robosmith

Big rabbit hole AKA no evidence Leaked Emails: How Mark Finchem Went From State Lawmaker to Conspiracy Czar

Not a Democrat. From google About:

Ooooh I'm so scared of your "jail." LMAO All you got is a pretend justification for the illegal Jan 6th mob violence which was planned months earlier from right after the election. Donkibrain, you should really check out the reporting on Rhodes trial for seditious conspiracy: U.S. in Oath Keepers trial outlines alleged plotting before Capitol attack

You're entitled to ^this opinion. Just don't try to force it on OTHERS when it will never affect your rights but will DENY theirs.

The UCLA Professor of Geology is FAR FROM the only one claiming a current record drought in CA. California suffering through driest three years ever recorded, with no relief in sight

No one before Trump had EVER incited mob violence to overturn an election. And now they are plotting to destroy democracy. Current SCOTUS docket case seeks to allow state legislatures to over rule the VOTERS. ? Trumpublicans are FAR FROM "exactly the same as 1948

You guess wrong. Only a small minority of those at BLM/Antifa protests were violent. Why CAN'T you answer my questions? Are you PRO-fascist? BS. No one on the right here has condemned the violence on Jan 6th. Or Trump for inciting violence at his rallies. Have YOU?

The Senate Intel committee report says you're wrong. Manafort colluded with Kilimnik and Trump demanded and got Russians to search for Hillary's emails. And these are just the most blatant examples. No, it was suppressed because the NY Post would NOT reveal their evidence. No one in their right mind is going to accept what the NY Post says without PROOF. I hear about that ALL THE TIME. You've cited NOTHING to support YOUR allegations.

No they did NOT. Time corroborated their claim as did the ABC video YOU CITED. How do you KNOW their schedule? No, you have NO evidence. The ABC video you posted SHOWED rain.

And yours could be donkibrain

Why does that matter? The goals and justifications were ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. Do you understand the goals of both? Are you PRO-fascist?

There is no conflict of rights for slave owners because owning humans is NOT a basic human right. Sorry you are wrong. After birth, ANYONE so inclined can perform that role. Sorry, wrong again. Back then ANYONE could own a slave. As a male you will never be pregnant. Do you think before you type? Except you are NOT advocating for the rights of women whose rights are in CONFLICT with any POTENTIAL HUMAN life they bear.

I'll bet you are TOO YOUNG to know what abortion was like back when it was illegal. But you still believe you have all the answers. ? Many desperate women DIED from unsafe abortions, and Roe SOLVED that problem. Too bad it didn't solve the problem of kids not learning HISTORY.

Apparently you are BLIND to any arguments with which you disagree. LMAO

Citizens have MORE RIGHTS and therefore DIFFERENT.

Do your own research. I am NOT your research assistant. Born humans always have the right to life unless they threaten the life of other born humans and then only to stop that crime.

Right. Cause it's ONLY a matter of OPINION that fetus or earlier deserve human rights comparable to the woman who OBVIOUSLY DOES. IT IS A CONFLICT OF RIGHTS. I say the woman's rights are superior because she is born and a citizen.

The 9th amendment specifically states that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The SCOTUS rescinded Roe based on the allegation it was not written in the Constitution, but the 9th amendment specifically states that rights NEED NOT be mentioned AT ALL. Or course the rest of that opinion was complete garbage in the way it cited 16th century legal opinions from Britain when women were executed for being witches AND the lame "deeply rooted" justification.

All the (pardoned) convictions of Trump's cronies occurred under Barr and Trump's DoJ. Did you really not know that?

Too bad your fake video of flash bangs at the beginning are NEVER a justification for the ILLEGAL VIOLOENCE that followed EVEN IF they were real. But there were NOT. Of course there is plenty of EVIDENCE (at Rhode's trial) that the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys were PLANING the VIOLENCE long before they gathered at the Capitol. Wake up donki.

The SCOTUS is cherry picking which rights are covered by the 9th amendment.

They ARE NOT. They are giving the woman the RIGHT TO CHOOSE, since that is the one who bears the sacrifice and BURDEN.

The argument is simple. The woman has the right to choose abortion before birth because otherwise her rights are abridged. After birth, the new born no longer depends solely on the mother for support.

Read it again. You've made a FAULTY INTERPRETATION. Nowhere did I state YOUR INTERPRETATION.

No, I said DIFFERENT RIGHTS. Fetus have different rights than born humans. Duh.