One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Many of us still think the e******n w*s f********t.
Page <<first <prev 5 of 5
Nov 29, 2021 08:36:56   #
RandyBrian Loc: Texas
 
PeterS wrote:
Is that what we Democrats did in Georgia, Nevada, and Arizona? And cities don't administer state or national e******ns so they don't have any ability to hide e******n f***d as that falls to the county auditor, county clerk, or commissioner. And if you have any evidence of any c***ting going on there then bring it forward or are accusations the only thing you cons can come up with?


Yes, it IS what you Democrats did in Georgia, Nevada, and Arizona. No' cities do not administer the e******ns. Yes, county and states do. And yes, Democrat officials DID encourage and then cover for e******n f***d. And no, the evidence is not in my possession. And yes, I am entitled to my opinion and to express it. The difference is I make it plain that it is my opinion, where as you do not. Further, you should follow DASHY's or Straightup's writing examples. They are just as wrong as you, but the are less unbelievable.

Reply
Nov 29, 2021 09:24:51   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
RandyBrian wrote:
Yes, it IS what you Democrats did in Georgia, Nevada, and Arizona. No' cities do not administer the e******ns. Yes, county and states do. And yes, Democrat officials DID encourage and then cover for e******n f***d. And no, the evidence is not in my possession. And yes, I am entitled to my opinion and to express it. The difference is I make it plain that it is my opinion, where as you do not. Further, you should follow DASHY's or Straightup's writing examples. They are just as wrong as you, but the are less unbelievable.
Yes, it IS what you Democrats did in Georgia, Neva... (show quote)



Reply
Nov 29, 2021 10:21:12   #
Mikeyavelli
 
RandyBrian wrote:
Yes, it IS what you Democrats did in Georgia, Nevada, and Arizona. No' cities do not administer the e******ns. Yes, county and states do. And yes, Democrat officials DID encourage and then cover for e******n f***d. And no, the evidence is not in my possession. And yes, I am entitled to my opinion and to express it. The difference is I make it plain that it is my opinion, where as you do not. Further, you should follow DASHY's or Straightup's writing examples. They are just as wrong as you, but the are less unbelievable.
Yes, it IS what you Democrats did in Georgia, Neva... (show quote)


It may be your opinion, and it certainly is my opinion, but it is also a fact that the e******n was s****n.
Never in the history of the United States has a force so vast and varied marshaled together to support a fraudulent endeavor such as this s****n e******n.
They had practice though, supporting the Virgin Birth of Obama In Hawaii.
The s****n e******n surpasses the Brockobamma Birth Fraud. The left knows now that they can get away with murder, and they have, right Hillary?

Reply
 
 
Nov 29, 2021 11:38:30   #
crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island
 
PeterS wrote:
Trump got his shot before over 60 state and federal courts plus twice before the Supreme Court. And don't sit there and tell me that--boohoo, no judge would hear Trump's case--because that's the biggest pile of crap you people have peddled yet because he (one of Trump's lawyers) got a 21-page roasting by the Third Circut Court of Appeals. So for him to be roasted by the Third Circut they had to have read the lawsuit which means that all the lower courts were correct in rejecting Trump's bogus claims. And Roberts was very clear that one state can't sue another state over their e******n laws. He didn't have to read the suit to know that it was unconstitutional...for that, he simply had to read the US constitution...something the Texas AG apparently never did.
https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/203371np.pdf
Trump got his shot before over 60 state and federa... (show quote)



Just about every tme I follow one of your links, I find it’s not what you maintain and this is no exception. This is directly from the decision:
“This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, is not binding precedent.” Talk about misrepresentation.

Even worse, the Pennsylvania case was, literally, specifically in direct violation of the letter of The Constitution. You can look it up PeterS, if you know how.

Thank you so much for helping me prove my case.



Reply
Page <<first <prev 5 of 5
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.