ADVERTISEMENT

POLITICAL THREAD

How will they rule ??!

  • YES - Qualified

    Votes: 41 82.0%
  • NO - Disqualified

    Votes: 9 18.0%

  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
Pretty sure that their insane threats to not certify a Trump victory are not just threats.

Dangerous people who are ideologically motivated that the means always justify the ends of its for “democracy”. Let us hope they’re all talk.

Does the new Congress handles the certification? (Sworn in on 1/5?)


Given how badly many reps and senate candidates trail Trump in the polls, this may motivate Trump to make this a campaign issue (along with the congressional candidates). “If you actually want me to be president, you need to vote for Rs down ballot, as well.”


The congressional are maps are so gerrymandered, that there aren’t really that many (compared to 435) seats that are competitive.

In the Senate, if people were smart, seats would flip in AZ, MT, NV, PA, OH, and WV. (MD, too, but that situation is unique). Unfortunately, people are stupid enough to probably split their vote and elect Dem Senators in at least 3 of those states.
 
How I feel today....


434121624_820462660124231_306687407002029974_n.jpg
Thought about going to work on Monday just like that.
 
Yes, Chicago is a tough place to be a Democrat.

JFC - did he REALLY just imply that? No wonder Red cities are a trash fire.
 
  • Like
Reactions: trueblujr2
The New Congress is sworn in before the POTUS, but the votes have already been cast (In December)

The New Congress just reads and adopts the votes. In an ironic twist the HOR's power has been curtailed/reigned in due to rules passed in 2023 (IIRC)

(Bet they didn't see Trump as the front runner, when they pounded out THAT bit of backfiring calculus. LOL)

I truly believe that politicians think that you reverse direction, by turning 360 degrees...
 
Ya left these peaceful little quotes from Jan 6th out....🤡

'If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore' DJT

“We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved. Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore, and that is what this is all about.
DJT

'We will stop the steal' DJT

'We won this election, and we won it by a landslide' DJT

“Republicans are constantly fighting like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back. It’s like a boxer.........And we’re going to have to fight much harder." DJT

"you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength" DJT

“When you catch somebody in a fraud, you are allowed to go by very different rules. So I hope Mike has the courage to do what he has to do" DJT

'we’re going to walk down...and I’ll be there with you.... We are going to the Capitol' DJT

Who hides evidence? Criminals hide evidence. Not honest people.
Over the next 10 days, we get to see the machines that are crooked, the ballots that are fraudulent, and if we’re wrong, we will be made fools of. But if we’re right, a lot of them will go to jail. Let’s have trial by combat.' Rudy G.

'This was the worst election in American history. This election was stolen in seven states. They picked states where they have crooked Democratic cities, where they could push everybody around. And it has to be vindicated to save our republic. This is bigger than Donald Trump. It’s bigger than you and me. It’s about these monuments and what they stand for.' Rudy G.

So please explain again to me what exactly was the purpose of that GD losers rally to begin with if not to incite a mob???

If he was purposed to incite a riot as you deluded neurotics think, he never would've made the request of the mayor and pelosi for the national guard to protect the protesters.

DJT was 100% right in his speech and will be proven such in time, just as he has with so much else. Just watch.

No, the real losers are the media puppeteers filling your middling "minds" with so much nonsense, exploiting your fear and hatred for their own Machiavellian political ends.
 
  • Like
Reactions: trueblujr2
Kentucky head coaches' records in their last 126 games at the school:
- Rick Pitino: 110-16 (.873)
- Adolph Rupp: 104-22 (.825)
- Joe B. Hall: 92-34 (.730)
- Tubby Smith: 91-35 (.722)
- Eddie Sutton: 87-39 (.690)
- John Calipari: 80-46 (.635)
So COW made the Top Six. Don’t show this to his supporters, they might gag on his nut sack.
 
The New Congress is sworn in before the POTUS, but the votes have already been cast (In December)

The New Congress just reads and adopts the votes. In an ironic twist the HOR's power has been curtailed/reigned in due to rules passed in 2023 (IIRC)

(Bet they didn't see Trump as the front runner, when they pounded out THAT bit of backfiring calculus. LOL)

I truly believe that politicians think that you reverse direction, by turning 360 degrees...


Thank you.
 
See, that’s the thing Karl- there is no “evidence” because free speech is not a crime. Even your choice of wording reveals your little totalitarian heart.

Here’s your chance, Karl, since you’ve intimated as much- should people be in jail for speech you don’t like? Should they be jailed for figurative language?

This is an easy yes or no answer, Karl, and one that will reinforce for the rest of us how much you love the good old Constitution you’re always praising.
He's not being prosecuted for incitement, or for any of the words he used in that speech or any other. He's being prosecuted for the actions he took to try to subvert the election and resulting constitutional transfer of power. No matter how much you want to make this a free speech issue, it is not.
 
Wouldn't the Democrats not certifying Trump, if duly elected be insurrection?

Let's go to our insurrection panel of experts: Dion and Sam... what say you?
One is a clearly constitutional process while the other clearly unconstitutional. You just like to say random words don't you?
 
So, Dion weighs in with an unneccesarily verbose "NO"

And it was a question Dion. I didn't express an opinion either way. And you took the opportunity to, as you said, "say random words", when a simple NO would have been sufficient. And I sincerely apologize for making you read. I know how difficult that is for you.
 
He's not being prosecuted for incitement, or for any of the words he used in that speech or any other. He's being prosecuted for the actions he took to try to subvert the election and resulting constitutional transfer of power. No matter how much you want to make this a free speech issue, it is not.
This you?

“Him giving one throwaway line about being peaceful is just as much "figurative language and hyperbole" as his pugilistic language that was much more prevalent. You can't dismiss every other line as simply figurative and then single out only that one as unquestioningly literal.”
 
The New Congress is sworn in before the POTUS, but the votes have already been cast (In December)

The New Congress just reads and adopts the votes. In an ironic twist the HOR's power has been curtailed/reigned in due to rules passed in 2023 (IIRC)

(Bet they didn't see Trump as the front runner, when they pounded out THAT bit of backfiring calculus. LOL)

I truly believe that politicians think that you reverse direction, by turning 360 degrees...
If Dems win Congress and Trump the presidency they could use the latest SCOTUS ruling to not seat him. I'm not predicting they necessarily do that, and the likelihood of a D Congress with trump winning is extremely unlikely, but that's what you were clarifying for him when you talk about Congress being seated before the president. Disqualifying someone under the 14th is now expressly within the purview of Congress and theoretically could be immediately applied to Trump after they were seated.
 
This you?

“Him giving one throwaway line about being peaceful is just as much "figurative language and hyperbole" as his pugilistic language that was much more prevalent. You can't dismiss every other line as simply figurative and then single out only that one as unquestioningly literal.”
Yeah? Sam was calling him morally culpable, not legally. If he were legally culpable he'd've been charged for that along with the other charges.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Lost In FL
How I feel today....


434121624_820462660124231_306687407002029974_n.jpg


If Cal has any integrity he leaves...if he stays it's all about money. Sleazy...Cal never been nothing but sleazy. Imagine if you walked a way...a whole state would cheer.

Only types that still like Cal are the servile bitches that like Joe Biden, results don't matter to them...there are retards in this world.
 
He's not being prosecuted for incitement, or for any of the words he used in that speech or any other. He's being prosecuted for the actions he took to try to subvert the election and resulting constitutional transfer of power. No matter how much you want to make this a free speech issue, it is not.
Also, you may want to explain this to your fellow traveler shinbone, if you actually believe it. Probably be good to get your stories straight.
 
So he’s not legally culpable for inciting a riot? Is that what you’re saying?
Yeah, or he would've been charged with that like he was the other things. He's practically and morally culpable definitely, but legally it would be extremely hard to prove.
 
If Cal has any integrity he leaves...if he stays it's all about money. Sleazy...Cal never been nothing but sleazy. Imagine if you walked a way...a whole state would cheer.

Only types that still like Cal are the servile bitches that like Joe Biden, results don't matter to them...there are retards in this world.

Barnfart will not pay the money to get a rejuvenating coach here. He will cheap out with someone who came from Big Lot's or Ollies.. Never gonna happen but I'm to the point of bringing Slick Rick back..
 
Help me out here. I thought the riot was an attempt to coerce the vote counting. Is that not correct?
Yeah, but how're you going to prove it in court? It's indisputable he organized them and their conduct was criminal(they've been convicted for it), but it'll always come down to he-said she-said in court. Getting a conviction of someone making someone else do something is always a very risky proposition. And the last thing any of us should want is for him to get charged and acquitted.
 
Yeah, but how're you going to prove it in court? It's indisputable he organized them and their conduct was criminal(they've been convicted for it), but it'll always come down to he-said she-said in court. Getting a conviction of someone making someone else do something is always a very risky proposition. And the last thing any of us should want is for him to get charged and acquitted.
Karl you’re blowing my mind. It almost sounds like you’re admitting there’s no real proof of any insurrection.
 
Anyone notice they shaved 5 years off the recommended screening age for colon cancer?

What changed?
I got my first one at 47 in 2017 after my dad was diagnosed. I’m on the 5 year plan for now. Dad passed away 11 months after his diagnosis, both his brothers have it. One caught it early. The other is in stage 4. Almost identical to my dad. A cousin from one of those brothers had some pre-cancerous cells detected. He’s in his late 30’s. Needless to say screening is going to be a regular part of my medical routine for the rest of my life.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT