You're the worst. Whether or not both sides have read the book, the point was that it is an actual tactic that was created for purposes of advancing the progressive agenda. Written by a progressive, and openly admired and adopted by Democrats. This book didn't become popular in the conservative scene until 2010, only with the help of social media. You are clueless.

---

I mean we don’t even have to say if this election goes to the courts.

It’s going to, Trump is gonna deny the results of the election no matter what. And having a Supreme Court decide that Trump gets to be president, is well... autocracy... we’re descending into banana republic where his family runs our country.

And all of that would absolutely be avoided if Democrats weren’t trying add unverified mail-in ballots that could be completed and sent even after the election. Keep it like every other election and there’s nothing to contest. 

I mean, it won’t stop Joe Biden (ask Hillary), but you wouldn’t have any issues with Trump.

---

And I’m telling you, that the reason they are rushing this is because they don’t think Trump is gonna make it. Or they’d be patient

Nobody is "rushing" anything.  The President (our President) is fulfilling his Constitutional duty by nominating a qualified candidate.  The senate should also fulfill their Constitutional duty and give the candidate an up or down vote.  It's as simple as that like it or not.

Yeah, except when they don't. Merrick Garland calls [BLEEP] on what you just posted.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Nobody is "rushing" anything.  The President (our President) is fulfilling his Constitutional duty by nominating a qualified candidate.  The senate should also fulfill their Constitutional duty and give the candidate an up or down vote.  It's as simple as that like it or not.

Yeah, except when they don't. Merrick Garland calls [BLEEP] on what you just posted.

I guess you missed the part where a controlling opposing Senate hasn't confirmed a SCJ since 1888..

In the words of Barry pal.. "elections have consequences".. now you don't agree with that statement?  Those Senetors were voted in to prevent Obama nominated Justices, his agenda, and they did their job.. now they'll do it again. Fill That Seat! A large part of the votes for Trump was because the S.C. was up for grabs.. Just Trump fulfilling yet another campaign promise like many times before. That's why we voted for him.

Sure does beat.. "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor".. nothing like having your medical benefits upended in the middle of a cancer diagnosis.. which is what I and many others went through.  They ball faced LIED.

---

Yeah, except when they don't. Merrick Garland calls [BLEEP] on what you just posted.

I guess you missed the part where a controlling opposing Senate hasn't confirmed a SCJ since 1888..

In the words of Barry pal.. "elections have consequences".. now you don't agree with that statement?  Those Senetors were voted in to prevent Obama nominated Justices, his agenda, and they did their job.. now they'll do it again. Fill That Seat! A large part of the votes for Trump was because the S.C. was up for grabs.. Just Trump fulfilling yet another campaign promise like many times before. That's why we voted for him.

Sure does beat.. "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor".. nothing like having your medical benefits upended in the middle of a cancer diagnosis.. which is what I and many others went through.  They ball faced LIED.

Clarence Thomas was confirmed in 1991 while Democrats had 57 seats in the Senate.

Senators win and lose seats for lots of different reasons. I'm not sure judges was the #1 issue for voters in the 2014 midterms,. Elections to the Senate aren't supposed to capture the national mood anyway. remember Florida did not get a senate vote in 2014, just like we're not getting one in 2020.

I agree judges were very important in 2016.  Scalia dying changed everything.

---

You're the worst. Whether or not both sides have read the book, the point was that it is an actual tactic that was created for purposes of advancing the progressive agenda. Written by a progressive, and openly admired and adopted by Democrats. This book didn't become popular in the conservative scene until 2010, only with the help of social media. You are clueless.

The conservatives who blocked the doors to the Miami Dade County supervisor of elections office in mid November 2000 were aware of the tactics even if they didn't mention the title in public.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I mean we don’t even have to say if this election goes to the courts.

It’s going to, Trump is gonna deny the results of the election no matter what. And having a Supreme Court decide that Trump gets to be president, is well... autocracy... we’re descending into banana republic where his family runs our country.

And all of that would absolutely be avoided if Democrats weren’t trying add unverified mail-in ballots that could be completed and sent even after the election. Keep it like every other election and there’s nothing to contest. 

I mean, it won’t stop Joe Biden (ask Hillary), but you wouldn’t have any issues with Trump.

I had some time to look into it today, and I don't think this election is going to go to the supreme Court.

If you look at the bush v Gore decision, that started because Gore's people sued in State Court. But the US supreme Court found that state courts don't really have jurisdiction for this kind of thing. The US supreme Court said that the controlling statute is title 3 of the US Code. The US Supreme court ruled in favor of Bush, but that ruling just moved the process to the next phase, which is counting votes in the Senate per 3 u.s.c. When you read title 3 of the US code, it does not give the US supreme Court any role in solving disputes about who won which state. These disputes start when one senator and one member of Congress agree that something is fishy about one state.  If there is more than one set of ballots from the state, the Senate and the house are directed to vote separately about which set is the real one. If the Senate and House disagree, the decision of which presidential candidate wins that state's electors goes to the governor of that state.
The only way for the US supreme Court to change the outcome, would be if they decided that title 3 of the US code was suddenly unconstitutional, that it took too much power away from the state legislature or some nonsense like that.
There is still a path for both sides to change the outcome with shenanigans if they want to.  But it doesn't involve the courts.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

And all of that would absolutely be avoided if Democrats weren’t trying add unverified mail-in ballots that could be completed and sent even after the election. Keep it like every other election and there’s nothing to contest. 

I mean, it won’t stop Joe Biden (ask Hillary), but you wouldn’t have any issues with Trump.

I had some time to look into it today, and I don't think this election is going to go to the supreme Court.

If you look at the bush v Gore decision, that started because Gore's people sued in State Court. But the US supreme Court found that state courts don't really have jurisdiction for this kind of thing. The US supreme Court said that the controlling statute is title 3 of the US Code. The US Supreme court ruled in favor of Bush, but that ruling just moved the process to the next phase, which is counting votes in the Senate per 3 u.s.c. When you read title 3 of the US code, it does not give the US supreme Court any role in solving disputes about who won which state. These disputes start when one senator and one member of Congress agree that something is fishy about one state.  If there is more than one set of ballots from the state, the Senate and the house are directed to vote separately about which set is the real one. If the Senate and House disagree, the decision of which presidential candidate wins that state's electors goes to the governor of that state.
The only way for the US supreme Court to change the outcome, would be if they decided that title 3 of the US code was suddenly unconstitutional, that it took too much power away from the state legislature or some nonsense like that.
There is still a path for both sides to change the outcome with shenanigans if they want to.  But it doesn't involve the courts.

Mail in ballots are a little different than hanging chads.

---

Dems are going after ACB children. Is this really the hill you Democrats want to die on?

---

Dems are going after ACB children. Is this really the hill you Democrats want to die on?

It's going to funny watching the supposedly Catholics attack her for being a Catholic. I hope this turns off all the Catholics that for whatever reason still think the Democrats represent them.

Sent from my SM-T820 using Tapatalk

---

Dems are going after ACB children. Is this really the hill you Democrats want to die on?

Did you read that somewhere?

---

Dems are going after ACB children. Is this really the hill you Democrats want to die on?

Did you read that somewhere?

The only one I saw was from a blue check mark on Twitter that said we should look into the adoption of those Haitian children. And she implied that they could’ve been taken illegally through criminal adoption agencies.

---

Did you read that somewhere?

The only one I saw was from a blue check mark on Twitter that said we should look into the adoption of those Haitian children. And she implied that they could’ve been taken illegally through criminal adoption agencies.

That's pretty absurd and low... it would not surprise me if the democrats went there though.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

The only one I saw was from a blue check mark on Twitter that said we should look into the adoption of those Haitian children. And she implied that they could’ve been taken illegally through criminal adoption agencies.

That's pretty absurd and low... it would not surprise me if the democrats went there though.

 Agreed. Just found some more that are saying that white colonizers stole minority children to change them and implement white culture. I haven’t seen anyone directly accuse her of this but they’re implying it.

---

Did you read that somewhere?

The only one I saw was from a blue check mark on Twitter that said we should look into the adoption of those Haitian children. And she implied that they could’ve been taken illegally through criminal adoption agencies.

Kinda how the Clintons were trying to steal children for sex trafficking.

Saying it makes it true right? Well.. there's documented evidence for what I'm talking about... and the woman at the center? Now part of a company that "protects" children through chipping.

---

The only one I saw was from a blue check mark on Twitter that said we should look into the adoption of those Haitian children. And she implied that they could’ve been taken illegally through criminal adoption agencies.

Kinda how the Clintons were trying to steal children for sex trafficking.

Saying it makes it true right? Well.. there's documented evidence for what I'm talking about... and the woman at the center? Now part of a company that "protects" children through chipping.

---

This might be the Supreme Court of Trump soon. Loving this!

---

This might be the Supreme Court of Trump soon. Loving this!

Sigh...

And this is the propaganda fed to the young of our nation.. a Pro-Life woman with 2 adopted children becomes...


The party of evil.

---

SCOTUS = Supreme Court of Trumps United States.

4th pick coming next term.

---

Did you read that somewhere?

The only one I saw was from a blue check mark on Twitter that said we should look into the adoption of those Haitian children. And she implied that they could’ve been taken illegally through criminal adoption agencies.

Nailed it. 

---

The only one I saw was from a blue check mark on Twitter that said we should look into the adoption of those Haitian children. And she implied that they could’ve been taken illegally through criminal adoption agencies.

Nailed it. 

Yep, but that means you think like the Democrats. Are you proud or revulsed?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato