Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
None of this jives otherwise if it is finally proven that the election was stolen in a court of law, and with all parties present for questioning and their testimony in a transparent trial. It should be the trial of the century.What there is precedent for is alternate electors in case the outcome of the election turned out different than originally thought. Pending a recount in the case of Kennedy.
The thing you ALL skip over. Was that by the time they reached Congress. Those electors where both certified by the Governor of Hawaii and a judge as the duly elected and certified electors of the State of Hawaii.
This is a VERY different proposition than CLAIMING electors ARE the duly elected electors of a State when they are manifestly not. And pressuring the VP to accept them as real when they are not.
It makes those documents false, and those that conspired to get them accepted as real... CRIMINALS.
All of you are concerned about voter fraud. Here it is. Forging electoral college votes from entire states in order to change the outcome of the election. And nobody is denying it happened.
No there's evil and there's good, so take a side.I can't speak for the "left", but I suspect part of the problem is that partisans generally go straight to screeching, over-the-top language when "disagreeing". it's not enough to say, "I disagree, there's a better way". The two-party fear mongers have to declare that anyone disagreeing with them is pure evil™. Fear sells.
We'll take a score.I have. D's and Rs are both bad.No there's evil and there's good, so take a side.
My statement? You mean my questioning of the logic of your argument? Do you really not understand what a question mark is for?i told you your statement depicted chaos and told you why.
So you won't vote at all ? Hmm, uhhh yeah sure there are bad by percentages in everyone, but you wanting to take the fence rider way out is really surprising.I have. D's and Rs are both bad.
I won't vote for bad. Wake up.
That's pretty funny.So you won't vote at all ?
I GAVE you my logic You ignored it. All you said was that people should allowed to be attracted to same sex partners. As far as I know, attraction between human beings has not been prohibited. Why don't you just tell me your questions about my 'argument?' So far all you do is come there and troll.My statement? You mean my questioning of the logic of your argument? Do you really not understand what a question mark is for?
What's the other viable choice?That's pretty funny.
I'll vote. All I said is I won't vote for a bad candidate just because unscrupulous motherfuckers like you claim there are only two choices. They (you) are liars. We can vote for whomever we want.
I don't give a shit about who you, or the press, or any other ignorant motherfucker decides is "viable". I won't vote for a bad candidate. It's fucking stupid.What's the other viable choice?
I meant someone who has a chance of being elected which right now is either Biden or Trump. I realize you don't have to vote for either one but, who did you have in mind? Just curious.I don't give a shit about who you, or the press, or any other ignorant motherfucker decides is "viable". I won't vote for a bad candidate. It's fucking stupid.
No. I questioned your logic and you pretended my question was a statement.I GAVE you my logic You ignored it.
I did not say that at all. No one needs you to allow them to feel. People feel attraction based on their own biology, not your acceptance. What they should be allowed to do is legally pursue those attractions in consensual relationships.All you said was that people should allowed to be attracted to same sex partners.
I did already. Here they are again.As far as I know, attraction between human beings has not been prohibited. Why don't you just tell me your questions about my 'argument?' So far all you do is come there and troll.
Oh doesn't it seem that way to you?
If mating is the goal why pair off at all then? Wouldn't it be advantageous for everyone to have multiple sexual partners to ensure procreation? And if procreation is the goal why does most sex get engaged in for recreational purposes? Do you only have sex to procreate? If your wife tries to go down on you do stop her and tell her that isn't how babies are made?
To answer the OP we call you bigots because we don't believe that you believe any of this nonsense. Not even for a second.
Surely one Party has a lead on policies you care about over the other.I won't vote for a bad candidate. It's fucking stupid.
Sigh ... give it up. I don't play that game. Not voting for a bad candidate. That's dumb.Surely one Party has a lead on policies you care about over the other.
Do you think a good candidate can do anything without a political party under his or her leadership,Sigh ... give it up. I don't play that game. Not voting for a bad candidate. That's dumb.
You did say that, in post 497...."What's chaotic about society allowing people who are naturally attracted to the same sex to pursue relationships with people of the same sex?"No. I questioned your logic and you pretended my question was a statement.
I did not say that at all. No one needs you to allow them to feel. People feel attraction based on their own biology, not your acceptance. What they should be allowed to do is legally pursue those attractions in consensual relationships.
I did already. Here they are again.
I'd be thrilled to admit I was wrong if that were the case. This isn't about my fucking ego.If someone who you think is a bad candidate, Saint_Dblack but turns out to be a great president are you man enough to admit you were wrong?
That's not how it works. You can't justify robbing a bank by proving the bank director is a crook. In the end you're still a bank robber.None of this jives otherwise if it is finally proven that the election was stolen in a court of law, and with all parties present for questioning and their testimony in a transparent trial. It should be the trial of the century.
Until this happens, nothing will ever be right or proven. It will be used forever by those with bad intent.
Trump is bringing in more blacks, hispanics and even those who were traditionally on the left. Trump is for America (which is all of US). He seems like the best candidate IMO.I'd be thrilled to admit I was wrong if that were the case. This isn't about my fucking ego.
"Saint" suggests you think otherwise, but it really isn't about me looking down on you. I do, of course, but the point isn't about trying to prove I'm smarter than you. The point is that our nation is seriously at risk. If we can't elect a leader dedicated to uniting us, we're screwed.
You are a saint because your voter plan in this upcoming election for President aids and abets a cultish group of voters we simply can call Trump Christians from the general group of Republican loyal working class."Saint" suggests you think otherwise,
What are you afraid of? Can't recognize honeyfuglers? You must be really stupid to be afraid of Ralph Reed. Better to be afraid of George Soros, a real evil force disguised as an altruistic old man but is actually a Stalin type socialist with Nazi ties.You are a saint because your voter plan in this upcoming election for President aids and abets a cultish group of voters we simply can call Trump Christians from the general group of Republican loyal working class.
They will show up in big numbers for Ralph Reed.
The Guardian reported Saturday that Ralph Reed, who is the founder and chair of the far-right Faith & Freedom Coalition, has promised to deliver millions of evangelical voters to Trump's side in the handful of battleground states that will decide the November election, calling it "the biggest turnout of Christian voters in American history." This includes a promise to knock on 10 million doors of conservative Christian households, to make 10 million phone calls to drive voter turnout, send 25 million text messages and have 30 million voter guides placed in approximately 113,000 churches.
