Maine strips Trump from the ballot, inflaming legal war over his candidacy

No you don't. You're embarrassed by it because you know its true.

5 awarded Doctorates from 5 universities didn't come from the right
A Hollywood walk of Fame Star couldn't be any more leftist
Times Person of the Year. Don't make us laugh
Humanitarian Award
Ellis Island Medal of Honor
Hosted and swooned over on dozens of talk shows like Oprah
Invited for dozens of guest appearances in Hollywood movies
Given his own reality show
Playboy interviews
Democrats had been the primary beneficiaries of Trump political donations, taking more than half of Trump's donations between 1989 and 2009.
In 2004 he stated to Wolf Blitzer, I probably identify more as Democrat
He was guest of honor for hundreds of Democrat socials because of his donations

You don't get 30 years of media praise without the approval of leftist.

So don't even try. lol

 

A ... no, I don't approve a treason.

Characterizing them as "Democrat falsified" is RW boiler plate, horseshit.
"The Justice Department has concluded that two of the four court orders allowing the FBI to conduct secret national security surveillance on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page were not valid because the government made "material misstatements" in obtaining them, according to a newly declassified judicial order."
It was the FBI that "bungled the case" ... NOT "Democrats".

No, and that's not what happened. But in tRaitor tRump's case I can see it being justified.

No I certainly would not, and I didn't approve of it when white supremacists, anarchists and RW interlopers did it during the George Floyd protests.

That accusation has never been justified.

What is seems like is you want to blame "Democrats" for every crime in the last 60 years; which is bullshit. And ever if it were true, would not necessarily be treason, just criminal.

No I wouldn't, not "Democrat" not tRumpublican, not anyone.
I already have everything I want and more; thanks. What I don't want is tRaitor tRump to be president ever again.

No, you. You thought right ... that's once in a row.
I know I'm doing my best to keep my oath.

Well that's horseshit, there's a lot of "day's gone by" that I haven't posted.

ibid
How is it that it becomes painfully apparent you're losing an argument by the fact that you devolve into personal attacks?

 

Wow! Sounds pretty damning and bad for the Democrats!

Remind us again when all these criminal trials start for all these Democrats that have committed these terrible crimes! If you can also link to us the indictments handed down for all these terrible crimes committed by Democrats that you stated.

Thanks in advance!

 

No! I think it's bullshit.

Really? Hasn't Ronald Reagan gotten 40 ++ years of praise? I'm pretty sure it didn't come from "leftist". What/whoever "leftist" is.

I don't have to try, it writes itself.

 

So you couldn't dispute the leftist organizations fawning over Trump for 30 years so you thought if you just added comments then magically it isn't true anymore.

 

I found it redundant to provide information to the left on historical information just so they can say
Nunt uh.

If you want to live in pretend land, who am I to educate you.

 

It would be difficult to miss the irony in all this. How many times have people on this site said that a Democrat was not guilty of a crime unless he has been charged and convicted. Yet, those same individuals are holding Trump to a different standard. Former President Trump has not been charged with, or convicted for, a charge of insurrection. Recently, the SCOTUS refused to expedite a ruling on whether Trump was acting as a President, or a candidate, on January 6. Then there is the fact that the timeline and the speech that Trump gave on January 6th shows that he is not culpable for what a small group of protesters did on that date. At the time, that this small group of protesters were storming the Capital Building, Trump was giving a speech at Trump Tower 1.6 miles away. In the speech, Trump called for the listeners to "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." Therefore, the prosecution cannot demonstrate intent on the part of the Trump. The prosecution has also attempted to put the cart before the horse in attempting to get the SCOTUS to rule on the former president's claim of immunity. In order to keep their politically motivated attempt to hold the start of the trial for the day before Super Tuesday, the prosecution has asked the SCOTUS to issue a ruling before the case has been ruled on by the Appeals Court. If the SCOTUS were to issue a ruling in their favor before the case was heard by the Appeals Court, then they could still meet their current trial date. But if they courts followed established procedures, also known as "Due Process", there is no way that the trial would start on time. There is a very good chance that the issue would not be settled prior to the next President being seated in 2025.

You have to remember that this entire issue has nothing to do with the guilt of innocence of Trump. It is an attempt to stymie the chances of the Trump being reelected. The purpose is to disenfranchise GOP voters.

 

Thx for clearing that up.
I don't believe you, but thx.

 

Geez, deflections again.

 

Right, because they were Republicans falsifying documents to get FISA warrants to illegally spy on Trumps campaign trying to derail their own campaign.
Any other magical claims you want to make?

Riiiiight, lol
Democrats wanted Trump impeached from the start because he deserved it
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-12-14/democrats-impeach-trump-beginning-of-presidency

You mean the 24 accounts found under subpoena that had 22 million run through them and distributed to Biden family members from foreign nationals?
Maybe you should try and keep up more as everyone on the planet (but you) knows this is the reason for the impeachment inquiry.

So you can't dispute my post so now its blaming democrats for every crime in the last 60 years?
The desperation is obvious

And you knowingly ignore anything that is unconstitutional to get what you want.

I have been here much longer than you have and you can't pass that by me.

Oh, accusing you of posting Trump claims is now a personal attack for you?
Does this help

 

You must live in an alternate universe.
Did the Capitol Police plant that noose and chant 'hang Mike Pence', also?

 

No, just tried the point out the dichotomy of your accusations. Your scatter gun approach to blaming Democrats for everything under the sun is ... laughable. So, are you now saying that your unabashed support for tRaitor tRump makes you a leftist?

 

And guess what happens when these rouge judges and Secretaries of State think they can determine who can and can't be on ballots because they think they can decide who is guilty of crimes



The speaker will eliminate their state electors for not following the constitution.

 

Use credible information. That will stop the nunt uh.

 

FALSE CLAIM
I made very concise and historical statements.
But you can't dispute them so its more of blaming Democrats for everything under the sun?
You're right, that is laughable as I never blamed Democrats of anything.
I said they were swooning over Trump for 30 years

Go ahead, show us none of these ever happened
GUARANTEED YOU WON'T lol
5 awarded Doctorates from 5 universities didn't come from the right
A Hollywood walk of Fame Star couldn't be any more leftist
Times Person of the Year. Don't make us laugh
Humanitarian Award
Ellis Island Medal of Honor
Hosted and swooned over on dozens of talk shows like Oprah
Invited for dozens of guest appearances in Hollywood movies
Given his own reality show
Playboy interviews
Democrats had been the primary beneficiaries of Trump political donations, taking more than half of Trump's donations between 1989 and 2009.
In 2004 he stated to Wolf Blitzer, I probably identify more as Democrat
He was guest of honor for hundreds of Democrat socials because of his donations

I never said any of that
But,
When all you have is out of context regurgitations and putting words in other peoples mouths, its obvious that desperation is all you can muster. And your exaggerations speak for themselves.
Try a different approach. If you can.

 

Your last sentence is correct.
The issue of ballot qualification has nothing at all to do with crimes.
It has to do with qualifying requirements outlined in the constitution.

trump lost as the incumbent. He is his own worst person when it comes to being elected after having been tossed out once already.

 

Never has worked with the left before.
Why would it work now?

 

I wouldn't be surprised if they wee Republican's, there's a fifty-fifty chance. All we know for sure is they were FBI.

Why did you obfuscate the fact that, that was a "letter to the editor", there is no end to your duplicity.

I do keep up, it's you that's behind or ... biased. It doesn't matter the number of false accusations. The fact is there is no substance to any of the tRumpublican charges.

Wuuut? I've disputed everything you've ever posted ... successfully.

So, you really don't have anything but personal attacks.

Yeah, well I'm not paid to be here and several other boards. To what honor do we owe your presence here today?

Wuuuuut? No really WHAT? That attempt at a sentence failed.

Cute.

 

Why, their gov't was their Party and MAGA. Why would they protest their own?

Your answer doesn't make much sense.

 

Of course it works with most everyone. Credible evidence means it can be verified.

What is your main source of credible evidence? Maybe that's the problem.

And maybe you don't have to convince the left, but more than just the left actually read posts.

Often those who won't provide evidence, does so because they can't find quality evidence.

 

Cheese and rice look at your posts.

Right up until he took over the tRumpublican party. Sounds like a win for Democrats.

Well, excuse me, your posts are so scatter-gun it's hard to decipher what it is you're saying.

And you want it believed that you haven't resorted to personal attacks?

I'm doing fine, it's you that's flailing.

 

Our ruling: Missing context
A post equating the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol to 2018 demonstrations against the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court is MISSING CONTEXT, based on our research, because without additional information it could be misleading. Photos in the post authentically represent the 2018 protests, but the text leaves out key differences between the demonstrations, including violence during the Jan. 6 riot that resulted in the death of a U.S. Capitol Police officer and a demonstrator. Protesters also did not enter the Supreme Court in 2018, as the post claims. The Capitol was open to the public in 2018, but closed during the Jan. 6 riot.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...naugh-protests-meme-lacks-context/4343790001/

...
Only democrats care about presumed sexual assaulters? Maybe, but seems odd.

There was no breach of the Capitol during the Kavanugh issue.

 

This is what you call a dispute of something?

This is what you call disputing something

Your inability to keep up or dispute something isn't my problem

This is what you call disputing something?

 

How about commenting on the thread.
Then we can see what you will and won't accept

 

Correct, you just implied it. Saying a rebellion is illegal, while there were thousands at that rebellion on J6.

People can be at a rebellion and not participate.
But yes, the participants are being illegal.

The 14th only says engages in... Not participating in.
Leading, planning, funding, are all parts of engaging.