislation pass that could’ve been avoided if people actually seriously considered candidates.

While you could argue our votes don’t really matter, I respectfully disagree.

That's the problem.

Many "fail to see" yet do not understand blindness.

The Pied Piper is the Marionette for the Collective Group of The Blind leading the Blind

"Many "fail to see" yet do not understand blindness."

No, thats just an analogy.

I would say the bigger problem is not articulating an argument that might be worth arguing.

People dismissing the importance of candidates is definitely the blind leading the blind but to where, I wonder?

I already said where I believe it leads.

You on the other hand, remain suspiciously silent, my Pied Piper as you twittle away at your flute.

Only I am not following you.

What is so reasonable in voting for a candidate who supports WEF?
What is it that is so appealing with the WEF platform and stated agenda?
What is it that is so likeable about the WEF?

Is it the unelected Antonio Gramsci, or unelected Henry Kissinger, or the unelected Klaus Schwab that is the most important for planning the implementation of this ideology for ALL people, for the sake of 'democracy' ?

What is so insidious to point out the fact that in the 2008-2024 Presidential Elections,
the American Voter has only been given the choice between 2 WEF supporting candidates? Is it insidious to point out that these are not free and fair elections?

Where do you 'believe' that leads?

"You on the other hand, remain suspiciously silent,..."
How is replying directly to your insinuations silent? What is suspicious? The Great Reset?

"I fail to see how pointing out every candidate who supports WEF makes it unreasonable to vote for them."

"...that's just an analogy" One that addresses directly "fail to see"

Which PUTIN, and/or which TRUMP will you appreciate following as participator in
The WEF?

Will you enjoy the ReSkilling Revolution of Jobs by Ivanka Trump, the orange mans daughter as the leader at WEF on this topic...???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlpMomsOWxA&t=971s

Or will you enjoy following The Donald and his participation in WEF?

https://www.youtube.com/live/UT7GlaDc060?si=I2piicK4pPNh-nIQ&t=398

Or both?

Or will it be The Marxist/Leninist Soviet Style Globalist STRUGGLE of Yuval Harari,
of being a part of "THE USELESS CLASS Caste System" which he describes and is planning for, that you'll appreciate most?

https://youtu.be/eOsKFOrW5h8?si=hIEbRUGz9j0oGbkO&t=429

Or will you "remain suspiciously silent" under individual and group surveillance?

I answered your questions already. But I’ll happily remind you.

I understand your concern for the World Economic Forum. It’s reasonable to be wary of it. It unreasonable to utilize it as a mere excuse to find democracy futile.

If all candidates support WEF then it doesn’t factor in my vote for them. Other things will just have to factor. Mostly policy, and not just their policy on WEF.

You appear, but do not say, what the solution is so I assume it’s not to participate in elections.

For all I know, your solution is to kill them. I suppose that may be your point but surely you’re not baiting me to put words in your mouth.

Now that I’ve answered a bulk of your question, do me a courteously and answer some of mine.

How does not voting prevent your WEF boogieman?

Do you even know what WEF is and why it’s bad?

What are your solutions?

By all means, prove me right and keep playing your flute.

Weird reminder
A Soviet Style democracy is futile. A Constitutional Democratic Republic is yours if you can keep it..
The assumptions as little as one knows, are immaterial, irrelevant, radical, and bizarre

Yet, here is your "courteously":

"How does not voting prevent your WEF boogieman?"
The two do not equate.

"Do you even know what WEF is and why it's bad?"
Yes. God Willing.

"What are your solutions?"
-A homogeneous mixture of two or more substances existing in any phase

Mine is not to prove, as the proof is in the unleavened dough

So, ChatGPT it is.

Very well. Stay in your bubble. You will accomplish nothing by refusing to take things seriously while preaching doom and gloom.

So long, farewell, auf wiedersehen, goodbye!

If you say so

Flattery will get you know-where

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ashli-babbitt-january-6-capitol-shooting-wrongful-death-lawsuit/

Uh...Oh...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ashli-babbitt-january-6-capitol-shooting-wrongful-death-lawsuit/

Uh...Oh...