Interesting analysis of how our President will be elected

[Guest]

We hear a lot about the electoral college, but not much about the modern day influence on that body. This is a good read if you really want to know instead of the shrill yelling !

"The right to vote is intended to be a singular privilege of citizenship. But the 1787 Constitutional Convention rejected allowing the people to directly elect their President. The delegates chose instead our Electoral College system, under which 538 electoral votes distributed amongst the states determine the presidential victor. The Electoral College awards one elector for each U.S. Senator, thus 100 of the total, and D.C. gets three electors pursuant to the 23rd Amendment. Those electoral numbers are unaffected by the size of the noncitizen population. The same cannot be said for the remaining 435, more than 80 percent of the total, which represent the members elected to the House."


Now that is the basic premise and most of us already know that, BUT allow for illegal immigrants, voters or not.

"The distribution of these 435 seats is not static: they are reapportioned every ten years to reflect the population changes found in the census. That reallocation math is based on the relative “whole number of persons in each state,” as the formulation in the 14th Amendment has it. When this language was inserted into the U.S. Constitution, the concept of an “illegal immigrant,” as the term is defined today, had no meaning. Thus the census counts illegal immigrants and other noncitizens equally with citizens. Since the census is used to determine the number of House seats apportioned to each state, those states with large populations of illegal immigrants and other noncitizens gain extra seats in the House at the expense of states with fewer such “whole number of persons.”
This math gives strongly Democratic states an unfair edge in the Electoral College."


I KNOW that the professional folks working on campaigns are well aware of this but most of us are not.

Many have said illegal immigrants do in fact alter elections and they do even though they cannot vote.

If you read the entire article is does a bit of analysis of 2016 election as well.

Not as exciting as the candidates attacking each other or posters doing the same but this is the work that professional politicians set their attention to.

[Guest]

Sorry....forgot to give the link.....do not want to get into trouble with the copyright police or laws.

Hillary: Illegal Immigrants Could Elect Clinton - POLITICO Magazine (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/illegal-immigrants-could-elect-hillary-clinton-213216)

[Guest]

Is there any doubt in any ones mind what the reason for uncontrolled illegal immigration and lack of enforcement of immigration laws is all about?

[Guest]

Not in my mind, never has been, crystal clear to anyone paying attention.

Is there any doubt in any ones mind what the reason for uncontrolled illegal immigration and lack of enforcement of immigration laws is all about?

[Guest]

I believe that the purpose of the electoral votes was to make the election process more expedient, since it was very difficult to gather all the votes for counting. The distance, plus the mode of travel (horse power) would have made individual counting of votes a long process, taking weeks or even months. We really have no need for electoral votes now. That process should have been discontinued a long time ago.

[Guest]

I believe that the purpose of the electoral votes was to make the election process more expedient, since it was very difficult to gather all the votes for counting. The distance, plus the mode of travel (horse power) would have made individual counting of votes a long process, taking weeks or even months. We really have no need for electoral votes now. That process should have been discontinued a long time ago.

Actually, this is NOT correct.

If you read the link provided it is pretty clear on the why and also the WHY this illegal immigrant facet is a new wrinkle.

Founding Fathers just did not trust true democracy.

[Guest]

This shows you that the Democratic candidate will win the Presidency in 2016. Just give up now and accept that the the next President will be Hillary Clinton.

[Guest]

This shows you that the Democratic candidate will win the Presidency in 2016. Just give up now and accept that the the next President will be Hillary Clinton.

At least Hilary won't have to worry about what she plans to wear. Her ankle bracelet along with the orange jump suit will suit her perfectly. After all, you know that orange is the new black, right?

[Guest]

My understanding of the original purpose for construction of an Electoral College was to prevent more populous states gaining a disproportionate advantage electing a president. Has the intent and purpose really changed after two centuries?

The link provided by the OP should reinforce the need and desirability of strict voter ID laws. Unless or until this nation can provide a fool proof measure of no voter fraud we will never be able to obstensibly choose by popular vote. Even stained fingers won't do it

Voting is a privilege and the most important contribution a citizen can give to his/her country. Citizens should be outraged at any attempt by any party or person attempting to circumvent or illegally influence the outcome.

Look at other nations who have no voting rights or their voting rights are a sham and that should be enough to concern a citizen but it isn't and we are all complicit but omission or commission in he quest to win at all costs

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

My understanding of the original purpose for construction of an Electoral College was to prevent more populous states gaining a disproportionate advantage electing a president. Has the intent and purpose really changed after two centuries?

The link provided by the OP should reinforce the need and desirability of strict voter ID laws. Unless or until this nation can provide a fool proof measure of no voter fraud we will never be able to obstensibly choose by popular vote. Even stained fingers won't do it

Voting is a privilege and the most important contribution a citizen can give to his/her country. Citizens should be outraged at any attempt by any party or person attempting to circumvent or illegally influence the outcome.

Look at other nations who have no voting rights or their voting rights are a sham and that should be enough to concern a citizen but it isn't and we are all complicit but omission or commission in he quest to win at all costs

Personal Best Regards:

:agree: However, voting is a RIGHT, and in my opinion an obligation. But, it also occurs to me that ignorant voters are like unlicensed drivers, dangerous.

[Guest]

:agree: However, voting is a RIGHT, and in my opinion an obligation. But, it also occurs to me that ignorant voters are like unlicensed drivers, dangerous.

Hi Guest: I agree it is an obligation and one many do not take seriously.

My bigger concern is not those ignorant voters but those very savvy and unethical voters . Even many if not most unlicensed drivers know how to drive whereas the unethical want to buy votes, vote as many times as they can get away with it, vote when they are not US citizens and eligible to do so, tie voting preferences to their union's dictates or vote even after they have died

Personal Best Regards

[Guest]

The article gave the impression that illegal immigrants can have an effect on an election, but fails to mention Gerrymandering, which is as big a problem. Gerrymandering also reduces the effect of counting illegals. Since illegals live in areas of their own race, Gerrymandering shoves them all in the same district.

Texas Congressional Districts 33 and 35 Among Most Gerrymandered in Nation (http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/15247/texas-congressional-districts-33-and-35-among-most-gerrymandered-in-nation)

The district in Florida that was Gerrymandered was the one in our neighborhood. The Democrat woman from that district was the one yelling the loudest to leave the district alone. the district looks like a pencil.

After the 2020 census, the federal government should be setting the congressional districts, and not the states. Voter id laws should also be made by the federal government. If your state makes it difficult to get a voter id, then at the 2016 election show up with something that passes for an id. After you vote, they send you to a place at the voting location that will give you a voter id that passes for one in that state.

[Guest]

Photo ID will alleviate most of the voting problem. Liberals insist there isn't any evidence of fraudulent voting. They also insist that photo ID would disenfranchise minorities, and yet they can't prove it. The constitution requires every voter to be a U.S. citizen. In my opinion, it should be mandatory that you prove you are a citizen in order to abide by constitutional law.

[Guest]

Photo ID will alleviate most of the voting problem. Liberals insist there isn't any evidence of fraudulent voting. They also insist that photo ID would disenfranchise minorities, and yet they can't prove it. The constitution requires every voter to be a U.S. citizen. In my opinion, it should be mandatory that you prove you are a citizen in order to abide by constitutional law.

There isn't evidence of wide spread voter fraud. I have never heard that it would disenfranchise minorities. The complain they are making it hard for inner city minorities that may not have a drivers license to obtain a voter id. They are also making the time and place to obtain the voter id hard to get to for a person that doesn't drive.

[Guest]

I will take back the disenfranchise minority comment, since the two example I gave are examples of minorities being disenfranchised.

[Guest]

I will take back the disenfranchise minority comment, since the two example I gave are examples of minorities being disenfranchised.

Totally wrong.

There is no evidence that requiring a photo ID is difficult for anyone. I dare you to find someone that does NOT have one already. If a person can get out to vote, or register to vote absentee, then they can obtain a photo ID. Is it suddenly impossible for the liberal bus to be used to take the voter to obtain an ID? The buses are sure available when they want the vote. Anyone that says voter ID disenfranchises minorities is admitting to being racist. You are saying that only blacks don't have the ability to obtain an ID.

Yes, there is plenty of evidence of voter fraud. There are plenty of people that vote in one state and then vote in another. There is evidence of voters voting twice. I know one person of many in NC that vote for their parents. His father is a Democrat and he is a Republican, so he votes once Republican for himself and then again for his father. They don't ask for anything at the polls other than you address.

What is a voter registration card's purpose? They sure don't ask for it when you vote.

Anyone that says that it's impossible to obtain an ID is a liar. I don't know of anyone that doesn't already have one. And the states that passed a law for photo ID also made it easier to the voter to obtain an ID.

Democrats are the party of "impossible." They say it is impossible to deport a few million criminal invaders/illegal aliens, and they say it is impossible to prove voter fraud, and they say it is impossible to prevent abortions, and it's impossible to prevent drug abuse, but they think it is possible to control a billion legally owned guns. If not for the government, liberals would all be rolled up in a ball, sucking their thumbs.

[Guest]

Totally wrong.

There is no evidence that requiring a photo ID is difficult for anyone. I dare you to find someone that does NOT have one already. If a person can get out to vote, or register to vote absentee, then they can obtain a photo ID. Is it suddenly impossible for the liberal bus to be used to take the voter to obtain an ID? The buses are sure available when they want the vote. Anyone that says voter ID disenfranchises minorities is admitting to being racist. You are saying that only blacks don't have the ability to obtain an ID.

Yes, there is plenty of evidence of voter fraud. There are plenty of people that vote in one state and then vote in another. There is evidence of voters voting twice. I know one person of many in NC that vote for their parents. His father is a Democrat and he is a Republican, so he votes once Republican for himself and then again for his father. They don't ask for anything at the polls other than you address.

What is a voter registration card's purpose? They sure don't ask for it when you vote.

Anyone that says that it's impossible to obtain an ID is a liar. I don't know of anyone that doesn't already have one. And the states that passed a law for photo ID also made it easier to the voter to obtain an ID.

Democrats are the party of "impossible." They say it is impossible to deport a few million criminal invaders/illegal aliens, and they say it is impossible to prove voter fraud, and they say it is impossible to prevent abortions, and it's impossible to prevent drug abuse, but they think it is possible to control a billion legally owned guns. If not for the government, liberals would all be rolled up in a ball, sucking their thumbs.

Totally wrong. For the tenth time, explain the republican Penn. Speaker of the House comment, after voter id law was passed in Penn, "We just gave Penn. to Romney."

If you can't or won't answer the question, then you know that almost everything you said is wrong.

[Guest]

Totally wrong. For the tenth time, explain the republican Penn. Speaker of the House comment, after voter id law was passed in Penn, "We just gave Penn. to Romney."

If you can't or won't answer the question, then you know that almost everything you said is wrong.

You brought up the comment regarding that PA statement. Why would I know what he meant? Other than trying to hijack the conversation and divert the subject, who cares what you think? Are you going to vote for a conservative?

As far as I know, someone making that statement is just giving an opinion. What do you think was meant? Never mind, because I am not interested in your response, because you will probably make some equally ludicrous comment about the weather.

[Guest]

Why is it so inconvenient or discriminating to require an ID to prove citizenship?

Why is it not inconvenient or discriminating when the following ALL REQUIRE ID:

cash a check
use a credit card
buy liquor
see the doctor
get into the hospital
get into the rec centers in TV

just to name a very few.

We all know the answer right? Bingo. None of the above or the rest that could be on the list have anything to do with rigging the vote results!!

[Guest]

Wow.......an academic discussion on the Electoral College really went astray.

Might I also add...if I hear one more time about an aside comment made in Pa a bit ago concerning voter id, I am flat out...well, not sure, but I never hear the asides from the President or the VP ever. They are, as they should be, a one day news item just for interest and then gone.

[Guest]

You brought up the comment regarding that PA statement. Why would I know what he meant? Other than trying to hijack the conversation and divert the subject, who cares what you think? Are you going to vote for a conservative?

As far as I know, someone making that statement is just giving an opinion. What do you think was meant? Never mind, because I am not interested in your response, because you will probably make some equally ludicrous comment about the weather.

Why would you know what he meant? Do you have a problem recognizing the obvious? Try reading this.

Judge strikes down Pennsylvania voter ID law - CNNPolitics.com (http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/17/politics/pennsylvania-voter-id-law/index.html)

I am voting for John Kasich. Isn't he a conservative?

As far as changing the subject, go back and read the posts on this thread. Please tell me, who changed the subject!

[Guest]

Why is it so inconvenient or discriminating to require an ID to prove citizenship?

Why is it not inconvenient or discriminating when the following ALL REQUIRE ID:

cash a check
use a credit card
buy liquor
see the doctor
get into the hospital
get into the rec centers in TV

just to name a very few.

We all know the answer right? Bingo. None of the above or the rest that could be on the list have anything to do with rigging the vote results!!

Require an ID? They are not requiring an ID. The states with strict voter id laws are asking for a picture ID to obtain a voter id. One state won't accept a college picture id, but would accept a gun permit id.

States were accepting electric bills, gas bills, etc. at the polling booth before allowing people to vote. What was acceptable in the past is not acceptable now.

[Guest]

Wow.......an academic discussion on the Electoral College really went astray.

Might I also add...if I hear one more time about an aside comment made in Pa a bit ago concerning voter id, I am flat out...well, not sure, but I never hear the asides from the President or the VP ever. They are, as they should be, a one day news item just for interest and then gone.

Changing the subject here is a constant state of being on this board.

Concerning the Penn. House leader comment being a one day event, it was a one day event that hit the courts.

[Guest]

Changing the subject here is a constant state of being on this board.

Concerning the Penn. House leader comment being a one day event, it was a one day event that hit the courts.

I will need to see a link that ties THAT COMMENT to any court ruling.

You know it didn't so why make things up ?

[Guest]

I will need to see a link that ties THAT COMMENT to any court ruling.

You know it didn't so why make things up ?

This guy, in his rambling, unrelated posts is lucky in a way. He is not restricted by a need to deal with facts...he will simply type gibberish and then tell you he is not progressive, and how he will vote conservative.

He will vote for whomever his progressive sites and the Democratic Party tell him to vote for.

[Guest]

This guy, in his rambling, unrelated posts is lucky in a way. He is not restricted by a need to deal with facts...he will simply type gibberish and then tell you he is not progressive, and how he will vote conservative.

He will vote for whomever his progressive sites and the Democratic Party tell him to vote for.

:agree: ......He is a liberal troll that attempts to divert from the topic because in his ignorance, he has no substance to add to the conversation. His trying to convince us that he is a conservative is about as credible as that girl out West trying to make the NAACP believe she is black, or Bruce Jenner posing as a female. Only they believe their ploys.

[Guest]

:agree: ......He is a liberal troll that attempts to divert from the topic because in his ignorance, he has no substance to add to the conversation. His trying to convince us that he is a conservative is about as credible as that girl out West trying to make the NAACP believe she is black, or Bruce Jenner posing as a female. Only they believe their ploys.

Dear guest:

Au contraire the astute political pundits Whoopie Goldberg, Joy Behar et al of The View believe that the ex-president of the NAACP Chapter in Oregon is black and that despite his DNA Bruce Jenner is female. They all have shouted their strong support for their causes. Does anyone need any further proof? They all also acknowledge that the allegation of voter fraud is a conservative conspiracy meant to frustrate the voting process. that's their story and their sticking to it.

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

Require an ID? They are not requiring an ID. The states with strict voter id laws are asking for a picture ID to obtain a voter id. One state won't accept a college picture id, but would accept a gun permit id.

States were accepting electric bills, gas bills, etc. at the polling booth before allowing people to vote. What was acceptable in the past is not acceptable now.

You don't need a background investigation for a college ID. You do with a gun permit. Duhhhh!!!

[Guest]

I will need to see a link that ties THAT COMMENT to any court ruling.

You know it didn't so why make things up ?

Unbelievable. The link is on post 21.

[Guest]

:agree: ......He is a liberal troll that attempts to divert from the topic because in his ignorance, he has no substance to add to the conversation. His trying to convince us that he is a conservative is about as credible as that girl out West trying to make the NAACP believe she is black, or Bruce Jenner posing as a female. Only they believe their ploys.

Who the hell said I was a conservative? You have to imply that I am a liberal troll, so you can ignore the truth. The Truth being that the Republicans are never wrong. They are never responsible for anything. Anyone that doesn't agree with them is a moron. To compromise is a sign of weakest. To lower yourself to even talk to them shows that you feel sorry for them.

I am a moderate independent talking to people that refuse to talk to anyone, but their own. The reason that I like Kasich is his experience at both the federal and state levels. He accepted the Medicaid provision for the ACA against the wishes of his party, and for people that need help paying for health insurance.

Keep up the name calling! It really fits.

[Guest]

You don't need a background investigation for a college ID. You do with a gun permit. Duhhhh!!!

You try so hard to insult someone that you don't think. You don't need to have a background check to obtain a college id. You do need to be a student at a college. They do ask you for your high school grades. They do know if you are a foreign student. Who in the hell is going to take part time college courses, so they can vote?

[Guest]

You try so hard to insult someone that you don't think. You don't need to have a background check to obtain a college id. You do need to be a student at a college. They do ask you for your high school grades. They do know if you are a foreign student. Who in the hell is going to take part time college courses, so they can vote?

And that makes sense? You don't have to be a citizen to go to college, so what good does a college ID that can easily be copied do as voting ID? Never mind, I can see you were just trying to figure out some way to defend your comment. Really, it's no big deal. Really.

[Guest]

Dear guest:

Au contraire the astute political pundits Whoopie Goldberg, Joy Behar et al of The View believe that the ex-president of the NAACP Chapter in Oregon is black and that despite his DNA Bruce Jenner is female. They all have shouted their strong support for their causes. Does anyone need any further proof? They all also acknowledge that the allegation of voter fraud is a conservative conspiracy meant to frustrate the voting process. that's their story and their sticking to it.

Personal Best Regards:

Is this what passes for being open minded, and look at both sides of an argument before coming to a conclusion? So, pointing to a few is the justification for condemning the many. Simple solution to a complex problem is the product of a simple mind.

If voter fraud is so wide spread, why aren't more people being charged? If they know that they are registered in two different places, and voted in both place, isn't that an open and shut case?

I heard one Fox interview of a South Carolina government official, The official stated that there were 20,000+ people registered in two places within the state. The Fox interviewed stated, "how can anyone see that the new voter id law isn't necessary?" Wasn't a better question, "how many of these people voted twice?" They know they were registered in two places, and they know, if they voted twice.

So, they know that the registering twice in the same state doesn't pass the swell test. So, what they do, they say that there is voter fraud of people voting in two different states. The implication is that only Democrats vote twice.

[Guest]

And that makes sense? You don't have to be a citizen to go to college, so what good does a college ID that can easily be copied do as voting ID? Never mind, I can see you were just trying to figure out some way to defend your comment. Really, it's no big deal. Really.

No you can't see, because you are not looking. Take a good look at the makeup by age of each party. Open you eyes, if that is possible.

[Guest]

Unbelievable. The link is on post 21.

Now may I with all respect, correct you.

There is NOTHING that relates the side comment you continually and always refer to with the ruling by the court. The link was about the court ruling, which has NOTHING to do with the comment. You implied something that is not true in anyway. The remark did not as you say "Concerning the Penn. House leader comment being a one day event, it was a one day event that hit the courts.

THAT comment never hit the court.

So why do you make things up ?

[Guest]

Now may I with all respect, correct you.

There is NOTHING that relates the side comment you continually and always refer to with the ruling by the court. The link was about the court ruling, which has NOTHING to do with the comment. You implied something that is not true in anyway. The remark did not as you say "Concerning the Penn. House leader comment being a one day event, it was a one day event that hit the courts.

THAT comment never hit the court.

So why do you make things up ?

Because he is a liberal troll and lying is second nature.

[Guest]

No you can't see, because you are not looking. Take a good look at the makeup by age of each party. Open you eyes, if that is possible.

You still aren't making sense. Age of both parties? Are you now speaking of age discrimination? I believe you are seeing things that aren't there. Sorry if I sound impatient, but I believe you went way outside of the issue.

[Guest]

Is this what passes for being open minded, and look at both sides of an argument before coming to a conclusion? So, pointing to a few is the justification for condemning the many. Simple solution to a complex problem is the product of a simple mind.

If voter fraud is so wide spread, why aren't more people being charged? If they know that they are registered in two different places, and voted in both place, isn't that an open and shut case?

I heard one Fox interview of a South Carolina government official, The official stated that there were 20,000+ people registered in two places within the state. The Fox interviewed stated, "how can anyone see that the new voter id law isn't necessary?" Wasn't a better question, "how many of these people voted twice?" They know they were registered in two places, and they know, if they voted twice.

So, they know that the registering twice in the same state doesn't pass the swell test. So, what they do, they say that there is voter fraud of people voting in two different states. The implication is that only Democrats vote twice.

Please supply a link to what you are telling us. Reason for links is to supply context that is real and not yours.

[Guest]

We hear a lot about the electoral college, but not much about the modern day influence on that body. This is a good read if you really want to know instead of the shrill yelling !

"The right to vote is intended to be a singular privilege of citizenship. But the 1787 Constitutional Convention rejected allowing the people to directly elect their President. The delegates chose instead our Electoral College system, under which 538 electoral votes distributed amongst the states determine the presidential victor. The Electoral College awards one elector for each U.S. Senator, thus 100 of the total, and D.C. gets three electors pursuant to the 23rd Amendment. Those electoral numbers are unaffected by the size of the noncitizen population. The same cannot be said for the remaining 435, more than 80 percent of the total, which represent the members elected to the House."


Now that is the basic premise and most of us already know that, BUT allow for illegal immigrants, voters or not.

"The distribution of these 435 seats is not static: they are reapportioned every ten years to reflect the population changes found in the census. That reallocation math is based on the relative “whole number of persons in each state,” as the formulation in the 14th Amendment has it. When this language was inserted into the U.S. Constitution, the concept of an “illegal immigrant,” as the term is defined today, had no meaning. Thus the census counts illegal immigrants and other noncitizens equally with citizens. Since the census is used to determine the number of House seats apportioned to each state, those states with large populations of illegal immigrants and other noncitizens gain extra seats in the House at the expense of states with fewer such “whole number of persons.”
This math gives strongly Democratic states an unfair edge in the Electoral College."


I KNOW that the professional folks working on campaigns are well aware of this but most of us are not.

Many have said illegal immigrants do in fact alter elections and they do even though they cannot vote.

If you read the entire article is does a bit of analysis of 2016 election as well.

Not as exciting as the candidates attacking each other or posters doing the same but this is the work that professional politicians set their attention to.

An who was the last President elected by the electoral college without winning the popular vote?

That shoots down this logic!

[Guest]

An who was the last President elected by the electoral college without winning the popular vote?

That shoots down this logic!

You really need to read the article and make sure you understand it before you make remarks like that !! Will save you embarassment !

The article addresses how the population is used and the fact that the definitions used by our founding fathers did not account for illegal immigrants.

Please read it....I do not think it is political...I believe it is a rather interesting article about the college and also an insight into where we are heading in this country in a very fast way

[Guest]

Now may I with all respect, correct you.

There is NOTHING that relates the side comment you continually and always refer to with the ruling by the court. The link was about the court ruling, which has NOTHING to do with the comment. You implied something that is not true in anyway. The remark did not as you say "Concerning the Penn. House leader comment being a one day event, it was a one day event that hit the courts.

THAT comment never hit the court.

So why do you make things up ?

Aren't we splitting hairs? Of course, the comment didn't hit courts. There was nothing slanderous about it. The Penn. House leader's comment was about the Penn new voter ID laws. The court threw out the new Penn. voter id law. The court knew, who the voter id law, was directed at. The judge didn't need the comment of the house leader to come to his ruling. Post 20, implied that the house leader comment was a one day event, and should have gone away in one day. I didn't imply anything.

So, what the hell did I make up? This isn't directed at you, but take a look at the post right after yours. See what I have to put up with. For some reason known only to him, he must think that name calling bothers me.

[Guest]

Aren't we splitting hairs? Of course, the comment didn't hit courts. There was nothing slanderous about it. The Penn. House leader's comment was about the Penn new voter ID laws. The court threw out the new Penn. voter id law. The court knew, who the voter id law, was directed at. The judge didn't need the comment of the house leader to come to his ruling. Post 20, implied that the house leader comment was a one day event, and should have gone away in one day. I didn't imply anything.

So, what the hell did I make up? This isn't directed at you, but take a look at the post right after yours. See what I have to put up with. For some reason known only to him, he must think that name calling bothers me.

Perhaps if you stuck with facts instead of saying that the comment ended up in court which was nothing but a manufactured lie that you told.

People do not normally take kindly to lying.

I know what the court case was about....I know when the aside was said....I know what he meant. YOU combined all of it to make something up which appears to be your way of posting.

Your call...do what you want, but that is why you get grief.

You do not call it a lie....it is, you know..you said something that was not true.....that is called a LIE !

[Guest]

Please supply a link to what you are telling us. Reason for links is to supply context that is real and not yours.

What do you want a link to? A brain in your head was put there to be used, and not to parrot someone else. The majority of Republicans on this board their brain is located in the seat of their pants. When they sit down, their brain shuts off.

Concerning the comment about Fox News, I don't watch it on a regular basis. You are going to sit there and tell me not one of the Fox News regular viewers here didn't hear it.

The only thing real about this board is the insistence that anyone that doesn't march lock step with republican views is a liar or a fool. The whole lot of you are worthless. See how easy it is to make fun of people. It takes no talent. All you have to do is be rude.

[Guest]

Perhaps if you stuck with facts instead of saying that the comment ended up in court which was nothing but a manufactured lie that you told.

People do not normally take kindly to lying.

I know what the court case was about....I know when the aside was said....I know what he meant. YOU combined all of it to make something up which appears to be your way of posting.

Your call...do what you want, but that is why you get grief.

You do not call it a lie....it is, you know..you said something that was not true.....that is called a LIE !

Where did I say that the comment ended in court? Apparently, I give credit to people that don't have a brain.

[Guest]

Where did I say that the comment ended in court? Apparently, I give credit to people that don't have a brain.

Your statement on post 23.....


"Concerning the Penn. House leader comment being a one day event, it was a one day event that hit the courts.

[Guest]

Your statement on post 23.....


"Concerning the Penn. House leader comment being a one day event, it was a one day event that hit the courts.

Perhaps he was inferring the Tennis courts, or Pickle Ball courts....:pepper2:

[Guest]

What do you want a link to? A brain in your head was put there to be used, and not to parrot someone else. The majority of Republicans on this board their brain is located in the seat of their pants. When they sit down, their brain shuts off.

Concerning the comment about Fox News, I don't watch it on a regular basis. You are going to sit there and tell me not one of the Fox News regular viewers here didn't hear it.

The only thing real about this board is the insistence that anyone that doesn't march lock step with republican views is a liar or a fool. The whole lot of you are worthless. See how easy it is to make fun of people. It takes no talent. All you have to do is be rude.

As he said looking in the mirror while :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[Guest]

As he said looking in the mirror while :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl::clap2:

[Guest]

What do you want a link to? A brain in your head was put there to be used, and not to parrot someone else. The majority of Republicans on this board their brain is located in the seat of their pants. When they sit down, their brain shuts off.

Concerning the comment about Fox News, I don't watch it on a regular basis. You are going to sit there and tell me not one of the Fox News regular viewers here didn't hear it.

The only thing real about this board is the insistence that anyone that doesn't march lock step with republican views is a liar or a fool. The whole lot of you are worthless. See how easy it is to make fun of people. It takes no talent. All you have to do is be rude.


So, let me understand this.....

You want everyone on this board to take your word on something you heard, and use your context and understanding. AND accept what you say you heard as FACT ?

RIGHT