Posted on 09/07/2020 7:09:38 AM PDT by Hojczyk
It’s obvious what the Dems have cooked up, with their DS/CCP/DNC ScamDEMic.
Just about every other country has opened up, fully.
It’s absurd that we’ve allowed this shut down farce to continue, as long as it has.
The fact that so many lib bots push shut down/masks/school closings/church closings, etc., is a clear indication that this is their game plan....for mail in voting...for their only hope at stealing this election.
Especially at the business end of a crowd of armed populace.
See: The Battle of Athens, TN. They will not harvest votes, they will not have undocumented ballots counted as a legitimate vote.
I have read that the election results must be certified all at once-ie no partial certification.
So if there’s confusion about the President and VP, the results of the candidates for the House and Senate can not be certified as a partial - it’s a packaged deal.
Is this correct?
Not true if it goes to the House. The House first (Jan. 3) votes by delegation (Rs 26, Ds 24) for the Pres. The Senate votes among the next two top EV recipients as to VP. The danger here is that Pence might be out for Biteme-—we’ve never done this so it’s not clear how this would work.
What I think you are referring to is the day the electors must be submitted (this year Dec. 14). That is not “CERTIFYING” them. The STATES do this on their own time, so long as it is before the submission of the electors on Dec. 14. For example, back in 2000 FL was late certifying its election. The date the USSC used for determining this was the (back then) Dec. 12 date the electors had to go in.
This is INFERENCE from what the Court ruled, but a) they seemed to uphold the Dec. date is un-movable; and b) they seemed to say that if a state didn’t certify its slate of electors by then, too bad, so sad.
Courts gonna court.
They just do not overturn themselves. Same reason Flynn still hasn’t seen his case dismissed. The Appeals court just refused to say another judge is wrong.
Not unless you want to objectively support in good faith your otherwise subjective, unsupported, hollow, and conclusory statements which by themselves are not to be believed and makes you appear as one contending in bad faith.
Gee, it's almost like the left and their handlers saw this day coming when they compromised Roberts and put the pillow over Scalia's head.
Your stunningly INFERIOR intellect masquerading as being "intelligence" is mildly amusing.
Hard to believe that people like you still exist.
God Bless your pointed little head!
Well congratulations, Mr. Quack VideoDoctor. You have rapidly but successfully made it to my “No Fly Zone” list.
My comment about you on on the list is “Makes wild unsupported assertions & just mindlessly repeats them. Fugeddabouddit.”
I will do my best not to respond to you in the future.
Good bye and good luck.
No quote then, just insults.
I did a search and did not find the quote you said was in the Bible. It likely is something compiled from various scriptures that approximate the quote. In other words an assumption that makes a great quote without being literal but compelling.
I will do my best not to respond to you in the future.<
Good bye and good luck.
THANK GOD!... FINALLY!
Hopefully I will remain on that list so I will NO LONGER be bothered with the naivety of the likes of you!
I did a search and did not find the quote you said was in the
Bible. It likely is something compiled from various scriptures
that approximate the quote. In other words an assumption that makes a great quote without being literal but compelling.
I'm finally getting it.
You're one of those "individuals" who just doesn't "get it." because you subscribe to "circular reasoning."
In case you're wondering...
Circular reasoning, from the Latin Circulus in Demonstrando, occurs when the end of an argument comes back to the beginning without having proven itself. This form of reasoning is considered a pragmatic defect, or informal fallacy, rather than a formal logical fallacy because it follows a valid pattern of argument: A proves B. However, unlike a logical argument, B depends on A to be true
You avoid the issue as well as Hillary does. You said a scripture was in the Bible I said it wasn't. Simply cite the scripture and win the point.
I was not insulting you as you appear to think I was, I was merely pointing out that the quote you cited was not in the Bible and explained why many might think it is. Strange why someone quoting non existent scripture can be so insulting to fellow humans, or maybe it isn't.
Illogic: Reasoning or thought that is not logical.
May I suggest you go annoy someone else with your case of the "rightness" disease.
You're bound and determined to PROVE YOURSELF "right" on the issue regardless of how annoying, or "in your face", you become. In case you don't get it.. you have no tact!
For all I know you may be an undercover agent for the "politically correct" police. In fact, that might be a good job for you.
Let's PRETEND that you and I never crossed paths and you just continue along on your merry way and find someone NEW to annoy. I'll catch your act later "it's a hoot".
Three insulting posts and not one fact in them.
Just cite the scripture and win the point. I suggested you took offense when none was intended. I defended your assumption that the quote you referred to was in fact one that is assumed by many but doesn't actually exist. I referred you to a link where you could actually search it out yourself but you only responded with more insults.
Not one point I referred to you has been addressed and yet the mindless insults continue.
I’ll be surprised if you’re around long at all.
Thought he was dead.....
Hope is never a plan.
Been here 20 years and have posted 26 threads and 12,895 replies. How about you Dilbert?
1 – “God helps those who help themselves”
This very common phrase comes from Algernon Sydney, who wrote it in an article titled Discourses Concerning Government. It was then popularized by Ben Franklin in 1757 in Poor Richard’s Almanac. In many ways this phrase is wrong, because God helps (saves) those who can NOT help themselves (sinners). Though we must agree to allow Him to help us. An earlier form of the phrase may have come from “God loves to help him who strives to help himself” by Aeschylus (6th C BC).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.