So...How's it going?

[Nobody]

Ummm....
https://www.bing.com/search?q=articl...tsg=1&hsmssg=0

Interesting, how you wish to exact on this point but when you compare that to the crimes trump has committed, you look away. Be one or the other. Anyone who has spoken the pledge of allegiance knows we are a republic. But when you strive to take away those votes, what would we be, fascist?

[Pyrate Jim]

Interesting, how you wish to exact on this point but when you compare that to the crimes trump has committed, you look away. Be one or the other. Anyone who has spoken the pledge of allegiance knows we are a republic. But when you strive to take away those votes, what would we be, fascist?

And we're back to "its Trumps fault!" Even though my post about Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution had nothing to do with Trump or crime or with control of illegal voting. More of your amphigory.
I could almost swear that if I complained about the rain, You would claim I was lying and that it's Trumps fault for causing climate change.

The seven sections of Article 4 all deal with distribution of authority between the three branches of Government. And the limits of each.
You should read it.

[Nobody]

And we're back to "its Trumps fault!" Even though my post about Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution had nothing to do with Trump or crime or with control of illegal voting. More of your amphigory.
I could almost swear that if I complained about the rain, You would claim I was lying and that it's Trumps fault for causing climate change.

The seven sections of Article 4 all deal with distribution of authority between the three branches of Government. And the limits of each.
You should read it.

Let's get this clear, if trump does something, then it is his fault. He said he wants to be a dictator on day 1. The result is he is labeled an authoritarian.

He said he wants to get rid of the constitution. The result is he is displaying fascist tendencies.

If he gets convicted of crimes. The result is, he is labeled a criminal.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, you can't just substitute a picture of a platypus just because you don't like the truth.

Come on, tru.p has trashed the republican party for his own wants and the party is deluded to go along for it and the hypocrisy is laid out at your feet. He doubled the national debt, so there goes the idea of financial responsibility. He tried to remain in power after the election with a coup attempt. You can't claim the party of law & order.

So while you may wish to point at the constitution and make your claims, but the reality is, your argument over that got it's legs swept the minute you question, by listening to the drifter in chief, about anything that document has to say. So we can surely disagree on policy, on how the country should be run, the limits you feel are necessary or whatever, but the minute you attache yourself to the despicable,moral, ethically bankrupt man named trump; anything you say will be wrong.

And no, I won't say you are wrong on the rain. If push came to shove, I would put forth the fact that the GOP has fully embraced climate denial on how what we do does not effect the weather. Trump has only continued what the gop has started, over the climate.

[Pyrate Jim]

I guess we'll know in what? 40 days? Much love over the rant, by the way.

This assumption is worth replying to:

you may wish to point at the constitution and make your claims, but the reality is, your argument over that got it's legs swept the minute you question, by listening to the drifter in chief, about anything that document has to say.

By "drifter in chief" you mean Trump, not the current chief who has been ousted by his own party over his drifting?
Sorry, but you'd be wrong. I was taught and had to do reports on the Constitution in high school half a century ago. I read it and came to my own opinions and conclusions about what is explicitly written within. You've swept no legs here, mine were planted long before Trump and his so-called crimes came along or the current political situation.

I was, however, trying to discuss the constitution before you went off, ignoring the point and deriding Donald Trump.
You're getting a reputation for that around here. How much space does He occupy in your head?
Your epitaph should read "Here lies Nobody, who hated Trump".

[Pyrate Jim]

Just going to leave these here.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/harris-and-the-democrats-are-waging-all-out-war-on-constitutional-order/ar-AA1rpkWt?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=dca36d8a67404fceb69a358ab4878bd5&ei=15

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVUz_x7ePv0

[Nobody]

I guess we'll know in what? 40 days? Much love over the rant, by the way. again, not a rant. If you want a rant, then be prepared to read a long one.

This assumption is worth replying to:

By "grifter in chief" you mean Trump, not the current chief who has been ousted by his own party over his drifting? edited, for meaning. But i do love how you don't see what trump did on Jan 6th as a coup, but you go rushing into help Biden. Biden stepped down. And while i did not agree with the decision at the time, i agree that it was the right choice. So stepping down or aside is not a coup. That is in fact, the opposite of a coup.
Sorry, but you'd be wrong. I was taught and had to do reports on the Constitution in high school half a century ago. I read it and came to my own opinions and conclusions about what is explicitly written within. You've swept no legs here, mine were planted long before Trump and his so-called crimes came along or the current political situation. oh so you interpreted the constitution for your own means and make decisions, not based on any factual, legal claim but your own opinion.

And if Biden is/was such a criminal, why wasn't he impeached? Where is the smokin' gun, dirty laundry, to force him from office and then criminally convicted? Careful now, all that Biden has done has been as president, and SCOTUS gave the president immunity from prosecution.

I was, however, trying to discuss the constitution before you went off, ignoring the point and deriding Donald Trump. derision is warranted. Are you saying a man who pays women to have sexual congress is morally lacking when he is already married? Are you saying that a man who has had his charity shutdown because he was using it as a bank. Are you saying that a man already convicted of committing fraud, by a court in which he every ample opportunity to defend himself isn'ta criminal? Man, i want to know why you have such a high or low bar for derision.

You're getting a reputation for that around here. How much space does He occupy in your head?
Your epitaph should read "Here lies Nobody, who hated Trump". Ok? I can't stand the man. I don'tknow what he has done to gain such a devoted following. But he doesn't live rent free. I say what i say and that's it. This place/thread occupies 5, maybe 10min every other day. So you see but a mere fraction, but you precieve it as every waking hour. Far from the truth

But still, you or anyone still won't answer the question. What do you think of the links i have provided. Simple question. If you said, i would never clink a link you gave as it can be nothing but propaganda. Then you would be exactly what I think of you, closed minded, living in an echo chamber. So why don't you surprise me.

[maniacmechanic]

Yet the man you support wants to remove the constitution. You can play somantics all you want, but the choice is still authoritarian vs democracy. So give me my democracy.

Come on with the LINKs , that show Trump sayin that ,, not some regurged crap from cnn , either Film or Corroborated voice and make sure it the full Paragraph , not something taken out of context

[Nobody]

Come on with the LINKs , that show Trump sayin that ,, not some regurged crap from cnn , either Film or Corroborated voice and make sure it the full Paragraph , not something taken out of context

He said it on that 2nd rate Twitter copy. He said it from his personal account. And I believe the 1st link was from a fox news affiliate. I cannot create what isn't there. You asked for links, and I provided them.

[Loguzzzzzz]

He said it on that 2nd rate Twitter copy. He said it from his personal account. And I believe the 1st link was from a fox news affiliate. I cannot create what isn't there. You asked for links, and I provided them.

Again...no proof....just your word which is almost useless.

[Pyrate Jim]

i would never clink a link you gave as it can be nothing but propaganda.

edited CNN style
Surprise!

[Pyrate Jim]

Been a day so far, hasn't it? Dockworkers strike, Iran launching missile attacks on Israel, and the Vice-Presidential candidate debate still on the schedule.
Not like yesterday. Trump in Georgia bringing supplies. The Biden/Harris admin giving 4.5 billion to Ukraine and anther 1/2 billion to Taiwan.


Oh! And this one. You have to read between the lines here, look for what is not said.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/california-governor-vetoes-expansive-ai-safety-bill/ar-AA1rtYOC?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=df4673c3f60c4e6ea4e649c6af8bf848&ei=186

[Beemer]

Nice debate. Ay

[Pyrate Jim]

It was an interesting debate as far as it went. Might swing a few undecided voters.
However, there are a couple questions that are never seen asked in any of these debates that I would consider important among American voters.
First and foremost, "How will you reduce the National Debt?"

[Nobody]

It was an interesting debate as far as it went. Might swing a few undecided voters.
However, there are a couple questions that are never seen asked in any of these debates that I would consider important among American voters.
First and foremost, "How will you reduce the National Debt?"

It was an interesting debate. It was funny that the VP candidates actually had more of a classic debate than the presidential candidates.

And to answer your question, which is easy. Tax the rich. Make them pay their fair share and go after those people who want to skirt the system with defrauding the government. Cause we all know that trickle down economics does absolutely nothing, so letting those wealthy people keep mo ey, only makes them richer.

[Tunaman]

It was an interesting debate. It was funny that the VP candidates actually had more of a classic debate than the presidential candidates.

And to answer your question, which is easy. Tax the rich. Make them pay their fair share and go after those people who want to skirt the system with defrauding the government. Cause we all know that trickle down economics does absolutely nothing, so letting those wealthy people keep mo ey, only makes them richer.

Tax and spend...and tax and spend some more. That is the democrat way. Bunch of morons.