|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 23, 2021 16:55:39 GMT -5
If she wasn't demonstrating in the first place and being in a place where she wasn't allowed and disobeying a servant of the law she would still be alive. I wonder if you were standing before a raging mob charging at you and you were a duly elected official of the law to guard would you welcome them there in to do as they did? It has nothing to do with any Christianity conscience. Your Christian duty[ conscience] is to obey the law of the land. she didn't disobey anyone no one said anything in the video that could be construed that she did... we are to obey God first, mankind second at best... The very fact she entered through a WINDOW, -not a DOOR, -a window that had been broken for the very purpose of illegal entry indicates that she did indeed disobey entry into the Capital.
I feel sorry for her and her parents. I heard her father in tears telling how they could not dissuade her from her beliefs.
She apparently was an avid believer of Trump's propaganda and they could not reason with her.
If any of you are so bent on her death as murder and need to blame someone -then quit blaming the officer whose very duty was to defend the Capital from intruders and put the blame where it really is: ON TRUMP!
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Apr 23, 2021 19:24:00 GMT -5
Did God tell Babbitt to join the violent attack on the Capitol? did God tell our american forefathers to revolt? They were revolting.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Apr 23, 2021 19:50:12 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2021 20:10:37 GMT -5
she didn't disobey anyone no one said anything in the video that could be construed that she did... we are to obey God first, mankind second at best... The very fact she entered through a WINDOW, -not a DOOR, -a window that had been broken for the very purpose of illegal entry indicates that she did indeed disobey entry into the Capital.
If any of you are so bent on her death as murder and need to blame someone -then quit blaming the officer whose very duty was to defend the Capital from intruders and put the blame where it really is: ON TRUMP! that wasn't what fixit said nor the point...good try though likewise stop blaming officers from having to shoot criminals when they resist arrest or worse...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2021 20:19:15 GMT -5
trump didn't foment anything for the riot. he said: "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." You think Trump was too stupid to notice his people had weapons? The patriotic thing would have been to accept the constitutional process. And a patriotic president would have told his thugs to go home when he knew they had broken into the building. A patriotic president would have called in the national guard to support his beleaguered Capitol police (140 of whom were injured). Instead, Trump and his family were watching the show with glee. Bone spurred Trump would call Ashli Babbitt a loser. no none gets within a mile of the president with weapons neither the police nor the secret service would allow it... its debatable but they were trying to get pence and others use a vague rule in the process to stop the counting can't remember the exact wording or name of said rule/law.... given either maryland or virginia offered troops but either the DC mayor or the Capitol police refused the offer... that would be speculation on your part and not necessarily fact... i don't believe he did that... good try...
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 23, 2021 22:11:20 GMT -5
You think Trump was too stupid to notice his people had weapons? The patriotic thing would have been to accept the constitutional process. And a patriotic president would have told his thugs to go home when he knew they had broken into the building. A patriotic president would have called in the national guard to support his beleaguered Capitol police (140 of whom were injured). Instead, Trump and his family were watching the show with glee. Bone spurred Trump would call Ashli Babbitt a loser. no none gets within a mile of the president with weapons neither the police nor the secret service would allow it... its debatable but they were trying to pence and others use a vague rule in the process to stop the counting can't remember the exact wording or name of said rule/law....
giveneither maryland or virginia offered troops but either the DC mayor or the Capitol police refused the offer... that would be speculation on your part and not necessarily fact... i don't believe he did that... good try... It is a bit difficult to untangle your post, wally, -but after several readings I will give it a try.
You said: "-its debatable but they were trying to pence and others use a vague rule in the process to stop the counting can't remember the exact wording or name of said rule/law...."
Did you mean, "-its debatable that the Trump supporters were trying to stop Pence from certifying the Electoral College votes for the President?"
If so, NO, it is NOT DEBATABLE!
It was precisely the reason they were there on Jan.6!
The role of the vice president (in this case Pence) is certification of the votes of the Electoral College before the combined meeting of the Senate & House the January 6.
Trump asked his supporters to come to Washington that very day, Jan. 6!
It was the REASON that his supporters came to Washington DC on Jan.6!
Trump's speech was at the very time the time of day that the vote was to be certified!
It was the subject of Trump's speech at the site! There was nothing debatable about it !
...and in fact because of the invasion of the Capital's combined meeting of Senate & House had to be postponed!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2021 22:58:23 GMT -5
no none gets within a mile of the president with weapons neither the police nor the secret service would allow it... its debatable but they were trying to pence and others use a vague rule in the process to stop the counting can't remember the exact wording or name of said rule/law....
giveneither maryland or virginia offered troops but either the DC mayor or the Capitol police refused the offer... that would be speculation on your part and not necessarily fact... i don't believe he did that... good try... It is a bit difficult to untangle your post, wally, -but after several readings I will give it a try.
You said: "-its debatable but they were trying to pence and others use a vague rule in the process to stop the counting can't remember the exact wording or name of said rule/law...."
Did you mean, "-its debatable that the Trump supporters were trying to stop Pence from certifying the Electoral College votes for the President?"
If so, NO, it is NOT DEBATABLE!
It was precisely the reason they were there on Jan.6!
The role of the vice president (in this case Pence) is certification of the votes of the Electoral College before the combined meeting of the Senate & House the January 6.
Trump asked his supporters to come to Washington that very day, Jan. 6!
It was the REASON that his supporters came to Washington DC on Jan.6!
Trump's speech was at the very time the time of day that the vote was to be certified!
It was the subject of Trump's speech at the site! There was nothing debatable about it !
...and in fact because of the invasion of the Capital's combined meeting of Senate & House had to be postponed!
that is not what i said...i said the vague rule or law they(trump & company)were trying to use to stop the count was debatable....
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 23, 2021 23:45:48 GMT -5
It is a bit difficult to untangle your post, wally, -but after several readings I will give it a try.
You said: "-its debatable but they were trying to pence and others use a vague rule in the process to stop the counting can't remember the exact wording or name of said rule/law...."
Did you mean, "-its debatable that the Trump supporters were trying to stop Pence from certifying the Electoral College votes for the President?"
If so, NO, it is NOT DEBATABLE!
It was precisely the reason they were there on Jan.6!
The role of the vice president (in this case Pence) is certification of the votes of the Electoral College before the combined meeting of the Senate & House the January 6.
Trump asked his supporters to come to Washington that very day, Jan. 6!
It was the REASON that his supporters came to Washington DC on Jan.6!
Trump's speech was at the very time the time of day that the vote was to be certified!
It was the subject of Trump's speech at the site! There was nothing debatable about it !
...and in fact because of the invasion of the Capital's combined meeting of Senate & House had to be postponed! that is not what i said...i said the vague rule or law they(trump & company)were trying to use to stop the count was debatable.... OK, -that may have been what you meant, wally -but it wasn't what you said! I told you I couldn't really understand what you posted.
Maybe you were too sleepy! Maybe you shouldn't stay up so late at night!
Here is what you posted!
"its debatable but they were trying to get pence and others use a vague rule in the process to stop the counting can't remember the exact wording or name of said rule/law...."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2021 23:53:49 GMT -5
that is not what i said...i said the vague rule or law they(trump & company)were trying to use to stop the count was debatable.... OK, -that may have been what you meant, wally -but it wasn't what you said! I told you I couldn't really understand what you posted.
Maybe you were too sleepy! Maybe you shouldn't stay up so late at night!
Here is what you posted!
"its debatable but they were trying to get pence and others use a vague rule in the process to stop the counting can't remember the exact wording or name of said rule/law...."
it was just 3 hours ago...no sleep required...that sentence looks good to me minus a comma maybe....
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 24, 2021 0:55:28 GMT -5
OK, -that may have been what you meant, wally -but it wasn't what you said! I told you I couldn't really understand what you posted.
Maybe you were too sleepy! Maybe you shouldn't stay up so late at night!
Here is what you posted!
"its debatable but they were trying to get pence and others use a vague rule in the process to stop the counting can't remember the exact wording or name of said rule/law...."
it was just 3 hours ago...no sleep required...that sentence looks good to me minus a coma maybe.... Well, wally, -then it could be that dementia is beginning to take it toll on me.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 24, 2021 3:05:34 GMT -5
It is a bit difficult to untangle your post, wally, -but after several readings I will give it a try.
You said: "-its debatable but they were trying to pence and others use a vague rule in the process to stop the counting can't remember the exact wording or name of said rule/law...."
Did you mean, "-its debatable that the Trump supporters were trying to stop Pence from certifying the Electoral College votes for the President?"
If so, NO, it is NOT DEBATABLE!
It was precisely the reason they were there on Jan.6!
The role of the vice president (in this case Pence) is certification of the votes of the Electoral College before the combined meeting of the Senate & House the January 6.
Trump asked his supporters to come to Washington that very day, Jan. 6!
It was the REASON that his supporters came to Washington DC on Jan.6!
Trump's speech was at the very time the time of day that the vote was to be certified!
It was the subject of Trump's speech at the site! There was nothing debatable about it !
...and in fact because of the invasion of the Capital's combined meeting of Senate & House had to be postponed!
that is not what i said...i said the vague rule or law they(trump & company)were trying to use to stop the count was debatable.... It's not debatable. It's part of the sore-loser crybaby Trumpist nonsense. www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/congress-set-count-trump-biden-electoral-college-votes-here-s-n1252609Verifying the vote count is constitutionally required, but it has become largely procedural — electors officially cast their votes on Dec. 14, and Joe Biden defeated President Donald Trump by 306-232, a result Trump referred to as a "landslide" when he won with the same numbers in 2016. Unlike Trump then, Biden also won the popular vote, garnering 7 million more votes than Trump. Further dampening the momentum is that there's been no evidence of any widespread fraud, despite wild claims by Trump and his allies that he actually won the swing states that Biden won because the election was "rigged" by vote-switching machines, dead voters, phony ballots and improper rule changes. Election officials have conducted recounts and audits in many of the states Trump has complained about, and federal and state officials and federal and state courts have found no evidence of any widespread fraud; they have repeatedly debunked Trump allies' claims, conjectures and flawed legal theories. A handful of fraud cases have been uncovered in key states — in Pennsylvania, three Republicans have been charged with illegally voting for Trump — but nothing large-scale that comes close to Biden's margin of victory in those states.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Apr 24, 2021 7:33:40 GMT -5
OK, -that may have been what you meant, wally -but it wasn't what you said! I told you I couldn't really understand what you posted.
Maybe you were too sleepy! Maybe you shouldn't stay up so late at night!
Here is what you posted!
"its debatable but they were trying to get pence and others use a vague rule in the process to stop the counting can't remember the exact wording or name of said rule/law...."
it was just 3 hours ago...no sleep required...that sentence looks good to me minus a coma maybe.... Oh good grief that sentence is nowhere near "good." The first problem is "its debatable." "its" means that something (it) is possessing something (its). It sets the reader up to expect that "its debatable ____ " -- but then the blank is not filled, so we're left guessing. It could be "Its debatable premise..." - but the we're left wondering who or what "it" is. And all of those problems are presented in just the first word! (hint: all of those problems could have been avoided if you had used the proper form of the contraction of "it is" -- which is "it's" -- not "its".) Next issue: "It's debatable but..." immediately sets the reader up to wonder what is debatable. The answer appears to be whether or not "they" were "...trying to get pence and others to..." but in actuality, that's not what you meant was debatable. Again, one can muddle through and finally make sense out of what you were trying to say. Do your reader a kindness and don't make them work so hard. (hint: that problem could have been avoided with wording something like "It's a debatable premise, but they were trying to get pence...". Now I know that there's a premise involved, and the precise nature of that premise immediately follows: "...they were trying to get pence..."). Let's look at the next problem: "...trying to get pence and others use...". Here we're presented with a mishmash of two separate thoughts, both of which are incomplete: 1) "trying to get pence and others" -- get them what? The object is missing from that construction. The reader is left to fill in the blank: "trying to get pence and others... executed? Freed? Lemonade? OR, ignoring that incomplete phrase, the reader can move on to the second separate thought presented: "use a vague rule..." -- but there the reader is left wondering who or what uses a vague rule? To answer that question, the reader's best choice is to retrace their steps and read it "pence and others use a vague rule in the process..." but then, reading on, that doesn't rationally flow into "to stop the counting can't remember..." (hint: all of those problems could have been avoided if you had used the word "to" to complete the verb "use": ...trying to get pence and others TO use a vague rule). Then the reader moves on to the run-on "...stop the counting can't remember...". While that causes brief grammatical arrhythmia (...what can't remember? Counting can't remember? Who knew "counting" even had a memory!) it's not as stumping as the previous issues. (hint: that problem could have been eliminated by using a full stop or semi-colon (not a comma, as you suggested) in the right place and adding a subject: "...to stop the counting. I can't remember the exact...". It would be forgivable to omit the "I" given the written shortcuts we all take in casual writing: "... to stop the counting. Can't remember the exact...") Here's what good looks like: "It's a debatable premise, but they were trying to get Pence and others to use a vague rule in the process to stop the counting. I can't remember the exact wording or name of said rule/law..." Once again, you've failed this writing test spectacularly. I can only assume you were a victim of common core English. I hope you're not as sloppy with your firearms as you are with the English language. Shoddy try, though.
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Apr 24, 2021 7:59:43 GMT -5
OK, -that may have been what you meant, wally -but it wasn't what you said! I told you I couldn't really understand what you posted.
Maybe you were too sleepy! Maybe you shouldn't stay up so late at night!
Here is what you posted!
"its debatable but they were trying to get pence and others use a vague rule in the process to stop the counting can't remember the exact wording or name of said rule/law...."
it was just 3 hours ago...no sleep required...that sentence looks good to me minus a coma maybe.... Sleep deprivation and not being in a coma must be very similar in effect?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2021 11:53:21 GMT -5
that is not what i said...i said the vague rule or law they(trump & company)were trying to use to stop the count was debatable.... It's not debatable. It's part of the sore-loser crybaby Trumpist nonsense. www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/congress-set-count-trump-biden-electoral-college-votes-here-s-n1252609Verifying the vote count is constitutionally required, but it has become largely procedural — electors officially cast their votes on Dec. 14, and Joe Biden defeated President Donald Trump by 306-232, a result Trump referred to as a "landslide" when he won with the same numbers in 2016. Unlike Trump then, Biden also won the popular vote, garnering 7 million more votes than Trump. Further dampening the momentum is that there's been no evidence of any widespread fraud, despite wild claims by Trump and his allies that he actually won the swing states that Biden won because the election was "rigged" by vote-switching machines, dead voters, phony ballots and improper rule changes. Election officials have conducted recounts and audits in many of the states Trump has complained about, and federal and state officials and federal and state courts have found no evidence of any widespread fraud; they have repeatedly debunked Trump allies' claims, conjectures and flawed legal theories. A handful of fraud cases have been uncovered in key states — in Pennsylvania, three Republicans have been charged with illegally voting for Trump — but nothing large-scale that comes close to Biden's margin of victory in those states. there was probable fraud and the rule/law they were trying to use is debatable hence why it did not get used like they wanted......
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2021 12:00:54 GMT -5
it was just 3 hours ago...no sleep required...that sentence looks good to me minus a coma maybe.... Oh good grief that sentence is nowhere near "good." The first problem is "its debatable." "its" means that something (it) is possessing something (its). It sets the reader up to expect that "its debatable ____ " -- but then the blank is not filled, so we're left guessing. It could be "Its debatable premise..." - but the we're left wondering who or what "it" is. And all of those problems are presented in just the first word! (hint: all of those problems could have been avoided if you had used the proper form of the contraction of "it is" -- which is "it's" -- not "its".) Next issue: "It's debatable but..." immediately sets the reader up to wonder what is debatable. The answer appears to be whether or not "they" were "...trying to get pence and others to..." but in actuality, that's not what you meant was debatable. Again, one can muddle through and finally make sense out of what you were trying to say. Do your reader a kindness and don't make them work so hard. (hint: that problem could have been avoided with wording something like "It's a debatable premise, but they were trying to get pence...". Now I know that there's a premise involved, and the precise nature of that premise immediately follows: "...they were trying to get pence..."). Let's look at the next problem: "...trying to get pence and others use...". Here we're presented with a mishmash of two separate thoughts, both of which are incomplete: 1) "trying to get pence and others" -- get them what? The object is missing from that construction. The reader is left to fill in the blank: "trying to get pence and others... executed? Freed? Lemonade? OR, ignoring that incomplete phrase, the reader can move on to the second separate thought presented: "use a vague rule..." -- but there the reader is left wondering who or what uses a vague rule? To answer that question, the reader's best choice is to retrace their steps and read it "pence and others use a vague rule in the process..." but then, reading on, that doesn't rationally flow into "to stop the counting can't remember..." (hint: all of those problems could have been avoided if you had used the word "to" to complete the verb "use": ...trying to get pence and others TO use a vague rule). Then the reader moves on to the run-on "...stop the counting can't remember...". While that causes brief grammatical arrhythmia (...what can't remember? Counting can't remember? Who knew "counting" even had a memory!) it's not as stumping as the previous issues. (hint: that problem could have been eliminated by using a full stop or semi-colon (not a comma, as you suggested) in the right place and adding a subject: "...to stop the counting. I can't remember the exact...". It would be forgivable to omit the "I" given the written shortcuts we all take in casual writing: "... to stop the counting. Can't remember the exact...") Here's what good looks like: "It's a debatable premise, but they were trying to get Pence and others to use a vague rule in the process to stop the counting. I can't remember the exact wording or name of said rule/law..." Once again, you've failed this writing test spectacularly. I can only assume you were a victim of common core English. I hope you're not as sloppy with your firearms as you are with the English language. Shoddy try, though. not buying it "teacher" Gene still looks good to me. you did not add anything of value to the sentence. i'll give you the "to" though but any average person could have figured that out...good try though
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2021 12:03:33 GMT -5
it was just 3 hours ago...no sleep required...that sentence looks good to me minus a coma maybe.... Sleep deprivation and not being in a coma must be very similar in effect? i'm actually surprised the grammar policeman stormtrooper Gene didn't catch that, slackin' as usual i suppose...
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 24, 2021 12:47:13 GMT -5
it was just 3 hours ago...no sleep required...that sentence looks good to me minus a coma maybe.... Oh good grief that sentence is nowhere near "good." The first problem is "its debatable." "its" means that something (it) is possessing something (its). It sets the reader up to expect that "its debatable ____ " -- but then the blank is not filled, so we're left guessing. It could be "Its debatable premise..." - but the we're left wondering who or what "it" is. And all of those problems are presented in just the first word! (hint: all of those problems could have been avoided if you had used the proper form of the contraction of "it is" -- which is "it's" -- not "its".) Next issue: "It's debatable but..." immediately sets the reader up to wonder what is debatable. The answer appears to be whether or not "they" were "...trying to get pence and others to..." but in actuality, that's not what you meant was debatable. Again, one can muddle through and finally make sense out of what you were trying to say. Do your reader a kindness and don't make them work so hard. (hint: that problem could have been avoided with wording something like "It's a debatable premise, but they were trying to get pence...". Now I know that there's a premise involved, and the precise nature of that premise immediately follows: "...they were trying to get pence..."). Let's look at the next problem: "...trying to get pence and others use...". Here we're presented with a mishmash of two separate thoughts, both of which are incomplete: 1) "trying to get pence and others" -- get them what? The object is missing from that construction. The reader is left to fill in the blank: "trying to get pence and others... executed? Freed? Lemonade? OR, ignoring that incomplete phrase, the reader can move on to the second separate thought presented: "use a vague rule..." -- but there the reader is left wondering who or what uses a vague rule? To answer that question, the reader's best choice is to retrace their steps and read it "pence and others use a vague rule in the process..." but then, reading on, that doesn't rationally flow into "to stop the counting can't remember..." (hint: all of those problems could have been avoided if you had used the word "to" to complete the verb "use": ...trying to get pence and others TO use a vague rule). Then the reader moves on to the run-on "...stop the counting can't remember...". While that causes brief grammatical arrhythmia (...what can't remember? Counting can't remember? Who knew "counting" even had a memory!) it's not as stumping as the previous issues. (hint: that problem could have been eliminated by using a full stop or semi-colon (not a comma, as you suggested) in the right place and adding a subject: "...to stop the counting. I can't remember the exact...". It would be forgivable to omit the "I" given the written shortcuts we all take in casual writing: "... to stop the counting. Can't remember the exact...") Here's what good looks like: "It's a debatable premise, but they were trying to get Pence and others to use a vague rule in the process to stop the counting. I can't remember the exact wording or name of said rule/law..." Once again, you've failed this writing test spectacularly. I can only assume you were a victim of common core English. I hope you're not as sloppy with your firearms as you are with the English language. Shoddy try, though. Thanks Gene. Glad to know it wasn't just my getting up in years that caused my lack of ability to understand Wally's post!
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Apr 24, 2021 14:22:29 GMT -5
It's not debatable. It's part of the sore-loser crybaby Trumpist nonsense. www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/congress-set-count-trump-biden-electoral-college-votes-here-s-n1252609Verifying the vote count is constitutionally required, but it has become largely procedural — electors officially cast their votes on Dec. 14, and Joe Biden defeated President Donald Trump by 306-232, a result Trump referred to as a "landslide" when he won with the same numbers in 2016. Unlike Trump then, Biden also won the popular vote, garnering 7 million more votes than Trump. Further dampening the momentum is that there's been no evidence of any widespread fraud, despite wild claims by Trump and his allies that he actually won the swing states that Biden won because the election was "rigged" by vote-switching machines, dead voters, phony ballots and improper rule changes. Election officials have conducted recounts and audits in many of the states Trump has complained about, and federal and state officials and federal and state courts have found no evidence of any widespread fraud; they have repeatedly debunked Trump allies' claims, conjectures and flawed legal theories. A handful of fraud cases have been uncovered in key states — in Pennsylvania, three Republicans have been charged with illegally voting for Trump — but nothing large-scale that comes close to Biden's margin of victory in those states. there was probable fraud and the rule/law they were trying to use is debatable hence why it did not get used like they wanted...... Mr stuck record Wally, the only reason you keep parroting this nonsense is because Trump lost. I am constantly surprised how you continue to undermine the constitution and the democracy of your country by your claims.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2021 15:11:35 GMT -5
there was probable fraud and the rule/law they were trying to use is debatable hence why it did not get used like they wanted...... Mr stuck record Wally, the only reason you keep parroting this nonsense is because Trump lost. I am constantly surprised how you continue to undermine the constitution and the democracy of your country by your claims. speaking out against election fraud would not be undermining the constitution or democracy or law it would be promoting them...good try though
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Apr 24, 2021 15:15:37 GMT -5
Mr stuck record Wally, the only reason you keep parroting this nonsense is because Trump lost. I am constantly surprised how you continue to undermine the constitution and the democracy of your country by your claims. speaking out against election fraud would not be undermining the constitution or democracy or law it would be promoting them...good try though The judges, many were appointed by Trump, found that there was no fraud. You continue to undermine the judiciary and your democracy by continuing to claim there was. If you have verifiable evidence of fraud then front up with it. Otherwise.......
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2021 15:20:12 GMT -5
speaking out against election fraud would not be undermining the constitution or democracy or law it would be promoting them...good try though The judges, many were appointed by Trump, found that there was no fraud. You continue to undermine the judiciary and your democracy by continuing to claim there was. If you have verifiable evidence of fraud then front up with it. Otherwise....... already reviewed 40 cases go back and look...if i could get at those 500-1000 affidavits i would...nice try though
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 24, 2021 15:24:03 GMT -5
...i said the vague rule or law they(trump & company)were trying to use to stop the count was debatable.... It's even less debatable than "patriot" Trump's bone spurs. Pence knew there was no constitutional justification for stopping the count. Cry-baby Trump was pathetically desperate, because he hates losers and couldn't accept the he was one.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Apr 24, 2021 15:26:03 GMT -5
...i said the vague rule or law they(trump & company)were trying to use to stop the count was debatable.... It's even less debatable than "patriot" Trump's bone spurs. Pence knew there was no constitutional justification for stopping the count. Cry-baby Trump was pathetically desperate, because he hates losers and couldn't accept the he was one. I found it quite amusing that Commander in Chief Trump did not have the balls to wear his countries uniform. Even worse was his groteque comments about those that did.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2021 15:34:08 GMT -5
...i said the vague rule or law they(trump & company)were trying to use to stop the count was debatable.... It's even less debatable than "patriot" Trump's bone spurs. Pence knew there was no constitutional justification for stopping the count. Cry-baby Trump was pathetically desperate, because he hates losers and couldn't accept the he was one. yeah right, the only losers on NOV 3rd 2020 and JAN 6th 2021 were the american public...
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Apr 24, 2021 15:39:36 GMT -5
The judges, many were appointed by Trump, found that there was no fraud. You continue to undermine the judiciary and your democracy by continuing to claim there was. If you have verifiable evidence of fraud then front up with it. Otherwise....... already reviewed 40 cases go back and look...if i could get at those 500-1000 affidavits i would...nice try though Then present it to a court and let your evidence be judged. Until you do that you are like a man punching the air.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2021 15:40:44 GMT -5
It's even less debatable than "patriot" Trump's bone spurs. Pence knew there was no constitutional justification for stopping the count. Cry-baby Trump was pathetically desperate, because he hates losers and couldn't accept the he was one. I found it quite amusing that Commander in Chief Trump did not have the balls to wear his countries uniform. Even worse was his groteque comments about those that did. US presidents are under no obligation to wear anything specific there is no official dress code, a suit and tie will do or bermuda shorts and a led zepplin t-shirt. and NO president wears a military uniform unless he's been in the military.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Apr 24, 2021 15:42:19 GMT -5
I found it quite amusing that Commander in Chief Trump did not have the balls to wear his countries uniform. Even worse was his groteque comments about those that did. US presidents are under no obligation to wear anything specific there is no official dress code, a suit and tie will do or bermuda shorts and a led zepplin t-shirt. and NO president wears a military uniform unless he's been in the military. I am referring to the manner in which he evaded wearing your countries uniform when he was young.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2021 15:43:12 GMT -5
already reviewed 40 cases go back and look...if i could get at those 500-1000 affidavits i would...nice try though Then present it to a court and let your evidence be judged. Until you do that you are like a man punching the air. yeah right, an average citizen like me having access to election fraud affidavits? that'll be the day....good try though
|
|