Election 2024 Foreplay

Tony Stark said:
Even though she'd be a bigger tool for wall street,big oil,corporations,the 1%,military industrial complex etc than Bush 2 was I would too.

Shows how fucked up this nation and its presidential candidates are when Nikki Haley is the best outcome:vomit::vomit::vomit::vomit:
More...

Sorry I have not seen one candidate that is not a shill for wall street and big corporations because that is who funds the PACS and campaigns.... sorry but if you are waiting for the candiate that is free from ties to the 1% and big business you will be voting for Tickle Me Elmo...

Dems get their money form some of the wealthiest in hollywood and business just like GOP. I have yet to see any GOP or DEM really turn away from big oil or wall street (who were some of the Dems Secy of Treasury???).

Sorry to burst your bubble....
 
El OchoCinco said:
Sorry I have not seen one candidate that is not a shill for wall street and big corporations because that is who funds the PACS and campaigns.... sorry but if you are waiting for the candiate that is free from ties to the 1% and big business you will be voting for Tickle Me Elmo...

Dems get their money form some of the wealthiest in hollywood and business just like GOP. I have yet to see any GOP or DEM really turn away from big oil or wall street (who were some of the Dems Secy of Treasury???).

Sorry to burst your bubble....
More...


I never said otherwise.Haley would just be worse in that regard than previous presidents.
 
UsualName said:
We don’t allow felons to immigrate today either.
More...

Bullfeathers.

We have an open border which allows MANY undetected felons to cross the border on a minute by minute basis year after year.

This is very much ALLOWED by current policies and legislation. It may not be legal but in the real world it is allowed.
 
upload_2023-12-21_11-17-41.png





upload_2023-12-21_11-16-57.png
 
Doesn't get any more goofy that this Atlantic article below, but I paste it here to let it all hang out.

Note to those who do not have a clue, the court is not going to question whether the Constitution excludes an "insurrectionist" and probably they are not even going to engage in nude mud wrestling to define what an insurrectionist is or should be. They are going to be looking at what kind of due process or lack thereof was followed in reaching their conclusions. Even the dem justices will struggle with that and it is their way out of this because it allows them to object to the Colorado decision too without even getting to the definition of insurrectionist or getting caught siding with Trump on the def. - just as the dissenters in the Colorado case did- who, by the way, were also demoncrats.

Sometimes courts are into uncharted territory and existing law or constitutional provisions are not all that clear but that is not actually the case here. Federal statute also makes insurrection a crime. And if Trump had been charged and convicted of such then that would be a basis for Colorado's position. But the DOJ, various special prosecutors, and the House Jan 6 committee did not even attempt prosecution for prosecution. Nor did the impeachment process.

First thing the Supreme Court justices will want to know is: where was the defendant charged or accused, when was he provided with an opportunity to confront and cross examine the witnesses and evidence against him, and what was his appeal mechanism from that. Ya know, due process and all that pesky stuff. After all, a qualifying citizen has an absolute constitutional right to run for President and you need to provide a full hearing or trial to deny that right.

Idiots gotta id.

The Atlantic tries to make the case that Colorado was just doing basic conservative, originalist work. Heh. Whatevah.

Anyway, here's some talking points for ya, Lefties. We are already laughing at you.

The Colorado Supreme Court Decision Is True Originalism
And that should theoretically appeal to the Supreme Court’s conservative justices.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...reme-court-decision-originalism-trump/676934/
 
TreeFrogTrader said:
I see a lot of loose talk these days about her being Trump's VP.

That dog ain't gonna hunt though. Their "relationship" has run its course, shall we say.

She will be Joe Manchin's VP before she will be Trump's.
More...
Would Pompeo consider VP with Trump?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top