I mean if they really thought that they'd say it out loud in public and on tv.But yeah, you keep running with the notion that they all believe Trump is POTUS.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I mean if they really thought that they'd say it out loud in public and on tv.But yeah, you keep running with the notion that they all believe Trump is POTUS.
Ah, my favourites, straw men.You Lefties claim our diversity is our strength but you can’t articulate how.
You Lefties claim we are better for our multiculturalism but you can’t articulate how.
You Lefties claim we need more of Mexico’s people but you can’t articulate why.
You Lefties claim men can become women but you can’t articulate how.
You Lefties claim homosexuals are good for a moral society but you can’t articulate how.
You Lefties claim a Godless society is a better society but you can’t articulate how.
Like why you support rioters protesting cheating police.Yes, I'm going to talk about issues.
Wrong. They said Congress has "long given effect" to Section 3 with legislation.It absolutely does not.
It doesn’t state what organization can declare a candidate ineligible.
It only says that Congress can undo it
I wonder how much of it is the fault of all those lead water lines.This is the kind of insanity we’re dealing with here folks.
So all that is needed is a federal court ruling on a civil action about Trump's eligibility bought by a federal da.Congress enacted the Enforcement Act of 1870. That Act authorized federal district attorneys to bring civil actions in federal court to remove anyone holding nonlegislative office—federal or state—in violation of Section 3, and made holding or attempting to hold office in violation of Section 3 a federal crime
Seems as if you haven't read the decision. To answer your question- the practice of quo warranto was in the Enforcement Act of 1870, and that provision was not transferred over to 18 USC 2383. The Confiscation Act of 1862 did not use quo warranto.So all that is needed is a federal court ruling on a civil action about Trump's eligibility bought by a federal da.
Seems as though the Justices haven't read the law that you have.
It's such a weird feeling, watching them gain influence through sheer numbers.Exactly. That’s why quite a few posters only deserve ridicule. They shit on the floor and expect everyone to seriously discuss the merits of doing so while unaware that they just shit on the floor.
We see their doppelgängers on this message bored.The oldest trick in the leftwing book is to interview 100 people, throw out the 97% who didn't give you what you wanted, then broadcast the three who who did, and present them as the majority. Stupid people believe it.
It was all gone by April.There was nothing to fix when Trump was in office.
So why cite it if it's not applicable?Seems as if you haven't read the decision. To answer your question- the practice of quo warranto was in the Enforcement Act of 1870, and that provision was not transferred over to 18 USC 2383. The Confiscation Act of 1862 did not use quo warranto.
Do you see where it says the SOLE POWER to do so?Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Yeah, it's funny, but it's also sad and alarming because as the person who posted this interview on X pointed out she is hardly alone. My first real foray into politics was when Mitt Romney ran for governor in 2002. I had voted for the first time in 2000 for Al Gore because in Boston everyone was pretty much a Democrat and I never paid much attention, but a friend of mine got me involved in the Romney campaign and then after 9-11 I gravitated over to the Republicans during the Bush administration. This was when the Republicans were the adults in the room and it was the Democrats who used to throw fits and make a spectacle of themselves in the media and on the floor of Congress. Bush got reelected because the party won the debate on policy and treated people, even the media who beat him up daily, with respect. Reagan had a successful eight years because he too, won the debate on policy and treated people with kindness and respect. He won 49 states on his reelection and only lost the 50th state by half a point. Reagan welcomed a big tent party. Today this is what the GOP is catering to:
Today's party is night and day from just 20 years ago. Now, the Republican Party is being led by an egocentric narcissist who does nothing but sew division throughout our country. They want to make his daughter-in-law a fixture in the RNC and are already touting his son for 2028. The party platform is now rife with paranoid warnings of conspiracies around every corner. A majority of Republican primary voters still believe the 2020 election was stolen despite that theory being thoroughly debunked, even by Trump's own appointed judges and former staff. It is now the Democrats, even with their share of extremists, who are taking on the role of "Dad." They are coming across as more reasonable and palatable to the electorate which is why they have been largely successful in the last three election cycles. The Republicans will not survive as a party if these people continue to make up their base.
You will see when you need togetherness as a nation when it is needed what you wrought.It's such a weird feeling, watching them gain influence through sheer numbers.
It's like we're on a bus on a freeway, and the bus is being driven by a toddler. It most likely won't end well, and all we can do is hope the damage isn't too severe.
MTG is essentially the analog for this. Angry, aggressive, profoundly shallow, ignorant and mal-informed, and on a mission.
You will see when you need togetherness as a nation when it is needed what you wrought.
They were explaining that Congress addressed Section 3 a long time ago, and used those examples because they are the predecessor to the current law 2383.So why cite it if it's not applicable?
That's funny shit.The Police were cheating. Using lethal control techniques. Pleased to hear you're all in with BLM because of that.
Yes, I do. Take that argument to the Supreme Court and tell us how it works out. Idiot. People like you are the problem.Do you see where it says the SOLE POWER to do so?