-
00
-
Lolz shouldn't that make her an even more attractive VP pick? Rs are soft.
12 -
Trollminator wrote:
LateNightEddy wrote:
He literally said it was up to the states.
You get all of your information from a 3rd party that works for the Democrat party.
I'm not explaining what he really meant I'm showing you what he literally said. Your opinion was formed not on what he said but on what a leftist "journalist" at Time told they think he meant.
It's been a long day but I recommend you go for a run.
Yes if I was so thoroughly beaten on a subject I would try to change the subject too.
01 -
Nothing but winners
11 -
LateNightEddy wrote:
Yes if I was so thoroughly beaten on a subject I would try to change the subject too.
I don’t like that as a tactic, but you do you.
10 -
Let down wrote:
LateNightEddy wrote:
Yes if I was so thoroughly beaten on a subject I would try to change the subject too.
I don’t like that as a tactic, but you do you.
Yes you seem to prefer hiding.
01 -
LateNightEddy wrote:
Teaparty Trevor wrote:
Exactly. Trump is a known despicable human being today. But a good portion of the Fox News 70+, Florida Villages type voting block believed that whole Apprentice persona in 2016.
Anf the facr that Trump and crew so desperately hid it proves they knew it would likely sink hin back then.
Trump was a known billionaire playboy long before he had a TV show or ran for office you ignorant clown.
Trump was banging playmates when Biden was still yelling the N word on the senate floor in the 80s.
Really rolls of his tongue. You can tell he used the word 50 times in the hallway before he got to the hearing.
Maybe they can get Christoph Waltz to play him in a movie.
11 -
LateNightEddy wrote:
gramps wrote:
He isn't hilarious, so I guess we aren't dumb.
Yet, another instance where you have to tell us what the guy that "tells it like it is" really meant.
He literally said it was up to the states.
You get all of your information from a 3rd party that works for the Democrat party.
I'm not explaining what he really meant I'm showing you what he literally said. Your opinion was formed not on what he said but on what a leftist "journalist" at Time told they think he meant.
That show's how stupid he and you are. That he didn't immediately say that the states can't and won't do that and you support him. Considering, that would be a violation of the due process clause in the 5th Amendment. States rights don't apply, when the state's proposed law violates the Constitution.
But, you and he didn't know that, because you're both idiots.
10 -
#59530
This post was removed.
-
LateNightEddy wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
Stable MF genius
Time also asked, "Do you think states should monitor women's pregnancies so they can know if they've gotten an abortion after the ban?"
"I think they might do that. ... You'll have to speak to the individual states," Trump responded.You people are so much dumber than the scary orange man is hilarious.
You've clearly been lied to on this monitoring pregnancies nonsense but you still tear your blue hair out and rant and seethe anyway because you've been told to.
You're the dumbest people alive.
Why are you so convinced the federal government should be able to tell the states what to do? Are you honestly so goddamn stupid you can't comprehend that when Republicans control the federal government they could push their anti-abortion agenda onto the blue states? Isn't it better to let the states decide?
Correct!
11 -
This quoted post has been removed.
Wrong Again Moron! The states cannot pass a law that is a violation of the rights enumerated in the Constitution. It's right there in the 10th Amendment.
I know he didn't suggest it. But, he's so stupid he thought the states could do it. Apparently, you're as dumb as he is.
11 -
21
-
gramps wrote:
This quoted post has been removed.
Wrong Again Moron! The states cannot pass a law that is a violation of the rights enumerated in the Constitution. It's right there in the 10th Amendment.
I know he didn't suggest it. But, he's so stupid he thought the states could do it. Apparently, you're as dumb as he is.
You have no idea what the wholly invented monitoring program would even entail you idiot.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Please explain how you know a fictional program that exists only in your own mind violates the 5th amendment back in reality.
01 -
LateNightEddy wrote:
gramps wrote:
Wrong Again Moron! The states cannot pass a law that is a violation of the rights enumerated in the Constitution. It's right there in the 10th Amendment.
I know he didn't suggest it. But, he's so stupid he thought the states could do it. Apparently, you're as dumb as he is.
You have no idea what the wholly invented monitoring program would even entail you idiot.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Please explain how you know a fictional program that exists only in your own mind violates the 5th amendment back in reality.
The due process clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments bars federal and state governments from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Subjecting pregnant women to government monitoring, violates both.
01 -
LateNightEddy wrote:
When people have peanut allergies the rational response isn't for all of society to ban peanuts its for the people who are allergic to be pro-active about their own health.
Locking down all of society to protect a small subset of the population caused more harm than good.
The rational approach is to try to benefit the most people not to inconvenient as many as possible for the benefit of the few.
You are a moron, Dolt.
10 -
Real Obvi wrote:
LateNightEddy wrote:
When people have peanut allergies the rational response isn't for all of society to ban peanuts its for the people who are allergic to be pro-active about their own health.
Locking down all of society to protect a small subset of the population caused more harm than good.
The rational approach is to try to benefit the most people not to inconvenient as many as possible for the benefit of the few.
You are a moron, Dolt.
And you remain stupid which is what 99% of your posts are insults.
I've only ever blocked 2 people on this site. You and Hooma who also happens to be you.
lol.
00 -
gramps wrote:
LateNightEddy wrote:
You have no idea what the wholly invented monitoring program would even entail you idiot.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Please explain how you know a fictional program that exists only in your own mind violates the 5th amendment back in reality.
The due process clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments bars federal and state governments from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Subjecting pregnant women to government monitoring, violates both.
You're more than happy to ban the 1st and 2nd amendments but you're pretending to be outraged by an imaginary scenario that exists only in your own head that might infringe of the 5th.
It's impossible to take you seriously.
20 -
gramps wrote:
This quoted post has been removed.
Not angry. Annoyed. Your brand of intentional dishonesty is particularly niggling. You know full well Reagan granted amnesty. Why the deflection? It undercuts your credibility.
Amnesty? That will be Trumps choice to make. it wouldn’t shock nor irritate me. The point right now is about who you are letting in and the problem is that you don’t know. any interior attack on our homeland is on your vote. you own this.
10 -
LateNightEddy wrote:
gramps wrote:
The due process clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments bars federal and state governments from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Subjecting pregnant women to government monitoring, violates both.
You're more than happy to ban the 1st and 2nd amendments but you're pretending to be outraged by an imaginary scenario that exists only in your own head that might infringe of the 5th.
It's impossible to take you seriously.
There you go again changing the subject after being made a fool.
It doesn't exist in my head. I know it can't happen.
When Trump was asked about it he thought it could be done and it was up to the states. He's an idiot. He doesn't know how things work. You to are an idiot. You don't know how things work either.
01
