“Our politically correct Supreme Court will get what they deserve—an unconstitutionally elected group of Radical Left Democrats who are destroying our Country,” the statement reads.
Between 1900 and 1917, waves of unprecedented terror struck Russia. Several parties professing incompatible ideologies competed (and cooperated) in causing havoc. Between 1905 and 1907, nearly 4,500 government officials and about as many private individuals were killed or injured. Between 1908 and 1910, authorities recorded 19,957 terrorist acts and revolutionary robberies, doubtless omitting many from remote areas. As the foremost historian of Russian terrorism, Anna Geifman, observes, “Robbery, extortion, and murder became more common than traffic accidents.”
Not just lawyers, teachers, doctors, and engineers, but even industrialists and bank directors raised money for the terrorists. Doing so signaled advanced opinion and good manners. A quote attributed to Lenin—“When we are ready to kill the capitalists, they will sell us the rope”—would have been more accurately rendered as: “They will buy us the rope and hire us to use it on them.” True to their word, when the Bolsheviks gained control, their organ of terror, the Cheka, “liquidated” members of all opposing parties, beginning with the Kadets. Why didn’t the liberals and businessmen see it coming?
The SCOTUS' entire fucking job is to ensure the Constitution is adhered to. They put their hands in the pockets and walked away whistling while the Left conducted the Steal, and they did it on purpose.
We have a constitutional scholar here, deeply immersed in both the Constitution and 200 years of jurisprudence. Definitely not some opinion based on something he read written by some ignoramus who knew nothing.
We have a constitutional scholar here, deeply immersed in both the Constitution and 200 years of jurisprudence. Definitely not some opinion based on something he read written by some ignoramus who knew nothing.
I just wonder how randos on the internet just know that a given decision is wrong, because they disagree agree with it.
You do understand that that opinion also applies to yourself, jackass?
If you want to offer your own stupid fucking opinion on the issue, don't be surprised when people disagree with it, and then don't be a little whiny bitch about it.
And yes, before you point it out, I've hypocritically used name calling in this post. Because you've already degenerated this thread to that point.
The claim that red states have no standing when blue states break their own election laws - in a federal election that decides a president who sets policy for the entire nation - is retarded on its face. Of course red states have standing. They are subject to the outcome of the election, same as every other state. If blue states broke their own laws and illegally decided the election, exactly which court should resolve such a dispute?
The claim that red states have no standing when blue states break their own election laws - in a federal election that decides a president who sets policy for the entire nation - is retarded on its face.
Is it? You're not only arguing that your point of view is correct, but that no one could possibly come to a different conclusion.
If blue states broke their own laws and illegally decided the election, exactly which court should resolve such a dispute?
Apparently, they're free to break their own laws as much as they like. Legislators who passed the laws may have standing. I am pretty sure standing has been granted in such cases in the past.
Let's be real here. There was no way the SCOTUS was going to change the outcome, even to overturn fraud. That would invite charges of politicization. Hell, just stopping the recount in 2000 led to people saying that.
I like him when he goes nowhere, but does stuff that is entertaining. In this case, I think, his enemies will get pleasure from it though. And it's going to alienate a lot of so called institutionalists if he's going to run again in 2024.
Trump's future chances of victory will hinge on whether the state of the economy is abysmal, whether the state of crime on the streets is unacceptable and whether election integrity measures have been passed in key swing states by then.
Trump's rants here won't matter in 2024 IF he runs.
I actually completely agree. If the economy is bad, the incumbent loses. Which is why I don't understand why people cannot understand that Trump could possibly have lost. Hell, I predicted beforehand that due to the state of the economy, there was no way Trump could win.
That’s because the economy was only that way because of the China Virus, which was made to be what it was for societal control and mail in voter fraud.
It motivates your supporters to not just let them cheat you and then take it on the chin like the Republican party has been for decades. Its not very useful for him, he lost and they will never let him get it back, but it keeps his base from giving up hope completely by at least acknowledging he knows how fucked it all is and letting them have a bonding laugh over it.
I shouldn't be the one having to explain to you how to avoid the doomer pill.
"How about another joke, SCOTUS?"
Hey now, cool it with the anti-Semitic remarks.
FTA:
Who could have predicted this.
It never happened before, ever.
https://archive.ph/8B9ve https:// www. firstthings. com/article/2020/10/suicide-of-the-liberals
SCOTUS packing does not impact SCOTUS members: they don't care; evidently.
$2M book deals are NOT "what they deserve".
Weak.
This sort of bitterness isn't attractive to anyone.
I can understand his bitterness.
Of course he is mad that they robbed him.
Trump made mistakes sure but his anger here is understandable.
The Supreme Court didn't rob him.
We have a constitutional scholar here, deeply immersed in both the Constitution and 200 years of jurisprudence. Definitely not some opinion based on something he read written by some ignoramus who knew nothing.
Sorry can't hear you WHISTLING from all the way over there.
Says the foreigner.
I just wonder how randos on the internet just know that a given decision is wrong, because they disagree with it.
You do understand that that opinion also applies to yourself, jackass?
If you want to offer your own stupid fucking opinion on the issue, don't be surprised when people disagree with it, and then don't be a little whiny bitch about it.
And yes, before you point it out, I've hypocritically used name calling in this post. Because you've already degenerated this thread to that point.
Comment Reported for: Rule -16: Identity attacks
Comment Approved: I don't see how.
Yup, a country which is not in flames, by the way.
"But your honor, I didn't rape her, I just stood next to it, filmed and dindu nuffin!"
Well yeah, it was dismissed on procedural grounds. Standing. Do you think well-established legal norms should just be ignored?
The claim that red states have no standing when blue states break their own election laws - in a federal election that decides a president who sets policy for the entire nation - is retarded on its face. Of course red states have standing. They are subject to the outcome of the election, same as every other state. If blue states broke their own laws and illegally decided the election, exactly which court should resolve such a dispute?
Is it? You're not only arguing that your point of view is correct, but that no one could possibly come to a different conclusion.
Apparently, they're free to break their own laws as much as they like. Legislators who passed the laws may have standing. I am pretty sure standing has been granted in such cases in the past.
Let's be real here. There was no way the SCOTUS was going to change the outcome, even to overturn fraud. That would invite charges of politicization. Hell, just stopping the recount in 2000 led to people saying that.
Comment Reported for: Troll
Comment Approved: He is not a troll
Your opinions on this forum have slowly morphed into nuclear garbage. You're basically an idiot now.
My opinions haven't changed.
The alternative is just go full cuck silent and let them cheat you, ruin your name, and mock you while you "be the bigger man" by saying nothing.
There really isn't a middle ground, because saying anything will come across as bitter.
I wonder if antonio’s Wife’s boyfriend agrees?
I'm not advocating 'being the bigger man'. Criticize all you want, but this sort of thing just leads nowhere.
But it's entertaining.
I like him when he goes nowhere, but does stuff that is entertaining. In this case, I think, his enemies will get pleasure from it though. And it's going to alienate a lot of so called institutionalists if he's going to run again in 2024.
By 2024, these comments are not going to matter.
Trump's future chances of victory will hinge on whether the state of the economy is abysmal, whether the state of crime on the streets is unacceptable and whether election integrity measures have been passed in key swing states by then.
Trump's rants here won't matter in 2024 IF he runs.
Election integrity needs to be fixed by 2022 if he is to have any power.
I actually completely agree. If the economy is bad, the incumbent loses. Which is why I don't understand why people cannot understand that Trump could possibly have lost. Hell, I predicted beforehand that due to the state of the economy, there was no way Trump could win.
That’s because the economy was only that way because of the China Virus, which was made to be what it was for societal control and mail in voter fraud.
It motivates your supporters to not just let them cheat you and then take it on the chin like the Republican party has been for decades. Its not very useful for him, he lost and they will never let him get it back, but it keeps his base from giving up hope completely by at least acknowledging he knows how fucked it all is and letting them have a bonding laugh over it.
I shouldn't be the one having to explain to you how to avoid the doomer pill.
SCOTUS got what they deserved.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZscBf10Y5A
How will real threats of violence affect it though, because the left has that in spades.
That was just an internet rumor. No evidence they were even in session. Not sure why people (including a state rep) believed it so strongly.