PDA

View Full Version : Did The High Court Stick It To Senile Joe Biden?



Flanders
07-06-2020, 12:00 PM
The answer to the question is open for discussion.


The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that states can prohibit their Electoral College representatives from disregarding voters when casting their ballots in presidential elections.

The unanimous decision, arising out of a case from Washington state, essentially gives states the right to outlaw "faithless electors" who cast their votes for people other than those chosen by voters.




Supreme Court rules states can remove 'faithless electors'
By Harper Neidig
07/06/20 10:21 AM EDT

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/505984-supreme-court-rules-states-can-remove-faithless-electors


Nine justices seemingly denied Biden the one and only chance he had of becoming president.

Bottom line: When Trump wins, brain dead Biden lost his last hope of Democrat electors overturning Trump’s landslide victory.

There is one obvious flaw in the Court’s ruling that can put a corpse in the Oval Office:


Adding mail-in votes to Biden’s anemic total will be a piece of cake for television’s liars.

Even if forged ballots make their way up to the Supreme Court in a year or two there is not a chance 5 justices will overturn a presidential election. In fact, the entire court will legitimate the voting rights of every box of bones in every cemetery —— in addition to creating the Right to Vote for millions of illegal aliens.


https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?141380-New-Twist-On-An-Old-Game&p=3676836#post3676836

p.s. The XVII Amendment sent the worst kind of scum to the U.S. Senate since 1913. Senile Joe Biden was one of them for 34 years.

Flanders
07-06-2020, 11:19 PM
QUESTION: Why did nine justices make the ruling so complicated?


The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled 9-0 that states can require Electoral College voters to select the presidential candidate they pledged to support and be punished for not complying.

"The Constitution's text and the nation's history both support allowing a state to enforce an elector's pledge to support his party's nominee — and the state voters' choice — for President," Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court.


ANSWER: Legitimating a rigged vote count was the deciding factor. It is illogical to believe that liberal justices would rule against Democrats stealing an election.



The cases, one from Washington state and another from Colorado, came after a group calling themselves "Hamilton electors" voted for moderate Republicans instead of Hillary Clinton in an effort to disrupt the election and send it to the House of Representatives.

In Colorado, one elector voted for John Kasich, instead of Clinton, who won the state's popular vote.




Supreme ruling on 'faithless' electors tampering with presidential vote
By WND Staff
Published July 6, 2020 at 11:23am

https://www.wnd.com/2020/07/supreme-ruling-faithless-electors-tampering-presidential-election/


And is it not odd that the ruling was unanimous? Surely, if original intent has any meaning at least one or two justices would have dissented. Not one dissent told me that every justice must believe that the Founding Fathers intended crooks to steal elections.


There is one obvious flaw in the Court’s ruling that can put a corpse in the Oval Office:


Adding mail-in votes to Biden’s anemic total will be a piece of cake for television’s liars.

Even if forged ballots make their way up to the Supreme Court in a year or two there is not a chance 5 justices will overturn a presidential election. In fact, the entire court will legitimate the voting rights of every box of bones in every cemetery —— in addition to creating the Right to Vote for millions of illegal aliens.





Finally, Democrats have been trying to abolish the Electoral Collage since Al Gore got caught with his hand in the cookie jar:




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOqiH-bTXIc


Bottom line: Today’s Court would have elected Presidents Al Gore and Hillary Clinton had their ruling been handed down before November 2000.

p.s. Do not look for any SCOTUS to rule against illegal aliens and dead ‘voters.’

Flanders
07-08-2020, 05:46 AM
And is it not odd that the ruling was unanimous? Surely, if original intent has any meaning at least one or two justices would have dissented. Not one dissent told me that every justice must believe that the Founding Fathers intended crooks to steal elections.

Now that the Supreme Court has vouchsafed the power of a state to require its presidential electors to vote in line with their state’s popular vote, a new question glimmers in the constitutional mist: Could a state require its electors to vote against the wishes of the state’s own voters? That might seem a ridiculous question. Feature, though, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

It’s a workaround designed to commit the states to use the Electoral College to deliver the presidency to the winner of the national popular vote. It’s the first thing that came to mind when the Supreme Court today unanimously concluded that states have the power to punish faithless electors. Most justices credited the language in Article 2, which grants states the power to appoint electors.

The key phrase is that each state shall appoint its electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” The court, in an opinion by Justice Kagan, reckons this gives the states the power to attach conditions to the electors it appoints, such as the requirement that they vote for the candidate their home-state voters prefer. It can punish them if they don’t.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, though, is a scheme under which states agree to instruct their electors to ignore what their own state’s voters want and, instead, vote for the winner of the national popular vote. The compact goes into effect when it has been ratified by states whose combined electoral vote count is 270, i.e., enough to choose a president.

So far, some 15 states, with a total electoral vote of 196, have signed the confounded compact. The Sun is against it on the grounds that an Electoral College that handed up Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, the Roosevelts, Calvin Coolidge, and Ronald Reagan, among others, ought not to be trifled with. We can see, though, that it’s newsworthy.

Which is why we’ve written about this issue half a dozen or so times in recent years. And why, after today’s ruling, the Wall Street Journal plated its vast array of presses with an editorial marking the issue. For the court’s decision on faithless electors suggests the Nine might well let a state legislature require the state’s electors to ignore the state’s own voters.

Just to mark the point, what the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would have done, were it in effect in, say, New York in 2004, is require the Empire State’s votes in the Electoral College to be cast for George W. Bush — even though the Texas Republican lost the popular vote in New York State to Senator John Kerry by a whopping 16 percentage points.

The Journal covers one caveat, which is that the Constitution forbids any state from entering any compact or other agreement with any other state absent the approval of Congress. That prohibition, the Journal warns, could spell heavy sledding at the Supreme Court were the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact ever enacted by enough states to put it into effect.

One reason all this has been on the boil in the past generation is that 2000 and 2016 were both years in which the Electoral College chose a president who’d lost the national popular vote — and, in Mr. Trump’s case, by a substantial tally. That may be the constitutional way of doing things, but it’s not surprising it produces a certain amount of sturm and drang.

So why not simply amend the Constitution to provide for electing presidents by the national popular vote? It seems that such an amendment wouldn’t stand a chance. The Democratic states like, say, New York and California may favor it. The compact, though, makes a mockery of the idea that America is, in part, a confederation of sovereign states. So the big test of whether the Supreme Court is committed to the Electoral College is yet to come.




The Big Test of Electoral College Is Yet To Come
Editorial of The New York Sun
July 7, 2020

https://www.nysun.com/editorials/the-next-test-of-the-electoral-college/91182/


A brief recap of Socialism/Communism

Socialists/Communists (DEMOCRATS) are determined to abolish the Electoral College by giving the SCOTUS the unconstitutional authority to legislate. They will do anything except call for a constitutional amendment. That is the same incremental strategy Socialists developed in the late 19th century.



Early Socialist planners planted the misconception in the late 19th century when they set out to acquire political power incrementally, while Communists preferred violent revolution.


https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?112929-Socialist-Is-A-Synonym-For-Communist-Socialist&p=2885553#post2885553

Note that frustration drove Socialists to adopt violent revolution. Television’s liars tell us about the violence every day without ever connecting the violence in our cities to the never-ending Communist Revolution.

Start the clock in 1913 and you see that incrementalism won victory after victory throughout the judiciary, and in the federal bureaucracies —— most notably transforming this country into democracy’s tyranny one small bite at a time. Basically, countless top Democrats tell us that “We must save our democracy.” They never say ‘We must save our Republic.’ nor will they ever say ‘We must save our individual freedoms.’

On the plus side, Socialist incrementalism ran into a roadblock after decades of trying to make the Second Amendment obsolete; hence, frustration. In short: So long as the Second Amendment is enforced Socialists/Communists everywhere are in danger of losing more than a century of nibbling around the edges.

Finally, I wonder of this sick do-gooder knows she is defending Socialism’s incrementalism:


https://cms.frontpagemag.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_full/public/uploads/2020/07/riot.jpg?itok=M5V2LJLR
https://cms.frontpagemag.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_full/public/uploads/2020/07/riot.jpg?itok=M5V2LJLR




We feel like we have been Awakened, but this is just one step. There are countless more that need to be taken.




Just Say ‘No’ to the Revolution
Tue Jul 7, 2020
Mark Tapson

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/07/just-say-no-revolution-mark-tapson/

Cancel 2020.2
07-09-2020, 10:48 AM
The answer to the question is open for discussion.


The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that states can prohibit their Electoral College representatives from disregarding voters when casting their ballots in presidential elections.

The unanimous decision, arising out of a case from Washington state, essentially gives states the right to outlaw "faithless electors" who cast their votes for people other than those chosen by voters.




Supreme Court rules states can remove 'faithless electors'
By Harper Neidig
07/06/20 10:21 AM EDT

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/505984-supreme-court-rules-states-can-remove-faithless-electors


Nine justices seemingly denied Biden the one and only chance he had of becoming president.

Bottom line: When Trump wins, brain dead Biden lost his last hope of Democrat electors overturning Trump’s landslide victory.

There is one obvious flaw in the Court’s ruling that can put a corpse in the Oval Office:


Adding mail-in votes to Biden’s anemic total will be a piece of cake for television’s liars.

Even if forged ballots make their way up to the Supreme Court in a year or two there is not a chance 5 justices will overturn a presidential election. In fact, the entire court will legitimate the voting rights of every box of bones in every cemetery —— in addition to creating the Right to Vote for millions of illegal aliens.


https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?141380-New-Twist-On-An-Old-Game&p=3676836#post3676836

p.s. The XVII Amendment sent the worst kind of scum to the U.S. Senate since 1913. Senile Joe Biden was one of them for 34 years.


Good question. Thanks for your post.

Cancel 2020.2
07-09-2020, 10:49 AM
QUESTION: Why did nine justices make the ruling so complicated?


The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled 9-0 that states can require Electoral College voters to select the presidential candidate they pledged to support and be punished for not complying.

"The Constitution's text and the nation's history both support allowing a state to enforce an elector's pledge to support his party's nominee — and the state voters' choice — for President," Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court.


ANSWER: Legitimating a rigged vote count was the deciding factor. It is illogical to believe that liberal justices would rule against Democrats stealing an election.



The cases, one from Washington state and another from Colorado, came after a group calling themselves "Hamilton electors" voted for moderate Republicans instead of Hillary Clinton in an effort to disrupt the election and send it to the House of Representatives.

In Colorado, one elector voted for John Kasich, instead of Clinton, who won the state's popular vote.




Supreme ruling on 'faithless' electors tampering with presidential vote
By WND Staff
Published July 6, 2020 at 11:23am

https://www.wnd.com/2020/07/supreme-ruling-faithless-electors-tampering-presidential-election/


And is it not odd that the ruling was unanimous? Surely, if original intent has any meaning at least one or two justices would have dissented. Not one dissent told me that every justice must believe that the Founding Fathers intended crooks to steal elections.





Finally, Democrats have been trying to abolish the Electoral Collage since Al Gore got caught with his hand in the cookie jar:




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOqiH-bTXIc


Bottom line: Today’s Court would have elected Presidents Al Gore and Hillary Clinton had their ruling been handed down before November 2000.

p.s. Do not look for any SCOTUS to rule against illegal aliens and dead ‘voters.’


Thank you for another fine post.

Cancel 2020.2
07-09-2020, 10:52 AM
Now that the Supreme Court has vouchsafed the power of a state to require its presidential electors to vote in line with their state’s popular vote, a new question glimmers in the constitutional mist: Could a state require its electors to vote against the wishes of the state’s own voters? That might seem a ridiculous question. Feature, though, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

It’s a workaround designed to commit the states to use the Electoral College to deliver the presidency to the winner of the national popular vote. It’s the first thing that came to mind when the Supreme Court today unanimously concluded that states have the power to punish faithless electors. Most justices credited the language in Article 2, which grants states the power to appoint electors.

The key phrase is that each state shall appoint its electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” The court, in an opinion by Justice Kagan, reckons this gives the states the power to attach conditions to the electors it appoints, such as the requirement that they vote for the candidate their home-state voters prefer. It can punish them if they don’t.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, though, is a scheme under which states agree to instruct their electors to ignore what their own state’s voters want and, instead, vote for the winner of the national popular vote. The compact goes into effect when it has been ratified by states whose combined electoral vote count is 270, i.e., enough to choose a president.

So far, some 15 states, with a total electoral vote of 196, have signed the confounded compact. The Sun is against it on the grounds that an Electoral College that handed up Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, the Roosevelts, Calvin Coolidge, and Ronald Reagan, among others, ought not to be trifled with. We can see, though, that it’s newsworthy.

Which is why we’ve written about this issue half a dozen or so times in recent years. And why, after today’s ruling, the Wall Street Journal plated its vast array of presses with an editorial marking the issue. For the court’s decision on faithless electors suggests the Nine might well let a state legislature require the state’s electors to ignore the state’s own voters.

Just to mark the point, what the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would have done, were it in effect in, say, New York in 2004, is require the Empire State’s votes in the Electoral College to be cast for George W. Bush — even though the Texas Republican lost the popular vote in New York State to Senator John Kerry by a whopping 16 percentage points.

The Journal covers one caveat, which is that the Constitution forbids any state from entering any compact or other agreement with any other state absent the approval of Congress. That prohibition, the Journal warns, could spell heavy sledding at the Supreme Court were the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact ever enacted by enough states to put it into effect.

One reason all this has been on the boil in the past generation is that 2000 and 2016 were both years in which the Electoral College chose a president who’d lost the national popular vote — and, in Mr. Trump’s case, by a substantial tally. That may be the constitutional way of doing things, but it’s not surprising it produces a certain amount of sturm and drang.

So why not simply amend the Constitution to provide for electing presidents by the national popular vote? It seems that such an amendment wouldn’t stand a chance. The Democratic states like, say, New York and California may favor it. The compact, though, makes a mockery of the idea that America is, in part, a confederation of sovereign states. So the big test of whether the Supreme Court is committed to the Electoral College is yet to come.




The Big Test of Electoral College Is Yet To Come
Editorial of The New York Sun
July 7, 2020

https://www.nysun.com/editorials/the-next-test-of-the-electoral-college/91182/


A brief recap of Socialism/Communism

Socialists/Communists (DEMOCRATS) are determined to abolish the Electoral College by giving the SCOTUS the unconstitutional authority to legislate. They will do anything except call for a constitutional amendment. That is the same incremental strategy Socialists developed in the late 19th century.



Early Socialist planners planted the misconception in the late 19th century when they set out to acquire political power incrementally, while Communists preferred violent revolution.


https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?112929-Socialist-Is-A-Synonym-For-Communist-Socialist&p=2885553#post2885553

Note that frustration drove Socialists to adopt violent revolution. Television’s liars tell us about the violence every day without ever connecting the violence in our cities to the never-ending Communist Revolution.

Start the clock in 1913 and you see that incrementalism won victory after victory throughout the judiciary, and in the federal bureaucracies —— most notably transforming this country into democracy’s tyranny one small bite at a time. Basically, countless top Democrats tell us that “We must save our democracy.” They never say ‘We must save our Republic.’ nor will they ever say ‘We must save our individual freedoms.’

On the plus side, Socialist incrementalism ran into a roadblock after decades of trying to make the Second Amendment obsolete; hence, frustration. In short: So long as the Second Amendment is enforced Socialists/Communists everywhere are in danger of losing more than a century of nibbling around the edges.

Finally, I wonder of this sick do-gooder knows she is defending Socialism’s incrementalism:


https://cms.frontpagemag.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_full/public/uploads/2020/07/riot.jpg?itok=M5V2LJLR
https://cms.frontpagemag.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_full/public/uploads/2020/07/riot.jpg?itok=M5V2LJLR




We feel like we have been Awakened, but this is just one step. There are countless more that need to be taken.




Just Say ‘No’ to the Revolution
Tue Jul 7, 2020
Mark Tapson

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/07/just-say-no-revolution-mark-tapson/


Yet ANOTHER fine post. Thanks, again, Flanders.

Poor Richard Saunders
07-09-2020, 10:59 AM
Nine justices seemingly denied Biden the one and only chance he had of becoming president.

What a specious argument on your part.
https://www.270towin.com/

The current map shows 4 toss up states. Trump needs to win all 4 to win the Electoral College. Current polling shows Trump trailing by 4 points or more in all 4 of those states. The likelihood of Trump winning all 4 is about 1 in 1,000 at this point. It would take a major change in the electorate. Something that isn't likely to happen as we see the surge in Covid 19 deaths occurring in the red states that followed Trump's lead and opened up before they should have.

All the ruling means is that electors for Alabama or other states can't defect from Trump. Those electors won't matter when it comes down to who wins the election.

Cancel 2020.2
07-09-2020, 11:38 AM
What a specious argument on your part.
https://www.270towin.com/

The current map shows 4 toss up states. Trump needs to win all 4 to win the Electoral College. Current polling shows Trump trailing by 4 points or more in all 4 of those states. The likelihood of Trump winning all 4 is about 1 in 1,000 at this point. It would take a major change in the electorate. Something that isn't likely to happen as we see the surge in Covid 19 deaths occurring in the red states that followed Trump's lead and opened up before they should have.

All the ruling means is that electors for Alabama or other states can't defect from Trump. Those electors won't matter when it comes down to who wins the election.

He WILL win all four of those states, Richie. Thank you.

Poor Richard Saunders
07-10-2020, 11:20 AM
He WILL win all four of those states, Richie. Thank you.

How much money you willing to place on that ill conceived notion of yours?

I offered to bet Truth Detector $1,000.00 and he ran and hid. How about you?

Cancel 2020.2
07-10-2020, 11:24 AM
How much money you willing to place on that ill conceived notion of yours?

I offered to bet Truth Detector $1,000.00 and he ran and hid. How about you?

100 bucks. It's ON, Dickie.:cool:

Poor Richard Saunders
07-10-2020, 11:36 AM
100 bucks. It's ON, Dickie.:cool:

A whole $100...... Wow. you are actually willing to give up 4 trips to McDonalds.

You win if Trump wins Florida, Arizona, Wisconsin and North Carolina. I win if he loses any one of them. See you in November when it's time for me to collect.:cool:

Cancel 2020.2
07-10-2020, 11:38 AM
A whole $100...... Wow. you are actually willing to give up 4 trips to McDonalds.

You win if Trump wins Florida, Arizona, Wisconsin and North Carolina. I win if he loses any one of them. See you in November when it's time for me to collect.:cool:
You WILL lose, asshole Dickie, you WILL lose.;)

Cancel 2020.2
07-10-2020, 11:42 AM
You WILL lose, asshole Dickie, you WILL lose.;)

And if I WERE somehow TO miraculously lose this bet, I WILL pay you. I've NEVER reneged on a SINGLE BET in my life. We'll arrange something so the loser can pay the winner. I have a sneaky feeling, you being a Loser Liberal Lunatic, you will REFUSE to pay up if you LOSE.

Poor Richard Saunders
07-10-2020, 11:58 AM
And if I WERE somehow TO miraculously lose this bet, I WILL pay you. I've NEVER reneged on a SINGLE BET in my life. We'll arrange something so the loser can pay the winner. I have a sneaky feeling, you being a Loser Liberal Lunatic, you will REFUSE to pay up if you LOSE.

This post is priceless. I will save it for November. ;)

Geeko Sportivo
07-10-2020, 12:04 PM
The answer to the question is open for discussion.


The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that states can prohibit their Electoral College representatives from disregarding voters when casting their ballots in presidential elections.

The unanimous decision, arising out of a case from Washington state, essentially gives states the right to outlaw "faithless electors" who cast their votes for people other than those chosen by voters.




Supreme Court rules states can remove 'faithless electors'
By Harper Neidig
07/06/20 10:21 AM EDT

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/505984-supreme-court-rules-states-can-remove-faithless-electors


Nine justices seemingly denied Biden the one and only chance he had of becoming president.

Bottom line: When Trump wins, brain dead Biden lost his last hope of Democrat electors overturning Trump’s landslide victory.

There is one obvious flaw in the Court’s ruling that can put a corpse in the Oval Office:


Adding mail-in votes to Biden’s anemic total will be a piece of cake for television’s liars.

Even if forged ballots make their way up to the Supreme Court in a year or two there is not a chance 5 justices will overturn a presidential election. In fact, the entire court will legitimate the voting rights of every box of bones in every cemetery —— in addition to creating the Right to Vote for millions of illegal aliens.


https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?141380-New-Twist-On-An-Old-Game&p=3676836#post3676836

p.s. The XVII Amendment sent the worst kind of scum to the U.S. Senate since 1913. Senile Joe Biden was one of them for 34 years.


Fucking hilarious shit coming out of you right thar! I am embarrassed for you!

https://media1.tenor.com/images/a1265846659ae11352bde412fd23a034/tenor.gif?itemid=6111351

Cancel 2020.2
07-10-2020, 12:09 PM
This post is priceless. I will save it for November. ;)

One of us will WIN, one of us will LOSE, Dickie. Good luck!;)

Cancel 2020.2
07-10-2020, 12:10 PM
Fucking hilarious shit coming out of you right thar! I am embarrassed for you!

https://media1.tenor.com/images/a1265846659ae11352bde412fd23a034/tenor.gif?itemid=6111351

Yikes, quit posting pics of your GIRLFRIEND, Geeko!;)

Flanders
07-25-2020, 09:27 AM
July 25, 2020
How to Prepare for a Communist Coup
By Judith Acosta

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/07/how_to_prepare_for_a_communist_coup.html


I disagree with Judith Acosta’s brilliant piece on two points.

1. It is not a coup.


coup d'état (noun)
plural coups d'état or coup d'états

The sudden overthrow of a government by a usually small group of persons in or previously in positions of authority.


It is a “. . . never-ending Communist Revolution.”



Note that frustration drove Socialists to adopt violent revolution. Television’s liars tell us about the violence every day without ever connecting the violence in our cities to the never-ending Communist Revolution.

Judith Acosta’s advice is well-founded:



Prepare by Arming Ourselves.


2. Even a well-armed free-people do not take arms against a coup, but they might shoot down Communists like mad dogs to put an end to the Socialist/Communist revolution. A counterrevolution is closer then television liars realize as more and more Americans understand that Republicans in government stood by and watched, while Democrat Communists in government saw a fake pandemic as their opportunity to incite their long-sought-for revolution.


In short: A very small number Socialists/Communists organizing the killing and destroying Democrat-run cities get their marching orders from Democrat governors and mayors. Their strategy is simple. The violence will end on orders from the very Democrat officials who ordered the killing in the first place.

Finally, Democrat Party strategy had to originate with congressional Democrats and bureaucrat holdovers from the Clinton and Obama administrations.


https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?145049-Biden%92s-Bible&p=3790718#post3790718

Cancel 2020.2
07-25-2020, 09:37 AM
July 25, 2020
How to Prepare for a Communist Coup
By Judith Acosta

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/07/how_to_prepare_for_a_communist_coup.html


I disagree with Judith Acosta’s brilliant piece on two points.

1. It is not a coup.


coup d'état (noun)
plural coups d'état or coup d'états

The sudden overthrow of a government by a usually small group of persons in or previously in positions of authority.


It is a “. . . never-ending Communist Revolution.”



Judith Acosta’s advice is well-founded:



Prepare by Arming Ourselves.


2. Even a well-armed free-people do not take arms against a coup, but they might shoot down Communists like mad dogs to put an end to the Socialist/Communist revolution. A counterrevolution is closer then television liars realize as more and more Americans understand that Republicans in government stood by and watched, while Democrat Communists in government saw a fake pandemic as their opportunity to incite their long-sought-for revolution.


In short: A very small number Socialists/Communists organizing the killing and destroying Democrat-run cities get their marching orders from Democrat governors and mayors. Their strategy is simple. The violence will end on orders from the very Democrat officials who ordered the killing in the first place.

Finally, Democrat Party strategy had to originate with congressional Democrats and bureaucrat holdovers from the Clinton and Obama administrations.


https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?145049-Biden%92s-Bible&p=3790718#post3790718

Thanks for the post, Flanders.

Flanders
07-26-2020, 04:17 AM
DEMOCRACY UPDATE



Start the clock in 1913 and you see that incrementalism won victory after victory throughout the judiciary, and in the federal bureaucracies —— most notably transforming this country into democracy’s tyranny one small bite at a time. Basically, countless top Democrats tell us that “We must save our democracy.” They never say ‘We must save our Republic.’ nor will they ever say ‘We must save our individual freedoms.’

I am never sure if it was Democrats and their media stooges, or if it was media stooges and their Democrats that damn near convinced Americans that their country is a democracy. Carol Brown does a professional job of dissecting Senile Joe Biden’s corpse, while she fails to tie ‘democracy’ and the ‘COMMUNIST REVOLUTION’ to today’s bloodshed:



The stark reality of what a Biden puppet presidency would mean has come into view. It is, to say the least, absolutely terrifying.

But questions remain about whether he'll even be the nominee, and if so, if he'll make it to Election Day in this role.





https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/Debate_Small20200703114001.jpg
https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/Debate_Small20200703114001.jpg



First, can anyone imagine Biden debating Trump? I can't.

The left is already scrambling to figure out how to leverage the situation to get Biden out of this commitment, such as demanding Trump release his tax returns in exchange for Biden's participation in the debates. No doubt more schemes will emerge in the coming weeks.

Second, can anyone imagine Biden being nominated at the Democratic National Convention? It's hard to picture because he'd have to give a speech and function off script a bit, and I don't think he can pull any of that off. (Not that a lot of lemmings seem to notice or care.)

What would happen if Biden weren't the nominee because the left found some way for him to bow out gracefully? In that case, his delegates would have to vote on an alternative candidate. If Biden had selected a running mate, that person would be in a strong position to become the nominee.

If Biden does become the nominee, but something happens to him before Election Day that makes it impossible for him to remain the candidate, what happens then?

The party would pick another nominee, and it would most likely be the person who was his running mate.

If Biden makes it all the way to Election Day and wins (please hang in there with me because this could happen for a number of reasons, not the least of which is voter fraud and/or an electorate riddled with imbeciles), we know he won't be in charge. Instead, leftists with evil on their minds will be running the country. And to be a bit more specific, by "leftists with evil on their minds," I mean Marxists intent on destroying our country from within (already in progress) and establishing a communist state.

And that would be that. America would be no more.

That brings me to this.

People who aren't working to help get Trump re-elected are not doing their part. (Working on down-ticket races is also crucial.) Don't be complicit. It's not enough to vote. Not nearly enough. Every single patriot must be donating money and volunteering, whether to be boots on the ground or making calls from home.

And please don't speak with over-confidence about 2016 or how the current polls are all wrong, nor feel hopeless and cynical about how the left is planning to steal the election. It doesn't matter what we feel, but what we know. And we know that President Trump needs the largest army possible between now and Election Day to maximize his chance of winning.

None of us can afford to find a reason to do less, rather than more.

It's all on the line. We need all hands on deck.

Everything we value and hold dear is at stake.

The left will flood the country with immigrants who will vote for it, open the doors to "refugees" who will join the destruction from within, add seats to the Supreme Court to ensure far-left rulings, eliminate the Senate filibuster, abolish the Electoral College, make D.C. the 51st state, and transform this nation into a large scale version of Venezuela as they solidify their power.

Yes, it can happen. And we are on the brink of it.

This is it. It's now or never, folks. Come Election Day, let none of us feel we didn't do everything in our power, and then some, to defend this nation lest it be completely destroyed.




July 25, 2020
In 100 days, communists could be set to run the White House
By Carol Brown

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/07/in_100_days_communists_could_be_set_to_run_the_whi te_house.html


It all comes down to ballots or bullets.

Democrats (COMMUNISTS) are using bullets in an attempt to take control with ballots. Communists tell us that a few bullets now will prevent a full-scale revolution if Trump is reelected with ballots. Figure out that logic if you can.

Media must continue to convince a well-armed people that ballots will make the U.S. a better country —— and all the while Americans are ducking bullets. Unfortunately, the record shows that ballots began digging freedom’s grave in 1913 —— THE XVII AMENDMENT is the shovel. A backhoe was called in to dig the grave faster and deeper with illegal aliens and mail-in ballots.

Flanders
10-10-2020, 07:06 AM
Socialists/Communists (DEMOCRATS) are determined to abolish the Electoral College by giving the SCOTUS the unconstitutional authority to legislate. They will do anything except call for a constitutional amendment. That is the same incremental strategy Socialists developed in the late 19th century.


https://grrrgraphics.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/schiff-lies-tina-toon.jpg
https://grrrgraphics.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/schiff-lies-tina-toon.jpg



Pencil Neck is lying —— AGAIN. So why did he say it when he knows damn well that amending the Constitution to abolish the Electoral College does not stand a chance of passing? ANSWER: Getting a little face time to plug his opinion on a liberal television show is the only platform Schiff has leftover from his glory days when his lies were all over T.V. 24-7. (Luckily for Schiff —— Bill Maher is hard up for guests.)



Schiff: ‘I Would Favor Doing away with the Electoral College’
by Ian Hanchett
9 Oct 2020

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/10/09/schiff-i-would-favor-doing-away-with-the-electoral-college/


Parenthetically, the last thing Socialists/Communists want is the public voting against any part of their agenda. Democrats have been slowly eliminating the Second Amendment without ever demanding a constitutional amendment. Mail-in voting is the strategy Democrats are using to abolish the Electoral College. Rigging the result with millions of crooked votes will be as effective as unconstitutional gun control laws.