gatomontes99

I need like 10 more UNs so I can laugh 10 more times. Lol

Your thoughts Ps...it's just a joke.

I may have mentioned that before.

Harris covers for sex offenders and the left comes running to save her. Go figure.

This is after they used video of Joe Rogan talking about Tulsi as if he was talking about Harris? I mean, is there anything they are telling the truth about?

You are taking far more credit than you deserve. He does that to himself.

What? How can you be the change candidate and the incumbent?

So why not release the documents so the victims could file suit?

And look what they did. -Excessive inflation -2 wars -stopped oil production on federal land -millions of illegal aliens -less secure elections -banana republic law enforcement Sure looks like they meant it.

Yep. Harris covers up child molesters in a church and your response is to blame the victims. Nice job.

Oh bulls#it. You are blaming the victims because they are illustrating what an incompetent leader Harris is.

Pathetic. Are you seriously blaming the Gold Star Families for Kamala Harris's politization of that day? You are disgusting.

She stated at a Milwaukee rally in July: “As a prosecutor, I specialized in cases involving sexual abuse… I took on perpetrators of all kinds – predators who abused women, fraudsters who ripped off consumers, cheaters who broke the rules for their own gain. “So, hear me when I say: I know Donald Trump’s type.” ... He seethed: “I remember Kamala Harris. She didn’t want to have any meetings.  “She wanted the public to think this is an issue that happened years ago, that it doesn’t happen anymore. Let’s just move on.” ... The victims say that compared to Terence Hallinan – who was DA before Harris, 59, defeated him in the 2003 election – the US president wannabe actively covered up and totally buried their claims, Knewz.com. Is it any surprise that the DA that blew Willie was complicit in covering up over 40 allegations against priests in the Catholic church?

Meghan Kelly has an interview with 4 people tomorrow that will speak to this.

It is not incomprehensible when you understand that Hamas is driven by hatred and considers Jews to be a sub human species.

Does this have an alternate meaning? Some say it also means Death To America. And I habe to wonder, what was the original meaning supposed to be? Because I can't find any.

In order for that amendment to be used, the person must have been convicted of insurrection or rebellion. How do I know? Because the 5th amendment says so: "presumed innocent until proven guilty". You don't get to be an authoritarian dictator and remove anyone you want from the ballot just because you insist they did something. You have to prove it in a court of law. Short of that, the 14th does not apply. As far as the President is concerned, the Office of the President was excluded. The term officer was used. Here is an explanation of what an officer is as it pertains to the Constituion: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officer_of_the_United_States The President is not an officer. The president is elected as an official. /endthread

Ok, because YOU say an amendment is trivial, it doesn't count? Are you serious? Do you know how absurd that is? You said it was nearly impossible to do. I say it has been done 27 times. You say it hasn't been don't lately, I point to 30 years ago. Now you don't agree because it didn't meet some unspoken standard? Give me a break. Be serious.

You are making stuff up. You mean to tell me they specifically call out Senators and Congressman but used vague language to include the president? Hell no. They said officer. The President is an elected official. Those two things have different meanings. Officers are appointed. Trump was not appointed. As for the insurrection thing, you are making sh1t up. No where would our Constitution give an election official the authority to exclude someone from a ballot based on his/her sole interpretation of insurrection. Further, Trump never did anything to engage in insurrection or rebellion. You are making these weird a$$ assumptions that you wish were true and expecting everyone else to just go along with it. But you are way off base. If someone is going to be excluded from a ballot, there has to be an actual conviction for insurrection on their record. That is why we have a law prohibiting insurrection.

Why did you have to quote me out of context? I said it was for a very specific set of circumstances and people and I described those circumstances and people, illustrating Donald Trump did not fit those circumstances or people. The clause is for insurectionist. That is a specific circumstance. Trump is not an insurectionist. It doesn't matter that you want him to be so badly that you think it actually happened. He is not an insurrectionist. The clause also does not include the POTUS. It includes appointees, not elected officials in the executive office. All you have to do is read the words for what they say, not what you want them to mean. As for amendments, if it happened 30 years ago and 27 times, it is doable. Your insistence it isn't is ridiculous. In fact, there is a movement (right now) trying to make changes to the Constitution. It is called the Convention of States and they are in the process of calling a Convention of States. It isn't easy. But it is doable. https://conventionofstates.com/

Why would you blame Netanyahu for October 7th?

So males evolve over time, after birth, to be able to get pregnant, Ala Arnold Schwarzenegger? And female babies are able to conceive after birth? The term preborn child isn't a fallacy. A fallacy is a logical argument that lacks validity. Preborn child is a term.

So my belief that preborn babies shouldn't be killed is akin to owning slaves? Really? Those are the same thing? Really? The problem with liberals is you are 100% emotion. There is no logic to what you said. You have an emotional reaction to my opinion and you give an emotional response. Bit you don't know that what you said wasn't an emotional response you believe, whole heartedly, that you made a logical response. It is fascinating how you guys can't separate facts from emotion.