Liberal Forum

And it begins.


https://nypost.com/2024/01/03/opinion/i ... ationwide/

Huey » 04 Jan 2024, 11:41 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2024, 11:41 am

And it begins.

https://nypost.com/2024/01/03/opinion/i ... ationwide/

desperation breeds fecklessness...feckless ****...
 
 

ROG62 » 04 Jan 2024, 11:44 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2024, 11:44 am

desperation breeds fecklessness...feckless ****...
 
 

 

 I love this part of the article:

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) sought to block certification of the 2016 election result — particularly ironic since he’s a leading voice calling for Trump to be disqualified.

It is ok when a democrat does it. 

Huey » 04 Jan 2024, 11:48 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2024, 11:48 am

 I love this part of the article:

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) sought to block certification of the 2016 election result — particularly ironic since he’s a leading voice calling for Trump to be disqualified.

It is ok when a democrat does it.

it’s a distraction 

all of this will be overthrown 

and it’s not just Dems

4 of the six people that filed to have tRump off the ballot in Colorado were republicans 

much more to come for sure

SQUIRREL  
 

Mrkelly » 04 Jan 2024, 12:13 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2024, 12:13 pm

it’s a distraction 

all of this will be overthrown 

and it’s not just Dems

4 of the six people that filed to have tRump off the ballot in Colorado were republicans 

much more to come for sure

SQUIRREL  
 

 

Duh.  But the fact that the dems would stoop to such stupidity is amazing......check, it is to be expected.

Mrkelly » 04 Jan 2024, 12:13 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2024, 12:13 pm

4 of the six people that filed to have tRump off the ballot in Colorado were republicans 


 

That means Jack Schitt.

RebelGator » 04 Jan 2024, 12:33 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2024, 12:33 pm

That means Jack Schitt.

it means that it’s not just dems want to keep tRump off of the ballot 

Mrkelly » 04 Jan 2024, 12:36 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2024, 12:36 pm

it means that it’s not just dems want to keep tRump off of the ballot

Sure, don't suspect their real loyalties.....I don't care what a turd calls itself, it still smells like ****.
 

All grifters, aka politicians, should be thrown off ballots.

Voting is a complete waste of time.

Huey » 04 Jan 2024, 11:41 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2024, 11:41 am

And it begins.

https://nypost.com/2024/01/03/opinion/i ... ationwide/

If you were part of the stealing of an election. And the fake elector scheme then you should be removed. 
 

Huey » 04 Jan 2024, 11:48 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2024, 11:48 am

 I love this part of the article:

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) sought to block certification of the 2016 election result — particularly ironic since he’s a leading voice calling for Trump to be disqualified.

It is ok when a democrat does it.

of course...classic libtardo 'RN' material..."do as we say and not as we do..."
 

Huey » 04 Jan 2024, 11:41 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2024, 11:41 am

And it begins.

https://nypost.com/2024/01/03/opinion/i ... ationwide/

If they are disqualified under Sec 3 of the 14th Amendment of DA KONSTATOOOOSHON, that is entirely appropriate.

 

Huey » 04 Jan 2024, 11:41 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jan 2024, 11:41 am

And it begins.

https://nypost.com/2024/01/03/opinion/i ... ationwide/

We have become a nation of Madame Defarges — eagerly knitting names of those to be subject to arbitrary justice

what a hyperventilating fruit

Scott Perry needs to account for his involvement in Grifty's scams. If there are legal avenues to achieve it, then let the Court decide, not a teary eyed porch shyster and whore like Turley.

R.Suave » 05 Jan 2024, 9:43 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 9:43 am

If they are disqualified under Sec 3 of the 14th Amendment of DA KONSTATOOOOSHON, that is entirely appropriate.

That's nice.  But there are those that only congress, according to the CONSTITUTION can disqualify someone using that section.  And since you are not a judge who studies CONSTITUTIONAL law, we will just have to wait for the Supreme Court. 

Huey » 05 Jan 2024, 10:00 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 10:00 am

That's nice.  But there are those that only congress, according to the CONSTITUTION can disqualify someone using that section.  And since you are not a judge who studies CONSTITUTIONAL law, we will just have to wait for the Supreme Court.

Don't pretend, Tiny.

We have a judicial determination.

By a perfectly competent court 
 

R.Suave » 05 Jan 2024, 9:47 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 9:47 am

We have become a nation of Madame Defarges — eagerly knitting names of those to be subject to arbitrary justice

what a hyperventilating fruit

Scott Perry needs to account for his involvement in Grifty's scams. If there are legal avenues to achieve it, then let the Court decide, not a teary eyed porch shyster and whore like Turley.

 

There is a comment section after the article.  I am sure they will take your constructive criticism under advisement.  And I understand you and the boys and girls are real familiar with that type of posting. 

R.Suave » 05 Jan 2024, 10:02 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 10:02 am

Don't pretend, Tiny.

We have a judicial determination.

By a perfectly competent court 
 

 

You are not the arbiter of what is constitutional and what is not.  Unfortunately for you we have a higher court where your wet dream may get shut down.  


 

Huey » 05 Jan 2024, 10:04 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 10:04 am

You are not the arbiter of what is constitutional and what is not.  Unfortunately for you we have a higher court where your wet dream may get shut down.

Tiny,

I'm the one CONSISTENTLY getting it right.

Your influencers lay staring through lifeless eyes at an indifferent sun.
 

R.Suave » 05 Jan 2024, 10:11 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 10:11 am

Tiny,

I'm the one CONSISTENTLY getting it right.

Your influencers lay staring through lifeless eyes at an indifferent sun.
 

 

So you are on record as saying the Supreme Court is NOT going to overturn the CO Decision?  
 

Huey » 05 Jan 2024, 10:03 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 10:03 am

There is a comment section after the article.  I am sure they will take your constructive criticism under advisement.  And I understand you and the boys and girls are real familiar with that type of posting.

Run, Little Toady....

You can't do substance....that's why you believe Turley - in spite of his record..

Which sucks.