independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Election Day - USA - November 3
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 17 of 25 « First<131415161718192021>Last »
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #480 posted 11/22/20 5:12am

SexyMuthaF

Ian i dont know who Buden is but yes or no if sidney comes up with proof that votes were manipulated in Dominion then you will acknowledge trump is the true winner right? Might be seized servers or something more.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #481 posted 11/22/20 11:58am

IanRG

IanRG said:

.

Convincingly. Anyone can make a list of the most marginal states. Some of trump's victories were by slim margins as well.

.

However, it is convincingly by more than one measure:

.

1 The popular vote: trump in 2016 lost this by around 3 million and Biden won this by more than 6 million votes.

.

2 The College Vote: Unless trump is able to bribe electors or use his appointees to undermine the law, Buden will receive as many college votes in 2020 as trump did in 2016 - where this was described as a landslide.

.

As to the shenanigans - all the court decisions so far disagree. It is brain dead stupid to not understand that this is just a fully expected and publicly acknowledged outcome of trump advising his followers to vote in person on the day and Biden encouraging to vote early if they can. The counting places generally counted the in person votes first and this showed people who followed trump's advice tended to vote for trump. Then they counted the early votes and those who followed Biden's advice tended to vote for Biden. Add the two together and fewer people voted for trump - no shenanigans, just the electorate punishing trump for his abject failures on multiple fronts.

.

If you ever read US history, you would know that trump could have reasonably expected to get 4 more years by the will of the people as a person elected to the presidency on a change of party. His only the 5 such person to fail to get 4 more years. This means he is the only president ever to be limited to 1 term and be impeached and never to have won the popular vote. The only way he can steal the election and make the USA an autocracy is by faithless electors and/or a supreme court stacked with GOP and trump appointed cronies.

.

SexyMuthaF said:

Ian i dont know who Buden is but yes or no if sidney comes up with proof that votes were manipulated in Dominion then you will acknowledge trump is the true winner right? Might be seized servers or something more.

.

You know who Biden is and it shames you to seek to make a point on a spelling error. At least have the respect to quote a person and answer their comments instead of just seeking to mock for a single letter without quoting them.

.

I have answered your hypothetical already.

.

Your turn to answer me instead: To date there has been no credible evidence from the legal team headed by guiliani presented to any court or to any State electoral body. State governments, be they republican or Democrat are getting increasingly concerned about trump's direct actions and his legal team's failed court actions to subvert the will of the people and disenfranchise people in whole districts or, even the entire state. So:

.

If trump only wins by faithless electors voting against the official results of the election, will you acknowledge trump stole the election?

.

If trump wins because only GOP and trump appointees to the SCOTUS agreed with court jester guiliani's case, i.e. no other court along the way and no other Judge on the Supreme Court agrees, will you acknowledge that the trump only won because the court was stacked? Note: In 2000 this did not occur, the decisions where not purely on party lines. If the evidence is truly convincing, it should be able to convince at least 1 non-GOP crony on the SCOTUS.

.

If this so far illusory evidence merely asserts a possibilty without actual proof that votes were actually changed, will you acknowledge that the work by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Secuirty Agency set up by trump with Chris Kreb as its trump confirmed Director did a good job of making sure the result was accurate?

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #482 posted 11/22/20 12:13pm

SexyMuthaF

I like that you're discussing the subject unlike some others here.i did quote you I thought you meant someone named buden. Yes on the faithless electors. Correction on evidence, they have it but didnt present it yet. They are shooting for tomorrow or tuesday.alan jones of sky news says you have to be a brave person to bet against trump. You know alan?
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #483 posted 11/22/20 12:18pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

IanRG said:

.

SexyMuthaF said:

Ian i dont know who Buden is but yes or no if sidney comes up with proof that votes were manipulated in Dominion then you will acknowledge trump is the true winner right? Might be seized servers or something more.

.

You know who Biden is and it shames you to seek to make a point on a spelling error. At least have the respect to quote a person and answer their comments instead of just seeking to mock for a single letter without quoting them.

.

I have answered your hypothetical already.

.

Your turn to answer me instead: To date there has been no credible evidence from the legal team headed by guiliani presented to any court or to any State electoral body. State governments, be they republican or Democrat are getting increasingly concerned about trump's direct actions and his legal team's failed court actions to subvert the will of the people and disenfranchise people in whole districts or, even the entire state. So:

.

If trump only wins by faithless electors voting against the official results of the election, will you acknowledge trump stole the election?

.

If trump wins because only GOP and trump appointees to the SCOTUS agreed with court jester guiliani's case, i.e. no other court along the way and no other Judge on the Supreme Court agrees, will you acknowledge that the trump only won because the court was stacked? Note: In 2000 this did not occur, the decisions where not purely on party lines. If the evidence is truly convincing, it should be able to convince at least 1 non-GOP crony on the SCOTUS.

.

If this so far illusory evidence merely asserts a possibilty without actual proof that votes were actually changed, will you acknowledge that the work by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Secuirty Agency set up by trump with Chris Kreb as its trump confirmed Director did a good job of making sure the result was accurate?

if trump wins by electors going rogue that is NOT at all the same as him stealing the election! Do you admit that Gore tried to steal the election in 2000? or that Hillary (and Stine) tired to steel it in 2016?

the SCOTUS is not going to give trump the win. in 2000 the ruling should have been 9 to 0.... anyone that voted to let gore change election law after the election acted in bad faith. (and of course Bush did have the most votes in Florida so that state's electors wete correctly allocated to Bush.

The SCOTUS will (if they take any cases) make each state follow its actual legislative passed laws to be upheld and if they can not do so then the state's electors may not be allwed to be seating or vote. If that happens (Spoiler: it will not) to the extent than neither get 270 then the 100% legal thing will happen... and trump could in that case win. and that is not stealing anything. But it is a bad idea as the Dems learned when they changed senate rules in their favor and lived to regret it Reps will likely regret it.

No Matter How ANYONE tries to justify it our rights, freedoms, and Liberties are being restricted in the name of COVID-19.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #484 posted 11/22/20 12:36pm

SexyMuthaF

That's a great point dausa thank you.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #485 posted 11/22/20 12:44pm

IanRG

OnlyNDaUsa said:

IanRG said:

.

You know who Biden is and it shames you to seek to make a point on a spelling error. At least have the respect to quote a person and answer their comments instead of just seeking to mock for a single letter without quoting them.

.

I have answered your hypothetical already.

.

Your turn to answer me instead: To date there has been no credible evidence from the legal team headed by guiliani presented to any court or to any State electoral body. State governments, be they republican or Democrat are getting increasingly concerned about trump's direct actions and his legal team's failed court actions to subvert the will of the people and disenfranchise people in whole districts or, even the entire state. So:

.

If trump only wins by faithless electors voting against the official results of the election, will you acknowledge trump stole the election?

.

If trump wins because only GOP and trump appointees to the SCOTUS agreed with court jester guiliani's case, i.e. no other court along the way and no other Judge on the Supreme Court agrees, will you acknowledge that the trump only won because the court was stacked? Note: In 2000 this did not occur, the decisions where not purely on party lines. If the evidence is truly convincing, it should be able to convince at least 1 non-GOP crony on the SCOTUS.

.

If this so far illusory evidence merely asserts a possibilty without actual proof that votes were actually changed, will you acknowledge that the work by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Secuirty Agency set up by trump with Chris Kreb as its trump confirmed Director did a good job of making sure the result was accurate?

if trump wins by electors going rogue that is NOT at all the same as him stealing the election!

the SCOTUS is not going to give trump the win.

The SCOTUS will (if they take any cases) make each state follow its actual legislative passed laws to be upheld and if they can not do so then the state's electors may not be allwed to be seating or vote. If that happens (Spoiler: it will not) to the extent than neither get 270 then the 100% legal thing will happen... and trump could in that case win. and that is not stealing anything. Reps will likely regret it.

.

If trump wins by faithless electors going against the will of the people, then this is trump having stolen the election. There is no other word for it. Just because your constitution is a flawed document set up to allow for the rich and powerful to override the election results if they don't like them does not mean that using this process to steal the election is not stealing the election.

.

If trump wins by getting his appointtees to selectively disenfranchise people without being able to convince a single other judge that this is legitimate, then trump is stealing the election. That if this hypthetical ever it occurs it will rely on a stacked court working within loopholes in the law this just means he legally stole the election.

[Edited 11/22/20 13:02pm]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #486 posted 11/22/20 12:49pm

SexyMuthaF

Ian let's see what you've learned. Who had the most faithless electors go against him in more than a century? Think orange.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #487 posted 11/22/20 1:09pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

IanRG said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

if trump wins by electors going rogue that is NOT at all the same as him stealing the election!

the SCOTUS is not going to give trump the win.

The SCOTUS will (if they take any cases) make each state follow its actual legislative passed laws to be upheld and if they can not do so then the state's electors may not be allwed to be seating or vote. If that happens (Spoiler: it will not) to the extent than neither get 270 then the 100% legal thing will happen... and trump could in that case win. and that is not stealing anything. Reps will likely regret it.

.

If trump wins by faithless electors going against the will of the people, then this is trump having stolen the election. There is no other word for it. Just because your constitution is a flawed document set up to allow for the rich and powerful to override the election results if they don't like them does not mean that using this process to steal the election is not stealing the election.

.

If trump wins by getting his appointtees to selectively disenfranchise people without being able to convince a single other judge that this is legitimate, then trump is stealing the election. That if this hypthetical ever it occurs it will rely on a stacked court working within loopholes in the law this just means he legally stole the election.

[Edited 11/22/20 13:02pm]

that is not stealing...


No Matter How ANYONE tries to justify it our rights, freedoms, and Liberties are being restricted in the name of COVID-19.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #488 posted 11/22/20 1:25pm

IanRG

SexyMuthaF said:

Ian let's see what you've learned. Who had the most faithless electors go against him in more than a century? Think orange.

.

I note that I answered your hyopothetical the first time you asked it and you failed address my answer (So I did not answer the second time you asked a similar hypothetical). I further note that you failed to answer me when I instead asked you:

.

If trump only wins by faithless electors voting against the official results of the election, will you acknowledge trump stole the election?

.

If trump wins because only GOP and trump appointees to the SCOTUS agreed with court jester guiliani's case, i.e. no other court along the way and no other Judge on the Supreme Court agrees, will you acknowledge that the trump only won because the court was stacked?

.

If this so far illusory evidence merely asserts a possibilty without actual proof that votes were actually changed, will you acknowledge that the work by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Secuirty Agency set up by trump with Chris Kreb as its trump confirmed Director did a good job of making sure the result was accurate?

.

Now, Lets see if you have learned anything:

.

How many faithless electors failed to vote for Hillary in 2016? (Hint the answer is 5 from Washington and Hawaii, 3 further electors (Colorado, Minnesota and Maine) tried but failed)

.

How many faithless electors failed to vote for trump in 2016? (Hint the answer is 2 from Texas, 1 (Georgia) tried but failed)

.

Is 5 greater than 2?

.

Why do you think I supported any of these undemocratic electors? Is it because you cannot conceive of there being people who are not so blinded by party loyalty?

.

Did this change the result in the way trump is seeking to steal this election?

.

Hillary is a female (so is not a him) and not associated with the colour orange. You need to stop looking at things through a trump lense and actually look at real history and facts.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #489 posted 11/22/20 1:32pm

IanRG

OnlyNDaUsa said:

IanRG said:

.

If trump wins by faithless electors going against the will of the people, then this is trump having stolen the election. There is no other word for it. Just because your constitution is a flawed document set up to allow for the rich and powerful to override the election results if they don't like them does not mean that using this process to steal the election is not stealing the election.

.

If trump wins by getting his appointtees to selectively disenfranchise people without being able to convince a single other judge that this is legitimate, then trump is stealing the election. That if this hypthetical ever it occurs it will rely on a stacked court working within loopholes in the law this just means he legally stole the election.

[Edited 11/22/20 13:02pm]

that is not stealing...


.

That is not an argument that addresses what I said.

.

It is stealing the election away from the will of the people - this is a breach of human rights whether or not it is allowed by an out of date and undemocratic law set up to create a gerrymander (noun) for rich white slave owners. You would never be so stupid if this was a law in another country.

.

You are just seeking to create a defense if trump succeeds in stealing the election by one or both of these methods. You have already admitted that such a steal would seriously taint trump and republicans.

[Edited 11/22/20 13:33pm]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #490 posted 11/22/20 2:34pm

slyjackson

SexyMuthaF said:

Penny its gonna be hopefully this week. But we celebrate Thanksgiving here on Thursday so maybe not until next week. I know you're anxious but just a little more patience smile

You really are a pathetic worthless human being.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #491 posted 11/22/20 2:37pm

slyjackson

OnlyNDaUsa said:

IanRG said:

.

If trump wins by faithless electors going against the will of the people, then this is trump having stolen the election. There is no other word for it. Just because your constitution is a flawed document set up to allow for the rich and powerful to override the election results if they don't like them does not mean that using this process to steal the election is not stealing the election.

.

If trump wins by getting his appointtees to selectively disenfranchise people without being able to convince a single other judge that this is legitimate, then trump is stealing the election. That if this hypthetical ever it occurs it will rely on a stacked court working within loopholes in the law this just means he legally stole the election.

[Edited 11/22/20 13:02pm]

that is not stealing...


Of coruse he is, how s*** could you get to defend that piece of shit?

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #492 posted 11/22/20 3:07pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

IanRG said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

that is not stealing...


.

That is not an argument that addresses what I said.

.

It is stealing the election away from the will of the people - this is a breach of human rights whether or not it is allowed by an out of date and undemocratic law set up to create a gerrymander (noun) for rich white slave owners. You would never be so stupid if this was a law in another country.

.

You are just seeking to create a defense if trump succeeds in stealing the election by one or both of these methods. You have already admitted that such a steal would seriously taint trump and republicans.

[Edited 11/22/20 13:33pm]

Huh? the will of the people? Huh? yeah that is NOT How the president is elected. Do you admit that GORE tried to "STEAL" the election? It is clear what Gore did was worst as he tried to change election law and Trump is following the law.

do not worry that red stain on your hands is not Blood...it is cherry juice from all that cherry picking!

No Matter How ANYONE tries to justify it our rights, freedoms, and Liberties are being restricted in the name of COVID-19.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #493 posted 11/22/20 3:11pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

slyjackson said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

that is not stealing...


Of coruse he is, how s*** could you get to defend that piece of shit?

HUH? S*** be brave if you are going to use a word Use it...show corrage.

No Matter How ANYONE tries to justify it our rights, freedoms, and Liberties are being restricted in the name of COVID-19.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #494 posted 11/22/20 3:49pm

IanRG

OnlyNDaUsa said:

IanRG said:

.

That is not an argument that addresses what I said.

.

It is stealing the election away from the will of the people - this is a breach of human rights whether or not it is allowed by an out of date and undemocratic law set up to create a gerrymander (noun) for rich white slave owners. You would never be so stupid if this was a law in another country.

.

You are just seeking to create a defense if trump succeeds in stealing the election by one or both of these methods. You have already admitted that such a steal would seriously taint trump and republicans.

[Edited 11/22/20 13:33pm]

Huh? the will of the people? Huh? yeah that is NOT How the president is elected. It is clear what Gore did was worst as he tried to change election law and Trump is following the law.

.

It is exactly how the president is normally elected. This is the why the term faithless elector refers to the those electors who do not vote in line with the will of the people in the State they represent as FAITHLESS - they acted out of bad faith. As you have already agreed when you corrected SFA.

.

What someone else asked the court to consider decades ago is irrelevant to trump's attempt to steal the election today. That trump is working within a flawed law with a out of date constitution is irrelevant. That shitty agreement was set up to enable rich white slave owners to have a gerrymander (noun) and even then still have the ability to make the government an autocracy by ignoring the will of the people in their state. That the republicans in 2020 can plan to use this flaw to steal the election, thereby breaking their obligations as signatories to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is not argument that means that when they do this they are not seeking to steal the election. Like Gore they must be stopped.

[Edited 11/22/20 15:57pm]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #495 posted 11/22/20 3:55pm

SexyMuthaF

Ian thank you for not being triggered.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #496 posted 11/22/20 4:14pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

IanRG said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Huh? the will of the people? Huh? yeah that is NOT How the president is elected. It is clear what Gore did was worst as he tried to change election law and Trump is following the law.

.

It is exactly how the president is normally elected. This is the why the term faithless elector refers to the those electors who do not vote in line with the will of the people in the State they represent as FAITHLESS - they acted out of bad faith. As you have already agreed when you corrected SFA.

.

What someone else asked the court to consider decades ago is irrelevant to trump's attempt to steal the election today. That trump is working within a flawed law with a out of date constitution is irrelevant. That shitty agreement was set up to enable rich white slave owners to have a gerrymander (noun) and even then still have the ability to make the government an autocracy by ignoring the will of the people in their state. That the republicans in 2020 can plan to use this flaw to steal the election, thereby breaking their obligations as signatories to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is not argument that means that when they do this they are not seeking to steal the election. Like Gore they must be stopped.

[Edited 11/22/20 15:57pm]

not here... and we kind of started it... we were not the first but we are the longest lasting so far.

No Matter How ANYONE tries to justify it our rights, freedoms, and Liberties are being restricted in the name of COVID-19.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #497 posted 11/22/20 4:16pm

slyjackson

OnlyNDaUsa said:

slyjackson said:

Of coruse he is, how s*** could you get to defend that piece of shit?

HUH? S*** be brave if you are going to use a word Use it...show corrage.

what

[Edited 11/22/20 16:17pm]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #498 posted 11/22/20 4:22pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

slyjackson said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

HUH? S*** be brave if you are going to use a word Use it...show corrage.

what

[Edited 11/22/20 16:17pm]

Huh? what does "S***" mean? if you are going to say it do not hide behind *s

No Matter How ANYONE tries to justify it our rights, freedoms, and Liberties are being restricted in the name of COVID-19.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #499 posted 11/22/20 4:45pm

SexyMuthaF

Remember Prince said to love one another.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #500 posted 11/22/20 4:58pm

IanRG

OnlyNDaUsa said:

IanRG said:

.

It is exactly how the president is normally elected. This is the why the term faithless elector refers to the those electors who do not vote in line with the will of the people in the State they represent as FAITHLESS - they acted out of bad faith. As you have already agreed when you corrected SFA.

.

What someone else asked the court to consider decades ago is irrelevant to trump's attempt to steal the election today. That trump is working within a flawed law with a out of date constitution is irrelevant. That shitty agreement was set up to enable rich white slave owners to have a gerrymander (noun) and even then still have the ability to make the government an autocracy by ignoring the will of the people in their state. That the republicans in 2020 can plan to use this flaw to steal the election, thereby breaking their obligations as signatories to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is not argument that means that when they do this they are not seeking to steal the election. Like Gore they must be stopped.

[Edited 11/22/20 15:57pm]

not here... and we kind of started it... we were not the first but we are the longest lasting so far.

.

Yes right there in the USA - count the number of presidents elected by faithful electors in line with the will of the people in their State compared to faithless electors usurping the presidency against the will of the people.

.

Kind of started what? Certainly not democracy.

.

Existing governments with separated and restricted powers of the executive from the elected parliament with an independent judiciary predate the US by centuries.

.

In regards to voting, male suffrage without the need for property was in Spain, Greece, France, Switzerland, Denmark, Argentina and parts of Australia before the USA.

.

Female suffrage came to New Zealand, Australia, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Russia, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Hungary, Poland, Zimbabwe, Germany, Sweden, Netherlands, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Latvia, Luxembourg before the USA.

.

Regardess of ethnicity was in France, Bahamas, Ireland, UK, Greece, Denmark, Norway, Argentina, Switzerland, Hungary, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, New Zealand, Serbia, Brazil, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Finland, Iran, Austria, Italy, Russia, Estonia, Netherlands, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Germany, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Latvia, Luxemburg, Armenia, Lithuania, Japan, Sri Lanka, Columbia, Lebanon, Bulgaria, Philipines, Malta, South Korea, Mauritius, India, Ghana, Pakistan, Bolivia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Canada and Kuwait before the USA.

.

This is all moot because what we are discussing is whether trump will succeed in bringing your run to an end through a flaw in the constitution that even the most dishonest and contemptuous politicians of the past have had more integrity than to seek to use.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #501 posted 11/22/20 5:07pm

PennyPurple

avatar

SexyMuthaF said:

Ian i dont know who Buden is but yes or no if sidney comes up with proof that votes were manipulated in Dominion then you will acknowledge trump is the true winner right? Might be seized servers or something more.

This Sidney?

lol lol lol

Were Sidney Powell’s conspiracy theories even too crazy for Donald Trump? Apparently. Fellow Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani released a statement saying Ms. Powell is now “practicing law on her own.“. In other words, Trump fired her.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #502 posted 11/22/20 5:12pm

Milty2

PennyPurple said:

SexyMuthaF said:

Ian i dont know who Buden is but yes or no if sidney comes up with proof that votes were manipulated in Dominion then you will acknowledge trump is the true winner right? Might be seized servers or something more.

This Sidney?

lol lol lol

Were Sidney Powell’s conspiracy theories even too crazy for Donald Trump? Apparently. Fellow Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani released a statement saying Ms. Powell is now “practicing law on her own.“. In other words, Trump fired her.

Just another delusion on the part of an Orger. Maybe they'll see the side that they support as just a bunch of no-nothings.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #503 posted 11/22/20 5:18pm

2elijah

avatar

PennyPurple said:



SexyMuthaF said:


Ian i dont know who Buden is but yes or no if sidney comes up with proof that votes were manipulated in Dominion then you will acknowledge trump is the true winner right? Might be seized servers or something more.

This Sidney?


lol lol lol









Were Sidney Powell’s conspiracy theories even too crazy for Donald Trump? Apparently. Fellow Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani released a statement saying Ms. Powell is now “practicing law on her own.“. In other words, Trump fired her.









falloff They fired her ass. Can you imagine her and Giuliani butting heads? lol I tell ya, the Trump clown show gets crazier every minute. First Rudy’s drip-drip, now Sidney with her crazy delusions.. fired!
[Edited 11/22/20 17:20pm]
Always smile in the face of adversity. smile
#NOFEAR
America gave Trump his eviction notice on 11/3/20. Best decision ever made!!!! clapping
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #504 posted 11/22/20 5:19pm

Milty2

2elijah said:

PennyPurple said:

This Sidney?

lol lol lol

Were Sidney Powell’s conspiracy theories even too crazy for Donald Trump? Apparently. Fellow Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani released a statement saying Ms. Powell is now “practicing law on her own.“. In other words, Trump fired her.

falloff They fired her ass. Can you imagine her and Giuliani butting heads? lol

I did say in another post someplace on here that she was no one. Now she really is no one.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #505 posted 11/22/20 5:22pm

2elijah

avatar

Milty2 said:



2elijah said:


PennyPurple said:


This Sidney?


lol lol lol









Were Sidney Powell’s conspiracy theories even too crazy for Donald Trump? Apparently. Fellow Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani released a statement saying Ms. Powell is now “practicing law on her own.“. In other words, Trump fired her.









falloff They fired her ass. Can you imagine her and Giuliani butting heads? lol


I did say in another post someplace on here that she was no one. Now she really is no one.


lol
Always smile in the face of adversity. smile
#NOFEAR
America gave Trump his eviction notice on 11/3/20. Best decision ever made!!!! clapping
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #506 posted 11/22/20 5:23pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

Milty2 said:

PennyPurple said:

This Sidney?

lol lol lol

Were Sidney Powell’s conspiracy theories even too crazy for Donald Trump? Apparently. Fellow Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani released a statement saying Ms. Powell is now “practicing law on her own.“. In other words, Trump fired her.

Just another delusion on the part of an Orger. Maybe they'll see the side that they support as just a bunch of no-nothings.

Huh? Are you attempting to know me?

No Matter How ANYONE tries to justify it our rights, freedoms, and Liberties are being restricted in the name of COVID-19.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #507 posted 11/22/20 5:39pm

SexyMuthaF

I think they're taking shots at me. That's okay we will see who laughs last.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #508 posted 11/22/20 5:43pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

SexyMuthaF said:

I think they're taking shots at me. That's okay we will see who laughs last.

I applogize that some do not keep things friendly

No Matter How ANYONE tries to justify it our rights, freedoms, and Liberties are being restricted in the name of COVID-19.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #509 posted 11/22/20 5:50pm

slyjackson

OnlyNDaUsa said:

SexyMuthaF said:

I think they're taking shots at me. That's okay we will see who laughs last.

I applogize that some do not keep things friendly

You both clowns belong togheter.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 17 of 25 « First<131415161718192021>Last »
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Election Day - USA - November 3