• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Republicans consider removing Biden from state ballots. A new fad is born.

Twilight Hue

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Laniakea said:
He only stayed there until the heat was about to get turned up on him and he was about to be asked questions, which he supposedly was willing to answer in a public hearing. He did himself a major disservice to himself (and his dad) by showing up, and then not even being willing to stick around to be questioned, which puts to rest his claim that he was willing to answer questions in a public hearing.
Click to expand...
Like usual they blew it. It would have been astonishing if he actually said I'd be willing to answer a few questions , but nope.

Obviously he didn't go that route and I can only guess what he'll do next.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Laniakea said:
Then go back to post #253 and read what I said, and what your reply was. Who is the "she" you were referring to, if not MTG?

Again, she (Marjorie Taylor Greene) was about to question Hunter (that's why he was supposedly there, right?), and he ran out of the room like a coward. Watch the video I gave you (which you referenced in #246) if you already forgot what is shows.
Click to expand...
Dude, once again, You relied on pond scum. You lost.
 
Laniakea

Laniakea

Not of this world
Subduction Zone said:
Will you quit blaming others for your failures?
Click to expand...

Telling you to get back on topic is not blaming anyone for your failures.

Anyway.....
I don't think it would be such a bad idea if Biden starts getting removed from red state ballots. Especially if the SCOTUS rules that Trump can be removed, it would set a precedent that would allow Biden to be removed. It would level the playing field.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Laniakea said:
Telling you to get back on topic is not blaming anyone for your failures.

Anyway.....
I don't think it would be such a bad idea if Biden starts getting removed from red state ballots. Especially if the SCOTUS rules that Trump can be removed, it would set a precedent that would allow Biden to be removed. It would level the playing field.
Click to expand...
You do not understand the process at all. One has to have a legal reason to remove someone from the ballot. I know you do not want to understand what Trump did wrong. If you do not want to understand no one can make you do so.
 
Laniakea

Laniakea

Not of this world
Subduction Zone said:
You do not understand the process at all. One has to have a legal reason to remove someone from the ballot. I know you do not want to understand what Trump did wrong. If you do not want to understand no one can make you do so.
Click to expand...

Insurrection isn't even a legal term, and yet is the so-called "legal reason".
Do you recognize your error now or would you like me to show you again?
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Laniakea said:
Insurrection isn't even a legal term, and is the so-called "legal reason".
Do you recognize your error now or would you like me to show you again?
Click to expand...
This has been explained to you. Yes, it is not a criminal term. That is why you do not see any legally charged with "insurrection". "Drunk driving" is not a criminal term. People are not charged with "drunk driving". Instead depending upon the time and place one is charged with "driving while intoxicated", "driving under the influence", "operating a vehicle while intoxicated" and other more precise legal terms. That does not mean that we do not understand what is meant by the phrase "drunk driving" nor does it make "drunk driving" legal. We understand what an insurrection is. It is an attempt by using force to overthrow or change a government. Guess what, that is not a criminal term. The criminal charges are much more specific and tell how a person was part of an insurrection.

If you have ever studied the constitution it does not use specific criminal or legal terms. It is supposed to be written in the more common every day language that we all use. That is why it will use the term "insurrection". A concept that everyone except for those with conservative TDS understands rather easily.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Twilight Hue said:
He's more interested at making character comments then the the actual topic.
Click to expand...
No, if someone cannot debate properly there is no point in engaging with that person. I am about the last person willing to do so with him. Everyone else got tired of his antics.

You too should look up debate and how it requires one to be an honest interlocutor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top