Who do you think is going to win and why?

[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.

Like I said, if this is your primary consideration for your vote, you are a fortunate person. I don't know about wildlife rehab, I don't know about wildlife transmitting rabies. I don't know how this should or should not be handled and I sure as heck don't have the time or energy to find out about it and make that a big issue for myself. It certainly seems like it wasn't necessary to kill this pet squirrel, but I really have no idea and I'm sure as heck not going to base my vote on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Like I said, if this is your primary consideration for your vote, you are a fortunate person. I don't know about wildlife rehab, I don't know about wildlife transmitting rabies. I don't know how this should or should not be handled and I sure as heck don't have the time or energy to find out about it and make that a big issue for myself. It certainly seems like it wasn't necessary to kill this pet squirrel, but I really have no idea and I'm sure as heck not going to base my vote on it.

And even if I was going to base my vote on this, I have no idea where the candidates stand on this issue and which one is the best choice.

[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.

Animal control was called to the home due to multiple complaints (presumably from neighbors or others who knew there were wild animals in the house and were concerned). Once they are on the premises, they cannot leave the animals there.

Raccoons carry rabies at an alarmingly high rate. If animal control had found a raccoon at a private home and left it there because the raccoon was really cute, people would be screaming about them not doing their jobs correctly. And yes if there's another wild animal there as well they can't just say "oh but look how adorable he is in this hat." It is not legal for the animals to be there. They are a threat to public health.

Sorry but I don't want my neighbors thinking they can just bring random wildlife into their houses because the animals are cute. I'm sorry these animals died but I blame Longo, not the animal control officers who were simply following the law.

[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.

Okay, I'm downplaying it all I want. I feel good about that, thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Like I said, if this is your primary consideration for your vote, you are a fortunate person. I don't know about wildlife rehab, I don't know about wildlife transmitting rabies. I don't know how this should or should not be handled and I sure as heck don't have the time or energy to find out about it and make that a big issue for myself. It certainly seems like it wasn't necessary to kill this pet squirrel, but I really have no idea and I'm sure as heck not going to base my vote on it.

It’s not my vote that matters. It’s the swing state voters in Pennsylvania that distrust their own government but dislike Trump that matter, and this unequivocally helps Trump with that group.

If I were the governor of NY I would be running blue damage control right now, trying to contain the harm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How is that the issue? Animal control is not in charge of crime. They sent 6 officers because when you are detaining a wild animal it sometimes takes multiple people (especially since you aren't supposed to physically touch the animals specifically because of risk of disease). These animal control officers *doing their jobs* have nothing to do with how police handle crime issues.

Some of you are nuts. Pun intended.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Like I said, if this is your primary consideration for your vote, you are a fortunate person. I don't know about wildlife rehab, I don't know about wildlife transmitting rabies. I don't know how this should or should not be handled and I sure as heck don't have the time or energy to find out about it and make that a big issue for myself. It certainly seems like it wasn't necessary to kill this pet squirrel, but I really have no idea and I'm sure as heck not going to base my vote on it.

It’s not my vote that matters. It’s the swing state voters in Pennsylvania that distrust their own government but dislike Trump that matter, and this unequivocally helps Trump with that group.

If I were the governor of NY I would be running blue damage control right now, trying to contain the harm.

Okay then let's hear it. As far as wildlife rehab goes, as far as rabies goes as far as even pets go, why is Trump the better choice for this? He seems to hate pets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Like I said, if this is your primary consideration for your vote, you are a fortunate person. I don't know about wildlife rehab, I don't know about wildlife transmitting rabies. I don't know how this should or should not be handled and I sure as heck don't have the time or energy to find out about it and make that a big issue for myself. It certainly seems like it wasn't necessary to kill this pet squirrel, but I really have no idea and I'm sure as heck not going to base my vote on it.

It’s not my vote that matters. It’s the swing state voters in Pennsylvania that distrust their own government but dislike Trump that matter, and this unequivocally helps Trump with that group.

If I were the governor of NY I would be running blue damage control right now, trying to contain the harm.

Sure. Trump gave his microphone a blowjob last night, but Democrats needs to run damage control because animal control addressed a squirrel.

[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.

Animal control was called to the home due to multiple complaints (presumably from neighbors or others who knew there were wild animals in the house and were concerned). Once they are on the premises, they cannot leave the animals there.

Raccoons carry rabies at an alarmingly high rate. If animal control had found a raccoon at a private home and left it there because the raccoon was really cute, people would be screaming about them not doing their jobs correctly. And yes if there's another wild animal there as well they can't just say "oh but look how adorable he is in this hat." It is not legal for the animals to be there. They are a threat to public health.

Sorry but I don't want my neighbors thinking they can just bring random wildlife into their houses because the animals are cute. I'm sorry these animals died but I blame Longo, not the animal control officers who were simply following the law.

Oh give it up. This was a serious mistake by the state, as pretty much everyone but the insane totalitarian left sees. That’s why it’s become a viral campaign issue.

More to the point if Trump can use this to persuade some young Gen Z women to not vote for Kamala “Squirrel Executioner” Harris, it helps Trump. And yes, that is dumb, but it will be used that way.

You aren’t going to convince anyone other than your fellow totalitarians that this was justified.