Harris wants to come into your house just to make sure everything is legal

[gatomontes99]

That's what she said:

This is why we need a conservative SCOTUS. A liberal SCOTUS would throw away rights.

But, let's say she does this, we should use it to make sure no one is dressing their little boys like girls, smoking weed, watching porn, plotting to overthrow the government through an election, etc etc etc.

[Chrissy1979]

"plotting to overthrow the government through an election" 

Tell me you're from an authoritarian country and don't understand the West without telling me. 😂 

[gatomontes99]

9 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said:

"plotting to overthrow the government through an election" 

Tell me you're from an authoritarian country and don't understand the West without telling me. 😂 

I was mimicking the left's calls to protect democracy by rigging the primaries and the election.

[robosmith]

30 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

That's what she said:

This is why we need a conservative SCOTUS. A liberal SCOTUS would throw away rights.

Right now the very right wing SCOTUS is the one taking rights, thus proving your generalization WRONG.

 

30 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

But, let's say she does this, we should use it to make sure no one is dressing their little boys like girls, smoking weed, watching porn, plotting to overthrow the government through an election, etc etc etc.

"She" won't be doing "this." Duh

Warrants are ALWAYS REQUIRED, and ENOUGH EVIDENCE to convince a JUDGE that laws requiring proper storage are violated. 

Of course, being an ex-prosecutor, she knows that, and it goes without saying.

[gatomontes99]

2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Right now the very right wing SCOTUS is the one taking rights, thus proving your generalization WRONG.

 

"She" won't be doing "this." Duh

Warrants are ALWAYS REQUIRED, and ENOUGH EVIDENCE to convince a JUDGE that laws requiring proper storage are violated. 

Of course, being an ex-prosecutor, she knows that, and it goes without saying.

Hey dumba$$, she's saying that she would make it possible to do random checks without warrants. And a LWNJ SCOTUS would allow it.

[robosmith]

6 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

I was mimicking the left's calls to protect democracy by rigging the primaries and the election.

Sorry but the Democratic primary process elected the delegates who have always decided the nominee.

They were elected to choose Joe, and when that became impossible, they have always been free to exercise JUDGEMENT. 

You really don't know how primaries work.

1 minute ago, gatomontes99 said:

Hey dumba$$, she's saying that she would make it possible to do random checks without warrants. And a LWNJ SCOTUS would allow it.

She didn't say that in your cherry picked quote. Duh

AKA, that is ONLY your OPINION.

[Aristides]

13 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

I was mimicking the left's calls to protect democracy by rigging the primaries and the election.

Democrats aren't the ones threatening to not certify elections.

[User]

11 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Right now the very right wing SCOTUS is the one taking rights, thus proving your generalization WRONG.

Abortion was never a right in the Constitution. They didn't take anything. They interpreted the law correctly. 

13 minutes ago, robosmith said:

"She" won't be doing "this." Duh

Warrants are ALWAYS REQUIRED, and ENOUGH EVIDENCE to convince a JUDGE that laws requiring proper storage are violated. 

Of course, being an ex-prosecutor, she knows that, and it goes without saying.

This is some real gas lighting. 

She clearly said they would come in to check to make sure you are lawfully storing your guns and being responsible... if they have evidence you are not doing that, then it is no longer checking to see if you are, it is executing a warrant to enforce the law because they have enough evidence that you are not... 

 

[gatomontes99]

8 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Sorry but the Democratic primary process elected the delegates who have always decided the nominee.

They were elected to choose Joe, and when that became impossible, they have always been free to exercise JUDGEMENT. 

You really don't know how primaries work.

I do know how primaries work and I know that all 3 candidates that ran against Biden were forced out. They did that knowing he wasn't competent to run. When he was outed, they forced Harris on the delegates rather than letting them make a choice in an open convention.

10 minutes ago, robosmith said:

She didn't say that in your cherry picked quote. Duh

AKA, that is ONLY your OPINION.

She said exactly that. Your pathetic attempt at a denial doesn't disprove that.

[User]

6 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Democrats aren't the ones threatening to not certify elections.

Please tell us more lies. 

"

How Democrats Could Disqualify Trump If the Supreme Court Doesn’t

Without clear guidance from the Court, House Democrats suggest that they might not certify a Trump win on January 6.

By Russell Berman"
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/02/democrats-congress-trump-january-6/677545/

[gatomontes99]

8 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Democrats aren't the ones threatening to not certify elections.

Yes they are.

Most Democrats Don’t Want Congress to Certify Election if Trump Wins

[Chrissy1979]

Good idea. Vance has said outright he would not certify a Republican loss if he were VP. Why should Democrats be any better when they have the upper hand?

[Deluge]

50 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said:

"plotting to overthrow the government through an election" 

Tell me you're from an authoritarian country and don't understand the West without telling me. 😂 

Sounds like something Harris would do. 

Hell, you've already forced lockdowns and you've tried to assassinate Trump and throw him into prison, why not just overthrow the government? 

[Chrissy1979]

You guys are dumber than I initially thought, and I didn't think much of you to start with.

[User]

9 minutes ago, Chrissy1979 said:

You guys are dumber than I initially thought, and I didn't think much of you to start with.

This is like a dung beetle cursing me as I walk by... 

[Chrissy1979]

Harris is even trying to overthrow the government (that she is a part of) through elections! How low will she go?

[Rebound]

2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

That's what she said:

This is why we need a conservative SCOTUS. A liberal SCOTUS would throw away rights.

But, let's say she does this, we should use it to make sure no one is dressing their little boys like girls, smoking weed, watching porn, plotting to overthrow the government through an election, etc etc etc.

So what?

In England, if you have a gun license, inspectors are required to visit annually and verify that your firearms are properly secured.  It’s not a big deal at all, but gun deaths in Britain are way lower than in America. 

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Yes they are.

Most Democrats Don’t Want Congress to Certify Election if Trump Wins

Your appeal to popularity FALLACY is NOT election OFFICIALS planning to not certify vote counts.

[TreeBeard]

3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

let's say she does this

If she wins and this doesn’t happen, will you admit how stupid you were?

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

I do know how primaries work and I know that all 3 candidates that ran against Biden were forced out.

Forced out by WHOM. The delegates didn't vote for them so they were out. Nothing in the rules dictates who the delegates have to choose if the primary winner quits.

2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

They did that knowing he wasn't competent to run. When he was outed, they forced Harris on the delegates rather than letting them make a choice in an open convention.

The delegates CHOSE Harris. No "force" was involved.

The thing you DON'T UNDERSTAND, is the delegates want the candidate who can WIN THE GENERAL ELECTION. Duh

2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

She said exactly that. Your pathetic attempt at a denial doesn't disprove that.

She SAID NOTHING about not having a warrant. Duh

Quote

 

“Just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn't mean that we're not going to walk into that home and check to see if you're being responsible.”

Warrant is SOP; no need to mention it.

2 hours ago, Chrissy1979 said:

Good idea. Vance has said outright he would not certify a Republican loss if he were VP. Why should Democrats be any better when they have the upper hand?

Because unlike RepubliCONS, Democrats have honor and need the respect of their voters.

Edited September 19, 2024 by robosmith

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

Sounds like something Harris would do. 

Hell, you've already forced lockdowns and you've tried to assassinate Trump and throw him into prison, why not just overthrow the government? 

Because that's Trump's and RepubliCONS' schtick.

[gatomontes99]

17 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Your appeal to popularity FALLACY is NOT election OFFICIALS planning to not certify vote counts.

Why not? They've done it before?

Quote

According to a C-SPAN recording of the joint session that took place four years ago, the following House Democrats made objections:

    Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) objected to Alabama's votes.
    Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) objected to Florida's votes.
    Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) objected to Georgia's votes.
    Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) objected to North Carolina's votes.
    Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) objected to the votes from North Carolina in addition to votes from South Carolina and Wisconsin. She also stood up and objected citing "massive voter suppression" after Mississippi's votes were announced.
    Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) brought up allegations of Russian interference in the election and malfunctioning voting machines when she objected following the announcement of Michigan's votes.
    Maxine Waters (D-Calif) rose and said, "I do not wish to debate. I wish to ask 'Is there one United States senator who will join me in this letter of objection?'" after the announcement of Wyoming's votes.

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-democrats-object-more-states-2016-republicans-2020-1561407

 

14 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

If she wins and this doesn’t happen, will you admit how stupid you were?

What exactlynis stupid here? She says she wants to do it. Am I supposed to not believe her?

[herbie]

So you're all for the unsafe storage of firearms? Or just stretching things to make people think Harris will change the Constitution to allow entries without a warrant?

Which is it? The stupid reason or the outright lie?

Duhhhh to ensure my children are safe I always keep a loaded handgun under my pillow. Duhhh....

[Deluge]

10 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Because that's Trump's and RepubliCONS' schtick.

That's unpatriotic. And since you a$$holes are as unpatriotic as it gets, it is YOUR schtick.  

[gatomontes99]

13 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Forced out by WHOM. The delegates didn't vote for them so they were out. Nothing in the rules dictates who the delegates have to choose if the primary winner quits.

The delegates CHOSE Harris. No "force" was involved.

The thing you DON'T UNDERSTAND, is the delegates want the candidate who can WIN THE GENERAL ELECTION. Duh

She SAID NOTHING about not having a warrant. Duh

Warrant is SOP; no need to mention it.

Because unlike RepubliCONS, Democrats have honor and need the respect of their voters.

The DNC did not play fair with RFK or the other two candidates that ran for the nomination. When Joe was forced out, the convention should have been where the electors, having consulted woth their states, debate and elect a nominee. But they couldnt do that because the feckless DNC scheduled their convention AFTER deadlines for candidates.

In a fair primary, the runner up would have been the nominee, not someone that didnt get a single vote.