Nostra
Diamond Member
- Oct 7, 2019
- 77,028
- 67,830
- 3,615
Nope. You have nothing, so there is nothing to argue, Fuckwit.Starving for an argument there retard?



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.
Nope. You have nothing, so there is nothing to argue, Fuckwit.Starving for an argument there retard?
Is this another "Any. Day. Now". moment that will go on for 8 years?Ginni Thomas will be answering some questions soon. Oops!
I won't prove it because it already has been proven. Much more to come.Too bad for you, that's not something you will ever prove. You're just a worthless pos liar.
That is your claim. It isn’t even true. But if it were true, it’s not a conflict of interest.Attempting to overturn a legal election.
You didn't mount a challenge against her conflict of interest that was clearly shown to you. You are running like a scalded dog now.Nope. You have nothing, so there is nothing to argue, Fuckwit.
![]()
![]()
![]()
She had an opinion that the election was not legal. Millions of others have the same opinion.Once again you bring nothing showing she did that, and even if she did you can't show us how this is some kind of "conflict of interest"?
Time to face reality, this thread is a joke, Dumbass.
LOL! Carry on retard.I won't prove it because it already has been proven. Much more to come.
With all the laws broken? It was hardly legal. The elections in all the swing states have 0 integrity because of it.Attempting to overturn a legal election.
No conflict of interest has been shown, Dipshit.You didn't mount a challenge against her conflict of interest that was clearly shown to you. You are running like a scalded dog now.
No, she had texts that tried to get the legal election stopped.She had an opinion that the election was not legal. Millions of others have the same opinion.
You won't be showing any that you are talking about, but the committee has shown a bunch.With all the laws broken? It was hardly legal.
Sure it has. Only a retard wouldn't/couldn't see it. You have no known critical thinking skills.No conflict of interest has been shown, Dipshit.
If I missed it, please cut and paste it now. If you can't, we all know why.
The committee has shown shit and shoved in it.You won't be showing any that you are talking about, but the committee has shown a bunch.
People like Thomas had there heart set on Trump winning to continue his assault on The Constitution, becauae that's what they also want.Starving for an argument there retard?
What were the overt acts?No, she had texts that tried to get the legal election stopped.
The texts are an act contributing to the act of overthrowing the election. Pay attention to Mo Brooks version in my previous post.What were the overt acts?
Just because QUANON haden't been named yet doesn't mean that the country wasen't loaded with jerkoffs who believe in idiot conspiracy theories, pinhead.I told you they were not around then. How stupid are you?
No they aren't. And certainly any act or opinion doesn't burden her husband.The texts are an act contributing to the act of overthrowing the election. Pay attention to Mo Brooks version in my previous post.