quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

The party of Trump and "W", Cheney and Rubio just needs to dissolve.

The first for disposal should be the Democratic Party. If they didn’t exist with their America Hating ideology…I would be free to write in Rick Perry in the General as well.

But they do exist. And their platform is an existential threat to the America I love.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:


Liberalism:

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law.[1][2] Liberals espouse various and often mutually warring views depending on their understanding of these principles but generally support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion,[3] Liberalism is frequently cited as the dominant ideology of modern history.[4][5]: 11 

Liberalism became a distinct movement in the Age of Enlightenment, gaining popularity among Western philosophers and economists. Liberalism sought to replace the norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, the divine right of kings and traditional conservatism with representative democracy, rule of law, and equality under the law. Liberals also ended mercantilist policies, royal monopolies, and other trade barriers, instead promoting free trade and marketization.[6] Philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct tradition based on the social contract , arguing that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property, and governments must not violate these rights.[7] While the British liberal tradition has emphasized expanding democracy, French liberalism has emphasized rejecting authoritarianism and is linked to nation-building.[8]

quote:

Socialist-Marxist-Communist

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The Party defending totalitarian Russia calling the other Party Communist.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The Party defending totalitarian Russia calling the other Party Communist.

And who is defending Russia?

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The Party defending totalitarian Russia calling the other Party Communist.

And who is defending Russia?

not me.. Lane, are you defending russia?

weird... like, its a lie

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The Party defending totalitarian Russia calling the other Party Communist.

And who is defending Russia?

not me.. Lane, are you defending russia?

weird... like, its a lie

Go look at all the GOPers who voted against sending aide to Ukraine.

Dr. Easter has lost going back to Obama Administration placating Russia.

Dr. Easter supports Trump’s work to weaken NATO.

Go read about when the Department of Defense tried to explain to him the post WWII order.

quote:

and yet 198 dems voted against an explicit law stating that only american citizens can vote in federal elections ...

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

and yet 198 dems voted against an explicit law stating that only american citizens can vote in federal elections ...

It was already against the law.

Used to be that WE expected those in congress, who we are paying a good salary, would work on stuff that's real instead of perpetuating and supporting the BIG LIE and the BIG fat Liar, and setting up the insurrection ploy again.

At least this is a little more creative than simply killing the bipartisan border bill.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
It's been aged, like sour grapes. Trump aged it by continuing to harp on stolen election with zero proof, and actually zero evidence in support.

This 198 opposed Bill thing is opposition to institutionalism of the BIG LIE.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The Bill is irrelevant because the election results were not influenced by any fraud.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The Bill is irrelevant because the election results were not influenced by any fraud.

Except a couple hundred here and there.

We have literally thousands of laws the are redundant.

198 voted against it.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The Bill is irrelevant because the election results were not influenced by any fraud.

Except a couple hundred here and there.

We have literally thousands of laws the are redundant.

198 voted against it.

Except the Courts, DJ lawyers, Trump’s own lawyers told Trump and all of us that the election result was not due to fraud. Specifically, the Fed courts told him he had alleged no facts of fraud.

Why to lean into the Big Lie.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The Bill is irrelevant because the election results were not influenced by any fraud.

Except a couple hundred here and there.

We have literally thousands of laws the are redundant.

198 voted against it.

Except the Courts, DJ lawyers, Trump’s own lawyers told Trump and all of us that the election result was not due to fraud. Specifically, the Fed courts told him he had alleged no facts of fraud.

Why to lean into the Big Lie.

How is it in tangent land tonight?

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Not fraud

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Not fraud

You got this part right in your post.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Not fraud but manipulation. Manipulation that fell within the legal realms of 2020 election law. You call it manipulation; the courts found the conduct to be legal. Trump's lawyers lost this issue, bigly.

But courts, by design, are difficult places to contest election malfeasance anyway — except for retrospection. In no way is that justification for Trump's attempt at stealing the 2020 election, nor does it lend any credibility to Trump's big lie.

Suits require discovery. Discovery takes time — time measured in months. Certification of election by states comes quickly and without substantial evidence…certification must occur. The courts remain the proper place to contest an election, no matter what flaws you may feel the system has.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Not fraud but manipulation. Manipulation that fell within the legal realms of 2020 election law. You call it manipulation; the courts found the conduct to be legal. Trump's lawyers lost this issue, bigly. Legal manipulation — exactly what I said.

But courts, by design, are difficult places to contest election malfeasance anyway — except for retrospection. In no way is that justification for Trump's attempt at stealing the 2020 election, nor does it lend any credibility to Trump's big lie. Should not manipulation be highlighted?

Suits require discovery. Discovery takes time — time measured in months. Certification of election by states comes quickly and without substantial evidence…certification must occur. The courts remain the proper place to contest an election, no matter what flaws you may feel the system has. I never said improper did I? I said very difficult by design. Everything needed for a good suit cannot be sustained in the timeline of certification — dispute that.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Not fraud but manipulation. Manipulation that fell within the legal realms of 2020 election law. You call it manipulation; the courts found the conduct to be legal. Trump's lawyers lost this issue, bigly. Legal manipulation — exactly what I said. Legal is the key word here...the big lie is just that, a lie. The election was not stolen from Trump, he tried to steal it.

But courts, by design, are difficult places to contest election malfeasance anyway — except for retrospection. In no way is that justification for Trump's attempt at stealing the 2020 election, nor does it lend any credibility to Trump's big lie. Should not manipulation be highlighted? I think storming the Capital and continuing to claim the election was stolen from him four years later goes far, far beyong highlighting what you feel is manipulation.

Suits require discovery. Discovery takes time — time measured in months. Certification of election by states comes quickly and without substantial evidence…certification must occur. The courts remain the proper place to contest an election, no matter what flaws you may feel the system has. I never said improper did I? I said very difficult by design. Everything needed for a good suit cannot be sustained in the timeline of certification — dispute that. exactly as it should be, Trump's claims did not hold up to scrutiny, he lost because his case was weak and because his claims of impropriety were not able to be proven. The system functioned exactly as it should have.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Not fraud but manipulation. Manipulation that fell within the legal realms of 2020 election law. You call it manipulation; the courts found the conduct to be legal. Trump's lawyers lost this issue, bigly. Legal manipulation — exactly what I said. Legal is the key word here...the big lie is just that, a lie. The election was not stolen from Trump, he tried to steal it. Not stolen in the legal definition of stolen for sure. But we Republicans were definitely out manipulated — for sure.

But courts, by design, are difficult places to contest election malfeasance anyway — except for retrospection. In no way is that justification for Trump's attempt at stealing the 2020 election, nor does it lend any credibility to Trump's big lie. Should not manipulation be highlighted? I think storming the Capital and continuing to claim the election was stolen from him four years later goes far, far beyong highlighting what you feel is manipulation. I didn’t see Trump at the capital. Did you? He speaks in common terms. It is similar to when a bad call is made in a game and people say “he was robbed.” He uses “stolen” in the general sense and the people he is speaking to get it.

Suits require discovery. Discovery takes time — time measured in months. Certification of election by states comes quickly and without substantial evidence…certification must occur. The courts remain the proper place to contest an election, no matter what flaws you may feel the system has. I never said improper did I? I said very difficult by design. Everything needed for a good suit cannot be sustained in the timeline of certification — dispute that. exactly as it should be, Trump's claims did not hold up to scrutiny, he lost because his case was weak and because his claims of impropriety were not able to be proven. The system functioned exactly as it should have. Yes, maybe. But if you ever enter into a difficult suit and the judge tells you that Discovery is limited to 4 weeks max…guaranteed your lawyer will scream loudly!

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Not fraud but manipulation. Manipulation that fell within the legal realms of 2020 election law. You call it manipulation; the courts found the conduct to be legal. Trump's lawyers lost this issue, bigly. Legal manipulation — exactly what I said. Legal is the key word here...the big lie is just that, a lie. The election was not stolen from Trump, he tried to steal it. Not stolen in the legal definition of stolen for sure. But we Republicans were definitely out manipulated — for sure. Not stolen....that is the key. Shame you feel manipulated, that is what you get for worshiping a charlatan though.

But courts, by design, are difficult places to contest election malfeasance anyway — except for retrospection. In no way is that justification for Trump's attempt at stealing the 2020 election, nor does it lend any credibility to Trump's big lie. Should not manipulation be highlighted? I think storming the Capital and continuing to claim the election was stolen from him four years later goes far, far beyong highlighting what you feel is manipulation. I didn’t see Trump at the capital. Did you? He speaks in common terms. It is similar to when a bad call is made in a game and people say “he was robbed.” He uses “stolen” in the general sense and the people he is speaking to get it. No it is not; he has been making the same false claims for four years. In common terms, the man is a compulsive liar.

Suits require discovery. Discovery takes time — time measured in months. Certification of election by states comes quickly and without substantial evidence…certification must occur. The courts remain the proper place to contest an election, no matter what flaws you may feel the system has. I never said improper did I? I said very difficult by design. Everything needed for a good suit cannot be sustained in the timeline of certification — dispute that. exactly as it should be, Trump's claims did not hold up to scrutiny, he lost because his case was weak and because his claims of impropriety were not able to be proven. The system functioned exactly as it should have. Yes, maybe. But if you ever enter into a difficult suit and the judge tells you that Discovery is limited to 4 weeks max…guaranteed your lawyer will scream loudly! Scream loudly, don't storm our Capital or claim the election was stolen when it wasn't

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The Party defending totalitarian Russia calling the other Party Communist.

And who is defending Russia?

not me.. Lane, are you defending russia?

weird... like, its a lie

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The Party defending totalitarian Russia calling the other Party Communist.

And who is defending Russia?

not me.. Lane, are you defending russia?

weird... like, its a lie

Leftist stupidity at its best......


.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Not fraud but manipulation. Manipulation that fell within the legal realms of 2020 election law. You call it manipulation; the courts found the conduct to be legal. Trump's lawyers lost this issue, bigly. Legal manipulation — exactly what I said. Legal is the key word here...the big lie is just that, a lie. The election was not stolen from Trump, he tried to steal it. Not stolen in the legal definition of stolen for sure. But we Republicans were definitely out manipulated — for sure. Not stolen....that is the key. Shame you feel manipulated, that is what you get for worshiping a charlatan though.

But courts, by design, are difficult places to contest election malfeasance anyway — except for retrospection. In no way is that justification for Trump's attempt at stealing the 2020 election, nor does it lend any credibility to Trump's big lie. Should not manipulation be highlighted? I think storming the Capital and continuing to claim the election was stolen from him four years later goes far, far beyong highlighting what you feel is manipulation. I didn’t see Trump at the capital. Did you? He speaks in common terms. It is similar to when a bad call is made in a game and people say “he was robbed.” He uses “stolen” in the general sense and the people he is speaking to get it. No it is not; he has been making the same false claims for four years. In common terms, the man is a compulsive liar.

Suits require discovery. Discovery takes time — time measured in months. Certification of election by states comes quickly and without substantial evidence…certification must occur. The courts remain the proper place to contest an election, no matter what flaws you may feel the system has. I never said improper did I? I said very difficult by design. Everything needed for a good suit cannot be sustained in the timeline of certification — dispute that. exactly as it should be, Trump's claims did not hold up to scrutiny, he lost because his case was weak and because his claims of impropriety were not able to be proven. The system functioned exactly as it should have. Yes, maybe. But if you ever enter into a difficult suit and the judge tells you that Discovery is limited to 4 weeks max…guaranteed your lawyer will scream loudly! Scream loudly, don't storm our Capital or claim the election was stolen when it wasn't

quote:

Trump threw the 2020 election because he misread the room and couldn't keep quiet.

quote:

And their platform is an existential threat to the America I love.