[The Outsider]

As if the Constitution even means anything to them. They are doing exactly what I expected them to do, seize power by any an all means necessary.

I find it funny the 3 GQP members on here saying the federal have no say in what states do. But the first time they don't like election results they turn to the federal courts. They boast about leaving everything to the states but every time they don't like what a state does they run to the federal courts. Examples they sued in federal courts i believe it was 15 states got together and didn't like the results of the election in other states Dammm. I mean which one is it leave it to the states or does the federal have to step in ?

I'm trying to stay out of this one due of mixed feelings, plus not enough knowledge on the matter to know what I'm talking about.  That being said, Vector makes a very valid point concerning the irony of the response of some of the membership on here.

No, he actually does not make a valid point. The lawsuits that Trump and his allies filed were filed in the courts that had jurisdiction. In many cases, they had no option but to file first in state court. For example, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court changed the deadline for accepting absentee ballots, which was contrary to the deadline set by the state legislature. Pennsylvania's Supreme Court is elected and the decision to override state law was decided along a party line vote. There decision left the court open to a federal challenge because the plaintiffs alleged that the PA Supreme Court violated the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court ultimately declined to rule on that lawsuit on the basis that it was moot - the election was over and the Court's decision was not made until April.

Plaintiffs that bring lawsuits to challenge election results cannot ask a state court to rule on violations of voters' constitutional rights. In some cases, plaintiffs have to establish that they have exhausted options to have state courts address their grievances before a federal court will accept the case. It is clear that the U.S. Supreme Court believed that the state legislatures should have been the driving force behind appealing election results. The Pennsylvania case, in particular, seemed very strong but the USSC's decision to delay a decision on whether to accept the case until it was too late to matter demonstrated its reluctance to decide the election.

In other words, the alleged violations of election law and constitutional rights drive plaintiffs' decisions about where to file lawsuits - not the preference of the plaintiffs for one jurisdiction over another. Federal courts are not going to hear cases alleging violations of state law.

LOL, typing at the same time. ^^

My comment apparently flew right over your heads.

[TheRealThing]

I find it funny the 3 GQP members on here saying the federal have no say in what states do. But the first time they don't like election results they turn to the federal courts. They boast about leaving everything to the states but every time they don't like what a state does they run to the federal courts. Examples they sued in federal courts i believe it was 15 states got together and didn't like the results of the election in other states Dammm. I mean which one is it leave it to the states or does the federal have to step in ?

I'm trying to stay out of this one due of mixed feelings, plus not enough knowledge on the matter to know what I'm talking about.  That being said, Vector makes a very valid point concerning the irony of the response of some of the membership on here.

No, he actually does not make a valid point. The lawsuits that Trump and his allies filed were filed in the courts that had jurisdiction. In many cases, they had no option but to file first in state court. For example, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court changed the deadline for accepting absentee ballots, which was contrary to the deadline set by the state legislature. Pennsylvania's Supreme Court is elected and the decision to override state law was decided along a party line vote. There decision left the court open to a federal challenge because the plaintiffs alleged that the PA Supreme Court violated the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court ultimately declined to rule on that lawsuit on the basis that it was moot - the election was over and the Court's decision was not made until April.

Plaintiffs that bring lawsuits to challenge election results cannot ask a state court to rule on violations of voters' constitutional rights. In some cases, plaintiffs have to establish that they have exhausted options to have state courts address their grievances before a federal court will accept the case. It is clear that the U.S. Supreme Court believed that the state legislatures should have been the driving force behind appealing election results. The Pennsylvania case, in particular, seemed very strong but the USSC's decision to delay a decision on whether to accept the case until it was too late to matter demonstrated its reluctance to decide the election.

In other words, the alleged violations of election law and constitutional rights drive plaintiffs' decisions about where to file lawsuits - not the preference of the plaintiffs for one jurisdiction over another. Federal courts are not going to hear cases alleging violations of state law.

LOL, typing at the same time. ^^

My comment apparently flew right over your heads.

So your statement declaring your lack of understanding of the matter at hand, causes you to sort of stay out of it. Yet you align yourself with vector (whose on-line persona to date, would have required him to have had a brain transplant to have written the surprisingly lucid post in the first place).

But in your professed shortfall and inexplicable agreement with vector, we are to feel put upon intellectually as if we are the ones who don't get it? Let me think about that one for a few minutes.

[vector#1]

I'm trying to stay out of this one due of mixed feelings, plus not enough knowledge on the matter to know what I'm talking about.  That being said, Vector makes a very valid point concerning the irony of the response of some of the membership on here.

No, he actually does not make a valid point. The lawsuits that Trump and his allies filed were filed in the courts that had jurisdiction. In many cases, they had no option but to file first in state court. For example, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court changed the deadline for accepting absentee ballots, which was contrary to the deadline set by the state legislature. Pennsylvania's Supreme Court is elected and the decision to override state law was decided along a party line vote. There decision left the court open to a federal challenge because the plaintiffs alleged that the PA Supreme Court violated the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court ultimately declined to rule on that lawsuit on the basis that it was moot - the election was over and the Court's decision was not made until April.

Plaintiffs that bring lawsuits to challenge election results cannot ask a state court to rule on violations of voters' constitutional rights. In some cases, plaintiffs have to establish that they have exhausted options to have state courts address their grievances before a federal court will accept the case. It is clear that the U.S. Supreme Court believed that the state legislatures should have been the driving force behind appealing election results. The Pennsylvania case, in particular, seemed very strong but the USSC's decision to delay a decision on whether to accept the case until it was too late to matter demonstrated its reluctance to decide the election.

In other words, the alleged violations of election law and constitutional rights drive plaintiffs' decisions about where to file lawsuits - not the preference of the plaintiffs for one jurisdiction over another. Federal courts are not going to hear cases alleging violations of state law.

LOL, typing at the same time. ^^

My comment apparently flew right over your heads.

So your statement declaring your lack of understanding of the matter at hand, causes you to sort of stay out of it. Yet you align yourself with vector (whose on-line persona to date, would have required him to have had a brain transplant to have written the surprisingly lucid post in the first place).

But in your professed shortfall and inexplicable agreement with vector, we are to feel put upon intellectually as if we are the ones who don't get it? Let me think about that one for a few minutes.

TRT watch out you will hurt yourself

[Hoot Gibson]

I find it funny the 3 GQP members on here saying the federal have no say in what states do. But the first time they don't like election results they turn to the federal courts. They boast about leaving everything to the states but every time they don't like what a state does they run to the federal courts. Examples they sued in federal courts i believe it was 15 states got together and didn't like the results of the election in other states Dammm. I mean which one is it leave it to the states or does the federal have to step in ?

I'm trying to stay out of this one due of mixed feelings, plus not enough knowledge on the matter to know what I'm talking about.  That being said, Vector makes a very valid point concerning the irony of the response of some of the membership on here.

No, he actually does not make a valid point. The lawsuits that Trump and his allies filed were filed in the courts that had jurisdiction. In many cases, they had no option but to file first in state court. For example, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court changed the deadline for accepting absentee ballots, which was contrary to the deadline set by the state legislature. Pennsylvania's Supreme Court is elected and the decision to override state law was decided along a party line vote. There decision left the court open to a federal challenge because the plaintiffs alleged that the PA Supreme Court violated the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court ultimately declined to rule on that lawsuit on the basis that it was moot - the election was over and the Court's decision was not made until April.

Plaintiffs that bring lawsuits to challenge election results cannot ask a state court to rule on violations of voters' constitutional rights. In some cases, plaintiffs have to establish that they have exhausted options to have state courts address their grievances before a federal court will accept the case. It is clear that the U.S. Supreme Court believed that the state legislatures should have been the driving force behind appealing election results. The Pennsylvania case, in particular, seemed very strong but the USSC's decision to delay a decision on whether to accept the case until it was too late to matter demonstrated its reluctance to decide the election.

In other words, the alleged violations of election law and constitutional rights drive plaintiffs' decisions about where to file lawsuits - not the preference of the plaintiffs for one jurisdiction over another. Federal courts are not going to hear cases alleging violations of state law.

LOL, typing at the same time. ^^

My comment apparently flew right over your heads.

No, I caught your confession that you do not have enough knowledge to know what you are talking about. 

As for relying on vector as a source of knowledge, you might want to rethink that one.

I am not going to presume to speak for anybody but myself, but I have consistently advocated government decisions made as close to the source of government funding as possible. Conservatives - and my political philosophy is consistently conservative, do not trust decisions made by the federal government except when absolutely necessary. A Kentucky County Fiscal Court should not have the authority to declare war on North Korea and Congress should not be dictating the curricula used by local school districts.

So, what you have done is to take vector's assertion that three conservative posters all prefer having the federal government decide elections over state governments. So, you are basing your opinion on a blatant lie, which is mostly what one finds in vector's posts. When appealing the results of an election, a candidate or other person or group who believes that they were denied a fair election has to decide whether the election violated state or federal law and file accordingly. The law is not a team sport, where you get to freely choose which court you want your lawsuit to be heard. I know that will come as a shock to your three fellow liberal posters, but it is really okay to think for yourself and not to speak and act as if you are port of the Borg.

In reality, no disputed presidential election is likely to ever be settled by a state court ruling. The Supreme Court may refuse to hear lawsuits that may impact the outcome of an election, as it did in the case of the 2020 election, but it is a safe bet that lawsuits will be filed if the plaintiff is unhappy with the results obtained in state court.

The 800+ page bill that Democrats are trying to pass is nothing but a naked power grab that will be nullified by the U.S. Supreme Court if it is ever enacted into law. Most of the issues surrounding the 2020 elections were the result of extending deadlines for absentee ballots and mailing unsolicited ballots to all registered voters in some cases. So, does it really make sense for the federal government to force states to extend deadlines for receiving absentee ballots past election day, while eliminating voter IDs? There is really no excuse for extending the opportunities for election fraud to the entire nation.

[vector#1]

I'm trying to stay out of this one due of mixed feelings, plus not enough knowledge on the matter to know what I'm talking about.  That being said, Vector makes a very valid point concerning the irony of the response of some of the membership on here.

No, he actually does not make a valid point. The lawsuits that Trump and his allies filed were filed in the courts that had jurisdiction. In many cases, they had no option but to file first in state court. For example, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court changed the deadline for accepting absentee ballots, which was contrary to the deadline set by the state legislature. Pennsylvania's Supreme Court is elected and the decision to override state law was decided along a party line vote. There decision left the court open to a federal challenge because the plaintiffs alleged that the PA Supreme Court violated the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court ultimately declined to rule on that lawsuit on the basis that it was moot - the election was over and the Court's decision was not made until April.

Plaintiffs that bring lawsuits to challenge election results cannot ask a state court to rule on violations of voters' constitutional rights. In some cases, plaintiffs have to establish that they have exhausted options to have state courts address their grievances before a federal court will accept the case. It is clear that the U.S. Supreme Court believed that the state legislatures should have been the driving force behind appealing election results. The Pennsylvania case, in particular, seemed very strong but the USSC's decision to delay a decision on whether to accept the case until it was too late to matter demonstrated its reluctance to decide the election.

In other words, the alleged violations of election law and constitutional rights drive plaintiffs' decisions about where to file lawsuits - not the preference of the plaintiffs for one jurisdiction over another. Federal courts are not going to hear cases alleging violations of state law.

LOL, typing at the same time. ^^

My comment apparently flew right over your heads.

No, I caught your confession that you do not have enough knowledge to know what you are talking about. 

As for relying on vector as a source of knowledge, you might want to rethink that one.

I am not going to presume to speak for anybody but myself, but I have consistently advocated government decisions made as close to the source of government funding as possible. Conservatives - and my political philosophy is consistently conservative, do not trust decisions made by the federal government except when absolutely necessary. A Kentucky County Fiscal Court should not have the authority to declare war on North Korea and Congress should not be dictating the curricula used by local school districts.

So, what you have done is to take vector's assertion that three conservative posters all prefer having the federal government decide elections over state governments. So, you are basing your opinion on a blatant lie, which is mostly what one finds in vector's posts. When appealing the results of an election, a candidate or other person or group who believes that they were denied a fair election has to decide whether the election violated state or federal law and file accordingly. The law is not a team sport, where you get to freely choose which court you want your lawsuit to be heard. I know that will come as a shock to your three fellow liberal posters, but it is really okay to think for yourself and not to speak and act as if you are port of the Borg.

In reality, no disputed presidential election is likely to ever be settled by a state court ruling. The Supreme Court may refuse to hear lawsuits that may impact the outcome of an election, as it did in the case of the 2020 election, but it is a safe bet that lawsuits will be filed if the plaintiff is unhappy with the results obtained in state court.

The 800+ page bill that Democrats are trying to pass is nothing but a naked power grab that will be nullified by the U.S. Supreme Court if it is ever enacted into law. Most of the issues surrounding the 2020 elections were the result of extending deadlines for absentee ballots and mailing unsolicited ballots to all registered voters in some cases. So, does it really make sense for the federal government to force states to extend deadlines for receiving absentee ballots past election day, while eliminating voter IDs? There is really no excuse for extending the opportunities for election fraud to the entire nation.

Quooter without federal government stepping in the blacks would still not get to vote in the south. But when states step in and file federal lawsuits against other states election results. That should have nothing to do with them. I believe WV joined the lawsuit even though their guy won why are they concerned about other states ? That's all you hear from the GQP let states handle things themselves but as soon as they don't like something they run to the federal courts they do it all the time.

[Hoot Gibson]

vector#1

The contents of this message are hidden because vector#1 is on your ignore list.

[Hoot Gibson]

If Manchin sticks to what he claims are his principles, he better not plan on dining out much in DC. The BLM thugs will not take kindly to a Democrat declining an opportunity to make election fraud in Atlanta, Philadelphia, Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee, and Phoenix easier in 2022 and 2024. The Reverand Al, the NAACP, and the rest of the usual suspects have already been lobbying him to get in line.

[The Outsider]

I'm trying to stay out of this one due of mixed feelings, plus not enough knowledge on the matter to know what I'm talking about.  That being said, Vector makes a very valid point concerning the irony of the response of some of the membership on here.

No, he actually does not make a valid point. The lawsuits that Trump and his allies filed were filed in the courts that had jurisdiction. In many cases, they had no option but to file first in state court. For example, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court changed the deadline for accepting absentee ballots, which was contrary to the deadline set by the state legislature. Pennsylvania's Supreme Court is elected and the decision to override state law was decided along a party line vote. There decision left the court open to a federal challenge because the plaintiffs alleged that the PA Supreme Court violated the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court ultimately declined to rule on that lawsuit on the basis that it was moot - the election was over and the Court's decision was not made until April.

Plaintiffs that bring lawsuits to challenge election results cannot ask a state court to rule on violations of voters' constitutional rights. In some cases, plaintiffs have to establish that they have exhausted options to have state courts address their grievances before a federal court will accept the case. It is clear that the U.S. Supreme Court believed that the state legislatures should have been the driving force behind appealing election results. The Pennsylvania case, in particular, seemed very strong but the USSC's decision to delay a decision on whether to accept the case until it was too late to matter demonstrated its reluctance to decide the election.

In other words, the alleged violations of election law and constitutional rights drive plaintiffs' decisions about where to file lawsuits - not the preference of the plaintiffs for one jurisdiction over another. Federal courts are not going to hear cases alleging violations of state law.

LOL, typing at the same time. ^^

My comment apparently flew right over your heads.

So your statement declaring your lack of understanding of the matter at hand, causes you to sort of stay out of it. Yet you align yourself with vector (whose on-line persona to date, would have required him to have had a brain transplant to have written the surprisingly lucid post in the first place).

But in your professed shortfall and inexplicable agreement with vector, we are to feel put upon intellectually as if we are the ones who don't get it? Let me think about that one for a few minutes.

Nevermind guys, I apologize if it came off as an intellectual cut.  That wasn't really my intent, well not this time anyway.

[Hoot Gibson]

No, he actually does not make a valid point. The lawsuits that Trump and his allies filed were filed in the courts that had jurisdiction. In many cases, they had no option but to file first in state court. For example, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court changed the deadline for accepting absentee ballots, which was contrary to the deadline set by the state legislature. Pennsylvania's Supreme Court is elected and the decision to override state law was decided along a party line vote. There decision left the court open to a federal challenge because the plaintiffs alleged that the PA Supreme Court violated the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court ultimately declined to rule on that lawsuit on the basis that it was moot - the election was over and the Court's decision was not made until April.

Plaintiffs that bring lawsuits to challenge election results cannot ask a state court to rule on violations of voters' constitutional rights. In some cases, plaintiffs have to establish that they have exhausted options to have state courts address their grievances before a federal court will accept the case. It is clear that the U.S. Supreme Court believed that the state legislatures should have been the driving force behind appealing election results. The Pennsylvania case, in particular, seemed very strong but the USSC's decision to delay a decision on whether to accept the case until it was too late to matter demonstrated its reluctance to decide the election.

In other words, the alleged violations of election law and constitutional rights drive plaintiffs' decisions about where to file lawsuits - not the preference of the plaintiffs for one jurisdiction over another. Federal courts are not going to hear cases alleging violations of state law.

LOL, typing at the same time. ^^

My comment apparently flew right over your heads.

So your statement declaring your lack of understanding of the matter at hand, causes you to sort of stay out of it. Yet you align yourself with vector (whose on-line persona to date, would have required him to have had a brain transplant to have written the surprisingly lucid post in the first place).

But in your professed shortfall and inexplicable agreement with vector, we are to feel put upon intellectually as if we are the ones who don't get it? Let me think about that one for a few minutes.

Nevermind guys, I apologize if it came off as an intellectual cut.  That wasn't really my intent, well not this time anyway.

My response was not intended as a cut either, at least not one directed at you. I took some time to articulate why, when you stand with vector, you are putting yourself on slippery footing. Trump did nothing that any other candidate of either party would have done, had they been convinced that the election had been rigged and stolen from them. Those who agree that the election was stolen numbers in the tens of millions, so to dismiss all of us as kooks without taking time to understand the issues that Trump and his allies raised is very short sighted, IMO.

To simply repeat that no court ever found the evidence presented convincing, when nearly all of the cases were decided on the basis of a lack of standing, as vector and his two sidekicks have done for months, is very disingenuous. As courts have examined the evidence presented, as has they have done in Michigan, Georgia, and New Hampshire, they have found enough issues to allow lawsuits and audits to proceed. In response, Democrats have attempted to discredit the limited forensic audits that have been done by disparaging the character of the auditors.

[vector#1]

LOL, typing at the same time. ^^

My comment apparently flew right over your heads.

So your statement declaring your lack of understanding of the matter at hand, causes you to sort of stay out of it. Yet you align yourself with vector (whose on-line persona to date, would have required him to have had a brain transplant to have written the surprisingly lucid post in the first place).

But in your professed shortfall and inexplicable agreement with vector, we are to feel put upon intellectually as if we are the ones who don't get it? Let me think about that one for a few minutes.

Nevermind guys, I apologize if it came off as an intellectual cut.  That wasn't really my intent, well not this time anyway.

My response was not intended as a cut either, at least not one directed at you. I took some time to articulate why, when you stand with vector, you are putting yourself on slippery footing. Trump did nothing that any other candidate of either party would have done, had they been convinced that the election had been rigged and stolen from them. Those who agree that the election was stolen numbers in the tens of millions, so to dismiss all of us as kooks without taking time to understand the issues that Trump and his allies raised is very short sighted, IMO.

To simply repeat that no court ever found the evidence presented convincing, when nearly all of the cases were decided on the basis of a lack of standing, as vector and his two sidekicks have done for months, is very disingenuous. As courts have examined the evidence presented, as has they have done in Michigan, Georgia, and New Hampshire, they have found enough issues to allow lawsuits and audits to proceed. In response, Democrats have attempted to discredit the limited forensic audits that have been done by disparaging the character of the auditors.

Quooter we have never had a President do what your Dear Leader done and still doing. Theirs nothing to compare this to except maybe Jefferson Davis who declared war on the United States.

[TheRealThing]

ttt

[Cardfan1]

I have some faith in Uncle Joe yet.

I have no faith in the Grand Ole Putin’s

[Hoot Gibson]

If Joe Manchin capitulates to the liberal Democrats and race hustlers on this issue, then he will probably be finished in politics at a national level. Donald Trump received 69 percent of West Virginians vote in the 2016 and 2020 elections and they did not send Manchin to Washington to dance to Chuck Schumer's music. 

Joe Manchin is a bona fide centrist. Deal with it

Joe Manchin is a bona fide centrist, a political animal nearing extinction in the Democratic Party, whose home state of West Virginia gave Donald Trump his second-highest winning percentage last fall, with 69 percent of the vote.

Manchin is a traditional Democrat, not a bomb thrower. He seeks out compromise to move the country forward and, unlike many of his fellow Democrats, uses reason and rationality to argue for his positions on issues, not race or moral shaming.

His views are probably closer to Presidents John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton than the progressive wing of today’s Democratic Party, which, in this political climate, would probably not have nominated either one of them for the presidency.

[Cardfan1]

Joe Manchin is done unless he helps nuke the filibuster.

[Old School Hound]

Joe Manchin is done unless he helps nuke the filibuster.

I said in an earlier post how to handle Manchin. I hope the Prez reads BGR. LOL     Biden should insist that Manchin capitulates to his plan and if he doesn't , end his political career.

[Hoot Gibson]

I love about socialists who are declaring Joe Manchin's political career dead if he does not start voting in lockstep for the Biden far left agenda. Some are even suggesting running a primary candidate to attack Manchin from the left, as if West Virginia is Maryland.

[Cardfan1]

I love about socialists who are declaring Joe Manchin's political career dead if he does not start voting in lockstep for the Biden far left agenda. Some are even suggesting running a primary candidate to attack Manchin from the left, as if West Virginia is Maryland.

We know…we know, 
Hooter, you prefer Authoritarian facism over democracy that votes out the politicians who don’t serve the people.  

Sure run an AOC-type.  Drain his coffers. Don’t send him any money.  He has no use to the National Democratic platform if he is going to obstruct.  I move to take any Joe Manchin funds and shift them to Mr. Chuck Booker so he can rid our state of viceJackAss Rand Paul (Ted Cruz will always be #1)

[TheRealThing]

I love about socialists who are declaring Joe Manchin's political career dead if he does not start voting in lockstep for the Biden far left agenda. Some are even suggesting running a primary candidate to attack Manchin from the left, as if West Virginia is Maryland.

We know…we know, 
Hooter, you prefer Authoritarian facism over democracy that votes out the politicians who don’t serve the people.  

Sure run an AOC-type.  Drain his coffers. Don’t send him any money.  He has no use to the National Democratic platform if he is going to obstruct.  I move to take any Joe Manchin funds and shift them to Mr. Chuck Booker so he can rid our state of viceJackAss Rand Paul (Ted Cruz will always be #1)

So Hoot prefers authoritarian Fascism if he advocates for individuals in the Congress (such as Joe Manchin) who judge right from wrong on their own volition. But Joe Biden should come down on any Democrat who doesn't subscribe to the going mindless groupthink, ala AOC, because that would be an example of treason. Have I got that about right?

[Hoot Gibson]

I love about socialists who are declaring Joe Manchin's political career dead if he does not start voting in lockstep for the Biden far left agenda. Some are even suggesting running a primary candidate to attack Manchin from the left, as if West Virginia is Maryland.

We know…we know, 
Hooter, you prefer Authoritarian facism over democracy that votes out the politicians who don’t serve the people.  

Sure run an AOC-type.  Drain his coffers. Don’t send him any money.  He has no use to the National Democratic platform if he is going to obstruct.  I move to take any Joe Manchin funds and shift them to Mr. Chuck Booker so he can rid our state of viceJackAss Rand Paul (Ted Cruz will always be #1)

So Hoot prefers authoritarian Fascism if he advocates for individuals in the Congress (such as Joe Manchin) who judge right from wrong on their own volition. But Joe Biden should come down on any Democrat who doesn't subscribe to the going mindless groupthink, ala AOC, because that would be an example of treason. Have I got that about right?

Twin Ticks apparently believes that moderate Democrats should ignore the wishes of their constituents and commit political suicide by voting with AOC and her merry band of criminals.

I have not been a huge fan of Rand Paul but he is as courageous as any member of Congress. He deserves a great deal of credit for his key role in unmasking Fauci as a criminal whose lies led to countless COVID-19 deaths. Fauci lied to Congress and the American public and Rand Paul publicly shamed him for his lies.

I don't always agree with Rand Paul's political positions but by demonizing one of the most decent human beings in Congress, Twin Ticks reveals everything we need to know about his own character. What a lowlife!

[Cardfan1]

I love about socialists who are declaring Joe Manchin's political career dead if he does not start voting in lockstep for the Biden far left agenda. Some are even suggesting running a primary candidate to attack Manchin from the left, as if West Virginia is Maryland.

We know…we know, 
Hooter, you prefer Authoritarian facism over democracy that votes out the politicians who don’t serve the people.  

Sure run an AOC-type.  Drain his coffers. Don’t send him any money.  He has no use to the National Democratic platform if he is going to obstruct.  I move to take any Joe Manchin funds and shift them to Mr. Chuck Booker so he can rid our state of viceJackAss Rand Paul (Ted Cruz will always be #1)

So Hoot prefers authoritarian Fascism if he advocates for individuals in the Congress (such as Joe Manchin) who judge right from wrong on their own volition. But Joe Biden should come down on any Democrat who doesn't subscribe to the going mindless groupthink, ala AOC, because that would be an example of treason. Have I got that about right?

yep, use the same techniques  your Dear Leader threatened to Republicans like Liz Cheney.

[TheRealThing]

I love about socialists who are declaring Joe Manchin's political career dead if he does not start voting in lockstep for the Biden far left agenda. Some are even suggesting running a primary candidate to attack Manchin from the left, as if West Virginia is Maryland.

We know…we know, 
Hooter, you prefer Authoritarian facism over democracy that votes out the politicians who don’t serve the people.  

Sure run an AOC-type.  Drain his coffers. Don’t send him any money.  He has no use to the National Democratic platform if he is going to obstruct.  I move to take any Joe Manchin funds and shift them to Mr. Chuck Booker so he can rid our state of viceJackAss Rand Paul (Ted Cruz will always be #1)

So Hoot prefers authoritarian Fascism if he advocates for individuals in the Congress (such as Joe Manchin) who judge right from wrong on their own volition. But Joe Biden should come down on any Democrat who doesn't subscribe to the going mindless groupthink, ala AOC, because that would be an example of treason. Have I got that about right?

yep, use the same techniques  your Dear Leader threatened to Republicans like Liz Cheney.

100 percent pure lie. ^^ Trump did challenge voters to vet candidates like Cheney who are RINO's hiding in plain sight.

[vector#1]

I love about socialists who are declaring Joe Manchin's political career dead if he does not start voting in lockstep for the Biden far left agenda. Some are even suggesting running a primary candidate to attack Manchin from the left, as if West Virginia is Maryland.

We know…we know, 
Hooter, you prefer Authoritarian facism over democracy that votes out the politicians who don’t serve the people.  

Sure run an AOC-type.  Drain his coffers. Don’t send him any money.  He has no use to the National Democratic platform if he is going to obstruct.  I move to take any Joe Manchin funds and shift them to Mr. Chuck Booker so he can rid our state of viceJackAss Rand Paul (Ted Cruz will always be #1)

So Hoot prefers authoritarian Fascism if he advocates for individuals in the Congress (such as Joe Manchin) who judge right from wrong on their own volition. But Joe Biden should come down on any Democrat who doesn't subscribe to the going mindless groupthink, ala AOC, because that would be an example of treason. Have I got that about right?

yep, use the same techniques  your Dear Leader threatened to Republicans like Liz Cheney.

100 percent pure lie. ^^ Trump did challenge voters to vet candidates like Cheney who are RINO's hiding in plain sight.

And once again TRT what's your thought's on Dear Leader spying on members of congress and the media ?

[Cardfan1]

I love about socialists who are declaring Joe Manchin's political career dead if he does not start voting in lockstep for the Biden far left agenda. Some are even suggesting running a primary candidate to attack Manchin from the left, as if West Virginia is Maryland.

We know…we know, 
Hooter, you prefer Authoritarian facism over democracy that votes out the politicians who don’t serve the people.  

Sure run an AOC-type.  Drain his coffers. Don’t send him any money.  He has no use to the National Democratic platform if he is going to obstruct.  I move to take any Joe Manchin funds and shift them to Mr. Chuck Booker so he can rid our state of viceJackAss Rand Paul (Ted Cruz will always be #1)

So Hoot prefers authoritarian Fascism if he advocates for individuals in the Congress (such as Joe Manchin) who judge right from wrong on their own volition. But Joe Biden should come down on any Democrat who doesn't subscribe to the going mindless groupthink, ala AOC, because that would be an example of treason. Have I got that about right?

yep, use the same techniques  your Dear Leader threatened to Republicans like Liz Cheney.

100 percent pure lie. ^^ Trump did challenge voters to vet candidates like Cheney who are RINO's hiding in plain sight.

So Democrats can vet candidates that are DINOs hiding in plain sight.   

That’s a pretty nice obfuscation.  The RINOs your Dear Leader wants rid of are those that voted for democracy and against treason.

Quite different from Democrats asking Manchin to nuke the filibuster for the betterment of the our infrastructure.

[vector#1]

This is about as silent I have seen on hear from the 3 members of the clown car

[Cardfan1]

This is about as silent I have seen on hear from the 3 members of the clown car

Be careful what you wish for.

[TheRealThing]

^^ If you're typing, you're lying. The dividing line I see between the two parties is based on moral conviction. Things like unfettered abortion, which is a Dem platform plank, are hardly fare to be equivocated with matters of infrastructure. And even then while murdering their millions, your side would inexplicably obfuscate child care with infrastructure; as if that act elevates our compassion for our youth.

That sir, is why I will never align myself with any Democrat. And though there are some Republicans who I believe would waver on the issue of abortion, there is not one Democrat not willing to die defending the hilltop on which the abortionist's table is enshrined. There are no Democrats in name only; you guys have no ability for making moral judgments outside of whatever talking point guidelines are handed down to them.

Oh and Cardfan, explain to yourself that though I frequent the forum, I have other things to do than sit around ready to make immediate responses to the dunderhead posts of you and you.

[vector#1]

^^ If you're typing, you're lying. The dividing line I see between the two parties is based on moral conviction. Things like unfettered abortion, which is a Dem platform plank, are hardly fare to be equivocated with matters of infrastructure. And even then while murdering their millions, your side would inexplicably obfuscate child care with infrastructure; as if that act elevates our compassion for our youth.

That sir, is why I will never align myself with any Democrat. And though there are some Republicans who I believe would waver on the issue of abortion, there is not one Democrat not willing to die defending the hilltop on which the abortionist's table is enshrined. There are no Democrats in name only; you guys have no ability for making moral judgments outside of whatever talking point guidelines are handed down to them.

Oh and Cardfan, explain to yourself that though I frequent the forum, I have other things to do than sit around ready to make immediate responses to the dunderhead posts of you and you.

TRT is it all right to spy on members of congress and the media ?
Your party likes to campaign on the issue of abortion instead of doing something about it they have controlled the supreme court since FDR. So what's your point

[Cardfan1]

^^ If you're typing, you're lying. The dividing line I see between the two parties is based on moral conviction. Things like unfettered abortion, which is a Dem platform plank, are hardly fare to be equivocated with matters of infrastructure. And even then while murdering their millions, your side would inexplicably obfuscate child care with infrastructure; as if that act elevates our compassion for our youth.

That sir, is why I will never align myself with any Democrat. And though there are some Republicans who I believe would waver on the issue of abortion, there is not one Democrat not willing to die defending the hilltop on which the abortionist's table is enshrined. There are no Democrats in name only; you guys have no ability for making moral judgments outside of whatever talking point guidelines are handed down to them.

Oh and Cardfan, explain to yourself that though I frequent the forum, I have other things to do than sit around ready to make immediate responses to the dunderhead posts of you and you.

I don’t support unfettered Abortion.

But I do believe after 2020 where we heard so many conservative babies b!txh about face masks the abortion argument is over.  If the govt. can’t make you wear a mask so you don’t spread the Trump flu to others, then anybody should be able to do anything they want to their body. 

Child care as infrastructure is a novel idea.  I know it’s hard for you to get your mind wrapped around because you probably raised your children 100 years ago, but today it takes both incomes.
 If we want people to work their children have to go somewhere. Govt funded Child care goes to WORKING people.  What is wrong with that?  

The alternative is they don’t work and then you b!tch and gripe about them not working.  What do you want ?! 

There are Dems in name only.  This thread is about one.  

why are you back on this idea that me and Vector are the same person?  Silly.  There are plenty of liberals in KY , and most Republicans don’t see things the way you do.