Trump says he will skip GOP presidential primary debates

Trump could walk on water and the left would report that he didn't know how to swim.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Trump could walk on water and the left would report that he didn't know how to swim.

Bunker boy?

Yea, I remember him....

Wasn't Trump supposed to release some bombshell press conference today or did I miss that?

See, this is an example of your mindset. They aren't kings, or royalty, although trump IS a cult leader, people aren't in love with Biden. It's about leadership, normal style, not cult style. Biden is not a king to anyone. He IS the president.

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: knoxie
I distinctly remember trump supporters here claiming Biden wouldn’t have the guts to debate trump during the 2020 election.

😂

It’s funny. God, I don’t know how y’all can support such a coward.

He will debate your failed King Biden when the time comes and will make him look sillier than he normally does.

What part of “he leads all candidates” don’t you understand?

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

He cancelled it last week.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
Wasn't Trump supposed to release some bombshell press conference today or did I miss that?

No no, I think that was the pillow guy. Indisputable proof or something.

Par for course. The political circus trying to out gaslight the voters. One side with what seems like politically motivated charges being carried out by the DOJ, and the other allegations a rigged election.

Then again, every election was ‘wronged’ in my life.

Of course he cancelled. He's got nada.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
Wasn't Trump supposed to release some bombshell press conference today or did I miss that?

a reply to: JinMI

Why would they do that? Make rules, that is.

Because it's their constitutional duty.

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

Again, what are you talking about? Do you think a politician has never been indicted and convicted. How about Spiru Agnew and Richard Nixon?

4 people died in Beghazi and Republicans had Hillary testify for 11 hours, held 33 hearings, and launched a 4-year probe. Bill was impeached for lying about a blow-job!

What about Governor Rod Blagojevich, who went to prison for procuring and accepting bribes.

I noticed you opted to avoid the more key points.

For example?

a reply to: JinMI

I think that dude works for someone . He seem like he hates America . All he do is complain about people who actually have to work for a living . You think he’d support America or something good for Americans but he can’t . The garbage these nitwits believe in is ridiculous. America would be no more if this person was in charge . He’s just a virtue signaling dummy . The thing that you’ll never hear from him is a good idea . Just a good idea for Americans. Stoopichacf would vote against it . He hates America and Americans. Truly sad . I just want America to be a GREAT place to live again .

a reply to: JinMI

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

Show me in the Constitution where that case can be made.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

It should be easy to show me where the VP/President of the Senate can refuse to count the electoral votes the states have submitted.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Because it's their constitutional duty.

So not because they don't apply then.


Because that's your argument.

Again, what are you talking about? Do you think a politician has never been indicted and convicted. How about Spiru Agnew and Richard Nixon?

Nixon was impeached. Agnew got a charge, sure. Now multiply that 1 charge by 100 and during an election cycle, you may have a point...but you dont'.

4 people died in Beghazi and Republicans had Hillary testify for 11 hours, held 33 hearings, and launched a 4-year probe. Bill was impeached for lying about a blow-job!

Cool, and? Where is HRC's charges again? Billies? Again, you have no point.

What about Governor Rod Blagojevich, who went to prison for procuring and accepting bribes.

Blag was also impeached and removed before being charged....Is this the standard then?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The part you decided not to post....

....for reasons obstensibly unknown reasons:

And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

If you haven't figured out by now the shift in voting practices (ballot harvesting, mail-in voting), the censorship going on in social media and MSM during the election, and you still believe the election was on the up and up, then friend, you have supped from the koolaid cup.

a reply to: JinMI

And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

LOL

Why did you leave out the bolded part, and only post the italicized part? Because it works for your argument?

the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;–The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President

if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. [And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

You're disingenuous and not serious in your argument. You're just playing now.

We're done.

By by

a reply to: DBCowboy

I really hope one day we can have an immutable blockchain voting system.

But I think what will surprise people is they’ll be met with the same disappointment as before.

A democracy (or democracy supplemented republic) is only as healthy as the populace who participate.

At the risk of repeating myself and beating a dead horse, about 50% vote on a good day in a presidential. We can speculate how many of those people are well informed past headlines. So even if we could set in stone that an election was completely above the bar, we could still have an outcome that is unfavorable.

I’m not sure what ‘actually’ happened. I wouldn’t be surprised if it is how you say it is. But I do know the only opposition or alternative there is to that outcome, and it’s equally as disheartening.

Every election has been disputed. But I’m not sure I’d be any better off in each challenged outcome. Every president has set records, and they’re all bad ones. Each side has been given every chance.

At the end of the day, the only reason they cling on for another opportunity is their ability to convince people the other side is just a little worse.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

LOL

Why did you leave out the bolded part, and only post the italicized part? Because it works for your argument?

Because it's not only what I'm talking about, but likely the reason you chose to omit the entire thing from your copy/paste.

There it is in black and white.

You're disingenuous and not serious in your argument. You're just playing now.

You are one of my favorite puppets, and this time, like every time, you do not disappoint in doing exactly what I wish you to do. So we can call this an agreement I suppose.

Don't be mad at me though Sookie, be mad at the MSM that you consume and regurgitate. They are the ones banking on the lies the sell you.

Or be mad at yourself for lapping up the BS every. Single. Time.

By by

*Bye Bye

a reply to: CriticalStinker

We're given a choice.

We don't get to choose.

I hope you see the difference.

That being said, I will always vote for the person or people who will damage the Constitution less than the other side.

And right now, the democrats seem to hold the title as the most destructive (to the Constitution) in the past century or 2.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

We could all just agree that voting should be transparent.

Then that freedom of speech is a right.

That tech platforms have to abide by the rules that govern their taxes or be removed from those shelters.

That the gov't should under no circumstances be manipulating the public square.

I think those are great alternatives in contrast to what you are eluding to.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: CriticalStinker

If you haven't figured out by now the shift in voting practices (ballot harvesting, mail-in voting), the censorship going on in social media and MSM during the election, and you still believe the election was on the up and up, then friend, you have supped from the koolaid cup.

Couldn't you just as easily make the same argument the other way?

When you have Biden and Trump as your primary choices both parties are failing the country.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I’d say Bush and Obama had a pretty good competition at destroying the competition.

I didn’t see anyone after that try and gain some ground on the patriot or espionage act though.