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.
The lack of standing was its' unconstitutionality...Socialist are winning? Have you told them that yet cause I don't see Bernie as president and AOC as vice president....Nor do I see a mass of them in any positions of power...Loss of freedoms, oh you are mentioning Reagan and Bush sr. eras....thats exactly what I said, dingleberry dipshit. They did not rule that the suit was unconstitutional, only that there was lack of standing to bring it to the court.They filed an amicus curia brief ( also known as friend of the court brief)This decision establishes a precedent that says states can violate the US constitution and not be held accountable.
The US Constitution has no provisions for how states run an election.
The Elections Clause is the primary source of constitutional authority to regulate elections for the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. The Clause directs and empowers states to determine the “Times, Places, and Manner” of congressional elections, subject to Congress’s authority to “make or alter” state regulations. It grants each level of government the authority to enact a complete code for such elections, including rules concerning public notices, voter registration, voter protection, fraud prevention, vote counting, and determination of election results. Whenever a state enacts a law relating to a congressional election, it is exercising power under the Elections Clause; states do not have any inherent authority to enact such measures.
Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center
Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholarsconstitutioncenter.org
I never was able to complete my law degree and I take great offence to the state AG who is ignorant of just how the Constitution works along with state control of elections....
that is not what the ruling was about. they ruled that Texas and the other states did not have standing to bring the suit. look up lack of standing, you might learn something and stop posting like an idiot.
Motion for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae and Brief Amicus Curiae of U.S. Representative Mike Johnson and 105 Other Members of the U.S. House of Representatives in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaint and Motion for a Preliminary Injunction
Identity of Amici Curiae
As members of the federal legislature, Amici seek to protect the constitutional role of state legislatures in establishing the manner by which Presidential Electors are appointed to ensure the Electoral College selects the candidate for President of the United States that was chosen by counting only lawful votes. Amici include 106 U.S. Representatives currently serving in the 116th Congress, listed above.
Relevance of Amicus Brief to Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaint
This brief amicus curiae presents the concern of amici as Members of Congress, shared by untold millions of their constituents, that the unconstitutional irregularities involved in the 2020 presidential election cast doubt upon its outcome and the integrity of the American system of elections. Amici respectfully aver that the broad scope and impact of the various irregularities in the Defendant states necessitate careful and timely review by this Court.
On the merits, this amicus brief defends the constitutional authority of state legislatures as the only bodies duly authorized to establish the manner by which presidential electors are appointed, one of the central issues in the pending litigation. As members of the federal legislature, these amici seek to protect the constitutional role of state legislatures in determining the manner by which states choose their electors.
The Supreme Court rejected the brief because of a lack of legal standing for one state to sue another state over this matter, in other words it is unconstitutional....Which is exactly the rules under the Election Clause..
So eat me dip-shit...
I think the justices were also motivated by the threats of violence to themselves and others if they ruled in Trump's favor. they should not have considered that, but it seems that they did.
yes, it seems that the socialists are winning currently and it amazes me that so many americans are so ignorant that they celebrate the loss of their freedoms.
Does yer Rascal hovers round have enough battery power to propel you into the front lines of another civil war?This decision establishes a precedent that says states can violate the US constitution and not be held accountable.
The US Constitution has no provisions for how states run an election.
The Elections Clause is the primary source of constitutional authority to regulate elections for the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. The Clause directs and empowers states to determine the “Times, Places, and Manner” of congressional elections, subject to Congress’s authority to “make or alter” state regulations. It grants each level of government the authority to enact a complete code for such elections, including rules concerning public notices, voter registration, voter protection, fraud prevention, vote counting, and determination of election results. Whenever a state enacts a law relating to a congressional election, it is exercising power under the Elections Clause; states do not have any inherent authority to enact such measures.
Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center
Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholarsconstitutioncenter.org
I never was able to complete my law degree and I take great offence to the state AG who is ignorant of just how the Constitution works along with state control of elections....
that is not what the ruling was about. they ruled that Texas and the other states did not have standing to bring the suit. look up lack of standing, you might learn something and stop posting like an idiot.
Yeah, about 100 posters here told the cult that TX didn’t have standing. But the poorly educated cultists really thought TX could win. The ruling was effectively 9-0 as Thomas and Alito said there were no remedies.
It was all Kabuki Theater. But cults gonna cult.
like your fellow libs, you also do not understand what lack of standing means in a court of american law. It is not the final straw. It is certainly a set back, but not the end of the fight. It may be that the only workable remedy is secession or breaking up the country into conservative and liberal separate countries. None of us want that, but with the country so divided philosophically it may be the only solution. If we cannot live together, lets live separately. Then we can see which system actually works.
The lack of standing was it's unconstitutionality...Socialist are winning? Have you told them that yet cause I don't see Berny as president and AOC as vice president....Nor do I see a mass of them in any positions of power...thats exactly what I said, dingleberry dipshit. They did not rule that the suit was unconstitutional, only that there was lack of standing to bring it to the court.They filed an amicus curia brief ( also known as friend of the court brief)This decision establishes a precedent that says states can violate the US constitution and not be held accountable.
The US Constitution has no provisions for how states run an election.
The Elections Clause is the primary source of constitutional authority to regulate elections for the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. The Clause directs and empowers states to determine the “Times, Places, and Manner” of congressional elections, subject to Congress’s authority to “make or alter” state regulations. It grants each level of government the authority to enact a complete code for such elections, including rules concerning public notices, voter registration, voter protection, fraud prevention, vote counting, and determination of election results. Whenever a state enacts a law relating to a congressional election, it is exercising power under the Elections Clause; states do not have any inherent authority to enact such measures.
Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center
Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholarsconstitutioncenter.org
I never was able to complete my law degree and I take great offence to the state AG who is ignorant of just how the Constitution works along with state control of elections....
that is not what the ruling was about. they ruled that Texas and the other states did not have standing to bring the suit. look up lack of standing, you might learn something and stop posting like an idiot.
Motion for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae and Brief Amicus Curiae of U.S. Representative Mike Johnson and 105 Other Members of the U.S. House of Representatives in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaint and Motion for a Preliminary Injunction
Identity of Amici Curiae
As members of the federal legislature, Amici seek to protect the constitutional role of state legislatures in establishing the manner by which Presidential Electors are appointed to ensure the Electoral College selects the candidate for President of the United States that was chosen by counting only lawful votes. Amici include 106 U.S. Representatives currently serving in the 116th Congress, listed above.
Relevance of Amicus Brief to Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaint
This brief amicus curiae presents the concern of amici as Members of Congress, shared by untold millions of their constituents, that the unconstitutional irregularities involved in the 2020 presidential election cast doubt upon its outcome and the integrity of the American system of elections. Amici respectfully aver that the broad scope and impact of the various irregularities in the Defendant states necessitate careful and timely review by this Court.
On the merits, this amicus brief defends the constitutional authority of state legislatures as the only bodies duly authorized to establish the manner by which presidential electors are appointed, one of the central issues in the pending litigation. As members of the federal legislature, these amici seek to protect the constitutional role of state legislatures in determining the manner by which states choose their electors.
The Supreme Court rejected the brief because of a lack of legal standing for one state to sue another state over this matter, in other words it is unconstitutional....Which is exactly the rules under the Election Clause..
So eat me dip-shit...
I think the justices were also motivated by the threats of violence to themselves and others if they ruled in Trump's favor. they should not have considered that, but it seems that they did.
yes, it seems that the socialists are winning currently and it amazes me that so many americans are so ignorant that they celebrate the loss of their freedoms.
I can understand why you ended up being a janitor in a law firm...You have zero ability to back up anything you play rhetorically.The lack of standing was it's unconstitutionality...Socialist are winning? Have you told them that yet cause I don't see Berny as president and AOC as vice president....Nor do I see a mass of them in any positions of power...thats exactly what I said, dingleberry dipshit. They did not rule that the suit was unconstitutional, only that there was lack of standing to bring it to the court.They filed an amicus curia brief ( also known as friend of the court brief)This decision establishes a precedent that says states can violate the US constitution and not be held accountable.
The US Constitution has no provisions for how states run an election.
The Elections Clause is the primary source of constitutional authority to regulate elections for the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. The Clause directs and empowers states to determine the “Times, Places, and Manner” of congressional elections, subject to Congress’s authority to “make or alter” state regulations. It grants each level of government the authority to enact a complete code for such elections, including rules concerning public notices, voter registration, voter protection, fraud prevention, vote counting, and determination of election results. Whenever a state enacts a law relating to a congressional election, it is exercising power under the Elections Clause; states do not have any inherent authority to enact such measures.
Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center
Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholarsconstitutioncenter.org
I never was able to complete my law degree and I take great offence to the state AG who is ignorant of just how the Constitution works along with state control of elections....
that is not what the ruling was about. they ruled that Texas and the other states did not have standing to bring the suit. look up lack of standing, you might learn something and stop posting like an idiot.
Motion for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae and Brief Amicus Curiae of U.S. Representative Mike Johnson and 105 Other Members of the U.S. House of Representatives in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaint and Motion for a Preliminary Injunction
Identity of Amici Curiae
As members of the federal legislature, Amici seek to protect the constitutional role of state legislatures in establishing the manner by which Presidential Electors are appointed to ensure the Electoral College selects the candidate for President of the United States that was chosen by counting only lawful votes. Amici include 106 U.S. Representatives currently serving in the 116th Congress, listed above.
Relevance of Amicus Brief to Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaint
This brief amicus curiae presents the concern of amici as Members of Congress, shared by untold millions of their constituents, that the unconstitutional irregularities involved in the 2020 presidential election cast doubt upon its outcome and the integrity of the American system of elections. Amici respectfully aver that the broad scope and impact of the various irregularities in the Defendant states necessitate careful and timely review by this Court.
On the merits, this amicus brief defends the constitutional authority of state legislatures as the only bodies duly authorized to establish the manner by which presidential electors are appointed, one of the central issues in the pending litigation. As members of the federal legislature, these amici seek to protect the constitutional role of state legislatures in determining the manner by which states choose their electors.
The Supreme Court rejected the brief because of a lack of legal standing for one state to sue another state over this matter, in other words it is unconstitutional....Which is exactly the rules under the Election Clause..
So eat me dip-shit...
I think the justices were also motivated by the threats of violence to themselves and others if they ruled in Trump's favor. they should not have considered that, but it seems that they did.
yes, it seems that the socialists are winning currently and it amazes me that so many americans are so ignorant that they celebrate the loss of their freedoms.
nope, I understand why you failed law school.
In yer wet, wild dreams homeboy...Your bloodlust is showing what will Jesus Christ do with you?Does yer Rascal hovers round have enough battery power to propel you into the front lines of another civil war?This decision establishes a precedent that says states can violate the US constitution and not be held accountable.
The US Constitution has no provisions for how states run an election.
The Elections Clause is the primary source of constitutional authority to regulate elections for the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. The Clause directs and empowers states to determine the “Times, Places, and Manner” of congressional elections, subject to Congress’s authority to “make or alter” state regulations. It grants each level of government the authority to enact a complete code for such elections, including rules concerning public notices, voter registration, voter protection, fraud prevention, vote counting, and determination of election results. Whenever a state enacts a law relating to a congressional election, it is exercising power under the Elections Clause; states do not have any inherent authority to enact such measures.
Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center
Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholarsconstitutioncenter.org
I never was able to complete my law degree and I take great offence to the state AG who is ignorant of just how the Constitution works along with state control of elections....
that is not what the ruling was about. they ruled that Texas and the other states did not have standing to bring the suit. look up lack of standing, you might learn something and stop posting like an idiot.
Yeah, about 100 posters here told the cult that TX didn’t have standing. But the poorly educated cultists really thought TX could win. The ruling was effectively 9-0 as Thomas and Alito said there were no remedies.
It was all Kabuki Theater. But cults gonna cult.
like your fellow libs, you also do not understand what lack of standing means in a court of american law. It is not the final straw. It is certainly a set back, but not the end of the fight. It may be that the only workable remedy is secession or breaking up the country into conservative and liberal separate countries. None of us want that, but with the country so divided philosophically it may be the only solution. If we cannot live together, lets live separately. Then we can see which system actually works.
I don't have whatever that is, but I have several guns and thousands of rounds of ammo. We would also have the police and the military and you would have the trannys who don't know which bathroom to use. it would be a very short war. A peaceful secession or division would be much better for everyone and would allow each side to live under its own ideology. We would take constitutional freedom and you can have socialist domination. Ready?
In yer wet, wild dreams homeboy...Your bloodlust is showing what will Jesus Christ do with you?Does yer Rascal hovers round have enough battery power to propel you into the front lines of another civil war?This decision establishes a precedent that says states can violate the US constitution and not be held accountable.
The US Constitution has no provisions for how states run an election.
The Elections Clause is the primary source of constitutional authority to regulate elections for the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. The Clause directs and empowers states to determine the “Times, Places, and Manner” of congressional elections, subject to Congress’s authority to “make or alter” state regulations. It grants each level of government the authority to enact a complete code for such elections, including rules concerning public notices, voter registration, voter protection, fraud prevention, vote counting, and determination of election results. Whenever a state enacts a law relating to a congressional election, it is exercising power under the Elections Clause; states do not have any inherent authority to enact such measures.
Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center
Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholarsconstitutioncenter.org
I never was able to complete my law degree and I take great offence to the state AG who is ignorant of just how the Constitution works along with state control of elections....
that is not what the ruling was about. they ruled that Texas and the other states did not have standing to bring the suit. look up lack of standing, you might learn something and stop posting like an idiot.
Yeah, about 100 posters here told the cult that TX didn’t have standing. But the poorly educated cultists really thought TX could win. The ruling was effectively 9-0 as Thomas and Alito said there were no remedies.
It was all Kabuki Theater. But cults gonna cult.
like your fellow libs, you also do not understand what lack of standing means in a court of american law. It is not the final straw. It is certainly a set back, but not the end of the fight. It may be that the only workable remedy is secession or breaking up the country into conservative and liberal separate countries. None of us want that, but with the country so divided philosophically it may be the only solution. If we cannot live together, lets live separately. Then we can see which system actually works.
I don't have whatever that is, but I have several guns and thousands of rounds of ammo. We would also have the police and the military and you would have the trannys who don't know which bathroom to use. it would be a very short war. A peaceful secession or division would be much better for everyone and would allow each side to live under its own ideology. We would take constitutional freedom and you can have socialist domination. Ready?
Trump comes with nothing and will leave the same.In yer wet, wild dreams homeboy...Your bloodlust is showing what will Jesus Christ do with you?Does yer Rascal hovers round have enough battery power to propel you into the front lines of another civil war?This decision establishes a precedent that says states can violate the US constitution and not be held accountable.
The US Constitution has no provisions for how states run an election.
The Elections Clause is the primary source of constitutional authority to regulate elections for the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. The Clause directs and empowers states to determine the “Times, Places, and Manner” of congressional elections, subject to Congress’s authority to “make or alter” state regulations. It grants each level of government the authority to enact a complete code for such elections, including rules concerning public notices, voter registration, voter protection, fraud prevention, vote counting, and determination of election results. Whenever a state enacts a law relating to a congressional election, it is exercising power under the Elections Clause; states do not have any inherent authority to enact such measures.
Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center
Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholarsconstitutioncenter.org
I never was able to complete my law degree and I take great offence to the state AG who is ignorant of just how the Constitution works along with state control of elections....
that is not what the ruling was about. they ruled that Texas and the other states did not have standing to bring the suit. look up lack of standing, you might learn something and stop posting like an idiot.
Yeah, about 100 posters here told the cult that TX didn’t have standing. But the poorly educated cultists really thought TX could win. The ruling was effectively 9-0 as Thomas and Alito said there were no remedies.
It was all Kabuki Theater. But cults gonna cult.
like your fellow libs, you also do not understand what lack of standing means in a court of american law. It is not the final straw. It is certainly a set back, but not the end of the fight. It may be that the only workable remedy is secession or breaking up the country into conservative and liberal separate countries. None of us want that, but with the country so divided philosophically it may be the only solution. If we cannot live together, lets live separately. Then we can see which system actually works.
I don't have whatever that is, but I have several guns and thousands of rounds of ammo. We would also have the police and the military and you would have the trannys who don't know which bathroom to use. it would be a very short war. A peaceful secession or division would be much better for everyone and would allow each side to live under its own ideology. We would take constitutional freedom and you can have socialist domination. Ready?
I think he is with me. Right will prevail, it may take a while, but in the end right and truth will win out. the founders knew that when they went against king George and signed the declaration of independence.
Trump comes with nothing and will leave the same.In yer wet, wild dreams homeboy...Your bloodlust is showing what will Jesus Christ do with you?Does yer Rascal hovers round have enough battery power to propel you into the front lines of another civil war?This decision establishes a precedent that says states can violate the US constitution and not be held accountable.
The US Constitution has no provisions for how states run an election.
The Elections Clause is the primary source of constitutional authority to regulate elections for the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. The Clause directs and empowers states to determine the “Times, Places, and Manner” of congressional elections, subject to Congress’s authority to “make or alter” state regulations. It grants each level of government the authority to enact a complete code for such elections, including rules concerning public notices, voter registration, voter protection, fraud prevention, vote counting, and determination of election results. Whenever a state enacts a law relating to a congressional election, it is exercising power under the Elections Clause; states do not have any inherent authority to enact such measures.
Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center
Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholarsconstitutioncenter.org
I never was able to complete my law degree and I take great offence to the state AG who is ignorant of just how the Constitution works along with state control of elections....
that is not what the ruling was about. they ruled that Texas and the other states did not have standing to bring the suit. look up lack of standing, you might learn something and stop posting like an idiot.
Yeah, about 100 posters here told the cult that TX didn’t have standing. But the poorly educated cultists really thought TX could win. The ruling was effectively 9-0 as Thomas and Alito said there were no remedies.
It was all Kabuki Theater. But cults gonna cult.
like your fellow libs, you also do not understand what lack of standing means in a court of american law. It is not the final straw. It is certainly a set back, but not the end of the fight. It may be that the only workable remedy is secession or breaking up the country into conservative and liberal separate countries. None of us want that, but with the country so divided philosophically it may be the only solution. If we cannot live together, lets live separately. Then we can see which system actually works.
I don't have whatever that is, but I have several guns and thousands of rounds of ammo. We would also have the police and the military and you would have the trannys who don't know which bathroom to use. it would be a very short war. A peaceful secession or division would be much better for everyone and would allow each side to live under its own ideology. We would take constitutional freedom and you can have socialist domination. Ready?
I think he is with me. Right will prevail, it may take a while, but in the end right and truth will win out. the founders knew that when they went against king George and signed the declaration of independence.
Yeah, it's time to divvy this mother up and quit pretending we don't want to shoot every fat stormtrooper dyke and fucking soy boy in the face. It's not going to work anymore. It's over.
Yeah..but in this iteration..Trump IS King George!In yer wet, wild dreams homeboy...Your bloodlust is showing what will Jesus Christ do with you?Does yer Rascal hovers round have enough battery power to propel you into the front lines of another civil war?This decision establishes a precedent that says states can violate the US constitution and not be held accountable.
The US Constitution has no provisions for how states run an election.
The Elections Clause is the primary source of constitutional authority to regulate elections for the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. The Clause directs and empowers states to determine the “Times, Places, and Manner” of congressional elections, subject to Congress’s authority to “make or alter” state regulations. It grants each level of government the authority to enact a complete code for such elections, including rules concerning public notices, voter registration, voter protection, fraud prevention, vote counting, and determination of election results. Whenever a state enacts a law relating to a congressional election, it is exercising power under the Elections Clause; states do not have any inherent authority to enact such measures.
Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center
Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholarsconstitutioncenter.org
I never was able to complete my law degree and I take great offence to the state AG who is ignorant of just how the Constitution works along with state control of elections....
that is not what the ruling was about. they ruled that Texas and the other states did not have standing to bring the suit. look up lack of standing, you might learn something and stop posting like an idiot.
Yeah, about 100 posters here told the cult that TX didn’t have standing. But the poorly educated cultists really thought TX could win. The ruling was effectively 9-0 as Thomas and Alito said there were no remedies.
It was all Kabuki Theater. But cults gonna cult.
like your fellow libs, you also do not understand what lack of standing means in a court of american law. It is not the final straw. It is certainly a set back, but not the end of the fight. It may be that the only workable remedy is secession or breaking up the country into conservative and liberal separate countries. None of us want that, but with the country so divided philosophically it may be the only solution. If we cannot live together, lets live separately. Then we can see which system actually works.
I don't have whatever that is, but I have several guns and thousands of rounds of ammo. We would also have the police and the military and you would have the trannys who don't know which bathroom to use. it would be a very short war. A peaceful secession or division would be much better for everyone and would allow each side to live under its own ideology. We would take constitutional freedom and you can have socialist domination. Ready?
I think he is with me. Right will prevail, it may take a while, but in the end right and truth will win out. the founders knew that when they went against king George and signed the declaration of independence.
Chairman Allen West's Response to SCOTUS Decision - Republican Party of Texas
RPT Chairman Allen West's statement regarding the SCOTUS decision to dismiss Texas's constitutionally legitimate and critical lawsuit.www.texasgop.org
YES YES YES! I am ready to pack and move because I know damn well my spineless coward of a governor would sit on his ass and do nothing!
Isn’t Texas the state that doesn’t want anyone else telling them what to do? But they want to tell other states how to run their election.the texas suit failed at the first hurdle. they could not present persuasive arguments for standing. as predicted by anyone with a little understanding. that leaves you out.I have great, simple English, comprehension skills- and I can pick out word parsing with the best of them- so, STFU, stupid.Nope. stop it. it's clearly beyond your grasp.
We were told this SCOTUS would always rule in Trump’s favor. How is this possible?
Chairman Allen West's Response to SCOTUS Decision - Republican Party of Texas
RPT Chairman Allen West's statement regarding the SCOTUS decision to dismiss Texas's constitutionally legitimate and critical lawsuit.
YES YES YES! I am ready to pack and move because I know damn well my spineless coward of a governor would sit on his ass and do nothing!
And now another matter may come before the Supreme Court:
Lawmakers Who Backed Texas Lawsuit Should Be Barred From House: NJ Congressman
Democratic Rep. Bill Pascrell cited Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, enacted after the Civil War to keep traitors out of the government.www.yahoo.com
View attachment 428161
And Rubio are working behind the scene. Trying to sabotage all of his chances to regain his position back. The Dems already has control of both House and Senate due to them smuggling in a few RINOs among the lambs. But they are trying to make sure that Pres. Trump doesn't overturn the election which it will cause other Republican candidates who lost the Primary and Genera; elections to demand for a revote.In a Capitalist economy Greed is not only not a sin, but a cardinal Virtue!
So you think Ted Cruz had something to do with the SCOTUS tossing the case/ Well..after all Trumop said Cruz's Dad killed Kennedy or something, right?
But one thing about Pres. Trump. It is that he will never give up.
But I wished that he will have Cynthia Mckinney to speak for him. She will make a better Aaron rather than Cruz.
But they have Pres. Trump looking in areas where they want him to look at. He needs to look on the outside of the box that they have put him into.
And he needs to change the head military officers just in case he decides to declare martial law.
Eight years ago. I've said this shit eight years ago. Fuck off with that.You have faith in it only if it's in your favor.
It does seem to be that people who say that... Seem to apply it to themselves... Present company may be excluded.
Edit: I'll go find it again.
Aug 25, 2012
Want my vote?
Put this on your platform and you put it in every ad you run... Obama, Mitt, Johnson... Whoever... I'll vote for you. I found the youtube version so maybe people will actually watch it. David Bismark: E-voting without fraud - YouTube This... this right here... If you actually...www.usmessageboard.com
We absolutely disagree on this.I voted for anyone other than Rump in 2020 and it still worked. It ain't perfect but it's the best in the World and the rest of the world knows it.
