Tightest Race Ever - despite ALL the insane goings on Harris and Trump are still within a hair's breath of each other. How is this happening?

[Hodad]

42 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Yet fell on their faces and will again...ok. Yet not one insurrection charge.

So...more lawfare. Gotit.

No, goofus. The charges are still pending trial federally and in four states. You can pretend that isn't serious, but it just makes you look silly.

[robosmith]

20 hours ago, sharkman said:

Talk to the hand.

Might as well cause I already spoke to ^stupid head who had no rebuttal.

19 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

I gave your post all the seriousness it deserves. If you aren't going to educate yourself on how our govwrnment, legislation andlegal systems work, I am not going to waste my time.

You're ALWAYS wasting your time posting stupid memes here.

[robosmith]

16 hours ago, Deluge said:

Point out where I said anything about investigations. 

When the case comes up in court, they'll be up shit's creek when they have NO EVIDENCE.

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Yet fell on their faces and will again...ok. Yet not one insurrection charge.

So...more lawfare. Gotit.

The trial has not yet begun. So much for YOUR "brilliant" understanding of making superfluous amateur predictions. LMAO

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, Hodad said:

No, goofus. The charges are still pending trial federally and in four states. You can pretend that isn't serious, but it just makes you look silly.

Charges...more like fantasy. 

Your biggest problem is that Trump did not break the law. So...Smith and all the others will meet with a brick wall. But convictions were never the point...bad press was.

https://theconversation.com/a-history-of-contested-presidential-elections-from-samuel-tilden-to-al-gore-149414

As you can see, there is precedence for this and with this, Pence actually could have frozen the proclamation.

Meh...better luck next time...

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Charges...more like fantasy. 

Your biggest problem is that Trump did not break the law. So...Smith and all the others will meet with a brick wall. But convictions were never the point...bad press was.

https://theconversation.com/a-history-of-contested-presidential-elections-from-samuel-tilden-to-al-gore-149414

As you can see, there is precedence for this and with this, Pence actually could have frozen the proclamation.

Meh...better luck next time...

Lol. Of course Trump broke the law--multiple laws in multiple instances. He just hasn't yet been held accountable.

And no, there is no legal mechanism for the VP to unilaterally refuse the certified votes from the states. That's pure nonsense.

Edited September 21, 2024 by Hodad

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

Lol. Of course Trump broke the law--multiple laws in multiple instances. He just hasn't yet been held accountable.

And no, there is no legal mechanism for the VP to unilaterally refuse the certified votes from the states. That's pure nonsense.

Sure there is. Didn't you read the link?

[Hodad]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Sure there is. Didn't you read the link?

Yes. And I'm familiar with that history. There's not a damn thing in any of it about Vice President simply "choosing" a winner or choosing to delay the counting of state-certified votes. Nobody had ever done what Trump was pressuring Pence to do.

Which is EXACTLY why you posted a naked link instead of quoting the evidence. You knew you were FOS when you posted it. 

Edited September 22, 2024 by Hodad

[Five of swords]

19 hours ago, CdnFox said:

In no universe is culture downstream from law. Although law is sometimes downstream from money.

However you failed to answer the question

In no universe? Darling, when segregation was made illegal in the usa, over 90% of the population wanted segregation. Within a generation it became unthinkable to prefer segregation. If pedophilia was made legal people would quickly accept it as normal. That is human nature.

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, Five of swords said:

In no universe?

Yes.  Did you think repeating it would change it?  

Quote

Darling,

Now you're making it weird. 

Quote

when segregation was made illegal in the usa, over 90% of the population wanted segregation.

Nope.  60 percent approved. 

On July 2, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act into law. The legislation prohibited discrimination on the basis of race in public places and shepherded in the integration of schools and other public places, as well as making employment discrimination illegal.

Two months later, Gallup asked Americans if they "approve or disapprove of [the] civil rights law ... recently passed by Congress and signed by the president." While the majority -- nearly six in 10 -- expressed their approval for the law, nearly a third of Americans disapproved, with the remaining 10% undecided.

Legal Highlight: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 | U.S. Department of Labor (dol.gov)

I don't know where you got your alleged 90% from but it's very clearly wrong. It would be fair to say that only a bare majority of Americans approved of it, just under 60%. That's hardly overwhelming support. But it is still a majority and it was cultural changes that made that possible.

Quote

Within a generation it became unthinkable to prefer segregation.

Nope. We're seeing it making a huge comeback. This time it's the blacks asking for it. In fact UBC in my home province just set up a black only safe space on campus. Other American universities have followed suit. Perfectly all right to think that way now.

Quote

If pedophilia was made legal people would quickly accept it as normal. That is human nature.

They would not. They would demand it be made illegal. Which proves my point

[Five of swords]

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Yes.  Did you think repeating it would change it?  

Now you're making it weird. 

Nope.  60 percent approved. 

On July 2, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act into law. The legislation prohibited discrimination on the basis of race in public places and shepherded in the integration of schools and other public places, as well as making employment discrimination illegal.

Two months later, Gallup asked Americans if they "approve or disapprove of [the] civil rights law ... recently passed by Congress and signed by the president." While the majority -- nearly six in 10 -- expressed their approval for the law, nearly a third of Americans disapproved, with the remaining 10% undecided.

Legal Highlight: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 | U.S. Department of Labor (dol.gov)

I don't know where you got your alleged 90% from but it's very clearly wrong. It would be fair to say that only a bare majority of Americans approved of it, just under 60%. That's hardly overwhelming support. But it is still a majority and it was cultural changes that made that possible.

Nope. We're seeing it making a huge comeback. This time it's the blacks asking for it. In fact UBC in my home province just set up a black only safe space on campus. Other American universities have followed suit. Perfectly all right to think that way now.

They would not. They would demand it be made illegal. Which proves my point

Over 90% of people in the south, who would be most affected, disapproved. That's when soldiers with bayonets were called to escort children to school.

 

If such a radical attitude change was possible about segregation, why not pedophilia?

Edited September 22, 2024 by Five of swords

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, Five of swords said:

Over 90% of people in the south, who would be most affected, disapproved. That's when soldiers with bayonets were called to escort children to school.

Here's a hint in life kid, if you find yourself having to rewrite what you said to try to make it fit your narrative and you STILL screw it up, it's time to rethink your position  

Your math doesn't work based on what i posted. But if you've got some other polling or source which credibly proves that 90 percent of people living in the southern states were against it lets see it. 

You don't. Do you.   

And in case you didn't notice you just blew up your own argument.  The law was federal, it was the same everywhere. So If banning it made people normalize it, why wasn't the laws allowing it making people normalize it all across america? 

Quote

If such a radical attitude change was possible about segregation, why not pedophilia?

because you're wrong in such a radical change wasn't possible. As we've seen. I don't know who put that idea in your head but whoever it is needs a whack upside the noggin, it never happened. 

The law regarding pdfilia would never change unless people's attitudes changed first. Law follows culture not the other way around.

[Nationalist]

22 hours ago, Hodad said:

Yes. And I'm familiar with that history. There's not a damn thing in any of it about Vice President simply "choosing" a winner or choosing to delay the counting of state-certified votes. Nobody had ever done what Trump was pressuring Pence to do.

Which is EXACTLY why you posted a naked link instead of quoting the evidence. You knew you were FOS when you posted it. 

Yes there was precedent.

"Competing sets of election returns and electoral votes were sent to Congress to be counted in January 1877, so Congress voted to create a bipartisan commission of 15 members of Congress and Supreme Court justices to determine how to allocate the electors from the three disputed states. Seven commissioners were to be Republican, seven were to be Democrats, and there would be one independent, Justice David Davis of Illinois."

 

[robosmith]

On 9/21/2024 at 3:01 PM, Nationalist said:

Sure there is. Didn't you read the link?

So you're CLAIMING that Harris can choose to trash the EC vote count if she's LOSING? LMAO

You're NO EXPERT, and obviously don't know what you're talking about, Mr Canuck Pretend Lawyer. 🤮

[robosmith]

14 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Yes there was precedent.

"Competing sets of election returns and electoral votes were sent to Congress to be counted in January 1877, so Congress voted to create a bipartisan commission of 15 members of Congress and Supreme Court justices to determine how to allocate the electors from the three disputed states. Seven commissioners were to be Republican, seven were to be Democrats, and there would be one independent, Justice David Davis of Illinois."

 

The thing you are IGNORANT of is that there were MANY changes in the law since 1877, so your "evidence" is null and void by anachronism.

How about if Harris decides to trash the EC count in 2025? LMAO

[CrakHoBarbie]

Donalds halfwitted sycophants can never admit that he's an attempted usurper and a traitor.

Donald hatched and implemented a plan to install fake electors in multiple states.  He asked his vice president to certify the fraudulent electors on jan6th.

If Pence had done as donald requested,  donald would of succeeded in disenfranchising millions of voters and retaining power through fraud.

Donalds dirty.

His brain dead sycophants are dirty.

Donald should never be allowed to hold public office again.

[CdnFox]

17 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

Donalds halfwitted sycophants can never admit that he's an attempted usurper and a traitor.

ROFLMAO!!!! You're using the term that usurper because I pointed out to you that it was incorrect to refer to him as a traitor because that's not what that word means, if you were accurate what he would have been was a usurper.

And despite  that you astill screw it up and put usurper AND traitor  

LOL You can take the democrat out of the dumb but you can't take the dumb out of the democrat  

[Hodad]

56 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Yes there was precedent.

"Competing sets of election returns and electoral votes were sent to Congress to be counted in January 1877, so Congress voted to create a bipartisan commission of 15 members of Congress and Supreme Court justices to determine how to allocate the electors from the three disputed states. Seven commissioners were to be Republican, seven were to be Democrats, and there would be one independent, Justice David Davis of Illinois."

 

1. 1877? Trying to say that this terribly corrupt reconstruction-era fiasco is precedent for modern politics is patently absurd. 

2. There was a law passed in direct response to this fiasco which lays out the procedure for counting certified votes and which also makes the fake elector crew guilty of felonies. 

3. The same law lays out the VP role in counting the electoral votes. This (and basic decency) guided Pence to reject Trump's corrupt orders. 

So, again, no there was no precedent. Every state had certified their electoral results. There was a law dictating the steps and responsibilities for the vote count. And No VP has EVER simply chosen to count fake electoral votes instead of the certified votes. It was a crooked scheme to overturn democracy and seize power. A coup. And it should appall decent people everywhere. 

[Five of swords]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Here's a hint in life kid, if you find yourself having to rewrite what you said to try to make it fit your narrative and you STILL screw it up, it's time to rethink your position  

Your math doesn't work based on what i posted. But if you've got some other polling or source which credibly proves that 90 percent of people living in the southern states were against it lets see it. 

You don't. Do you.   

And in case you didn't notice you just blew up your own argument.  The law was federal, it was the same everywhere. So If banning it made people normalize it, why wasn't the laws allowing it making people normalize it all across america? 

because you're wrong in such a radical change wasn't possible. As we've seen. I don't know who put that idea in your head but whoever it is needs a whack upside the noggin, it never happened. 

The law regarding pdfilia would never change unless people's attitudes changed first. Law follows culture not the other way around.

Actually dude, it really was over 90% in Southern states. But also, the exact % doesn't matter. Because you are severely retarded you don't understand that the point is that culture follows law...as it always does. And the polls in that event certainly reflected that. Why did people convert to Christianity? Because the king did. Law. Culture. Follows. Law.

[Nationalist]

20 minutes ago, Hodad said:

1. 1877? Trying to say that this terribly corrupt reconstruction-era fiasco is precedent for modern politics is patently absurd. 

2. There was a law passed in direct response to this fiasco which lays out the procedure for counting certified votes and which also makes the fake elector crew guilty of felonies. 

3. The same law lays out the VP role in counting the electoral votes. This (and basic decency) guided Pence to reject Trump's corrupt orders. 

So, again, no there was no precedent. Every state had certified their electoral results. There was a law dictating the steps and responsibilities for the vote count. And No VP has EVER simply chosen to count fake electoral votes instead of the certified votes. It was a crooked scheme to overturn democracy and seize power. A coup. And it should appall decent people everywhere. 

The precedent exists...no matter how you squirm and deny.!

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

The thing you are IGNORANT of is that there were MANY changes in the law since 1877, so your "evidence" is null and void by anachronism.

How about if Harris decides to trash the EC count in 2025? LMAO

I would dare her to try.

[Hodad]

11 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

The precedent exists...no matter how you squirm and deny.!

No, you kook. Precedent means that some substantively similar situation had happened before and can it should inform behavior in a later occurrence. Wildly dissimilar circumstances do not constitute precedent. No VP has ever been in that position before. And there is no legal mechanism for Pence to have done what Trump pressured him to do.

17 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

I would dare her to try.

No, apparently you'd think she had a duty to do so. That's how you feel about Pence, no? 

I mean, unless you're just a rank partisan hypocrite you'd have to be consistent, right?

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Five of swords said:

Actually dude, it really was over 90% in Southern states.

Well you made that claim about the states in general and it turned out you didn't have the slightest damn clue what you were talking about. 

So i have zero reason to believe you now.  it wasn't. I acually did look up some stats on that and you're wrong based on the evidence i can see. 

You're familiar with the story of the boy who cried wolf? You get your facts wrong way too often to take ANYTHING  you say as being legit without looking it up. 

So no. It wasn't. I can see it wasn't popular in sort of the lower right corner of the states but the vast vast maority supported it and even where it wasn't supported it sure wasn't 90 percent. 

Law follows culture. 

1 hour ago, Five of swords said:

But also, the exact % doesn't matter. Because you are severely retarded you don't understand that the point is that culture follows law.

ROFLMAO!!!!!  So you're wrong again and your facts are lies and once again somehow it's MY fault   

I understand perfectly well that that's what you think is true. But the opposite is true. Law has always followed culture, forever and always. At least in a democracy. Society decides that like something or doesn't like something and a law shows up to reflect that. That's always the way it works

A clear majority of Americans wanted civil rights to be reflected in the law, bang bang boom, a law is created. That's how it works

You really have to start doing more research before forming opinions.

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

I would dare her to try.

She won't try, because it is patently ILLEGAL, and your "precedent" is hopelessly out of date.

So you're either IGNORANT or LYING. Which is it?

58 minutes ago, Hodad said:

No, you kook. Precedent means that some substantively similar situation had happened before and can it should inform behavior in a later occurrence. Wildly dissimilar circumstances do not constitute precedent. No VP has ever been in that position before. And there is no legal mechanism for Pence to have done what Trump pressured him to do.

No, apparently you'd think she had a duty to do so. That's how you feel about Pence, no? 

I mean, unless you're just a rank partisan hypocrite you'd have to be consistent, right?

Rank Partisan Hypocrite FTL!

Also the great pretender to legal expertise. 🤮

[Nationalist]

7 hours ago, Hodad said:

No, you kook. Precedent means that some substantively similar situation had happened before and can it should inform behavior in a later occurrence. Wildly dissimilar circumstances do not constitute precedent. No VP has ever been in that position before. And there is no legal mechanism for Pence to have done what Trump pressured him to do.

No, apparently you'd think she had a duty to do so. That's how you feel about Pence, no? 

I mean, unless you're just a rank partisan hypocrite you'd have to be consistent, right?

1. Bullshit.

2. I didn't day anything about duty...but nice try.