7 Candidates on the right eligible for debate, who do you like?

Democrats have questioned elections for decades and continue to do so.

 

LOL. I love how you guys claimed that Trump was a threat to our democracy while simultaneously calling it hysterically funny that the US could be turned into a dictatorship.

 

And if I were just talking about "questioning," you'd have a point. That's not what I was talking about, buddy. Again. Please read. And, again, you won't.

 

No one in this country has done more to overturn democracy than Trump and his followers have.

 

Oh dear...um...I am on record on this forum stating Trump did NOT incite the Jan 6 riot. I have literally never stated Trump was a threat to our democracy. WHOOPSIE....gotcha moment fail!

 

Trump, and only Trump. All others are decepticons, RINOs, and Uniparty tools, and will not be getting my vote under any circumstances.

 

Trump, and only Trump, tried to overthrow democracy. **** that fascist.

 

Duplicate

 

TOO FUNNY!

You do know that this nation was a REPUBLIC, right? (before Democrats made DC into an oligarchy)

 

Yes. I just know how the concept of a republic and the concept of a democracy work together. Why do you think that EVERY single presidential vote from several states should have just been entirely thrown in the garbage and their Constitutional rights should have been erased? Because that's what the Trump team proposed.

 

just a head up, the OP might be slightly off with regards to Mike Pence

 

RFK
Trump
Scott
Vivek

In that order.

RFK because he has the potential to be a uniter, and he knows wtf he's talking about.

Trump because he's a known quantity.

Scott Im happy to give a shot, but I get the feeling he's just another sort of Regan who talks a good game but ultimately loves a big powerful fedgov more than anything else. But its just a feeling.

Vivek I agree with him on everything I've seen, but i have an inherent distrust of investment bankers. They cant all be bad... but the odds are what they are, which is bad. Still, he's a worthy vote if the others drop out.

Trump moves into #1 pick if our entrenched bureaucracy tries to say we cant vote for him. Because F that.

 

Fact Check:

Even though Republicans were able to get two objections formally considered in 2021, they objected to votes from only six states. It should be noted, however, that the Capitol riot earlier in the day kept the number of objections lower than expected.

In 2017, House Democrats objected to votes from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Wisconsin. Objections also were made after the announcement of votes from Mississippi, Michigan and Wyoming, adding up to nine states. None of the nine objections was considered because they lacked the signature of a senator.

 

This doesn't actually answer my question. Please read again. I've criticized the half a dozen or so House Democrats (who had NO Senate support) for their objection, but the post you quoted from me isn't about objections. If you are going to fact check, you need to get your facts right. I was talking about the states that the Trump team wanted COMPLETELY DISQUALIFIED from the EC count. The Dems you are talking about never tried that ****

 

Hmm what you said was:



And I posted that yes, the Dems tried to get several states REMOVED ENTIRELY from the EC count. Sorry if you are going to simply dismiss facts.

 

Then you don't understand what the Dems were doing. Nothing they were doing, even if successful, would have removed ANY state entirely from the EC count. Sorry if you are going to simply dismiss facts. How in the heavenly **** do you not know how this **** works?

 

I know that the statement of yours that I highlighted was answered by my post and now you are in a "but,but,but..." mode. House Democrats tried to exclude the electoral votes of nine states. That's a fact. You can spend days trying to make up a new argument, as you've done before, or just accept the truth, which is that House Democrats tried to exclude the electoral votes of nine states.

 

If you knew how the law works, and you don't, you'd know that all the Dems were trying to do (and I've criticized them for even this) was to send the votes back to the states for review. That wouldn't have removed the EC votes. Think. Try to think. I know you won't, but I still have to ask you to do some basic homework.

 

None so blind etc...

 

Apparently it is you who don't know how the law works. There is a time limit for certification of electoral votes go beyond that and you're out.

 

How does that contradict what I've said? Please read.

 

This is only about your statement and my response, so did House Democrats tried to exclude the electoral votes of nine states or not? Yes or No?

 

No. They did not. They tried to send it back for the states to review again . . . which would still give the states EC votes. How do you not know this? I'm sorry, but you don't even seem to be trying to make a coherent point. By the way, if you are upset about the half dozen or so House Dems who tried that trick with NO Senate support, then you must be really pissed that the ****ING MAJORITY OF HOUSE REPUBLICANS tried to do the same and THEY HAD SENATE SUPPORT. But, hey, we can't let silly things like facts get in the way.

 

Basing your thoughts on solely your emotions is not a good look. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Nope basing my thoughts on what I see and hear every day.