I've gone on record with what I believe the court will do.Huey » 05 Jan 2024, 10:13 am » wrote: ↑ So you are on record as saying the Supreme Court is NOT going to overturn the CO Decision?
Start a thread. The point of this thread is that the Dems are going to try and protect democracy by denying it. There are those who knew the CO decision would open the flood gate.R.Suave » 05 Jan 2024, 10:13 am » wrote: ↑ Run, Little Toady....
You can't do substance....that's why you believe Turley - in spite of his record..
Which sucks.
What are they going to do? I don't know what they are going to do.R.Suave » 05 Jan 2024, 10:14 am » wrote: ↑ I've gone on record with what I believe the court will do.
Again.
Will you?
No...the point of this thread is for a fool to recatapult some **** Turley has written to comfort a fool.Huey » 05 Jan 2024, 10:18 am » wrote: ↑ Start a thread. The point of this thread is that the Dems are going to try and protect democracy by denying it. There are those who knew the CO decision would open the flood gate.
Just curious....why do you bother to enter a thread and demand we discuss what YOU want to discuss? Asking for a friend....
You haven't taken a stand.Huey » 05 Jan 2024, 10:19 am » wrote: ↑ What are they going to do? I don't know what they are going to do.
R.Suave » 05 Jan 2024, 10:28 am » wrote: ↑ You haven't taken a stand.
But insist I must.....long after I've done so.
I predict they will punt on the issues that touch on states' jurisdiction over elections, they will likely pass on the question of "execution".
Unless Sammy Alito is ordered by his sponsors to set Grifty adrift, they will leave Grifty on the ballot in Colorado, offering some fig leaf gibberish on the question of "office".
They will leave Grifty to sue in Maine.
Oh, so you think it is false that some states are trying remove repub candidates from the ballot using the Maine and CO decisions as the baseline.R.Suave » 05 Jan 2024, 10:21 am » wrote: ↑ No...the point of this thread is for a fool to recatapult some **** Turley has written to comfort a fool.
No...but it is complete **** to suggest that it is "arbitrary justice" targeting Republicans.Huey » 05 Jan 2024, 10:31 am » wrote: ↑ Oh, so you think it is false that some states are trying remove repub candidates from the ballot using the Maine and CO decisions as the baseline.
Got it. You will have to post something that shows that is false.
**** pathological.You will have to
All I had to say was.
I am not like you. I do not scour the forum looking for every post you make. Only lonely senior citizens have the time for that.R.Suave » 05 Jan 2024, 10:35 am » wrote: ↑ All I had to say was.
"Already have. You will have to post your rule on repetition, unmanly little bitch."
And yet, at this time, it is only republicans that are being targeted.R.Suave » 05 Jan 2024, 10:33 am » wrote: ↑ No...but it is complete **** to suggest that it is "arbitrary justice" targeting Republicans.
**** pathological.
.
it’s the start of the silly seasonHuey » 05 Jan 2024, 10:41 am » wrote: ↑ And yet, at this time, it is only republicans that are being targeted.
Duh.Huey » 05 Jan 2024, 10:41 am » wrote: ↑ And yet, at this time, it is only republicans that are being targeted.
Your point?
Your point?
That your post was pointless.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯