martybegan
Diamond Member
- Apr 5, 2010
- 85,202
- 35,697
- 2,300
Got any proof of massive fraud 3 years out bro?
No?
Carry on loser boy.
Didn't have to be massive, just correctly targeted.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Got any proof of massive fraud 3 years out bro?
No?
Carry on loser boy.
Didn't have to be massive, just correctly targeted.
Any proof of the “correctly targeted” voter fraud that took place multiple states?
Any explanation on how the GOP gained seats during all of this voter fraud?
Any answers, boy?
Unless it’s Trump or his MAGA cultists.Not rewarding lawbreaking is what's good for the country.
Plessey was based on the same fundamentally flawed legal philosophy that you losers constantly promote.You can't guarantee that.
Plessey was as much as an abomination as Roe and Chevron.
Unless it’s Trump or his MAGA cultists.
Plessey was based on the same fundamentally flawed legal philosophy that you losers constantly promote.
That's why you would have supported it.
Not that you'll ever admit it, because you don't actually have any intellectual honesty, you just want to feel good about yourself.
Fleeing poverty and crime, settling in the United States to work and live a peaceful life seems like a lot less of a crime than Trump trying to steal an election and sending mob to the capitol to riot.Political crimes are being prosecuted in those cases, or exacerbated in the examples we see from the J6 Reichstag fire.
Meanwhile two lawyers hand out molotov cocktails and burn an NYPD vehicle and get wrist slaps.
Fleeing poverty and crime, settling in the United States to work and live a peaceful life seems like a lot less of a crime than Trump trying to steal an election and sending mob to the capitol to riot.
Those are crimes with actual victims.
Plessy said that the 14th amendment was never intended to desegregate and saying so would be stretching the language to enforce a liberal agenda of racial equity on people who don’t want it.No, it was based on the "Constitution means what we want it to mean" found in Roe, Obergfell, Chevron, and a host of others.
I am a strict constructionist and a federalist. Plessey was 100% unconstitutional by those standards.
That’s true in recent years but not true for the millions of illegal immigrants who have lived here for decades and whom have been the focus of efforts to provide amnesty in the past.But they are claiming to be asylum seekers, and they are clearly not that, they are economic refugees, and we should decide which of them get to come here, not let them show up illegally and be coddled by twats like you.
No, they are not crimes, they are part of the political process you are trying to criminalize.
Plessy said that the 14th amendment was never intended to desegregate and saying so would be stretching the language to enforce a liberal agenda of racial equity on people who don’t want it.
It mirrors modern conservative judicial philosophy perfectly.
Brown actually has a lot in common with Obergfell than Plessy.
That’s true in recent years but not true for the millions of illegal immigrants who have lived here for decades and whom have been the focus of efforts to provide amnesty in the past.
Those claiming to seek asylum aren’t even breaking the law. The law says people can request asylum.
Trying to deprive millions of Americans of their right to vote for president isn’t a crime? It sure has victims.
Plessy used the same argument that separate is equal as those who argued against gay marriage. Specifically that segregation applied equally. Whites can’t go to a black school but blacks can’t go to a white school.Plessey said separate can be equal, which was shown to be a lie.
No, it does not if those conservatives were strict constructionists. Read Harlan's dissent as an example.
Obergfell was made up hooey just like Roe.
Plessy used the same argument that separate is equal as those who argued against gay marriage. Specifically that segregation applied equally. Whites can’t go to a black school but blacks can’t go to a white school.
The same argument was made by the opponents of gay marriage. Gay men couldn’t marry another men, but neither could straight men. Therefore it was equal.
Plessy argued that the original intent of the 14th amendment wasn’t to enforce desegregation. That’s the kind of originalism that conservatives use to defend anything they want.
Again, consequences are for little people. Not your political tribe who can do whatever they want.They broke the laws, they pay the consequences. The current situation just shows how terrible the past few decades of doing nothing have been.
The only ones doing that now are Dems in Colorado and New Hampshire.
Not sexuality. Gender. Race and gender. There is no equal treatment of gender if you can’t marry the person you want depending on their gender.Race and sexuality are not the same thing. It's the same reason Loving is not the same as Obergfell.
What Obergfell should have done is allow States to decide if they want to ISSUE SSM licenses, but force them to accept SSM licences from other States as equals.
Again, consequences are for little people. Not your political tribe who can do whatever they want.
Trump tried to take away millions of our votes. No one is trying to stop people from voting in Colorado and New Hampshire. That’s just a fact.
But it’s fine to break the law if you’re a Trump MAGA elite. No consequences. Insider trading? No big deal. Fraud? Nah. Lying to the FBI? Don’t even. Stealing donor money? Just fine.
Not sexuality. Gender. Race and gender. There is no equal treatment of gender if you can’t marry the person you want depending on their gender.