ELECTION RIGGING 2024. The Hamas Mostly Peaceful Riots & Everything Else That's Coming

[BillsFanNC]

3 minutes ago, dickleyjones said:

why are the Rs so far behind in election tactics (including cheating)? if you really believe your country is on the line then winning should be your top priority.

 

You serious Clark?

[dickleyjones]

Just now, BillsFanNC said:

 

You serious Clark?

when it comes to winning, i consider myself ruthless. that's not very Canadian of me, i know, but winners write the history books.

 

so when i see all these accusations vs Ds i can only wonder what it will take for the Rs to clue in. or, you know, die on the supposed moral high ground.

[BillsFanNC]

1 minute ago, dickleyjones said:

when it comes to winning, i consider myself ruthless. that's not very Canadian of me, i know, but winners write the history books.

 

so when i see all these accusations vs Ds i can only wonder what it will take for the Rs to clue in. or, you know, die on the supposed moral high ground.

 

If you live in a constitutional republic, which I understand that you don't,  rigging and cheating from either side eventually renders the constitutional republic extinct for all.

 

That's why.

 

 

[dickleyjones]

7 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

If you live in a constitutional republic, which I understand that you don't,  rigging and cheating from either side eventually renders the constitutional republic extinct for all.

 

That's why.

 

 

well then enjoy your descent into communism, i guess? at least you can say you went down honestly, not the kind of consolation prize i would strive for but hey i live under a monarchy with a democratic parliament things stay the same unless actual heads roll

[SectionC3]

19 minutes ago, dickleyjones said:

when it comes to winning, i consider myself ruthless. that's not very Canadian of me, i know, but winners write the history books.

 

so when i see all these accusations vs Ds i can only wonder what it will take for the Rs to clue in. or, you know, die on the supposed moral high ground.

Agreed.  Do stuff people want.  Don’t alienate them.  Don’t be a jerk.  All things MAGA could learn from.  America wants normal. MAGA weirdos can’t or won’t give it to them.  Instead we have a hetero-sectional nominee.  It’s just weird. 

[BillsFanNC]

Just now, dickleyjones said:

well then enjoy your descent into communism, i guess? at least you can say you went down honestly, not the kind of consolation prize i would strive for but hey i live under a monarchy with a democratic parliament things stay the same unless actual heads roll

 

Trump is merely a roadblock to the communists even if he somehow gets into office. They've played the long game for nearly a century, they will never quit. Defeating them will take decades and it begins local. 

 

But you've already got a communist Prime Minister.

 

C'mon fight the good fight in the great white north!

 

 

[dickleyjones]

8 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

Trump is merely a roadblock to the communists even if he somehow gets into office. They've played the long game for nearly a century, they will never quit. Defeating them will take decades and it begins local. 

 

But you've already got a communist Prime Minister.

 

C'mon fight the good fight in the great white north!

 

 

never got to see Triumph but i have done work at their studio and it was amazing. lots of gold records on the walls.

 

meh, Trudeau isn't a communist, he's a neocon like our other main party. one and the same. he had a chance to prove different with electoral reform (we are still using obaolete fptp like you guys) but lied and did nothing instead.

 

dont worry though, we Canadians have a fine tradition of voting people out when we get sick of their face and it seems that Trudeau has crossed that threshold.

Edited August 8 by dickleyjones

[Westside]

On 8/7/2024 at 10:49 AM, BillsFanNC said:

Be prepared.

 

 

Is she peacefully transitioning out of congress? Just curious liberals, is this ok? 

[Starr-Bills]

On 7/26/2024 at 11:48 AM, BillsFanNC said:

It's going to get much, much, MUCH worse just so you know.

 

They will absolutely NOT allow Trump to be President again.  They do not care that they are removing the mask to make it happen.

 

 

If by they you mean article 3 of the 14th amendment.

[wnyguy]

38 minutes ago, Starr-Bills said:

If by they you mean article 3 of the 14th amendment.

Do your homework Billsy.

[Starr-Bills]

2 minutes ago, wnyguy said:

Do your homework Billsy.

Fourteenth Amendment  Equal Protection and Other Rights

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Amdt14.S3.1  Overview of the Insurrection Clause (Disqualification Clause)

Amdt14.S3.2  Trump v. Anderson and Enforcement of the Insurrection Clause (Disqualification Clause)

 

not sure he could get 2/3 of congress to remove this disability. 

[wnyguy]

1 minute ago, Starr-Bills said:

Fourteenth Amendment  Equal Protection and Other Rights

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Amdt14.S3.1  Overview of the Insurrection Clause (Disqualification Clause)

Amdt14.S3.2  Trump v. Anderson and Enforcement of the Insurrection Clause (Disqualification Clause)

 

not sure he could get 2/3 of congress to remove this disability. 

Very good sir, thank you. Now please show me where President Trump was ever charged with rebellion or insurrection. Because those are official charges that have never been made towards the President. I'm sure that you can now agree that the section you posted is moot.

[BillsFanNC]

1 minute ago, wnyguy said:

Very good sir, thank you. Now please show me where President Trump was ever charged with rebellion or insurrection. Because those are official charges that have never been made towards the President. I'm sure that you can now agree that the section you posted is moot.

 

Tried and convicted by media hacks.

 

Good enough for commies.

[Starr-Bills]

5 minutes ago, wnyguy said:

Very good sir, thank you. Now please show me where President Trump was ever charged with rebellion or insurrection. Because those are official charges that have never been made towards the President. I'm sure that you can now agree that the section you posted is moot.

 Second impeachment of Donald Trump

 

Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (election obstruction case)

 

so let’s game this out. Jan 3 congress is seated. Dems win a majority. They then disqualify Old one ear felon for violating 14/3. 
 

“The justices disagreed in how the federal government would determine the issue of Section 3 disqualification. Five majority justices in the unsigned opinion decided that Congress would need to pass legislation to enforce the 14th Amendment’s disqualification provisions. “Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse,” the five justices wrote in the opinion’s second paragraph.”

 

so seems it’s up to congress to enforce the constitution per SCOTUS. 

[Westside]

6 minutes ago, Starr-Bills said:

 Second impeachment of Donald Trump

 

Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (election obstruction case)

 

so let’s game this out. Jan 3 congress is seated. Dems win a majority. They then disqualify Old one ear felon for violating 14/3. 
 

“The justices disagreed in how the federal government would determine the issue of Section 3 disqualification. Five majority justices in the unsigned opinion decided that Congress would need to pass legislation to enforce the 14th Amendment’s disqualification provisions. “Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse,” the five justices wrote in the opinion’s second paragraph.”

 

so seems it’s up to congress to enforce the constitution per SCOTUS. 

In this dream of yours, do the Bills win the super bowl?

[Starr-Bills]

2 minutes ago, Westside said:

In this dream of yours, do the Bills win the super bowl?

First of many. 

[wnyguy]

10 minutes ago, Starr-Bills said:

 Second impeachment of Donald Trump

 

Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (election obstruction case)

 

so let’s game this out. Jan 3 congress is seated. Dems win a majority. They then disqualify Old one ear felon for violating 14/3. 
 

“The justices disagreed in how the federal government would determine the issue of Section 3 disqualification. Five majority justices in the unsigned opinion decided that Congress would need to pass legislation to enforce the 14th Amendment’s disqualification provisions. “Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse,” the five justices wrote in the opinion’s second paragraph.”

 

so seems it’s up to congress to enforce the constitution per SCOTUS. 

So you're saying if Dems win the majority next election they would charge the President with Insurrection thereby making him unable to accept the Office of the Presidency should he win the election, if he was found guilty of the charge. 

[Starr-Bills]

29 minutes ago, wnyguy said:

So you're saying if Dems win the majority next election they would charge the President with Insurrection thereby making him unable to accept the Office of the Presidency should he win the election, if he was found guilty of the charge. 

Well I’m not a constitutional scholar. But it seems in the unlikely event both the democrats win a majority in the house and potentially the senate and old one ear wins, then Raskins (who is a constitutional scholar and law professor I believe) video suggesting that congress Could act to block him from serving per the 14th. I don’t know the details of how this would work but it’s not unreasonable that it is a possibility. Especially considering SCOTUS ruled specifically that congress has the responsibility. 
 

I, and i think i speak for most, would not like to see it come down to that. I think we would also not want to see the election thrown to a house vote because of partisan delays in the states, regardless of our political leaning. 
 

What I’d like to see is one person (yes citizen) one vote, the American way. (Don’t even get me started on the EC)
 

 

[wnyguy]

Just now, Starr-Bills said:

Well I’m not a constitutional scholar. But it seems in the unlikely event both the democrats win a majority in the house and potentially the senate and old one ear wins, then Raskins (who is a constitutional scholar and law professor I believe) video suggesting that congress Could act to block him from serving per the 14th. I don’t know the details of how this would work but it’s not unreasonable that it is a possibility. Especially considering SCOTUS ruled specifically that congress has the responsibility. 
 

I, and i think i speak for most, would not like to see it come down to that. I think we would also not want to see the election thrown to a house vote because of partisan delays in the states, regardless of our political leaning. 
 

What I’d like to see is one person (yes citizen) one vote, the American way. (Don’t even get me started on the EC)
 

 

I totally agree with you and apologize for calling you BillsTime. 

[BillsFanNC]

Something tells me that dems will suddenly begin to take issue with a state changing election law outside the legislature.

Edited August 8 by BillsFanNC