Liberal Forum

R.Suave » 21 Dec 2023, 2:23 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 2:23 pm

How much of the Jan 6th hearings did you watch?

You still believe MAGA murdered 5 cops and injured 140 other cops badly enough to require medical attention..?
Anyone like you who believes such nonsense isn't even qualified to comment here.

R.Suave » 21 Dec 2023, 2:27 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 2:27 pm

You have no idea what you're talking about..

You still believe MAGA murdered 5 cops and injured 140 other cops badly enough to require medical attention..?
Anyone like you who believes such nonsense isn't even qualified to comment here.

 
 

R.Suave » 21 Dec 2023, 2:23 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 2:23 pm

How much of the Jan 6th hearings did you watch?

How much of the hearings for those who attacked and burned Federal Buildings, took over police stations, and took over city blocks did you watch?  Oh wait, you couldn't, because there weren't any.

GHETTOBLASTER » 21 Dec 2023, 1:41 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 1:41 pm

You still believe MAGA murdered 5 cops and injured 140 other cops badly enough to require medical attention..?
Anyone like you who believes such nonsense isn't even qualified to comment here.

yep. and your denial of true things shows you have the iq of an egg.

Huey » 21 Dec 2023, 2:38 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 2:38 pm

How much of the hearings for those who attacked and burned Federal Buildings, took over police stations, and took over city blocks did you watch?  Oh wait, you couldn't, because there weren't any.

who of those are running for president?

GHETTOBLASTER » 21 Dec 2023, 1:31 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 1:31 pm

The [[[JWO]]] is deliberately creating an unfair situation with Trump with the hope that this will incite enough "vigilante recoil" to justify declaring Martial Law and the eventual disarming of the law abiding public.
This is the Long Game that the [[[JWO]]] is playing and they are the masters of doing that.
You fit the mold of someone who will coexist under their full control very nicely and very obediently because you are oblivious to the amount of freedom and self determination that the [[[JWO]]] is  forcing everyone to surrender.
When the store clerk asks 70 year old Black Vegetable to show his photo ID now just to buy a beer he does so cheerfully and willingly like any well indoctrinated Lambchop would.
Not one single thought goes through his head as to what is really going on.
He doesn't realize that he is being "trained" to accept a future society where every aspect of his life will be strictly monitored by Big Brother.
How many vaccine boosters have you submitted to Lamb Chop...?
Are you pacing the room anxiously for them to order you to take the next one too...?     

------------------------------------------------------

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your ... criticism/


The idea that the U.S. military would oversee a new nationwide presidential election — ordered under martial law by President Donald Trump — is “insane in a year that we didn’t think could get anymore insane,” a defense official tells Military Times.Yet retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn promoted that exact idea Tuesday evening when he tweeted a press release from an Ohio-based conservative political organization.
 

BuckNaked » 21 Dec 2023, 6:39 am » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 6:39 am

what’s your guess how the SCOTUS vote will be on this issue?

9-0

jerrab » 21 Dec 2023, 2:41 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 2:41 pm

who of those are running for president?

Oh, you support those things if they aren’t running for prez.

How quaint.
 

jerrab » 21 Dec 2023, 2:44 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 2:44 pm

------------------------------------------------------

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your ... criticism/

The idea that the U.S. military would oversee a new nationwide presidential election — ordered under martial law by President Donald Trump — is “insane in a year that we didn’t think could get anymore insane,” a defense official tells Military Times.Yet retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn promoted that exact idea Tuesday evening when he tweeted a press release from an Ohio-based conservative political organization.

By submitting this article...you just admitted right here that this was Gen Flynn talking hypothetically instead of your earlier claim that Trump tried to institute martial law for Jan 6.
Thanks for proving what a desperate liar you are and someone who simply isn't qualified to be discussing this topic.

jerrab » 21 Dec 2023, 2:41 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 2:41 pm

yep. and your denial of true things shows you have the iq of an egg.

Here you are...still  insisting that MAGA murdered 5 cops 
Keep digging that great big hole full of STUPID for yourself.
You represent your side so well.
Just curious...do you also happen to be a Queer Man too...?


 

jerrab » 21 Dec 2023, 1:33 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 1:33 pm

that is right. what does that have to do with trump?

Very simple!  The Supreme Court will reverse the Colorado decision and they'll be required to put Trump's name on the ballot.

How is it that you think this has nothing to do with Trump?  What is it that don't you understand?
 

R.Suave » 21 Dec 2023, 2:23 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 2:23 pm

nyet, tovarish.

Reasons were provided...

Consistent with reasoning offered from other benches.

Substantive reasons and justifications. Bear in mind, the accusation that there was an insurrection, has not been subjected to legal due process - so as of now, there wasn't one that can be demonstrated. Also bear in mind Trump's involvement has not been established through any legal due process either. So as of now, it can't be established Trump had any involvement in something which can't be established to have actually happened. Insurrection is a crime, so until legal due process establishes the crime actually happened  - and that Trump actually played a part - Trump wasn't there, because there wasn't a 'there' for him to be there at

..unless you're saying you do have some substance - if you do, put it up front..  If 'none is required' is your substance, then you have no substance, nothing in this ruling is actually true, and it's frankly an embarrassment to the US. Legal processes are not there for paperwork - they are there to ascertain what actually happened. What actually happened is **** important when it comes to making decisions and judgements based on what actually happened

 
 

JustinSane » 21 Dec 2023, 3:09 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 3:09 pm

Substantive reasons and justifications. Bear in mind, the accusation that there was an insurrection has not been subjected to due legal process - so as of now, there wasn't one that can be demonstrated. Also bear in mind Trump's involvement has not been established through any due legal process either. So as of now, it can't be established he had any involvement in something that didn't actually happen in any demonstrable sense. He wasn't there, because there wasn't a 'there' for him to be there at

..unless you're saying you do have some substance - if you do, put it up front..  If 'none is required' is your substance, then you have no substance, nothing in this ruling is actually true, and it's frankly an embarrassment to the US. Legal processes are not there for paperwork - they are there to ascertain what actually happened. What actually happened is **** important when it comes to making decisions based on what happened

. Bear in mind, the accusation that there was an insurrection has not been subjected to due legal process

that's not entirely true, and it doesn't have to be...

Don't rely on entirely compromised, or inept, analysts.

R.Suave » 21 Dec 2023, 3:13 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 3:13 pm

that's not entirely true, and it doesn't have to be...

Don't rely on entirely compromised, or inept, analysts.

It's not just true in a legal sense - it's true in a total sense. You can take that to the bank as a universal rule for life
 

R.Suave » 21 Dec 2023, 3:13 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 3:13 pm

that's not entirely true, and it doesn't have to be...

Don't rely on entirely compromised, or inept, analysts.

Of course, if you are a progressive, it doesn’t have to be.

that is how you loons operate.  Repeat the same thing over and over until it becomes the truth.

If there ever was a real insurgenfency you would be among the first to run for the hills.

i have seen real insurgencies.  What happened on Jan 6th was a small group of idiots acting like lefties.

Huey » 21 Dec 2023, 3:17 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 3:17 pm

Of course, if you are a progressive, it doesn’t have to be.

that is how you loons operate.  Repeat the same thing over and over until it becomes the truth.

If there ever was a real insurgenfency you would be among the first to run for the hills.

i have seen real insurgencies.  What happened on Jan 6th was a small group of idiots acting like lefties.

Thank you for that spontaneous outburst..

But you haven't the vaguest idea what you're talking about.

These are legal definitions. You don't understand such matters.
 

JustinSane » 21 Dec 2023, 3:17 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 3:17 pm

It's not just true in a legal sense - it is totally true. You can take that to the bank as a universal rule for life

No, it isn't.

The Colorado ruling, by virtue of its collective author, settles the "constitutionality" matter, unless SCOTUS determines to re-write the state's constitution.
 
 

R.Suave » 21 Dec 2023, 3:20 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 3:20 pm

Thank you for that spontaneous outburst..

But you haven't the vaguest idea what you're talking about.

These are legal definitions. You don't understand such matters.

And yet, as usual, you can’t defend or support your comments.

I’m spot on.



 

Huey » 21 Dec 2023, 3:25 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 3:25 pm

And yet, as usual, you can’t defend or support your comments.

I’m spot on.

No, I just did...

You spewed a pile of uninformed crap not worthy of a more detailed response.
 

R.Suave » 21 Dec 2023, 3:22 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2023, 3:22 pm

No, it isn't.

The Colorado ruling, by virtue of its collective author, settles the "constitutionality" matter, unless SCOTUS determines to re-write the state's constitution.

What?... which bit are you actually disputing?