Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 5678910 LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 143

Thread: Another fake Democrat poll exposed

  1. #121 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    9,442
    Thanks
    352
    Thanked 2,246 Times in 1,828 Posts
    Groans
    127
    Groaned 78 Times in 76 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arminius View Post
    [SIZE=3]

    millions-of-illegals-probably-did-vote-in-2016
    Probably did vote? Convincing evidence.

  2. #122 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    12,757
    Thanks
    2,577
    Thanked 3,268 Times in 2,844 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 135 Times in 131 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    This is not how campaigns operate. Trump's campaign made extensive use of polls, technology, and models based on turnout figures.

    His visits to CA were primarily to raise money.
    Polls are meaningless. There is no reason to listen your lies anymore.

  3. #123 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    12,757
    Thanks
    2,577
    Thanked 3,268 Times in 2,844 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 135 Times in 131 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    My reference was to illegal immigrants voting. Almost all your articles refer to "non-citizens" (not illegals) and all those numbers were very small. The San Francisco article says illegals are eligible to vote in school board elections but not federal elections. Those articles specifically referring to illegals gave no evidence, just somebody speculating. The Kansas example used a headline that said "illegal" but the article actually said non-citizen and it was only prosecuting one person. Trump's claim of 3 million was pure trash.

    Using sources such as the Daily Caller are not credible.
    Illegals voting in school board elections is a felony. They are not allowed to vote in anything.

  4. #124 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    12,757
    Thanks
    2,577
    Thanked 3,268 Times in 2,844 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 135 Times in 131 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nordberg View Post
    There are no "fake "polls. Some are better than others like 538. Some are weaker like Gallup which is typically 7 points off, We know in what direction.
    '7 points' is a random number. Polls are completely meaningless.

  5. #125 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    12,757
    Thanks
    2,577
    Thanked 3,268 Times in 2,844 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 135 Times in 131 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    You are not reading your own articles. For example, the David Garcia Bebek of Peru says:

    "In an interview Wednesday afternoon, Kobach said officials learned of the voter fraud after Bebek became a naturalized citizen of the U.S. in February. At the naturalization ceremony, the new citizens were encouraged to register to vote."

    If he was a naturalized citizen he had to be here legally or he would not have been eligible for citizenship. So, a non-citizen, not an illegal immigrant.

    All immigrants here legally are non-citizens but not illegals. We can find several cases of non-citizens who are registered and a relatively small number of them actually vote. My references have all been about proof of illegals voting. Still no examples--even if you come up with a few cases that is a far cry from 3 million.
    Argument of ignorance fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy. Your random number is no better than anyone else's.

  6. #126 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    12,757
    Thanks
    2,577
    Thanked 3,268 Times in 2,844 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 135 Times in 131 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Blind faith in authority includes believing any crazy lies told by Trump--more lies from the DC swamp.
    This from the guy that advocates creating an oligarchy out of the Supreme Court.

  7. #127 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    9,442
    Thanks
    352
    Thanked 2,246 Times in 1,828 Posts
    Groans
    127
    Groaned 78 Times in 76 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    This from the guy that advocates creating an oligarchy out of the Supreme Court.
    I'm not for creating anything. I am happy with the Supreme Court's current constitutional role that has existed from the beginning of the republic.

  8. #128 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    7,639
    Thanks
    1,242
    Thanked 3,787 Times in 2,608 Posts
    Groans
    10
    Groaned 140 Times in 131 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    There is no such evidence.
    Except the evidence just provided, sure. The evidence you're trying to blindly pretend away based on literally nothing.



    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    The sources you cited had very few cases of people voting illegally.
    And the FBI had very few examples of hard evidence against Al Capone, too. Guess that makes him a choir boy.

    Hint: You're allowed to use common sense while processing the evidence.
    Democrat lynch are mobs violently terrorizing innocent citizens out of their rights while corporate cowards & left-wing tyrants abuse their power to discriminate against them & turn them into second-class citizens...as the "journalists" who are supposed to speak truth to power on behalf of the people instead BLATANTLY LIE to enable further Democrat political violence & terrorism



    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/signaturepics/sigpic7516_39.gif

  9. #129 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    12,757
    Thanks
    2,577
    Thanked 3,268 Times in 2,844 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 135 Times in 131 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    I'm not for creating anything. I am happy with the Supreme Court's current constitutional role that has existed from the beginning of the republic.
    The Supreme Court is not authorized to interpret or change the Constitution. You cannot make the Supreme Court an oligarchy. You are advocating tyranny.

  10. #130 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    9,442
    Thanks
    352
    Thanked 2,246 Times in 1,828 Posts
    Groans
    127
    Groaned 78 Times in 76 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    The Supreme Court is not authorized to interpret or change the Constitution. You cannot make the Supreme Court an oligarchy. You are advocating tyranny.
    Is is not an oligarchy any more than the legislative or executive branches are oligarchies. They all have checks and balances to prevent abuse. One of those checks is the federal court's power of judicial review. Without it, the legislative and executive branches could be tyrannical.

    Obama and Trump's executive orders are examples of abuse of power stopped by the courts. Striking down D. C. laws prohibiting handguns is an example of check protecting our rights.

    Soon they will rule on the power of states to require electors to support the candidate winning the popular vote in that state. Any predictions?

  11. #131 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    12,757
    Thanks
    2,577
    Thanked 3,268 Times in 2,844 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 135 Times in 131 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Is is not an oligarchy any more than the legislative or executive branches are oligarchies.
    You are trying to make it one. You advocate tyranny.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    They all have checks and balances to prevent abuse.
    WRONG. They all must conform to the Constitution of the United States.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    One of those checks is the federal court's power of judicial review.
    The Supreme Court does not have authority to interpret or change the Constitution of the United States.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Without it, the legislative and executive branches could be tyrannical.
    What you are arguing for is tyranny, putting the Supreme Court above the Constitution.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Obama and Trump's executive orders are examples of abuse of power stopped by the courts.
    Trump has broken no law and is in complete compliance of the Constitution of the United States with the exception of attempting to ban bumpstocks (a legal accessory to a weapon). The court has not addressed this order.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Striking down D. C. laws prohibiting handguns is an example of check protecting our rights.
    Interpreting and striking down any law not in compliance with the Constitution is in their purview.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Soon they will rule on the power of states to require electors to support the candidate winning the popular vote in that state.
    The do not have that authority.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Any predictions?
    Irrelevant. They do not have that authority.

  12. #132 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    9,442
    Thanks
    352
    Thanked 2,246 Times in 1,828 Posts
    Groans
    127
    Groaned 78 Times in 76 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    You are trying to make it one. You advocate tyranny.
    No, I accept the role of the Supreme Court since the beginning of the republic. I do not advocate anything different.

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    Interpreting and striking down any law not in compliance with the Constitution is in their purview.
    Exactly. And to determine whether a law is in compliance with the Constitution requires the court to interpret the meaning of the Constitution.

    You claim the words of the Constitution tell us everything we need to know; yet, you claim the power to regulate naturalization includes the power to regulate immigration. Those words and powers are clearly not written in the Constitution, so you are making an interpretation that is not there under the guise that it was "intended." Same applies to the states' republican form of government provision.

    The courts agree with you on that interpretation, but you are both adding words and powers not included. The court does that all the time with other cases yet you deny them that power even when you accept it for immigration.


    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    The do not have that authority.
    But they have already heard the case and will issue the ruling soon. That decision will be followed by all the states.

    The authority you claim the court does not have (except immigration) is recognized and followed as law in the U. S. Your only argument is that they are "wrong."

  13. #133 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    12,757
    Thanks
    2,577
    Thanked 3,268 Times in 2,844 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 135 Times in 131 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    No, I accept the role of the Supreme Court since the beginning of the republic. I do not advocate anything different.
    Lie. You wish to make the Supreme Court an oligarchy. Sorry dude, you cannot destroy the Constitution that way.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Exactly. And to determine whether a law is in compliance with the Constitution requires the court to interpret the meaning of the Constitution.
    No, it doesn't. Only the States have the authority to interpret the Supreme Court has NONE.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    You claim the words of the Constitution tell us everything we need to know;
    That and how the Constitution is empowered by the States.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    yet, you claim the power to regulate naturalization includes the power to regulate immigration.
    I do not claim this power. Congress h as that power. See Article I.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Those words and powers are clearly not written in the Constitution,
    Immigration is part of naturalization, dumbass.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    so you are making an interpretation that is not there under the guise that it was "intended."
    Immigration is part of naturalization, dumbass.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Same applies to the states' republican form of government provision.
    Also authorized in Article IV.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    The courts agree with you on that interpretation, but you are both adding words and powers not included.
    They don't get a choice. They MUST conform to the Constitution. I am adding nothing. YOU are still trying to ignore the Constitution. You advocate tyranny.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    The court does that all the time with other cases
    The Supreme Court does not have authority to interpret or change the Constitution.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    yet you deny them that power even when you accept it for immigration.
    They do not have power to change the Constitution. Immigration is part of naturalization, dumbass.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    But they have already heard the case and will issue the ruling soon.
    The Supreme Court does not have power to interpret or change the Constitution.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    That decision will be followed by all the states.
    They do not have to follow anything that does not conform to the Constitution of the United States.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    The authority you claim the court does not have (except immigration) is recognized and followed as law in the U. S.
    Immigration is law in the United States. See Article I.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Your only argument is that they are "wrong."
    No, YOU are wrong.

  14. #134 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    9,442
    Thanks
    352
    Thanked 2,246 Times in 1,828 Posts
    Groans
    127
    Groaned 78 Times in 76 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    I do not claim this power. Congress h as that power. See Article I.

    Immigration is part of naturalization, dumbass.
    Not according to the Constitution.

    Where in the provision below is immigration included as a part of naturalization?

    "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"

    Nowhere. Naturalization is a separate issue than immigration and Congress had naturalization laws early in our history but not immigration laws.

    Claiming immigration is part of naturalization is doing exactly what you claim the courts cannot do---interpret the Constitution.
    You deny powers you dislike and make up powers you want the government to have.

    Even when the courts have upheld immigration laws they did not use the naturalization clause as the basis.

  15. #135 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    12,757
    Thanks
    2,577
    Thanked 3,268 Times in 2,844 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 135 Times in 131 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Not according to the Constitution.

    Where in the provision below is immigration included as a part of naturalization?

    "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"

    Nowhere. Naturalization is a separate issue than immigration and Congress had naturalization laws early in our history but not immigration laws.

    Claiming immigration is part of naturalization is doing exactly what you claim the courts cannot do---interpret the Constitution.
    You deny powers you dislike and make up powers you want the government to have.

    Even when the courts have upheld immigration laws they did not use the naturalization clause as the basis.
    Immigration is part of naturalization, dumbass. The Supreme Court does not have authority to interpret or change the Constitution.

Similar Threads

  1. Fake News Exposed
    By ThatOwlWoman in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 09-15-2018, 07:34 AM
  2. 'Israel's' fake propaganda videos exposed.
    By moon in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-17-2018, 04:20 PM
  3. 126 million exposed to fake russain created news
    By evince in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 12-17-2017, 03:33 PM
  4. Another Trump victory; FAKE media exposed.
    By Truth Detector in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-01-2017, 04:50 PM
  5. Petition for Second Referendum Exposed As Fake
    By Seahawk in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 06-28-2016, 05:13 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •