Ok, but can he be any worse than what’s there? He MAY have ties to the security state (which if he believes in the Constitution might be a good thing), but the people running things now are borderline (?) fascist.
Ok, but can he be any worse than what’s there? He MAY have ties to the security state (which if he believes in the Constitution might be a good thing), but the people running things now are borderline (?) fascist.
“He MAY have ties to the security state (which if he believes in the Constitution might be a good thing)”
Because he would dismantle the security state?! lol
Mark, I’m continuing my tradition of not voting because my last residence in the USA was in California, and my vote would be recorded in Californian—a one-party state run by Comintern. It makes Mos Eisley seem like a place of safety and virtue!
Ok, but can he be any worse than what’s there? He MAY have ties to the security state (which if he believes in the Constitution might be a good thing), but the people running things now are borderline (?) fascist.
I have no further comment when you talk about the security state in a positive light.
You may want to re-read what I wrote. I didn’t say anything positive about it, in fact, I said that its leadership is borderline (?) fascist.
I don’t believe that it was a compliment ….
“He MAY have ties to the security state (which if he believes in the Constitution might be a good thing)”
Because he would dismantle the security state?! lol
Mark, I’m continuing my tradition of not voting because my last residence in the USA was in California, and my vote would be recorded in Californian—a one-party state run by Comintern. It makes Mos Eisley seem like a place of safety and virtue!