Who do you think is going to win and why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m wondering if New York’s execution of Peanut the squirrel is going to be the October surprise in favor of Trump.

I oddly wonder the same.

Since when does a state government send 5 suvs full of law enforcement and a warrant signed by a judge to arrest a squirrel while our country is being overwhelmed by illegal immigrants? Now, it does now. Crazy.

Sorry but that is upstate New York Trump country. Doubtful that Harris voters had anything to do with it.

The state government of NY is not comprised of Trumpers. It’s not comprised of Trumpers, in the Department of Environmental Conservation. In fact, if P’Nut had been full on rabid, he would have been the least rabid mammal in a roomful of NYS DEC employees/officials. They are advanced “progressives.”

Their political views and late stage rabies are indistinguishable.

Wait I thought it was hatred and insults from leftists that was driving people to Trump. This makes it seem it’s just the opportunity to insult people that’s driving people to Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m wondering if New York’s execution of Peanut the squirrel is going to be the October surprise in favor of Trump.

I oddly wonder the same.

Since when does a state government send 5 suvs full of law enforcement and a warrant signed by a judge to arrest a squirrel while our country is being overwhelmed by illegal immigrants? Now, it does now. Crazy.

Sorry but that is upstate New York Trump country. Doubtful that Harris voters had anything to do with it.

The state government of NY is not comprised of Trumpers. It’s not comprised of Trumpers, in the Department of Environmental Conservation. In fact, if P’Nut had been full on rabid, he would have been the least rabid mammal in a roomful of NYS DEC employees/officials. They are advanced “progressives.”

Their political views and late stage rabies are indistinguishable.

Wait I thought it was hatred and insults from leftists that was driving people to Trump. This makes it seem it’s just the opportunity to insult people that’s driving people to Trump.

It’s the dangerous squirrels that are being illegally housed amongst our citizens that are driving people to democrats.

Democrats will never stop fighting for the safety of American citizens against the squirrel scourge.

Our children deserve an America free from squirrels living in homes, eating waffles. and wearing tiny, novelty hats!!1!1!1!!!!11

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cannot believe this thread about the outcome of the US presidential election is still talking about Peanut the squirrel.

I’m not kidding when I say I think it’s going to drive voters to Republicans.

No it will not at this point no one is changing their minds

Trump will lose however he will be installed . Cult of stupidity will love when he’s taken out day one Bsnce now king,

Economy gone now we are owned by Russia all the way baby America first!’ Woo hoo to the cult of Unamerican dummies that sealed their own fate for Don the con.

And by the way Trump
Has never had one successful business and you think he can run a country sure loser and sucker he describes you perfectly

Dude, I’m a Harris voter and you need to take your meds.

[Anonymous]

Make Rabies Great Again

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Make Rabies Great Again

Squirrels rarely get rabies and have not been known to transmit it to humans.

While rabies is a concern withany animal bite, squirrels are almost never found to have
rabies

No person in the US has ever gotten rabies from a squirrel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A few facts about the Peanut controversy:

The Instagrammer who was keeping Peanut as a pet also has a pet raccoon named Fred.

The animal control people who showed up to his home were investigating multiple complaints about Longo regarding his "pets."

Longo has an animal sanctuary where he cares for injured animals, and thus is likely aware that keeping wild animals as pets is illegal.

I know everyone thinks Peanut was very cute (and he was!) but also ask yourself how you'd feel about a neighbor with a "pet" raccoon. Have you met raccoons?

Rabies is really freaking bad (one of many reasons you shouldn't keep wild animals as pets). A rabies outbreak would be really awful and if we had one you'd all be screaming "why wasn't something done??" Well guess how rabies outbreaks are controlled? By euthanizing animals who might have rabies so that they can test for rabies and control the spread.

I'm sorry you all got suckered by this Instagrammer who was trying to use a cute wild animal in order to get famous online. But the Peanut story is about an irresponsible citizen who was doing something sketchy and dangerous (and illegal) who ran into predictable legal consequences that he must have known existed.

Why didn't Longo just keep these animals at his sanctuary instead of bringing them home as pets? Oh right because then he can't post videos of Peanut in his living room.

But the Peanut story is about an irresponsible citizen who was doing something sketchy and dangerous (and illegal) who ran into predictable legal consequences that he must have known existed.

[img]


[/img]

Thank G-d this dangerous, illegal animal was killed!

Look the squirrel is cute but could still carry rabies. Rabies is not cute. That's WHY there are laws against keeping wild animals in your home.

You can make any animal look cute by putting them in a little hat. Longo was also keeping a raccoon in his house. What would you do if your neighbor had a wild raccoon living on his property? Raccoons can be vicious. And what is animal control going to do? Take the raccoon but leave the squirrel because, after all, he looks really adorable in his hat? It's their job to enforce the laws and the law says you can't have a wild animal in your house and also that such animals pose a risk to public health. These people just did their jobs.

What people don't get is that Peanut's death was Longo's fault. He knew he was breaking the law, he knows what the risks are of bringing wild animals into homes, and he knew if animal control showed up they'd have no choice but to take the animals. He also must know that the odds of a wild animal getting euthanized go way up once it has lived in a human home because it's very hard to reintroduce such animals to native habitats (even in a sanctuary space where they will cared for and protected).

Longo seems like an idiot who was using this squirrel to try and become an influencer and is now using the squirrel's death to make a buck. He's certainly not a friend to animals. Dressing wild animals in cute little hats notwithstanding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Make Rabies Great Again

Squirrels rarely get rabies and have not been known to transmit it to humans.

While rabies is a concern withany animal bite, squirrels are almost never found to have
rabies

No person in the US has ever gotten rabies from a squirrel.

That's true as a general principle but the problem here is that Peanut was living in a house with a raccoon. Raccoons are one of the biggest carriers of rabies and also very prone to biting. So Peanut was at much higher risk of rabies than a typical squirrel.

Notice everyone is all up in arms about Peanut being euthanized but no one cares that the raccoon (who's name was Frank but I guess he didn't look as cute in a hat?) was also euthanized. That's probably because the idea of someone keeping a raccoon in their house is bat$hit insane and no one can get behind it. Well guess what, Peanut's "owner" had Peanut living with a raccoon, thus creating a major risk of rabies to all the people in the house, Peanut, their neighbors, and other animals on or near the property (both wild and domesticated).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A few facts about the Peanut controversy:

The Instagrammer who was keeping Peanut as a pet also has a pet raccoon named Fred.

The animal control people who showed up to his home were investigating multiple complaints about Longo regarding his "pets."

Longo has an animal sanctuary where he cares for injured animals, and thus is likely aware that keeping wild animals as pets is illegal.

I know everyone thinks Peanut was very cute (and he was!) but also ask yourself how you'd feel about a neighbor with a "pet" raccoon. Have you met raccoons?

Rabies is really freaking bad (one of many reasons you shouldn't keep wild animals as pets). A rabies outbreak would be really awful and if we had one you'd all be screaming "why wasn't something done??" Well guess how rabies outbreaks are controlled? By euthanizing animals who might have rabies so that they can test for rabies and control the spread.

I'm sorry you all got suckered by this Instagrammer who was trying to use a cute wild animal in order to get famous online. But the Peanut story is about an irresponsible citizen who was doing something sketchy and dangerous (and illegal) who ran into predictable legal consequences that he must have known existed.

Why didn't Longo just keep these animals at his sanctuary instead of bringing them home as pets? Oh right because then he can't post videos of Peanut in his living room.

But the Peanut story is about an irresponsible citizen who was doing something sketchy and dangerous (and illegal) who ran into predictable legal consequences that he must have known existed.

[img]<a href="https://ibb.co/7K37GwT"><img src="https://i.ibb.co/dDNnQd3/IMG-5777.webp" ></a>
<a href="https://imgbb.com/"><img src="https://i.ibb.co/JHHhp22/IMG-5778.jpg" ></a>
<a href="https://imgbb.com/"><img src="https://i.ibb.co/CKXyYJJ/IMG-5779.jpg" ></a>
<a href="https://ibb.co/LZ3LXLg"><img src="https://i.ibb.co/d5Rdwdp/IMG-5780.webp" ></a>[/img]

Thank G-d this dangerous, illegal animal was killed!

Look the squirrel is cute but could still carry rabies. Rabies is not cute. That's WHY there are laws against keeping wild animals in your home.

You can make any animal look cute by putting them in a little hat. Longo was also keeping a raccoon in his house. What would you do if your neighbor had a wild raccoon living on his property? Raccoons can be vicious. And what is animal control going to do? Take the raccoon but leave the squirrel because, after all, he looks really adorable in his hat? It's their job to enforce the laws and the law says you can't have a wild animal in your house and also that such animals pose a risk to public health. These people just did their jobs.

What people don't get is that Peanut's death was Longo's fault. He knew he was breaking the law, he knows what the risks are of bringing wild animals into homes, and he knew if animal control showed up they'd have no choice but to take the animals. He also must know that the odds of a wild animal getting euthanized go way up once it has lived in a human home because it's very hard to reintroduce such animals to native habitats (even in a sanctuary space where they will cared for and protected).

Longo seems like an idiot who was using this squirrel to try and become an influencer and is now using the squirrel's death to make a buck. He's certainly not a friend to animals. Dressing wild animals in cute little hats notwithstanding.

No squirrel in the US has ever transmitted rabies to a human.



This lil guy was euthanized too, because he was dangerous. Thank goodness they killed Fred. He was definitely a danger to society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Make Rabies Great Again

Squirrels rarely get rabies and have not been known to transmit it to humans.

While rabies is a concern withany animal bite, squirrels are almost never found to have
rabies

No person in the US has ever gotten rabies from a squirrel.

That's true as a general principle but the problem here is that Peanut was living in a house with a raccoon. Raccoons are one of the biggest carriers of rabies and also very prone to biting. So Peanut was at much higher risk of rabies than a typical squirrel.

Notice everyone is all up in arms about Peanut being euthanized but no one cares that the raccoon (who's name was Frank but I guess he didn't look as cute in a hat?) was also euthanized. That's probably because the idea of someone keeping a raccoon in their house is bat$hit insane and no one can get behind it. Well guess what, Peanut's "owner" had Peanut living with a raccoon, thus creating a major risk of rabies to all the people in the house, Peanut, their neighbors, and other animals on or near the property (both wild and domesticated).

Of course, it was so dangerous! Fred and P’nut were extremely dangerous creatures. The state of NY simply had to kill them both.

They could never have sent the owners a warning with details about their future actions if he didn’t comply with NYS laws. (He had recently moved from CT.)

The best option was to roll up to his home with a warrant, go inside and treat him like a criminal, search every inch of his home, and seize and kill P’nut and Fred.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don’t understand the PP defending the state here. It’s an incomprensibile decision. Rabies has never, in the history of the US, been transmitted by a squirrel.

This was a case of the state flexing its muscle in the worst way because it could, and yes, there is a scary lesson there.

Trump is going to campaign on this. I would never have picked a squirrel as the November Surprise but here we are.

Okay base your vote on wild animal refuge rehab regulations whatever those are . If you have time to look into that and vote on it then you are a very fortunate person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Make Rabies Great Again

Squirrels rarely get rabies and have not been known to transmit it to humans.

While rabies is a concern withany animal bite, squirrels are almost never found to have
rabies

No person in the US has ever gotten rabies from a squirrel.

That's true as a general principle but the problem here is that Peanut was living in a house with a raccoon. Raccoons are one of the biggest carriers of rabies and also very prone to biting. So Peanut was at much higher risk of rabies than a typical squirrel.

Notice everyone is all up in arms about Peanut being euthanized but no one cares that the raccoon (who's name was Frank but I guess he didn't look as cute in a hat?) was also euthanized. That's probably because the idea of someone keeping a raccoon in their house is bat$hit insane and no one can get behind it. Well guess what, Peanut's "owner" had Peanut living with a raccoon, thus creating a major risk of rabies to all the people in the house, Peanut, their neighbors, and other animals on or near the property (both wild and domesticated).

Of course, it was so dangerous! Fred and P’nut were extremely dangerous creatures. The state of NY simply had to kill them both.

They could never have sent the owners a warning with details about their future actions if he didn’t comply with NYS laws. (He had recently moved from CT.)

The best option was to roll up to his home with a warrant, go inside and treat him like a criminal, search every inch of his home, and seize and kill P’nut and Fred.

While at the same time ignoring the dangers created by actual humans in NY. Goodness knows we can’t talk about those, but a tame indoor squirrel had better be executed immediately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don’t understand the PP defending the state here. It’s an incomprensibile decision. Rabies has never, in the history of the US, been transmitted by a squirrel.

This was a case of the state flexing its muscle in the worst way because it could, and yes, there is a scary lesson there.

Trump is going to campaign on this. I would never have picked a squirrel as the November Surprise but here we are.

Okay base your vote on wild animal refuge rehab regulations whatever those are . If you have time to look into that and vote on it then you are a very fortunate person.

Look, you can downplay this all you want, but it is going to impact voting because it is a symbol of Democratic governance. Kill the harmless pet squirrel, but let criminals roam free. That’s why this is so viral.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Make Rabies Great Again

Squirrels rarely get rabies and have not been known to transmit it to humans.

While rabies is a concern withany animal bite, squirrels are almost never found to have
rabies

No person in the US has ever gotten rabies from a squirrel.

That's true as a general principle but the problem here is that Peanut was living in a house with a raccoon. Raccoons are one of the biggest carriers of rabies and also very prone to biting. So Peanut was at much higher risk of rabies than a typical squirrel.

Notice everyone is all up in arms about Peanut being euthanized but no one cares that the raccoon (who's name was Frank but I guess he didn't look as cute in a hat?) was also euthanized. That's probably because the idea of someone keeping a raccoon in their house is bat$hit insane and no one can get behind it. Well guess what, Peanut's "owner" had Peanut living with a raccoon, thus creating a major risk of rabies to all the people in the house, Peanut, their neighbors, and other animals on or near the property (both wild and domesticated).

Of course, it was so dangerous! Fred and P’nut were extremely dangerous creatures. The state of NY simply had to kill them both.

They could never have sent the owners a warning with details about their future actions if he didn’t comply with NYS laws. (He had recently moved from CT.)

The best option was to roll up to his home with a warrant, go inside and treat him like a criminal, search every inch of his home, and seize and kill P’nut and Fred.

While at the same time ignoring the dangers created by actual humans in NY. Goodness knows we can’t talk about those, but a tame indoor squirrel had better be executed immediately.

+1

That’s the issue.

Spend taxpayer dollars on killing these 2 animals, but allow humans to commit unbelievable crimes without lifting a finger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Make Rabies Great Again

Squirrels rarely get rabies and have not been known to transmit it to humans.

While rabies is a concern withany animal bite, squirrels are almost never found to have
rabies

No person in the US has ever gotten rabies from a squirrel.

That's true as a general principle but the problem here is that Peanut was living in a house with a raccoon. Raccoons are one of the biggest carriers of rabies and also very prone to biting. So Peanut was at much higher risk of rabies than a typical squirrel.

Notice everyone is all up in arms about Peanut being euthanized but no one cares that the raccoon (who's name was Frank but I guess he didn't look as cute in a hat?) was also euthanized. That's probably because the idea of someone keeping a raccoon in their house is bat$hit insane and no one can get behind it. Well guess what, Peanut's "owner" had Peanut living with a raccoon, thus creating a major risk of rabies to all the people in the house, Peanut, their neighbors, and other animals on or near the property (both wild and domesticated).

Of course, it was so dangerous! Fred and P’nut were extremely dangerous creatures. The state of NY simply had to kill them both.

They could never have sent the owners a warning with details about their future actions if he didn’t comply with NYS laws. (He had recently moved from CT.)

The best option was to roll up to his home with a warrant, go inside and treat him like a criminal, search every inch of his home, and seize and kill P’nut and Fred.

While at the same time ignoring the dangers created by actual humans in NY. Goodness knows we can’t talk about those, but a tame indoor squirrel had better be executed immediately.

+1 New York's gotta New York! No surprise that it's Trump's home state and where he learned his values and ethics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don’t understand the PP defending the state here. It’s an incomprensibile decision. Rabies has never, in the history of the US, been transmitted by a squirrel.

This was a case of the state flexing its muscle in the worst way because it could, and yes, there is a scary lesson there.

Trump is going to campaign on this. I would never have picked a squirrel as the November Surprise but here we are.

Okay base your vote on wild animal refuge rehab regulations whatever those are . If you have time to look into that and vote on it then you are a very fortunate person.

Look, you can downplay this all you want, but it is going to impact voting because it is a symbol of Democratic governance. Kill the harmless pet squirrel, but let criminals roam free. That’s why this is so viral.

Exactly.