Liberal Forum

R.Suave » 29 Dec 2023, 9:24 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 9:24 am

Post the rule...

This is your rule.  Post it.  Or go look in your database of save posts and personal info you maintain. 

Huey » 29 Dec 2023, 9:25 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 9:25 am

This is your rule.  Post it.  Or go look in your database of save posts and personal info you maintain.

Tiny,

You don't answer ANY questions.

You prove you don't fear to take a stand by taking several at once, and run from all of them.

and personal info you maintain.

Leave us revisit one of the numerous biographical sketches you so eagerly volunteer.....since you mentioned The Issue...
 

Californication has rejected calls to remove Trump from the 2024 republican primary ballot...

In a statement, Steven Cheung, a spokesperson for Trump's campaign, responded to Bellow's decision.

"The Maine Secretary of State is a former ACLU attorney, a virulent leftist and a hyper-partisan Biden-supporting Democrat who has decided to interfere in the presidential election on behalf of Crooked Joe Biden," Cheung said. "We are witnessing, in real-time, the attempted theft of an election and the disenfranchisement of the American voter.

"Democrats in blue states are recklessly and un-Constitutionally suspending the civil rights of the American voters by attempting to summarily remove President Trump's name from the ballot. Make no mistake, these partisan election interference efforts are a hostile assault on American democracy. Biden and the Democrats simply do not trust the American voter in a free and fair election and are now relying on the force of government institutions to protect their grip on power," he added.
 

Buffalo » 29 Dec 2023, 9:36 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 9:36 am

Californication has rejected calls to remove Trump from the 2024 republican primary ballot...

In a statement, Steven Cheung, a spokesperson for Trump's campaign, responded to Bellow's decision.

"The Maine Secretary of State is a former ACLU attorney, a virulent leftist and a hyper-partisan Biden-supporting Democrat who has decided to interfere in the presidential election on behalf of Crooked Joe Biden," Cheung said. "We are witnessing, in real-time, the attempted theft of an election and the disenfranchisement of the American voter.

"Democrats in blue states are recklessly and un-Constitutionally suspending the civil rights of the American voters by attempting to summarily remove President Trump's name from the ballot. Make no mistake, these partisan election interference efforts are a hostile assault on American democracy. Biden and the Democrats simply do not trust the American voter in a free and fair election and are now relying on the force of government institutions to protect their grip on power," he added.

Except that it was REPUBLICANS in Colorado who successfully sued to get Grifty disqualified.

R.Suave » 29 Dec 2023, 9:35 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 9:35 am

Tiny,

You don't answer ANY questions.

You prove you don't fear to take a stand by taking several at once, and run from all of them.

Leave us revisit one of the numerous biographical sketches you so eagerly volunteer.....since you mentioned The Issue...

So, Little Napoleon, when you tagged me in that post to someone else you did not already know my answer?  Yeah.....right.  That is the whole reason why you tagged me.  You thought you were going to stir up some **** between him and I.  BUT, it blew back on you.
 

R.Suave » 29 Dec 2023, 9:39 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 9:39 am

Except that it was REPUBLICANS in Colorado who successfully sued to get Grifty disqualified.

That is true.  Care to tell us the party affiliation of the judges who made the ruling?

 

R.Suave » 29 Dec 2023, 9:39 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 9:39 am

Except that it was REPUBLICANS in Colorado who successfully sued to get Grifty disqualified.

IT WAS A 100% DIM-0-CRAP SC THAT RULED ON IT!!!
 

Huey » 29 Dec 2023, 9:41 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 9:41 am

So, Little Napoleon, that when you tagged me in that post to someone else you did not already know my answer?  Yeah.....right.  That is the whole reason why you tagged me.  You thought you were going to stir up some **** between him and I.  BUT, it blew back on you.

Ballgummer,

Naffy's opening comment implied the election was rigged.

You found cause to applaud it.


 

Buffalo » 29 Dec 2023, 9:49 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 9:49 am

IT WAS A 100% DIM-0-CRAP SC THAT RULED ON IT!!!

No...the chief justice is a republican.

R.Suave » 29 Dec 2023, 9:18 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 9:18 am

Twic
See?

Call me Sir Puppet Master...

You're sucking off PUPPETS NOW?? And you MASTERED doing it??

Damn, you really ARE one sicko PIECE OF ****!!

ConsRule » 29 Dec 2023, 9:45 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 9:45 am

That is true.  Care to tell us the party affiliation of the judges who made the ruling?

2 declared democrats

2 undeclared


Acknowledge that your question was answered, directly, the first time.

Anything short of an unambiguous acknowledgement of the facts will disqualify you from further petitions.

Nod.

R.Suave » 29 Dec 2023, 9:49 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 9:49 am

Ballgummer,

Naffy's opening comment implied the election was rigged.

You found cause to applaud it.

I did not applaud it.  

R.Suave » 29 Dec 2023, 9:53 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 9:53 am

2 declared democrats

2 undeclared

Acknowledge that your question was answered, directly, the first time.

Anything short of an unambiguous acknowledgement of the facts will disqualify you from further petitions.

Nod.

You did answer the question...congrats on maturing just a wee bit. 

If they have declared party affiliation, IMO, is irrelevant.  They were all, even the three dissenting justices, appointed by demonrat Governors.  As is true across the board, regardless of party, a governor or President isn't going to appoint someone solidly in the political camp of another party...best anyone can hope for is a left or right leaning moderate.  Since all were appointed by a demonrat, everyone in the state knows they are demonrats.  That would explain why all were successful in their retention election two years after their appointment.
 

R.Suave » 29 Dec 2023, 9:53 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 9:53 am

2 declared democrats

2 undeclared

Acknowledge that your question was answered, directly, the first time.

Anything short of an unambiguous acknowledgement of the facts will disqualify you from further petitions.

Nod.

Of the two undeclared, (you can thank me for correcting you the other day) both more than likely are anti trumper lefties. 

ConsRule » 29 Dec 2023, 8:12 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 8:12 am

From a primary standpoint, the state rulings mean nothing. I would be shocked if SCOTUS doesn't take up the case to address the several constitutional questions involved.

What "constitutional issue" is involved in the Colorado decision?

Huey » 29 Dec 2023, 10:01 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 10:01 am

Of the two undeclared, (you can thank me for correcting you the other day) both more than likely are anti trumper lefties.

I love the retelling..

You lied, remember?

And now you're doubling up.

Because you're a zerointegrity ballgummer.

R.Suave » 29 Dec 2023, 8:50 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 8:50 am

What have you seen?

Hey Dickhead # 1...

I've seen you post "We got him now!" and "Russia Russia Russia" threads and replies relentlessly for years....by the thousands and thousands...


See.....the Dickhead label fits you perfectly

ConsRule » 29 Dec 2023, 10:00 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 10:00 am

You did answer the question...congrats on maturing just a wee bit. 

If they have declared party affiliation, IMO, is irrelevant.  They were all, even the three dissenting justices, appointed by demonrat Governors.  As is true across the board, regardless of party, a governor or President isn't going to appoint someone solidly in the political camp of another party...best anyone can hope for is a left or right leaning moderate.  Since all were appointed by a demonrat, everyone in the state knows they are demonrats.  That would explain why all were successful in their retention election two years after their appointment.

Beat it.
 

Huey » 29 Dec 2023, 8:15 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 8:15 am

What I just posted is fact.  Trump is back on the ballot in Co pending the appeals process and the USSC.  And in Maine it is also pending due to the appeals process in that state.

You can strike thru facts until the cows come home, Meltdown.  It doesn't change them.

Yep.

I suspect Trump will be back on the Maine ballot before the primaries as well.

This is all political theater to get people like Rico all hot and bothered.


 

nefarious101 » 29 Dec 2023, 10:03 am » wrote: ↑

29 Dec 2023, 10:03 am

Hey Dickhead # 1...

I've seen you post "We got him now!" and "Russia Russia Russia" threads and replies relentlessly for years....by the thousands and thousands...

See.....the Dickhead label fits you perfectly

 


91 counts....