It Can Happen Here: Expert On Tyranny Warns Of GOP Extremism

None of which happened.

 

All of which happened.

 

Link(s)?

 

Dozens of websites, the observers in blue cities, complained they weren't allowed to observe.

 

That isn’t what ambiguous means, it means not understanding the meaning of statement. You fully understood what I wrote, you just don’t agree

 

This constant hyperbole will accomplish nothing good.

 

Well then you should be able to provide an UNBIASED link or two; easy peasy.

 

OK, start by looking up ambiguous. Hint, you don't know what it means.

 

It may end the Democratic Party, I hope it does. You guys want to ignorant the global resistance to leftist totalitarian BS. I don’t I want to see the Democrat. Party scorned as just another version of Fascism, and I want to see hundreds of their leaders in prison.
see hundtreds

 

Hell, just a short search of "Tyranny in Australia" that nightmare is soon be us we don't wise up...

 

That all sounds pretty radical.

 

What part of “What worries me is leftist totalitarian instincts. Everything the Dem party does is designed to diminish individual liberty, and give government more power” don’t you understand? If you think there can be double meaning to that comment let me know.


“Ambiguous” Definitions from Oxford Languages

“(of language) open to more than one interpretation; having a double meaning”

 

Ambiguous

Clearly a comprehension issue here

Comprehension

 

There is no such as an unbiased link...

 

In this case, probably not.

 

Mailing out ballots to everyone, allowing ballot harvesting, objecting to even the most basic voter ID measures.

Nothing he said takes the right to vote away from anyone who legally has that right.



How are Democrats doing that?[/QUOTE] Just covered that. They're lying their butts off, trying to frighten low-information voters.
,

 

Which isn't close to your first guess; "ambiguous ..., it means not understanding the meaning of statement".

 

Just covered that. They're lying their butts off, trying to frighten low-information voters.

Seriously? That's the best you can do? You didn't provide a link to prove your comment, did you?

 

Which one, I'll see what I can do.

But I think it's obvious that "mailing out ballots to everyone" is unsupportable exaggeration.

I would really like a link to your "ballot harvesting claim", and, "objecting to the most basic voter ID measures".

 

Wow, you’re really reaching to save yourself from drowning here.

 

How's that? Your first guess at the meaning of ambiguous wasn't even in the ballpark. Which is why you kept arguing with me about your posts being ambiguous. They were ambiguous, you just didn't know the meaning of the word.

 

You haven’t given us your meaning of ambiguous, why is that? My guess. Is that it’s because it looks exactly, like leftist BS. If you disagree you might just admit your comments are nothing more than opinion. Grow up and admit you’re wrong.

 

The other lack of self-awareness by these people is hilarious.

It's strictly left-ling Democrat types that want to call Free speech hate speech and ban the right to free speech. It's typically left-wing Democrats who want to ban second amendment rights and a road the right of people to have firearms. It's typically left-ling Democrats that want to label everyone they disagree with as hateful or terrorist or enemy of the State.

Yeah absolutely can happen because if people like you.

 

At my urging, you looked up and posted the correct definition of ambiguous.

“Ambiguous” Definitions from Oxford Languages

“(of language) open to more than one interpretation; having a double meaning" -Oxford

Which isn't anything like your original thinking.

"That isn’t what ambiguous means, it means not understanding the meaning of statement" -you

I know/knew what ambiguous means. Which is why you were confused when I called your posts ambiguous; you had no idea what ambiguous meant.