gatomontes99

No. You have equal rights. Nothing guarantees your ability to exercise them. I have the right to own a gun. Doesn't mean the government has to give me one. I habe the right to free speech. Doesn't mean anyone has to listen. Rights are things you can do. Whether or not you can achieve them is up to you.

Equal privileges? Who said anything about equal privileges? And where did money come into this? I was talking about equality. Equality isn't an outcome. Equality is a process.

Do you want to try again and maybe address what I actually said rather than this weird strawman argument you concocted?

Probably not that extreme, but yeah...something along those lines.

Ok, so JFK was an illegitimate president then that committed a soft coup.

Wow. Did you come up with that all on your own?

Alternate electors is not illegal and has been used before by people like JFK. In fact, had JFK not had alternate electors, he never would have been president.

So weird...Trump is out raising Joe's handlers in the small donors: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/02/06/us/politics/trump-biden-donors-election.html Then he went put and raised $50M in one night: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-raises-roughly-50-million-in-one-night-but-still-courts-his-biggest-2020-donor/ar-BB1laqFQ But the thing is, those big donors are one and done. The small donors aren't near their limit so they can give over and over again. It's the well that doesn't dry up. And they have financial skin in the game, so you know they'll vote.

You clearly don't know what a soft coup is. But that's OK. We all have knowledge gaps. A soft coup is when the government is seized through illegal means, but not by force. You also seem to have forgotten about this:

Yes, I dispute that there are inequalities. I believe that all men, women and children are created equal. The fact that you don't, proves my point. It is also why I say you lack all self awareness. Littering your post with personal attacks does nothing to disprove or discredit anything I said. But the excuses that you made for Joy Reid are just embarrassing. What she said was not a celebration of skin color. What she said was pure, unadulterated hatred that was based primarily on Trump's skin color. Apparently she hates tangelos with yellow hair?

Your lack of self awareness is so fruitful for me. First, you say my observations are beliefs as if your observations are facts...AND...you do it in a thread that addresses left wing hypocrisy. That's just gold right there. Bravo. Second, you said (very angrily I might add) that there are obvious inequalities (presumably for superficial characteristics like race, sex, religion, etc) to counter that I said the left uses superficial characteristics like sex, race and religion to create justification for hatred. I mean seriously, what more could you have done to prove my point? Finally, I don't have to believe it is the intent of the left to use superficial characteristics to drive their hatred, though that is the logical conclusion. I can merely post videos of them saying they hate people for superficial reasons:

I realized today that conservatives have to say a lot of things like: "If a white guy said that about a black man...." "If a man said that about a woman..." "If a jew did that to a muslim..." What better illustration is there that the left is, at the same time, the biggest champion of hate filled rhetoric that uses superficial characteristics as their justification for their hate and supposed champion of equality. I'm sorry, but that is blatant hypocrisy. I don't believe, not for one minute, that the left has any intent to create equal footing for all men, women and children among all races, religions and ideologies in every corner of the world. Their entire political theology is driven by hatred stemming from perceived inequalities.

Nazi Germany v Yale

Now you are just making stuff up. I'm not Canadian. Oh, and yes, the POTUS has supervisory role over all federal offices. That includes the EAC. Don't worry, you don't have to go to Google to find out what the EAC is. EAC stands for Election Assistance Commission. Their purpose is to assistant state and local officials in election security, integrity and accuracy. The EAC falls under the Independent Agencies that are overseen by the Executive Branch (AKA the President). It was well within the President's preview to monitor the accuracy of an election. As for the phone call, you know about him asking Brad to find the votes. That is a key word too, "find". You can't find votes that don't exist. They must exist to fond them. However, do you know about the lengthy case President Trump laid out for massive voter fraud in GA? Because he did. He made the request that the state analyze every signature in Fulton County. He laid out specific numbers in illegal or highly suspected votes. He wanted to challenge the validity of 300,000 votes. https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/03/politics/trump-brad-raffensperger-phone-call-transcript/index.html That isn't someone trying to steal an election. That is someone making the case that the election was stolen. Now, it may very well be that the information they had was wrong. But that is the point of asking for an investigation.

Lol...how did that happen...oops...my bad.

They are attacking the people building a peer so they can deliver food. Why do you feel the need to belittle meinstead of addressing the issue? Is it because youbdont have a legitimate rebuttal?

Hamas is preventing their own people from getting food. Let that sink in.

Weird. The video I showed was several minutes of prominent Democrats calling for actual violence like Kamala saying that protestors shouldn't stop being violent. Maxine Waters told people to get a crowd and get in their faces and make the uncomfortable. Boy, that's bad. So why are you deflecting to a speech that literally emplored people to be peaceful?

The SCOTUS isn't going to layout every situation in which the President has immunity. However, the execution of powers that are specifically enumerated and the powers that are implied/accepted should carry some level of immunity. There is a political process to hold the President accountable for his actions. It appears there is a blurred line that will be drawn. That line will be personal v official actions. They will likely find that keeping documents is an official act as well as verifying election integrity. That will eliminate the Jack Smith case and the GA case.

All day long

Das es tru

I know! I know! Because they didn't want to.

The second has nothing to do with hunting.

What do you want me to do? You make ridiculous requests to prove the obvious and known. You can't identify obvious sarcasm and witicism. You can't back any of your assertions. Your only position is whatever is the opposite of what I say. What about that should I take seriously?

Oh My Gawd!!! How did I miss that? Thank you for the correction. I will take that under advisement and meditate on it during a period of self inflection and penance.