Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Vince G, CSN MFT on February 08, 2024, 10:28:47 AM
-
All of the justices are not liking how one state decides an entire election. I think Trump is going to win on decision
-
All of the justices are not liking how one state decides an entire election. I think Trump is going to win on decision
Win the decision and the election. America is not interested in Lib deviance!
-
Completely absurd for a state to attempt this.
-
Completely absurd for a state to attempt this.
I agree. I was never a fan of this attempt.
-
I agree. I was never a fan of this attempt.
::)
Or maybe Colorado doesn't give a damn with going with the status flow and instead decided to stand up for their voters being disenfranchised by the nonstop lies, fake court cases, and general ass hat behavior.
Nevertheless, keep those donations posts coming. :)
-
::)
I own your little tiny mind.
Try again perhaps?
Don't worry the SC will straighten this right out.
No excuses. <--- If Trumpy loses in 2024, there won't be any excuses like this.
" ::) "
-
I own your little tiny mind.
Try again perhaps?
" ::) "
Oh that's just you talking out of both sides of your mouth. You're not smart enough to realize that all I do is mock you on this board. But that's part of the reason I like this board. Good entertainment from useful idiots like you. :)
-
Oh that's just you talking out of both sides of your mouth. You're not smart enough to realize that all I do is mock you on this board. But that's part of the reason I like this board. Good entertainment from useful idiots like you. :)
You obviously are not smart enough to realize that Colorado was the subject reference in your quote of mine.
The fact that this had to be explained to you only cements that the "willfully" part is long gone by now. All that is left is just "stupid". Not surprising. You are not a smart person by any means. We see that on here everyday. That is part of the reason I like this board. Good entertainment from useless idiots like you. :)
-
You obviously are not smart enough to realize that Colorado was the subject reference in your quote of mine.
The fact that this had to be explained to you only cements that the "willfully" part is long gone by now. All that is left is just "stupid". Not surprising. You are not a smart person by any means. We see that on here everyday. That is part of the reason I like this board. Good entertainment from useless idiots like you. :)
You really lack self awareness and you have zero critical thinking skills. It's comical how much you engage in projection. That's why you are a perfect fit for the zombie Democrat party. You really do lack the ability to think for yourself. And all you do is insult people on the board and then repeat what they say. That's because you simply don't have a lot of tools in the toolbox. But glad to have you around, Weirdo. :)
-
You really lack self awareness and you have zero critical thinking skills. It's comical how much you engage in projection. That's why you are a perfect fit for the zombie Democrat party. You really do lack the ability to think for yourself. And all you do is insult people on the board and then repeat what they say. That's because you simply don't have a lot of tools in the toolbox. But glad to have you around, Weirdo. :)
You really need to come up with some new material. I seem to remember you telling me the same thing, almost word for word. ;)
-
You really need to come up with some new material. I seem to remember you telling me the same thing, almost word for word. ;)
Did I? If I did it was because it's true. So no, I will not stop speaking the truth. :)
-
You really need to come up with some new material. I seem to remember you telling me the same thing, almost word for word. ;)
If the shoe fits, wear it.
-
All of the justices are not liking how one state decides an entire election. I think Trump is going to win on decision
Gee, ya think? It's just common sense that you can't win an election by banning somebody from running based on politics.
-
Gee, ya think? It's just common sense that you can't win an election by banning somebody from running based on politics.
But that seems like a red herring. Conservatives are all about states rights, until it seems, it comes down to the state doing something the conservatives don't like. . And to be clear, determining it is about politics verses the right thing ultimately comes down to which side you are on in politics. Colorado took the high ground, in determining a candidate that clearly instigated an insurrection at the level Trump did and the outcome shouldn't be eligible to run for the highest office is only weird in some right wing neo nazi type thinking. That all states haven't banned a twice impeached, and 91 count indictment is a black eye on our great nation.
-
You really lack self awareness and you have zero critical thinking skills. It's comical how much you engage in projection. That's why you are a perfect fit for the zombie Democrat party. You really do lack the ability to think for yourself. And all you do is insult people on the board and then repeat what they say. That's because you simply don't have a lot of tools in the toolbox. But glad to have you around, Weirdo. :)
^^ 100% projection right there. It’s comical that your reply isn’t even original either. Your opinion is meaningless. Just like you, hypocrite.
-
You really need to come up with some new material. I seem to remember you telling me the same thing, almost word for word. ;)
He can’t. Which is why his little meltdown is so comical. Not only does he struggle to come up with a reply but he is too stupid to realize that the stock reply he gives only serves to cement what we all already know about him. It’s really quite predictable right down to the same words used over and over.
Let’s hope he can try harder. But it’s doubtful.
-
But that seems like a red herring. Conservatives are all about states rights, until it seems, it comes down to the state doing something the conservatives don't like. . And to be clear, determining it is about politics verses the right thing ultimately comes down to which side you are on in politics. Colorado took the high ground, in determining a candidate that clearly instigated an insurrection at the level Trump did and the outcome shouldn't be eligible to run for the highest office is only weird in some right wing neo nazi type thinking. That all states haven't banned a twice impeached, and 91 count indictment is a black eye on our great nation.
Except that didn't happen.
And states rights have a limit.
Going to assume you were drinking last night after seeing all your threads.
-
Gee, ya think? It's just common sense that you can't win an election by banning somebody from running based on politics.
Or you can’t win an election without junk lawsuits, claiming it was stolen, threatening / begging phone calls, fake electors and generally racking up indictments over your attempts to thwart fair election of the people where they voted you out.
Actually the orange turd has proven he can’t win an election at all. He got less votes than Hillary and only won because of the outdated EC.
-
Did I? If I did it was because it's true. So no, I will not stop speaking the truth repeating myself. :)
-
You really need to come up with some new material. I seem to remember you telling me the same thing, almost word for word. ;)
you need to fuck off, stop telling people what to do, and go suck another caulk... Pervert scum...
-
But that seems like a red herring. Conservatives are all about states rights, until it seems, it comes down to the state doing something the conservatives don't like. . And to be clear, determining it is about politics verses the right thing ultimately comes down to which side you are on in politics. Colorado took the high ground, in determining a candidate that clearly instigated an insurrection at the level Trump did and the outcome shouldn't be eligible to run for the highest office is only weird in some right wing neo nazi type thinking. That all states haven't banned a twice impeached, and 91 count indictment is a black eye on our great nation.
Didn't we have a civil war over this?
-
But that seems like a red herring. Conservatives are all about states rights, until it seems, it comes down to the state doing something the conservatives don't like. . And to be clear, determining it is about politics verses the right thing ultimately comes down to which side you are on in politics. Colorado took the high ground, in determining a candidate that clearly instigated an insurrection at the level Trump did and the outcome shouldn't be eligible to run for the highest office is only weird in some right wing neo nazi type thinking. That all states haven't banned a twice impeached, and 91 count indictment is a black eye on our great nation.
I think it’s more that in this instance, it has national repercussions.
-
But that seems like a red herring. Conservatives are all about states rights, until it seems, it comes down to the state doing something the conservatives don't like. . And to be clear, determining it is about politics verses the right thing ultimately comes down to which side you are on in politics. Colorado took the high ground, in determining a candidate that clearly instigated an insurrection at the level Trump did and the outcome shouldn't be eligible to run for the highest office is only weird in some right wing neo nazi type thinking. That all states haven't banned a twice impeached, and 91 count indictment is a black eye on our great nation.
You’re dumb! C unts like you should be deported to Syria. Useless American!
-
Agnostic wrong yet again. Heard some audio of the hearing. Even the liberal justices were slapping around the Colorado lawyer. I see 9-0.
It reminded me of this:
i=SJ_C7CVzU3bDPbQp
-
Agnostic wrong yet again. Heard some audio of the hearing. Even the liberal justices were slapping around the Colorado lawyer. I see 9-0.
It reminded me of this:
i=SJ_C7CVzU3bDPbQp
For more pertinent information but a less humous post, read the transcript from the hearing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/23-719_5he6.pdf
-
9-0 No doubt! ALL election interference. C unts need to be locked up.
MAGA 2024
The destruction of America will end 11/24!
-
Except that didn't happen.
And states rights have a limit.
Going to assume you were drinking last night after seeing all your threads.
If starting threads is an indication of drinking, we've got some boozers on this forum
-
I think it’s more that in this instance, it has national repercussions.
You may have a point, but then again, I think it is very debatable. Can a state disqualify a candidate based on their conclusion the candidate eliminated himself by his actions? It also raises the question, why would such a candidate be considered viable by the federal standards? Is Colorado's standards too high or the federal governments too low. You can't run for President at 33 years old, but you can under Trumps situation?
-
If starting threads is an indication of drinking, we've got some boozers on this forum
Not a nice way to talk about your buddy the weirdo Lurker.
-
Not a nice way to talk about your buddy the weirdo Lurker.
It's clear facts are not your friend so I did a check of the 1st two pages on the political forum to see who posted the most threads...
Lurker- 7
Coach- 25
Dos E- 42
I had 6, 3 of which were spoofs on the chronic posters
I got crap from some for posting so much, yet they never complain about Coach or Dos E. Are you starting to see how bias works? Depending on which side of the aisle apparently matters when it comes to posting frequency here.
-
It's clear facts are not your friend so I did a check of the 1st two pages on the political forum to see who posted the most threads...
Lurker- 7
Coach- 25
Dos E- 42
I had 6, 3 of which were spoofs on the chronic posters
I got crap from some for posting so much, yet they never complain about Coach or Dos E. Are you starting to see how bias works? Depending on which side of the aisle apparently matters when it comes to posting frequency here.
Are you saying your weirdo buddy Lurker is not a drunk? I believ you may be mistaken on that front detective.
-
Are you saying your weirdo buddy Lurker is not a drunk? I believ you may be mistaken on that front detective.
I'm saying if the amount of posts indicates the amount of drinks, he's sober as a judge
I'm also implying your mention of him in context with the amount of posts verses drinking, is quite telling of your personal biases. You went directly to Lurker while DE had 35 more posts in the same time frame. DE likely has a flask in his pocket based on the alcohol to posting ratio and Coach likely buys a six pack of Pabst on his way home daily with one in a brown paper bag in the cup holder.
-
I'm saying if the amount of posts indicates the amount of drinks, he's sober as a judge
I'm also implying your mention of him in context with the amount of posts verses drinking, is quite telling of your personal biases. You went directly to Lurker while DE had 35 more posts in the same time frame. DE likely has a flask in his pocket based on the alcohol to posting ratio and Coach likely buys a six pack of Pabst on his way home daily with one in a brown paper bag in the cup holder.
LOL @ you pointing out anyone elses biases. ;D
-
LOL @ you pointing out anyone elses biases. ;D
count the threads, do the math...
-
Are you saying your weirdo buddy Lurker is not a drunk? I believ you may be mistaken on that front detective.
You are obsessed over me. If you obsessed over reducing carbs and shedding some of that spare tire around your waist your life might be easier. Well, not really... but at least you would be thinner from the knees up.
-
count the threads, do the math...
Moot issue at this point. Because as you already know :
It's clear facts are not your friend
How many threads has chaos started? Ohhh... that's right. None. Exactly the same number of replies on actual thread topics he has. Once you weed out the whining, distracting, deflecting, denying, TDfS, and off topic posts he contributes, there is none. No surprise because as we all know he only has tv static to share.
-
count the threads, do the math...
One is a mod (highly compensated) and one is just some weirdo obsessed with Trump.
You are obsessed over me. If you obsessed over reducing carbs and shedding some of that spare tire around your waist your life might be easier. Well, not really... but at least you would be thinner from the knees up.
You are obsessed over the Trump name, it consumes you, weirdo.
-
One is a mod (highly compensated) and one is just some weirdo obsessed with Trump.
You are obsessed over the Trump name, it consumes you, weirdo.
One is a mod, highly hypocritical, non compensated, and the other posts factual threads that reflect my 24/7 butthurt that MAGAtards suffer from.
You are triggered over facts about Trumpy and obsessed with defending him at every turn. TDfS consumes you, fat boy.
This is like your fifth reply on this page alone. You might want to pace yourself before this thread exceeds it's weight limit.
-
9-0 coming soon. Libturds lose again!
-
One is a mod, highly hypocritical, non compensated, and the other posts factual threads that reflect my 24/7 butthurt that MAGAtards suffer from.
You are triggered over facts about Trumpy and obsessed with defending him at every turn. TDfS consumes you, fat boy.
This is like your fifth reply on this page alone. You might want to pace yourself before this thread exceeds it's weight limit.
Settle down weirdo, only you are obsessed with the name Trump.
-
Settle down weirdo, only you are obsessed with the name Trump.
Settle down fat boy, only you are obsessed with facts about Trumpy.
-
Owned:9-0
Supreme Court rules Trump cannot be removed from any state ballot
https://www.nbcnews.com/video/supreme-court-rules-trump-cannot-be-removed-from-any-state-ballot-205394501669
-
Owned:9-0
Supreme Court rules Trump cannot be removed from any state ballot
https://www.nbcnews.com/video/supreme-court-rules-trump-cannot-be-removed-from-any-state-ballot-205394501669
"Where's the evidence"- Lurkingforladyboys
-
Settle down fat boy, only you are obsessed with facts about Trumpy.
Seek help for your TDS. You know whats coming - Trump is coming back to haunt you in November.
-
If starting threads is an indication of drinking, we've got some boozers on this forum
US Supreme Court rules for Trump in historic 14th Amendment ballot eligibility case
ABC News ^ | March 4, 2024, 9:25 AM | By Devin Dwyer and Alexandra Hutzler
Posted on 3/4/2024, 10:41:13 AM by Red Badger
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of Donald Trump in a historic case challenging his eligibility to seek the Republican presidential nomination under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment due to his actions around the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
The court was unanimous in reversing the unprecedented decision out of Colorado that would kick Trump off the ballot under the provision after a state trial court found he participated in "insurrection" on Jan. 6 through incitement.
“For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States," the Supreme Court opinion read. "The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court therefore cannot stand. All nine Members of the Court agree with that result.”
On holding that only Congress had the power to enforce the provisions under Section 5 of the amendment, it said its decision would apply nationwide.
"Any state enforcement of Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, though, would not derive from Section 5, which confers power only on '[t]he Congress.' As a result, such state enforcement might be argued to sweep more broadly than congressional enforcement could under our precedents. But the notion that the Constitution grants the States freer rein than Congress to decide how Section should be enforced with respect to federal offices is simply implausible," the court said.
Trump quickly celebrated the decision, writing on his social media platform it was a "BIG WIN" for the country.
Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold said that she was "disappointed" in the ruling.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
-
Trump will win. There will be a media reported depression within a year of taking office. A depression that has already started but will not be reported on until then.
-
Trump will win. There will be a media reported depression within a year of taking office. A depression that has already started but will not be reported on until then.
These scumbags and filthy liberal communist pos can all f off and die for what they have done over the last years.
-
"Where's the evidence"- Lurkingforladyboys
What evidence?
-
Trump will win. There will be a media reported depression within a year of taking office. A depression that has already started but will not be reported on until then.
Note: even in the face of Trump's win today you find something to negative complain about. And you are dead wrong. There is no current depression in the making. Your glass is not half empty; it is completely empty.
'Even with tumultuous events last year, such as the failure of three U.S. banks, the nation has not tipped into recession — and certainly not a depression, either. A depression is an extended economic breakdown, and we have not seen signs of that kind of pain.'
https://leading.business.columbia.edu/main-pillar-business-society/economy-policy/economy-silent-depression#:~:text=“The%20American%20economy%20is%20not,far%20stronger%20than%20we%20anticipated.”
'Is the USA in a silent depression?
In several ways, the economy is in "the exact opposite" of a depression, he said. To fall into a recession or depression, the economy must contract, meaning economic growth must decline, for a prolonged period. But the American economy grew 5.2% in the third quarter, according to revised estimates.' Dec 13, 2023
https://www.morningstar.com/news/marketwatch/20231213376/is-the-us-in-a-silent-depression-tiktok-creators-say-yes-but-economists-disagree
'Is a depression coming in 2024?
Housing, inflation, interest rates and more: What to expect in the 2024 economy. Experts say a slowdown is coming, but a recession remains unlikely. A slowdown — but no recession. That is the broad consensus for the economy among experts as we head into 2024.' Dec 24, 2023
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/what-expect-2024-economy-buying-house-inflation-recession-rcna130790
-
"Where's the evidence"- Lurkingforladyboys
Some retard doesn't understand the difference between a ruling and evidence.
The retard being you.
-
US Supreme Court rules for Trump in historic 14th Amendment ballot eligibility case
ABC News ^ | March 4, 2024, 9:25 AM | By Devin Dwyer and Alexandra Hutzler
Posted on 3/4/2024, 10:41:13 AM by Red Badger
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of Donald Trump in a historic case challenging his eligibility to seek the Republican presidential nomination under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment due to his actions around the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
The court was unanimous in reversing the unprecedented decision out of Colorado that would kick Trump off the ballot under the provision after a state trial court found he participated in "insurrection" on Jan. 6 through incitement.
“For the reasons given, responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress and not the States," the Supreme Court opinion read. "The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court therefore cannot stand. All nine Members of the Court agree with that result.”
On holding that only Congress had the power to enforce the provisions under Section 5 of the amendment, it said its decision would apply nationwide.
"Any state enforcement of Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, though, would not derive from Section 5, which confers power only on '[t]he Congress.' As a result, such state enforcement might be argued to sweep more broadly than congressional enforcement could under our precedents. But the notion that the Constitution grants the States freer rein than Congress to decide how Section should be enforced with respect to federal offices is simply implausible," the court said.
Trump quickly celebrated the decision, writing on his social media platform it was a "BIG WIN" for the country.
Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold said that she was "disappointed" in the ruling.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Eat shit you dirty C UNT!
-
Eat shit you dirty C UNT!
For a brief second, I thought you were calling Soul Crusher a dirty c-unt. :)
-
For a brief second, I thought you were calling Soul Crusher a dirty c-unt. :)
Nah just the whore in Colorado.
-
Eat shit you dirty C UNT!
She should have been removed and sent to prison.
-
lol
https://twitter.com/PapiTrumpo/status/1764766086677819458
-
lol
https://twitter.com/PapiTrumpo/status/1764766086677819458
(https://i.giphy.com/12VKbG3O2sMabK.webp)
-
lol
https://twitter.com/PapiTrumpo/status/1764766086677819458
Wow, libz are melting down and crying all over twitter and the MSM, hilarious weak cult...
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haHa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha