Trump says he will skip GOP presidential primary debates

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Go away.... im done playing with you.

a reply to: RazorV66

Reversing Biden’s colossal failures will make him the man of the century.

Which failures, specifically?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Do you remember when McCain, and REPUBLICAN in that controlled Senate, gave the thumbs down to get rid of Obamacare. Yeah. Nothing was going to get done so that argument is meaningless.

There was a lot done but based on the media I am sure you listen to and read you learned of none of it.

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Go away.... im done playing with you.

Can't list any of Trump's policies? Okay.
By by.

a reply to: matafuchs

McCain wouldn't have had to give a thumbs down if Trump and his administration had a health plan, like they promised, in place in time for the vote. But they didn't.

a reply to: knoxie

There is a vast difference between debating your rival in the general and debating your own party, when you are the front runner.

I already posted the time that a kook rushed the stage when Trump was campaigning in 2016 and I watched him step around the SS to meet the attack headon.

That is proof he is no coward.

NOBODY commented.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

No need to translate for me. The Constitution wouldn't let Mike Pence throw out state electoral votes.

Throw them out? No. Hand them back to states based on allegations and proof of fraud? Yes.

He would be wrong. There is plenty of provisions in the US and the state constitutions to fight against massive fraud. What ISN'T in the Constitution is the right to overthrow the will of the people, their votes and the constitution proccess because you lost an election.

Which wasn't the case, no matter how many times you parrot the MSM talking points on such things.

Within a constitutional frame work. Obama's policies, i.e. The ACA, did fundamentally change America. Most would say for the better.

So more expensive with almost zero chance of it going down is better?

Subjective at best.

So? Trump should still share his policies for 2024 on the debate stage. Informed voters need to know.

Never thought Id see you guys wanting to see Trump on stage so bad. How interesting.

You need to accept that no one, not even a former president is above the law.

Well, except Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Regan, and Carter.

Arguably Biden as well.....

a reply to: JinMI

Throw them out? No. Hand them back to states based on allegations and proof of fraud? Yes.

Nope. Not that either. No, according to Mike Pence, his lawyers, the White House Lawyers and numerous conservative lawyers, judges and scholars. That's why it didn't happen.

Never thought Id see you guys wanting to see Trump on stage so bad. How interesting.

Why are so afraid of informed voters?

Well, except Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Regan, and Carter.

Arguably Biden as well.....

Right. Poor "woe is Me" Trump, singled out and persecuted for being so honest, selfless and pure. /s

a reply to: knoxie

On a side note, what will they talk about? Even if he is not there I bet Trump is mention in 85% of the questions.

I will be shocked if Ramaswamy doesnt wipe the floor with any of em. That guy is something else.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Nope. Not that either. No, according to Mike Pence, his lawyers, the White House Lawyers and numerous conservative lawyers, judges and scholars. That's why it didn't happen.

Really? Then why change the law?

Old version: "if there shall have been any final determination in a State of a controversy or contest as provided for in section two of this act, it shall be the duty of the governor [to transmit a certificate of such determination etc.]"[1]

New version: "if there shall have been any final determination in a State in the manner provided for by law of a controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, it shall be the duty of the governor [etc.]"

More changes post November 2020:

What changes were made
The bill designates the vice president's role in the Electoral College count as ceremonial.

It raises the threshold to challenge presidential electors from the states to 20% of the House and Senate, rather than the current one lawmaker from each chamber.

States must now submit their official slates of electors on documents bearing their state seals and containing at least one security feature verifying their authenticity.

Legal challenges to state electors in federal court will be expedited and heard by a district court panel of three judges: two appellate judges and one district judge.

Appeals will head straight to the Supreme Court.

So yea, there most certainly was a case to be made for the VP to do such things.

Why are so afraid of informed voters?

Is Trump or Desantis an unknown quantity? You may be able to make the case for Ramaswamy, but not the top 2.

Regardless, doesn't this allow for a much spirited debate without Trump hogging all the spotlight? (which he still might with Tucker )

Right. Poor "woe is Me" Trump, singled out and persecuted for being so honest, selfless and pure. /s

So you agree he is singled out. Reasons are irrelevant given former presidents actions while in office to the detriment on a global scale and loss of life.

Exactly my point too, you guys don't care about equal application of law nor actual justice. Which is actually consistent with your views on minorities and "people de jour" for your virtue signaling.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Not going to rewrite his website. If you want to know, go do your research.

I can list them just fine, but have alot more to do than educate your lazy ass.

a reply to: JinMI

Really? Then why change the law?

You mean fortify the law. Trump fortified the Espionage Act.

So you agree he is singled out.

That's Trump's complaint. I'm sarcastically just repeating it for you to show I already understand the excuses for why Trump should be above the law.

Exactly my point too, you guys don't care about equal application of law nor actual justice.

Oh look! More hogwash!
Indict Obama, Hillary, Joe & Hunter Biden and I'll support their day in court too!

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Not going to rewrite his website. If you want to know, go do your research.

I can list them just fine, but have alot more to do than educate your lazy ass.

Again, the claim was that Trump doesn't need to debate, because everybody already knows his 2024 policies. I say they don't.

You don't. Thanks for proving my point.

By by.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You mean fortify the law. Trump fortified the Espionage Act.

Call it what you want. I call it squashing your argument. Or the MSMs argument. Whichever works best.

That's Trump's complaint. I'm sarcastically just repeating it for you to show I already understand the excuses for why Trump should be above the law.

That supremacy clause we talked about? Looks like its being used.

Above the law...with your exceptions.....

Amirite?!

Oh look! More hogwash!
Indict Obama, Hillary, Joe & Hunter Biden and I'll support their day in court too!

I simply dont believe you. Based on post history to be clear.

a reply to: Mahogany

No point in debating anyone ever .. since he is the best that ever was at everything in the history of the world.
Who could compare to orange man.. I ask you .. really.

Lol
Orange cheetolini has the gop bully pulpit
It ain’t going to change while his political opponents use the government against him

Enjoy what you wanted dems
Reap it

a reply to: JinMI

Call it what you want. I call it squashing your argument. Or the MSMs argument. Whichever works best.

You know, they didn't change the Constitution. They changed the congressional rules, to clarify and fortify the congressional rules. There are plenty of constitutional remedies for elections and voter fraud. Having the Vice President return electoral votes to the states is not one of them.

That supremacy clause we talked about? Looks like its being used.

Above the law...with your exceptions.....

What are you talking about? There are no constitutional exceptions for presidents who break the law. The 14 Amendment guarantees equal justice under the law. That included your orange anointed one.

Amirite?!

Your argument is squashed.

I simply dont believe you.

Oh noes!!!

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Is a president above the law? Can a president pardon themselves? If so, why didn't Nixon pardon himself, instead of stepping down? He had nothing to lose in doing so, right? Why didn't Trump pardon himself for the Ukraine phone call thing, before it got to the point of impeachment?


Also, birth right citizenship, the 14th Amendment.

What the F are you talking about...when did Trump pardon himself? What does the 14th have anything to do with Trump?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You know, they didn't change the Constitution. They changed the congressional rules, to clarify and fortify the congressional rules. There are plenty of constitutional remedies for elections and voter fraud. Having the Vice President return electoral votes to the states is not one of them.

Why would they do that? Make rules, that is. Perhaps because they at some point were broken? Needed remedy?

We are getting off of the MSM talking points, where you dont' seem to do so well historically. Sure you wanna go here?

What are you talking about? There are no constitutional exceptions for presidents who break the law. The 14 Amendment guarantees equal justice under the law. That included your orange anointed one.

Cool, so who before and who since has been held to equal application or "justice" of law? Cmon Sookie, you can do it!!

I noticed you opted to avoid the more key points.

Which really explains all our interactions. The more out of the msm narrative we get, the more unhinged you become.