If Trump WAS Sent by God...

[ajax18]

That's an outrageously dishonest case of projection!

Actually it's pretty dishonest to claim the deep state is not trying to win against Trump what they cannot win in a free and fair election. Perhaps you think it's right and proper to do so, but don't try to claim that it's anywhere near being in line with the American Republic ideal of rule by the people, especially not working legal citizen, taxpaying, people as the founding fathers intended.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

That's an outrageously dishonest case of projection!

Actually it's pretty dishonest to claim the deep state is not trying to win against Trump what they cannot win in a free and fair election. Perhaps you think it's right and proper to do so, but don't try to claim that it's anywhere near being in line with the American Republic ideal of rule by the people, especially not working legal citizen, taxpaying, people as the founding fathers intended.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_f ... ctors_plot

Fake electors.

- Doc

[Chap]

working legal citizen, taxpaying, people as the founding fathers intended.

Um, there is nothing in the constitution saying that a person has to be 'working' to be a citizen, is there? Otherwise, what would have been the status of all those elegant ladies and gentlemen who never did a hand's turn of work in their lives, since they had lots of people kidnapped from Africa who did all their work for them?

And where does the constitution say you have to be paying taxes to be a citizen? I don't think there is anything about that, is there? OK, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 did rule out "indians not taxed", but nobody else was excluded on that basis. Untaxed non-Indian people were just fine.

[honorentheos]

To be fair, the constitution limited voting pretty extensively, and the Senate wasn't chosen by the people but by State legislatures. The founders were a diverse group with varied views. What was codified was an amalgamation of those ideas, with folks needing to have skin in the game to be allowed to vote. And that metric? Land ownership and a penis.

ETA: this looks like a good explanation - https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials ... e%20states.

[ajax18]

working legal citizen, taxpaying, people as the founding fathers intended.

Um, there is nothing in the constitution saying that a person has to be 'working' to be a citizen, is there? Otherwise, what would have been the status of all those elegant ladies and gentlemen who never did a hand's turn of work in their lives, since they had lots of people kidnapped from Africa who did all their work for them?

And where does the constitution say you have to be paying taxes to be a citizen? I don't think there is anything about that, is there? OK, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 did rule out "indians not taxed", but nobody else was excluded on that basis. Untaxed non-Indian people were just fine.

You had to be a landowner to vote. Unlike today the right to vote was tied to responsibilities of citizenship, be it paying taxes or serving in the military.

Imagine if George Washington would have brought in new foreign voters by promising to give away the land and property of current citizens by executive order.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Um, there is nothing in the constitution saying that a person has to be 'working' to be a citizen, is there? Otherwise, what would have been the status of all those elegant ladies and gentlemen who never did a hand's turn of work in their lives, since they had lots of people kidnapped from Africa who did all their work for them?

And where does the constitution say you have to be paying taxes to be a citizen? I don't think there is anything about that, is there? OK, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 did rule out "indians not taxed", but nobody else was excluded on that basis. Untaxed non-Indian people were just fine.

You had to be a landowner to vote.

Specific reference?

- Doc

[Gunnar]

Actually it's pretty dishonest to claim the deep state is not trying to win against Trump what they cannot win in a free and fair election. Perhaps you think it's right and proper to do so, but don't try to claim that it's anywhere near being in line with the American Republic ideal of rule by the people, especially not working legal citizen, taxpaying, people as the founding fathers intended.

Sorry, but the real dishonesty and nonsense is the opposite of what you claimed above. Trump and his legal team conclusively lost 60 some odd lawsuits claiming that nonsense, even in courts with a majority of conservative, Republican judges, some of whom Trump himself nominated. The MAGA apologists' claim that the courts refused to even look at the evidence of voting fraud before dismissing the cases, is an outright lie. The truth is that the only reason such evidence was not looked at is that, by Trump's lawyers' own admission, they had no such evidence to provide, when the judges asked them for it. They realized they would have been in danger of indictment for perjury, had they claimed otherwise, so they folded! MAGA sycophants endlessly repeat that lie of evidence of widespread voter fraud to the media and the general public, but Trump's legal teams knew better than to claim it while under oath in a court of law! That is the only reason all these numerous cases had to be dismissed -- not because of this mythical deep state conspiracy you foolishly persist in believing!

[honorentheos]

Unlike today the right to vote was tied to responsibilities of citizenship, be it paying taxes or serving in the military.

You sure you have your facts right?

[ajax18]

Sorry, but the real dishonesty and nonsense is the opposite of what you claimed above. Trump and his legal team conclusively lost 60 some odd lawsuits claiming that nonsense, even in courts with a majority of conservative, Republican judges, some of whom Trump himself nominated.

If the alternate electors legal theory was insurrection, why did Congress have to make a new law to declare it illegal? Arguing a dubious legal theory in court is not an insurrection or a coup. An appointed group of state justices taking the democratically chosen candidate off the ballot is election interference, especially when Donald Trump has never even been charged with, let alone convicted of insurrection. You're totally fine with stamping out the will of the people if you disagree with the majority's policies. That's not saving democracy. That's tyranny.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Sorry, but the real dishonesty and nonsense is the opposite of what you claimed above. Trump and his legal team conclusively lost 60 some odd lawsuits claiming that nonsense, even in courts with a majority of conservative, Republican judges, some of whom Trump himself nominated.

If the alternate electors legal theory was insurrection, why did Congress have to make a new law to declare it illegal? Arguing a dubious legal theory in court is not an insurrection or a coup. An appointed group of state justices taking the democratically chosen candidate off the ballot is election interference, especially when Donald Trump has never even been charged with, let alone convicted of insurrection. You're totally fine with stamping out the will of the people if you disagree with the majority's policies. That's not saving democracy. That's tyranny.

If stealing were wrong why would someone make a law against it, post facto?

Notice Xanax’s shifting and hopping around, never explaining himself. This is a tactic straight out of the Nazi playbook.

“Never believe that MAGAs are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The MAGAs have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” - Sartre if he lived today

- Doc