Liberal Forum
Archive
‹
Political Chat Rooms
‹
No Holds Barred Political Forum
‹
MAGA ... now is tRumps chance
MAGA ... now is tRumps chance
By Mrkelly
2 Aug 2023 3:42 pm in No Holds Barred Political Forum
2 Aug 2023 8:10 pm
canonized for being shown to have stolen an election?
and falsely tried to lock up a political opponent?
how’s that work?
2 Aug 2023 8:10 pm
2 Aug 2023 8:11 pm
Nope. I want the world to see Jack Smith fall on his own sword.Mrkelly » 02 Aug 2023, 7:49 pm » wrote: ↑ wouldn’t it be better to see tRump take him down with proof?
This was a completely political indictment, and even the left should be outraged.
2 Aug 2023 8:15 pm
believing in their savior.Mrkelly » 02 Aug 2023, 8:10 pm » wrote: ↑ canonized for being shown to have stolen an election?
and falsely tried to lock up a political opponent?
how’s that work?
2 Aug 2023 8:16 pm
if tRump proves his casegolfboy » 02 Aug 2023, 8:11 pm » wrote: ↑ Nope. I want the world to see Jack Smith fall on his own sword.
This was a completely political indictment, and even the left should be outraged.
he would prove that it was a political indictment
smith would fall on tRumps sword
2 Aug 2023 8:18 pm
every time he asked the supreme court to overturn election results
2 Aug 2023 8:18 pm
2 Aug 2023 8:29 pm
When did that happen? Please show me, because I'm not aware of any such request.jerrab » 02 Aug 2023, 8:18 pm » wrote: ↑ every time he asked the supreme court to overturn election results
2 Aug 2023 8:31 pm
He doesn't have to prove it's a political indictment. It IS a political indictment.Mrkelly » 02 Aug 2023, 8:16 pm » wrote: ↑ if tRump proves his case
he would prove that it was a political indictment
smith would fall on tRumps sword
Now the onus is on Jack Smith, not Trump.
2 Aug 2023 8:35 pm
oh … OKgolfboy » 02 Aug 2023, 8:31 pm » wrote: ↑ He doesn't have to prove it's a political indictment. It IS a political indictment.
Now the onus is on Jack Smith, not Trump.
just keep talking **** about the deep state
don’t try to bring them down
got it
2 Aug 2023 8:36 pm
2016 Trump - happily
2020 Trump -
2 Aug 2023 8:38 pm
same with me and Obama
dont know what I was thinking
2 Aug 2023 8:46 pm
lol. Yea, that's it.Mrkelly » 02 Aug 2023, 8:35 pm » wrote: ↑ oh … OK
just keep talking **** about the deep state
don’t try to bring them down
got it
Watching liberal attacks exposed and imploding all around them isn't bringing down the deep state.
2 Aug 2023 8:52 pm
if tRump is rightgolfboy » 02 Aug 2023, 8:46 pm » wrote: ↑ lol. Yea, that's it.
Watching liberal attacks exposed and imploding all around them isn't bringing down the deep state.
it took a lot more than a bunch of liberals to pull this off
2 Aug 2023 8:54 pm
https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-do ... 44b979bcecgolfboy » 02 Aug 2023, 8:29 pm » wrote: ↑ When did that happen? Please show me, because I'm not aware of any such request.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a handful of cases related to the 2020 election, including disputes from Pennsylvania that had deeply divided the justices just before the election.The cases the justices rejected involved election challenges filed by former President Donald Trump and his allies in five states President Joe Biden won: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.Other than two Pennsylvania disputes, the justices’ decision not to hear the cases was unsurprising but ends months of legal wrangling. The court had previously taken no action in those cases and in January had turned away pleas that the cases be fast-tracked, again suggesting the justices were not interested in hearing them.
2 Aug 2023 8:55 pm
well in 2008 it was Insane McCain....2012, Romney. So...
2 Aug 2023 8:58 pm
Mrkelly » 02 Aug 2023, 8:52 pm » wrote: ↑ if tRump is right
it took a lot more than a bunch of liberals to pull this off
liberal- code word for anyone who does not love trump.
also rhino
2 Aug 2023 9:14 pm
What does "the Justices' decision not to hear the cases" mean to you?jerrab » 02 Aug 2023, 8:54 pm » wrote: ↑ https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-do ... 44b979bcec
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a handful of cases related to the 2020 election, including disputes from Pennsylvania that had deeply divided the justices just before the election.The cases the justices rejected involved election challenges filed by former President Donald Trump and his allies in five states President Joe Biden won: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.Other than two Pennsylvania disputes, the justices’ decision not to hear the cases was unsurprising but ends months of legal wrangling. The court had previously taken no action in those cases and in January had turned away pleas that the cases be fast-tracked, again suggesting the justices were not interested in hearing them.
NONE of the voter fraud cases were ever heard by a court, because no court in this country is going to overturn a Presidental election.
2 Aug 2023 9:15 pm
You mean like the FBI and DoJ?Mrkelly » 02 Aug 2023, 8:52 pm » wrote: ↑ if tRump is right
it took a lot more than a bunch of liberals to pull this off
2 Aug 2023 9:18 pm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------roadkill » 02 Aug 2023, 4:29 pm » wrote: ↑ Trump has 1st A right to say what he wants to. The hoax indictment will go nowhere just like all the other dem hoaxes.
I use to think you were kind of smart...but yer as stupid as Bruce.
Did you do Biden's daughter in the shower too?
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product ... 0Amendment.
Existing Prohibitions on False Speech Although content-based laws generally trigger strict scrutiny, possibly including laws regulating false statements, the Supreme Court has historically allowed certain limited categories of speech to be regulated based on their content. These categories include defamation and fraud, both of which entail false speech. Apart from these limited categories, existing federal laws prohibit, for example, perjury or making certain materially false statements to government officials. Other federal laws address misrepresentations in political advertising or in broadcast med
Who is online
In total there are 3461 users online :: 9 registered, 15 bots, and 3437 guests
Registered users: Johnny You, Blackvegetable, ROG62, jerra b, Punch, murdock, Varnaj42, Deezer Shoove, 31st Arrival
Bots: DuckDuckBot, proximic, CriteoBot, Applebot, ADmantX, app.hypefactors.com, Mediapartners-Google, semantic-visions.com, YandexBot, linkfluence.com, Googlebot, bingbot, curl/7, BLEXBot, GPTBot