Dem candidates dropped out so far, Black Female and gay

[Hellbilly]

Want me to quote you?

Give us the entire quote, I double dog dare you.

Easily done, dog.

Stop lying. You guys are petrified of Bernie and you know it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Stop lying. You guys are petrified of Bernie and you know it.

Hilarious. I’m voting for Bernie Tuesday.
Guess why.

Entire quote, complete with complete nest.

Ignoramus.

I’m Voting for Comrade Bernie

You just CONFIRMED what I said even further.

SUCH a cat toy you are.

Liar liar, pants on fire.

Sounds like someone needs a timeout.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[healthmyths]

The tortured logic of the left eh.

I'm sure it must be torture to try to refute it. And no one has.
Why don't y'all mythologists just quit lying and save that energy?

/----/ Rush "democrat voters have rejected 4 women..."
Consider yourself refuted. Here are their names.
1. Amy Klobuchar
DROPPED OUT MARCH 2, 2020
2. Marianne Williamson
DROPPED OUT JAN. 10
3. Kamala Harris
DROPPED OUT DEC. 3, 2019
4. Kirsten Gillibrand
DROPPED OUT AUG. 28

Once AGAIN for the cranially clogged ------ you have a list of four names there ONLY ONE OF WHICH HAS BEEN ON ANY BALLOT AT ALL.

Your task REMAINS to essplain to the class, since you chose to plant your flag on this canard, **HOW** "Democrat voters" can possibly "REJECT" names who DO NOT APPEAR on their ballot, PLUS to essplain how, in the only two primary states and thus the only opportunities to vote for ANYBODY, wide open primaries that DO NOT require a political party affiliation somehow managed to allow in only "Democrat voters".

Oh and we're still waiting for those ballots that had a Bloomberg on them. Any day now.


Lush Rimjob loves the poorly educated.

/—-/ Your spin is an epic fail.

Actually fail is an epic verb. It can't have an article in front of it. It describes what you DID (again - verb) in bringing up a Googly Image quote that wouldn't work. However the END RESULT of your trotting that hallucination out, is called a failure. That's a noun and it does get an article.

If it were not a failure you would have been able to essplain to us all how two states with open primaries somewow locked everybody out except Democrats, so that they could then "reject" candidates who were never even on the ballot in the first place.

And I guess if you could get that far you could also show us how those same voters could also vote FOR another candidate who was also not on any ballots.

Always vet your shit before plopping it. ESPECIALLY if it's emanating from Lush Rimjob.

As people like you are wont to do... you never provide the context, or the whole story... just half assed!



Looks like she's shaking his hand!!!

 

[Weatherman2020]

Give us the entire quote, I double dog dare you.

Easily done, dog.

Hilarious. I’m voting for Bernie Tuesday.
Guess why.

Entire quote, complete with complete nest.

Ignoramus.

I’m Voting for Comrade Bernie

You just CONFIRMED what I said even further.

SUCH a cat toy you are.

Liar liar, pants on fire.

Trump said to vote for Comrade Sanders last Saturday, 4 days after I posted my vote, ignoramus.

Operation Chaos: Trump Tells Republicans to Vote for Bernie Tuesday

Where did anyone bring up Rump, cat toy?

You have something in common with Biden - Alzheimer’s.

Then you've got wags like Weatherman2020 who boasts that he's going to vote for Bernie today because Rimjob told him to,

Go Comrade Sanders!

 

[Pogo]

I'm sure it must be torture to try to refute it. And no one has.
Why don't y'all mythologists just quit lying and save that energy?

/----/ Rush "democrat voters have rejected 4 women..."
Consider yourself refuted. Here are their names.
1. Amy Klobuchar
DROPPED OUT MARCH 2, 2020
2. Marianne Williamson
DROPPED OUT JAN. 10
3. Kamala Harris
DROPPED OUT DEC. 3, 2019
4. Kirsten Gillibrand
DROPPED OUT AUG. 28

Once AGAIN for the cranially clogged ------ you have a list of four names there ONLY ONE OF WHICH HAS BEEN ON ANY BALLOT AT ALL.

Your task REMAINS to essplain to the class, since you chose to plant your flag on this canard, **HOW** "Democrat voters" can possibly "REJECT" names who DO NOT APPEAR on their ballot, PLUS to essplain how, in the only two primary states and thus the only opportunities to vote for ANYBODY, wide open primaries that DO NOT require a political party affiliation somehow managed to allow in only "Democrat voters".

Oh and we're still waiting for those ballots that had a Bloomberg on them. Any day now.


Lush Rimjob loves the poorly educated.

/—-/ Your spin is an epic fail.

Actually fail is an epic verb. It can't have an article in front of it. It describes what you DID (again - verb) in bringing up a Googly Image quote that wouldn't work. However the END RESULT of your trotting that hallucination out, is called a failure. That's a noun and it does get an article.

If it were not a failure you would have been able to essplain to us all how two states with open primaries somewow locked everybody out except Democrats, so that they could then "reject" candidates who were never even on the ballot in the first place.

And I guess if you could get that far you could also show us how those same voters could also vote FOR another candidate who was also not on any ballots.

Always vet your shit before plopping it. ESPECIALLY if it's emanating from Lush Rimjob.

As people like you are wont to do... you never provide the context, or the whole story... just half assed!



Looks like she's shaking his hand!!!

Alllllllllllllllllll righty then, I post irrefutable logic that destroys a hallucination about "Democrat voters" "rejecting" candidates that aren't on the ballot "in favor of" some that are also not on the same ballot, and you go "yabbut here's the prime minister of Poland".

I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and guess that you don't teach a logic class.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/----/ Rush "democrat voters have rejected 4 women..."
Consider yourself refuted. Here are their names.
1. Amy Klobuchar
DROPPED OUT MARCH 2, 2020
2. Marianne Williamson
DROPPED OUT JAN. 10
3. Kamala Harris
DROPPED OUT DEC. 3, 2019
4. Kirsten Gillibrand
DROPPED OUT AUG. 28

Once AGAIN for the cranially clogged ------ you have a list of four names there ONLY ONE OF WHICH HAS BEEN ON ANY BALLOT AT ALL.

Your task REMAINS to essplain to the class, since you chose to plant your flag on this canard, **HOW** "Democrat voters" can possibly "REJECT" names who DO NOT APPEAR on their ballot, PLUS to essplain how, in the only two primary states and thus the only opportunities to vote for ANYBODY, wide open primaries that DO NOT require a political party affiliation somehow managed to allow in only "Democrat voters".

Oh and we're still waiting for those ballots that had a Bloomberg on them. Any day now.


Lush Rimjob loves the poorly educated.

/—-/ Your spin is an epic fail.

Actually fail is an epic verb. It can't have an article in front of it. It describes what you DID (again - verb) in bringing up a Googly Image quote that wouldn't work. However the END RESULT of your trotting that hallucination out, is called a failure. That's a noun and it does get an article.

If it were not a failure you would have been able to essplain to us all how two states with open primaries somewow locked everybody out except Democrats, so that they could then "reject" candidates who were never even on the ballot in the first place.

And I guess if you could get that far you could also show us how those same voters could also vote FOR another candidate who was also not on any ballots.

Always vet your shit before plopping it. ESPECIALLY if it's emanating from Lush Rimjob.

As people like you are wont to do... you never provide the context, or the whole story... just half assed!



Looks like she's shaking his hand!!!

Alllllllllllllllllll righty then, I post irrefutable logic that destroys a hallucination about "Democrat voters" "rejecting" candidates that aren't on the ballot "in favor of" some that are also not on the same ballot, and you go "yabbut here's the prime minister of Poland".

I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and guess that you don't teach a logic class.

/----/ All 4 girls had a campaign. Rush never said anything about a ballot. All he said is 4 girls were rejected by the voters. I that two weren't rejected they'd still be in the race.

 

[healthmyths]

/----/ Rush "democrat voters have rejected 4 women..."
Consider yourself refuted. Here are their names.
1. Amy Klobuchar
DROPPED OUT MARCH 2, 2020
2. Marianne Williamson
DROPPED OUT JAN. 10
3. Kamala Harris
DROPPED OUT DEC. 3, 2019
4. Kirsten Gillibrand
DROPPED OUT AUG. 28

Once AGAIN for the cranially clogged ------ you have a list of four names there ONLY ONE OF WHICH HAS BEEN ON ANY BALLOT AT ALL.

Your task REMAINS to essplain to the class, since you chose to plant your flag on this canard, **HOW** "Democrat voters" can possibly "REJECT" names who DO NOT APPEAR on their ballot, PLUS to essplain how, in the only two primary states and thus the only opportunities to vote for ANYBODY, wide open primaries that DO NOT require a political party affiliation somehow managed to allow in only "Democrat voters".

Oh and we're still waiting for those ballots that had a Bloomberg on them. Any day now.


Lush Rimjob loves the poorly educated.

/—-/ Your spin is an epic fail.

Actually fail is an epic verb. It can't have an article in front of it. It describes what you DID (again - verb) in bringing up a Googly Image quote that wouldn't work. However the END RESULT of your trotting that hallucination out, is called a failure. That's a noun and it does get an article.

If it were not a failure you would have been able to essplain to us all how two states with open primaries somewow locked everybody out except Democrats, so that they could then "reject" candidates who were never even on the ballot in the first place.

And I guess if you could get that far you could also show us how those same voters could also vote FOR another candidate who was also not on any ballots.

Always vet your shit before plopping it. ESPECIALLY if it's emanating from Lush Rimjob.

As people like you are wont to do... you never provide the context, or the whole story... just half assed!



Looks like she's shaking his hand!!!

Alllllllllllllllllll righty then, I post irrefutable logic that destroys a hallucination about "Democrat voters" "rejecting" candidates that aren't on the ballot "in favor of" some that are also not on the same ballot, and you go "yabbut here's the prime minister of Poland".

I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and guess that you don't teach a logic class.

Logic in this case is reality in that people never saw the segment of your dumb biased video where she shook Trump's hand.
Your biased (and I totally understand why you are biased) clip is like what people think when they see this video.
Your biased video is no where near the ghastliness of the below...BUT the FACT you chose to selectively EDIT what you wanted just shows your bias.
Most people need to be aware of people like you that ignore FACTS.

 

[Pogo]

Once AGAIN for the cranially clogged ------ you have a list of four names there ONLY ONE OF WHICH HAS BEEN ON ANY BALLOT AT ALL.

Your task REMAINS to essplain to the class, since you chose to plant your flag on this canard, **HOW** "Democrat voters" can possibly "REJECT" names who DO NOT APPEAR on their ballot, PLUS to essplain how, in the only two primary states and thus the only opportunities to vote for ANYBODY, wide open primaries that DO NOT require a political party affiliation somehow managed to allow in only "Democrat voters".

Oh and we're still waiting for those ballots that had a Bloomberg on them. Any day now.


Lush Rimjob loves the poorly educated.

/—-/ Your spin is an epic fail.

Actually fail is an epic verb. It can't have an article in front of it. It describes what you DID (again - verb) in bringing up a Googly Image quote that wouldn't work. However the END RESULT of your trotting that hallucination out, is called a failure. That's a noun and it does get an article.

If it were not a failure you would have been able to essplain to us all how two states with open primaries somewow locked everybody out except Democrats, so that they could then "reject" candidates who were never even on the ballot in the first place.

And I guess if you could get that far you could also show us how those same voters could also vote FOR another candidate who was also not on any ballots.

Always vet your shit before plopping it. ESPECIALLY if it's emanating from Lush Rimjob.

As people like you are wont to do... you never provide the context, or the whole story... just half assed!



Looks like she's shaking his hand!!!

Alllllllllllllllllll righty then, I post irrefutable logic that destroys a hallucination about "Democrat voters" "rejecting" candidates that aren't on the ballot "in favor of" some that are also not on the same ballot, and you go "yabbut here's the prime minister of Poland".

I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and guess that you don't teach a logic class.

/----/ All 4 girls had a campaign. Rush never said anything about a ballot. All he said is 4 girls were rejected by the voters. I that two weren't rejected they'd still be in the race.

What the fuck does "Democrat voters" mean?? HOW IN THE FUCK can you be "rejected by the voters" ---- that's your own wording directly above --- if you're not on the ballot to vote FOR?

Did those voters also "reject" Mrs. Irma Schwartz of Pine Barren New Jersey? Because she wasn't on the ballots either.

Did they also "reject" Mrs. Irma Schwartz "IN FAVOR OF" Bikel Moomberg? Because he wasn't on a ballot either.

What's it gonna take for you to man up and admit that either Limblob lied, or you did?

 

[Pogo]

Once AGAIN for the cranially clogged ------ you have a list of four names there ONLY ONE OF WHICH HAS BEEN ON ANY BALLOT AT ALL.

Your task REMAINS to essplain to the class, since you chose to plant your flag on this canard, **HOW** "Democrat voters" can possibly "REJECT" names who DO NOT APPEAR on their ballot, PLUS to essplain how, in the only two primary states and thus the only opportunities to vote for ANYBODY, wide open primaries that DO NOT require a political party affiliation somehow managed to allow in only "Democrat voters".

Oh and we're still waiting for those ballots that had a Bloomberg on them. Any day now.


Lush Rimjob loves the poorly educated.

/—-/ Your spin is an epic fail.

Actually fail is an epic verb. It can't have an article in front of it. It describes what you DID (again - verb) in bringing up a Googly Image quote that wouldn't work. However the END RESULT of your trotting that hallucination out, is called a failure. That's a noun and it does get an article.

If it were not a failure you would have been able to essplain to us all how two states with open primaries somewow locked everybody out except Democrats, so that they could then "reject" candidates who were never even on the ballot in the first place.

And I guess if you could get that far you could also show us how those same voters could also vote FOR another candidate who was also not on any ballots.

Always vet your shit before plopping it. ESPECIALLY if it's emanating from Lush Rimjob.

As people like you are wont to do... you never provide the context, or the whole story... just half assed!



Looks like she's shaking his hand!!!

Alllllllllllllllllll righty then, I post irrefutable logic that destroys a hallucination about "Democrat voters" "rejecting" candidates that aren't on the ballot "in favor of" some that are also not on the same ballot, and you go "yabbut here's the prime minister of Poland".

I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and guess that you don't teach a logic class.

Logic in this case is reality in that people never saw the segment of your dumb biased video where she shook Trump's hand.
Your biased (and I totally understand why you are biased) clip is like what people think when they see this video.
Your biased video is no where near the ghastliness of the below...BUT the FACT you chose to selectively EDIT what you wanted just shows your bias.
Most people need to be aware of people like you that ignore FACTS.

ME: "The claim fails because three of the women cited were never on the ballot".
YOU: "Well let's check in and see what's going on at Auschwitz".

 

[Cellblock2429]

/—-/ Your spin is an epic fail.

Actually fail is an epic verb. It can't have an article in front of it. It describes what you DID (again - verb) in bringing up a Googly Image quote that wouldn't work. However the END RESULT of your trotting that hallucination out, is called a failure. That's a noun and it does get an article.

If it were not a failure you would have been able to essplain to us all how two states with open primaries somewow locked everybody out except Democrats, so that they could then "reject" candidates who were never even on the ballot in the first place.

And I guess if you could get that far you could also show us how those same voters could also vote FOR another candidate who was also not on any ballots.

Always vet your shit before plopping it. ESPECIALLY if it's emanating from Lush Rimjob.

As people like you are wont to do... you never provide the context, or the whole story... just half assed!



Looks like she's shaking his hand!!!

Alllllllllllllllllll righty then, I post irrefutable logic that destroys a hallucination about "Democrat voters" "rejecting" candidates that aren't on the ballot "in favor of" some that are also not on the same ballot, and you go "yabbut here's the prime minister of Poland".

I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and guess that you don't teach a logic class.

Logic in this case is reality in that people never saw the segment of your dumb biased video where she shook Trump's hand.
Your biased (and I totally understand why you are biased) clip is like what people think when they see this video.
Your biased video is no where near the ghastliness of the below...BUT the FACT you chose to selectively EDIT what you wanted just shows your bias.
Most people need to be aware of people like you that ignore FACTS.

ME: "The claim fails because three of the women cited were never on the ballot".
YOU: "Well let's check in and see what's going on at Auschwitz".

/——/ Ballot Shamallot all 4 had campaigns. And no amount of your stupidity can change that.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/—-/ Your spin is an epic fail.

Actually fail is an epic verb. It can't have an article in front of it. It describes what you DID (again - verb) in bringing up a Googly Image quote that wouldn't work. However the END RESULT of your trotting that hallucination out, is called a failure. That's a noun and it does get an article.

If it were not a failure you would have been able to essplain to us all how two states with open primaries somewow locked everybody out except Democrats, so that they could then "reject" candidates who were never even on the ballot in the first place.

And I guess if you could get that far you could also show us how those same voters could also vote FOR another candidate who was also not on any ballots.

Always vet your shit before plopping it. ESPECIALLY if it's emanating from Lush Rimjob.

As people like you are wont to do... you never provide the context, or the whole story... just half assed!



Looks like she's shaking his hand!!!

Alllllllllllllllllll righty then, I post irrefutable logic that destroys a hallucination about "Democrat voters" "rejecting" candidates that aren't on the ballot "in favor of" some that are also not on the same ballot, and you go "yabbut here's the prime minister of Poland".

I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and guess that you don't teach a logic class.

/----/ All 4 girls had a campaign. Rush never said anything about a ballot. All he said is 4 girls were rejected by the voters. I that two weren't rejected they'd still be in the race.

What the fuck does "Democrat voters" mean?? HOW IN THE FUCK can you be "rejected by the voters" ---- that's your own wording directly above --- if you're not on the ballot to vote FOR?

Did those voters also "reject" Mrs. Irma Schwartz of Pine Barren New Jersey? Because she wasn't on the ballots either.

Did they also "reject" Mrs. Irma Schwartz "IN FAVOR OF" Bikel Moomberg? Because he wasn't on a ballot either.

What's it gonna take for you to man up and admit that either Limblob lied, or you did?

/—-/ Because they were rejected by women hating democRATs.

 

[B. Kidd]

Democrats are obviously racist, sexist, and homophobic.

Well, their leaders no way resemble their supporters.

 

[healthmyths]

/—-/ Your spin is an epic fail.

Actually fail is an epic verb. It can't have an article in front of it. It describes what you DID (again - verb) in bringing up a Googly Image quote that wouldn't work. However the END RESULT of your trotting that hallucination out, is called a failure. That's a noun and it does get an article.

If it were not a failure you would have been able to essplain to us all how two states with open primaries somewow locked everybody out except Democrats, so that they could then "reject" candidates who were never even on the ballot in the first place.

And I guess if you could get that far you could also show us how those same voters could also vote FOR another candidate who was also not on any ballots.

Always vet your shit before plopping it. ESPECIALLY if it's emanating from Lush Rimjob.

As people like you are wont to do... you never provide the context, or the whole story... just half assed!



Looks like she's shaking his hand!!!

Alllllllllllllllllll righty then, I post irrefutable logic that destroys a hallucination about "Democrat voters" "rejecting" candidates that aren't on the ballot "in favor of" some that are also not on the same ballot, and you go "yabbut here's the prime minister of Poland".

I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and guess that you don't teach a logic class.

Logic in this case is reality in that people never saw the segment of your dumb biased video where she shook Trump's hand.
Your biased (and I totally understand why you are biased) clip is like what people think when they see this video.
Your biased video is no where near the ghastliness of the below...BUT the FACT you chose to selectively EDIT what you wanted just shows your bias.
Most people need to be aware of people like you that ignore FACTS.

ME: "The claim fails because three of the women cited were never on the ballot".
YOU: "Well let's check in and see what's going on at Auschwitz".

I was describing your EDITED GIF version of Trump handshake with the Prime Minister's wife.
I guess the connection between the EDITING biased video and how the six million jews were mislead BY fake news MSM in Germany isn't apparent to your limited knowledge of history.
Maybe this will help...

Common sense could not understand that it was possible to exterminate tens and hundreds of thousands of Jews,”
—Yitzhak Zuckerman, a leader of the Jewish resistance in Warsaw

Propaganda was as an important tool to win over the majority of the German public who had not supported Adolf Hitler. It served to push forward the Nazis' radical program, which required the acquiescence, support, or participation of broad sectors of the population.
Deceiving the Public

 

[Pogo]

Actually fail is an epic verb. It can't have an article in front of it. It describes what you DID (again - verb) in bringing up a Googly Image quote that wouldn't work. However the END RESULT of your trotting that hallucination out, is called a failure. That's a noun and it does get an article.

If it were not a failure you would have been able to essplain to us all how two states with open primaries somewow locked everybody out except Democrats, so that they could then "reject" candidates who were never even on the ballot in the first place.

And I guess if you could get that far you could also show us how those same voters could also vote FOR another candidate who was also not on any ballots.

Always vet your shit before plopping it. ESPECIALLY if it's emanating from Lush Rimjob.

As people like you are wont to do... you never provide the context, or the whole story... just half assed!



Looks like she's shaking his hand!!!

Alllllllllllllllllll righty then, I post irrefutable logic that destroys a hallucination about "Democrat voters" "rejecting" candidates that aren't on the ballot "in favor of" some that are also not on the same ballot, and you go "yabbut here's the prime minister of Poland".

I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and guess that you don't teach a logic class.

Logic in this case is reality in that people never saw the segment of your dumb biased video where she shook Trump's hand.
Your biased (and I totally understand why you are biased) clip is like what people think when they see this video.
Your biased video is no where near the ghastliness of the below...BUT the FACT you chose to selectively EDIT what you wanted just shows your bias.
Most people need to be aware of people like you that ignore FACTS.

ME: "The claim fails because three of the women cited were never on the ballot".
YOU: "Well let's check in and see what's going on at Auschwitz".

/——/ Ballot Shamallot all 4 had campaigns. And no amount of your stupidity can change that.

STILL waiting ---- it's been hours now ---- for some explanation of (a) how one "VOTES" in a campaign rather than in an election, (b) how one "VOTES" in a campaign that didn't exist when the voting was actually on, i.e. Bloomberg, and (c) how states with open primaries somehow conspire in spite of their own state rules to allow only Democrats to vote.

STILL getting no answer too.

We can do this all night. I've already voted. For a woman ---- sorry, "girl" to you ---- who isn't even among those on your list. Also voted for another one named "Dimple", because how can you not.