Trump says he will name Supreme Court replacement for Ginsburg by Saturday

[plentyofnuttin]

1 hour ago, Silencer said:

Fun fact: The US constitution does not dictate the decisions/orders of the court must be followed. Rather, it only says the court should provide their opinions on the constitutionality of laws that are presented to them. At times, its decisions have been ignored.

Not true. There is nothing in the Constitution about the Supreme Court ruling on constitutionality. That was established in the case of Marbury vs. Madison. And I don't think its rulings have ever been ignored. Certainly not in the past 100 years or more. This practice is a poser, though, for those who claim the court should should base its decisions on strict construction of the Constitution even though the Constitution does not grant it that right.

[candide]

1 hour ago, Masterton said:

 

I understand what you're trying to say, but I think in these instances what those people are referring to when they talk about the silent majority are the people who don't talk openly about their political beliefs, the people who are not honest to pollsters when they are asked who they will vote for, and particularly those who didn't vote in the last election. As I recall, there was a fairly low turnout in the 2016 election. A lot of people who were not thrilled about voting for Trump may come out now and vote for him for whatever reason.

 

 

 

 

Apologies if you believe the "point was missed", however the thread was an ongoing one which evolved from the old chestnut of Clinton winning the popular vote and it always seems to circle back to that. Just because more people voted for Clinton doesn't necessarily mean that she is more popular than Trump, it just means that more people cam out and voted for her in California. But I digress, see my above point for what in my view people refer to as the "silent majority".

The "silent majority" is an interesting construct!

As they are "silent" and therefore cannot be identified, they can be said to be as many as one may wish!

For the same reason, they can also be said to hold any possible opinion. Being "silent", they are not going to contradict anyone, right? ????

 

[Morch]

11 minutes ago, Masterton said:

 

Yes, the people who are behind the "civil unrest" (aka riots, looting, violent protests, murders etc) are political activists who support the Democrat party. These are not Trump supporters. This is not even up for debate. 

 

You are intentionally oversimplifying the SC issue. The reason why Republicans "refused to discuss" Obama's nomination had to do with it being a divided government. The senate are in no way obligated to appoint an SC nomination nominated by an opposing party's president.

 

Incorrect, the relentless <deleted> hysterically spouted by the mainstream news media is not "differing views". You live in a fantasy world if you think that is the case. It is mostly lies and fake stories, either made up or spun in a way to appear vastly different to the reality. Look at the list of stories that the media have got wrong. I suppose you still believe in the Russian Collusion hoax too right? Of course you do.... If you want to learn about "fact and reality", I suggest you stop blindly buying into the Democrat propaganda spoonfed to you by CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, NY Times and WP etc. 

 

You're grasping at straws here. Nobody has confirmed the false story that Trump said what the media accused him of. No recording exists, no witnesses exist. Any sane rational person would realize it is a fake story but as usual there are people whose irrational hatred of President Trump makes them believe things simply because they want them to be true.

 

 

 

You're losing the plot here. Being deliberately obtuse and trying to talk in circles will not win you the argument. Try to keep up with the topic at hand, why don't you ?? You are conflating different issues and babbling on about Clinton winning the popular vote (no such thing exists to win). The silent majority being discussed in this context is not about the 2016 election. Trump won a majority of electoral college votes. And you keep going on about how the Republicans "lost the election in 2018", that is only partly true. Whilst they lost the House by a relatively narrow margin, they won the Senate and gained a few senate seats. Or perhaps I watched an alternative election to you ??

 

Try as you might to tie the Democratic Party to the riots, that's not really the case. By your 'reasoning' each and every hate crime directed at blacks could be laid at Trump's (or if you like, the Republicans') feet. Each and every mass shooting is the NRA's fault. And so on and so forth.

 

I did not 'oversimplify' the SC issue. Rather it was you who tried to sum it in one sentence - which was shown to be inaccurate and incorrect. Spin it as much as you like, by your 'reasoning' the Republicans had no issues with a supposedly hamstrung SC at the time.

 

That you do not accept differing views won't make them go away. You keep claiming 'fake news' etc. not bothering to support it with anything much. You wish to deny facts? Go right ahead, quite in line with the President there. Naturally, after claiming basically all generally accepted media sources are 'bad' - not a single alternative is offered. Where to, then? Fox? OAN? InfoWars?

 

Not grasping at any straws. The story was confirmed by several anonymous sources. The practice of using such is nothing new in journalism. In case you missed it, look up 'Deep Throat' (which guess you would have dismissed as well). But anyway, your claim was different - you said it was 'debunked'. It was not.

 

I am not conflating anything. Simply continuing the same point as before and using your own claims and words to support it. Wining the popular vote means getting a total of more votes than the other candidate - not too complicated, nothing more was claimed. You wish to deny this or split hairs? Fine, now go on about 'talk in circles' etc.

 

As for 'losing the plot' - no one is contesting that Trump won the elections in 2016 or that he got the majority of votes in the Electoral College. How does this relate to demonstrating a 'silent majority'? So again, there was no 'silent majority' for him then. Spinning the 2018 election results as anything but a Republican lose is a choice. Kinda doubt you'd have found many happy Republicans then. You wish to claim that this elusive 'silent majority' somehow exists now, when it was not evident on these last two occasions? Good luck with that.

[Masterton]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

Try as you might to tie the Democratic Party to the riots, that's not really the case. By your 'reasoning' each and every hate crime directed at blacks could be laid at Trump's (or if you like, the Republicans') feet. Each and every mass shooting is the NRA's fault. And so on and so forth.

 

I did not 'oversimplify' the SC issue. Rather it was you who tried to sum it in one sentence - which was shown to be inaccurate and incorrect. Spin it as much as you like, by your 'reasoning' the Republicans had no issues with a supposedly hamstrung SC at the time.

 

That you do not accept differing views won't make them go away. You keep claiming 'fake news' etc. not bothering to support it with anything much. You wish to deny facts? Go right ahead, quite in line with the President there. Naturally, after claiming basically all generally accepted media sources are 'bad' - not a single alternative is offered. Where to, then? Fox? OAN? InfoWars?

 

Not grasping at any straws. The story was confirmed by several anonymous sources. The practice of using such is nothing new in journalism. In case you missed it, look up 'Deep Throat' (which guess you would have dismissed as well). But anyway, your claim was different - you said it was 'debunked'. It was not.

 

I am not conflating anything. Simply continuing the same point as before and using your own claims and words to support it. Wining the popular vote means getting a total of more votes than the other candidate - not too complicated, nothing more was claimed. You wish to deny this or split hairs? Fine, now go on about 'talk in circles' etc.

 

As for 'losing the plot' - no one is contesting that Trump won the elections in 2016 or that he got the majority of votes in the Electoral College. How does this relate to demonstrating a 'silent majority'? So again, there was no 'silent majority' for him then. Spinning the 2018 election results as anything but a Republican lose is a choice. Kinda doubt you'd have found many happy Republicans then. You wish to claim that this elusive 'silent majority' somehow exists now, when it was not evident on these last two occasions? Good luck with that.

 

Sigh... Firstly nobody is "trying" to tie anything to the Democrat Party. What I said very clearly was that the unrest was caused by political activists (and please try to pay attention here) who are not out there to re-elect Trump. It is very much the case, despite what CNN may tell you. Funny, I didn't see many Trump supporters burning things down. Not even going to debate this issue any further with you.

 

Er no. Nothing I said was "shown to be inaccurate and incorrect". There is no spinning, once again you are incorrect. What I did do was point out the real reason why Obama's nomination did not get confirmed by the senate of an opposition party majority. Not liking that fact, does not alter the facts in any way. End of.

 

No, but nice try at spinning what I actually said. Lies and fake stories are not "differing views". I do not accept lies and fake stories spun by a dishonest media staffed by Democrat Party activists. That does not mean I do not accept differing views. Get it straight and stop trying to misrepresent what I clearly wrote. Furthermore, you really are clueless if you think that the fake news outlets I mentioned before are "generally accepted media sources". What this really means is that almost any other source which is not them is not acceptable to you, and I have seen that proven time and time again on this very forum. 

 

Yes you are grasping. Desperately. Funny how every false story about Trump comes from "anonymous sources" and are never confirmed or verified and the sources never identified. Even the ones that are identified are proven liars but the media still runs with it to fuel the Anti Trump hysteria which they profit from. There is no evidence that Trump made those comments, and everyone there at the time said he didn't. But go ahead and believe your fake news "sources". 

 

You're clearly confused and are conflating issues and not continuing anything apart from trying to tie what I said into the previous conversation about the silent majority, proving that you are either not following it very well or not understanding. Perhaps both? Once again (and for the final time because I am starting to tire of this), the silent majority being discussed in this context doesn't have anything to do with the results of the 2016 popular vote in California. Sigh.

 

And finally....

 

"Spinning the 2018 election results as anything but a Republican lose is a choice"

 

Okay this has got to be the most ridiculous thing I have read today. So let me get this straight. In the 2018 midterm elections, the Republicans WON the Senate (and actually picked up a few extra senate seats!), but according to you, this is "spinning the 2018 results that they lost". 

 

Got it

 

???? ???? ????

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, Masterton said:

 

Sigh... Firstly nobody is "trying" to tie anything to the Democrat Party. What I said very clearly was that the unrest was caused by political activists (and please try to pay attention here) who are not out there to re-elect Trump. It is very much the case, despite what CNN may tell you. Funny, I didn't see many Trump supporters burning things down. Not even going to debate this issue any further with you.

 

Er no. Nothing I said was "shown to be inaccurate and incorrect". There is no spinning, once again you are incorrect. What I did do was point out the real reason why Obama's nomination did not get confirmed by the senate of an opposition party majority. Not liking that fact, does not alter the facts in any way. End of.

 

No, but nice try at spinning what I actually said. Lies and fake stories are not "differing views". I do not accept lies and fake stories spun by a dishonest media staffed by Democrat Party activists. That does not mean I do not accept differing views. Get it straight and stop trying to misrepresent what I clearly wrote. Furthermore, you really are clueless if you think that the fake news outlets I mentioned before are "generally accepted media sources". What this really means is that almost any other source which is not them is not acceptable to you, and I have seen that proven time and time again on this very forum. 

 

Yes you are grasping. Desperately. Funny how every false story about Trump comes from "anonymous sources" and are never confirmed or verified and the sources never identified. Even the ones that are identified are proven liars but the media still runs with it to fuel the Anti Trump hysteria which they profit from. There is no evidence that Trump made those comments, and everyone there at the time said he didn't. But go ahead and believe your fake news "sources". 

 

You're clearly confused and are conflating issues and not continuing anything apart from trying to tie what I said into the previous conversation about the silent majority, proving that you are either not following it very well or not understanding. Perhaps both? Once again (and for the final time because I am starting to tire of this), the silent majority being discussed in this context doesn't have anything to do with the results of the 2016 popular vote in California. Sigh.

 

And finally....

 

"Spinning the 2018 election results as anything but a Republican lose is a choice"

 

Okay this has got to be the most ridiculous thing I have read today. So let me get this straight. In the 2018 midterm elections, the Republicans WON the Senate (and actually picked up a few extra senate seats!), but according to you, this is "spinning the 2018 results that they lost". 

 

Got it

 

???? ???? ????

 

You were definitely trying to tie the riots to the Democrats. The phrase you used was "Democrat party activists". Feel free to try and spin this.

 

As for the SC - once again, revisit your own post and words. What you claimed was "The supreme court can not effectively function with 8 justices, it is in the nation's best interest to nominate and appoint a replacement as soon as possible in order to get on with the ruling on the backlog of cases.". My replies included questioning the reasoning of your position, the legal procedure for dealing with related issues, while noting that the SC operates without a full roster whenever a new nomination comes up - taking weeks or months to confirm. The 2016 example was brought up both to demonstrate this point and to address the "in the nation's best interests" bit. Apparently not issues delaying it for as long as it takes until a candidate more in line with the right partisan credentials can be nominated and confirmed.

 

You do not, in fact, accept differing views, as can be seen in this exchange and many previous ones. You relentlessly push a hyper-partisan narrative which does not really allow for other views. That you do not accept facts is immaterial. The facts are not altered by your denial. Regarding your issues with media sources - are them "Democrat Party activists" supposedly staffing media outlets, the same ones who orchestrate the riots? (see first line of post)? Like it or not, the list of media sources you lambasted is generally accepted - certainly on this forum. Denying it won't change the situation. And again noted that no alternative sources offered, which leaves the question of where you get your 'facts' and news from.

 

Not every story about Trump comes from anonymous sources. There are, in fact, several books on offer right now by ex-staffers, family members, and reporters detailing many of these. Not sure how do you mean "not confirmed" - the story (or parts of it) was confirmed by multiple media venues. The sources remaining unidentified sort of goes with the concept of being anonymous sources. I don't know which ones you think were identified (or weren't they? You seem to contradict yourself) - or that are indeed "proven liars". Presumably, you could support this with anything but your own words, or maybe not. You can shout "fake news" but you'd have to do a better job making it stick.

 

It doesn't matter in which context you wish to claim the "silent majority", it still remains unclear what you are on about and what you base the notion on. That in your mind past election results have nothing to do with it is ridiculous. There was no such "silent majority" on these past occasions, and it lends credibility to the assumption there won't be such this time. As for California - it was you who brought this up, try and follow your own posts.

 

In 2018, the Republicans were expected to retain control of the Senate, so no surprises there. The main contest was centered on the House of Representatives. I remember quite vividly Trump supporters here claiming results will confirm Trump's 2016 victory, and so on. So spin away - the Republicans retained the Senate, as expected, and lost the House of Representatives, despite Trump supporters' assertions. Unless you live in an alternate reality, there wasn't much of victory atmosphere afterwards - at least not from the Trump supporters/Republicans posters.

 

[Masterton]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

It doesn't matter in which context you wish to claim the "silent majority", it still remains unclear what you are on about and what you base the notion on. That in your mind past election results have nothing to do with it is ridiculous. There was no such "silent majority" on these past occasions, and it lends credibility to the assumption there won't be such this time. As for California - it was you who brought this up, try and follow your own posts

 

I am not even going to bother responding to any other points in your post because they are complete claptrap. You're trying desperately hard to win an argument whilst being clearly bereft of any knowledge and armed only with Democrat Party propaganda. It's pointless and I shan't bother. 

 

However for one final time, I will address the "silent majority" issue again for your benefit because you clearly don't understand what was being discussed. In fact, I proposed earlier that perhaps this was the case, but since then you have done nothing apart from prove me right. So let's try again shall we ? Firstly, I don't understand this obsession you seem to have with me and this topic. This was not my thread, I was not the one who brought the "silent majority" up, and in fact it was mentioned a few times before I commented. Just let it go man... Jeez. I only mentioned it in response to other posters when I merely gave examples of what may constitute the makeup of the silent majority they were talking about. And it most certainly does matter in what context it was referred to, and "it" seems to be very clear to everyone else except you. You are clearly confused, confounded and befuddled as to what was being discussed, evident by you continuing to babble on and on about it. Enough already. Consider this the final post on the subject. Perhaps someone else can explain it to you, I am done.

 

 

[earlinclaifornia]

10 hours ago, Smigel said:

So 66% of Republicans in 2016 thought that a republican president nomination for the vacant seat on the SC, was the most important reason voting republican in that election. 

That certainly does Not mean that those 66% of republican voters are single issue voters and they are not going to bother voting in this election because Trump has already had 2 nominations. 

If that's the extent of your conviction for a Biden victory, I think you are seriously deluded. 

Look you are obviously an American citizen living in America, so I wouldn't presume to tell you what's going on in your own country, but I refuse to believe your contention that if Trump and the senate go ahead with filling this vacancy, then republican voters will not bother to turn out, 

Sorry, but that to me is a ludicrous suggestion, particularly in this election, where there are many highly emotive and contentious issues at stake. 

 

Name calling me will not get your point any more valid here. We will see, which of the two of us knows the American voter then real soon. Interested in putting money on a bet by chance?

Edited September 25, 2020 by earlinclaifornia

[Damual Travesty]

On 9/22/2020 at 5:05 AM, Tug said:

I doubt he has the sielf discipline to hold off till Saturday he will need a distraction before then or just want to troll heck he’s allread calling Ruth’s kid a liar the dude is an absolute cad .noodle that’s trumps stock and trade smear innuendo lie it’s all he’s got but I’m sure you are correct in assuming the democrats will object 

Another useless insult post against the President of the United States who here is called an undisciplined troll and cad who lies and smears others. All of this because he is going to do his duty as President of the United States and pick a replacement for Supreme Court Justice who just passed away.

 

What would cause a human being who has zero to do with the situation to react this way? What could possibly motivate someone to take an interest like this in a routine matter such as this in a land foreign to his own?

[Damual Travesty]

21 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Name calling me will not get your point any more valid here. We will see, which of the two of us knows the American voter then real soon. Interested in putting money on a bet by chance?

I would take that bet, but for that its illegal to do so here, so I cannot but I would easily take it, if not restricted from doing so.

 

Between two Americans: 

 

No Republican President would survive the onslaught of hate from his own party for REFUSING to pick a conservative Justice as RBG replacement. The same thing would be true for a Democrat President who did not try to pick a suitable replacement if the shoe were on the other foot. That is obvious and you know it. I know you are an American and I know that you know what I just said is true, so "Come on man" !!!!!

[Cryingdick]

Tis has turned into a boring less charming version of C-span.

[Morch]

7 hours ago, Masterton said:

 

I am not even going to bother responding to any other points in your post because they are complete claptrap. You're trying desperately hard to win an argument whilst being clearly bereft of any knowledge and armed only with Democrat Party propaganda. It's pointless and I shan't bother. 

 

However for one final time, I will address the "silent majority" issue again for your benefit because you clearly don't understand what was being discussed. In fact, I proposed earlier that perhaps this was the case, but since then you have done nothing apart from prove me right. So let's try again shall we ? Firstly, I don't understand this obsession you seem to have with me and this topic. This was not my thread, I was not the one who brought the "silent majority" up, and in fact it was mentioned a few times before I commented. Just let it go man... Jeez. I only mentioned it in response to other posters when I merely gave examples of what may constitute the makeup of the silent majority they were talking about. And it most certainly does matter in what context it was referred to, and "it" seems to be very clear to everyone else except you. You are clearly confused, confounded and befuddled as to what was being discussed, evident by you continuing to babble on and on about it. Enough already. Consider this the final post on the subject. Perhaps someone else can explain it to you, I am done.

 

 

 

You are not going to respond to them other points because your lies and inconsistencies have been made plain.

 

As for the above - I have commented on the very same issue before you joined the topic, so it's not really about you. The issue was raised by another Trump supporters and rightfully questioned by myself and others. That poster could no more provide a coherent reasoning for the 'silent majority' claim, then you can. Both end up with mumbo jumbo of irrelevant nonsense, then its personal attacks, deflections and wild accusations. Even in the post above you cannot make your argument nor explain it's reasoning. That it wasn't "your thread" got nothing to do with anything.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Damual Travesty said:

Another useless insult post against the President of the United States who here is called an undisciplined troll and cad who lies and smears others. All of this because he is going to do his duty as President of the United States and pick a replacement for Supreme Court Justice who just passed away.

 

What would cause a human being who has zero to do with the situation to react this way? What could possibly motivate someone to take an interest like this in a routine matter such as this in a land foreign to his own?

 

No, the President would not have been called names if he wasn't carrying on in his usual manner. You and other Trump supporters expect the President to be treated with respect. Somehow, this failed to be applied to the behavior of the President himself.

 

What would cause you to assume posters have 'zero to do' with thing? Or go on about them possibly being foreigners? You can't have failed to notice that this forum's policy allows free discussion regardless of the nationalities involved. Your ongoing crusade on this matter is just a form of trolling.

[RoadWarrior371]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

No, the President would not have been called names if he wasn't carrying on in his usual manner. You and other Trump supporters expect the President to be treated with respect. Somehow, this failed to be applied to the behavior of the President himself.

 

What would cause you to assume posters have 'zero to do' with thing? Or go on about them possibly being foreigners? You can't have failed to notice that this forum's policy allows free discussion regardless of the nationalities involved. Your ongoing crusade on this matter is just a form of trolling.

Ok, your point is that words can hurt, and on less masculine forums that can be an all day topic.  Not used to that on this particular forum, going on for weeks.  LOL ????

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, RoadWarrior371 said:

Ok, your point is that words can hurt, and on less masculine forums that can be an all day topic.  Not used to that on this particular forum, going on for weeks.  LOL ????

 

I don't even know what you're on about. My point was that complaints about Trump being treated without much respect directly relate to the President's own conduct and style.

 

The other part related to poster's obsession with other's nationality and motivations for posting.

 

Hope this made things clearer for you.

[Masterton]

19 minutes ago, Morch said:

You are not going to respond to them other points because your lies and inconsistencies have been made plain.

 

As for the above - I have commented on the very same issue before you joined the topic, so it's not really about you. The issue was raised by another Trump supporters and rightfully questioned by myself and others. That poster could no more provide a coherent reasoning for the 'silent majority' claim, then you can. Both end up with mumbo jumbo of irrelevant nonsense, then its personal attacks, deflections and wild accusations. Even in the post above you cannot make your argument nor explain it's reasoning. That it wasn't "your thread" got nothing to do with anything.

 

Zzzzzzzz ????

[Smigel]

9 hours ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Name calling me will not get your point any more valid here. We will see, which of the two of us knows the American voter then real soon. Interested in putting money on a bet by chance?

Where in my post did I call you a name?. 

What are your proposals for this bet.? 

[earlinclaifornia]

2 hours ago, Smigel said:

Where in my post did I call you a name?. 

What are your proposals for this bet.? 

Do you read your own posts? I think you are seriously deluded

1000USD I can have a third party hold both of bet and release to the winner.

[Smigel]

1 hour ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Do you read your own posts? I think you are seriously deluded

1000USD I can have a third party hold both of bet and release to the winner.

Have you been at the sherry Earl .? Saying that you are seriously deluded is not calling you a name, it's a comment regarding your mental state. 

So I can see the stake is 1000 usd

I also asked you what the terms were. 

I ask that because with mail in voting I cannot see any way that the result is going to be known on Nov 3. 

Add to that the fact that Hillary and the 600 or so lawyers will not allow Biden to concede under any circumstances. 

The Democrats are also pushing the narrative that Trump will refuse to leave the White House. 

There are many scenarios that could play out here. 

The legitimacy of the declared winner could drag on for months. 

Over to you. 

[plentyofnuttin]

6 minutes ago, Smigel said:

 

The Democrats are also pushing the narrative that Trump will refuse to leave the White House. 

 

And so is Trump?

[plentyofnuttin]

6 minutes ago, Smigel said:

Add to that the fact that Hillary and the 600 or so lawyers will not allow Biden to concede under any circumstances. 

Another case of Hillaryitis.

[Kelsall]

It's Amy.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amy-coney-barrett-trump-supreme-court-intended-pick-nominates/

Edited September 25, 2020 by Kelsall

[earlinclaifornia]

10 hours ago, Smigel said:

Have you been at the sherry Earl .? Saying that you are seriously deluded is not calling you a name, it's a comment regarding your mental state. 

So I can see the stake is 1000 usd

I also asked you what the terms were. 

I ask that because with mail in voting I cannot see any way that the result is going to be known on Nov 3. 

Add to that the fact that Hillary and the 600 or so lawyers will not allow Biden to concede under any circumstances. 

The Democrats are also pushing the narrative that Trump will refuse to leave the White House. 

There are many scenarios that could play out here. 

The legitimacy of the declared winner could drag on for months. 

Over to you. 

The only reason trump wants this to be an unclear result is he knows he lost. I expect  clear Biden win no later than the 10th. Hope is all that is left, put a fork in it, done already. Another poster wanted to bet he said.

[BobBKK]

On 9/22/2020 at 7:53 PM, Morch said:

 

What 'backlash'?

 

Even if the lead is smaller than advertised (and I think that's a fair assessment), it's still there. Trump did win the most votes in 2016 - and that was when he was a relatively unknown quality, and while running vs. a more controversial candidate. Following that, Republicans failed in the 2018 elections. These ought to give some clue as to how things stand.

 

 

 

 

the backlash of BLM/Antifa type 'liberals' who think they are 'holier than thou' they can be very, very nasty.

[Morch]

33 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

the backlash of BLM/Antifa type 'liberals' who think they are 'holier than thou' they can be very, very nasty.

 

So you're somehow alleging pollsters are "BLM/Antifa type 'liberals'"? That is, disregarding your dishonest lumping together of BLM, Antifa and liberals.

Edited September 26, 2020 by Morch

[polpott]

40 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

the backlash of BLM/Antifa type 'liberals' who think they are 'holier than thou' they can be very, very nasty.

Nowhere near as nasty as the KKK, white supremacist groups, NRA and various other groups supported by Trump.

[CorpusChristie]

2 minutes ago, polpott said:

Nowhere near as nasty as the KKK, white supremacist groups, NRA and various other groups supported by Trump.

Fake news from you  again : Trump doesnt support the KKK

[polpott]

8 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

Fake news from you  again : Trump doesnt support the KKK

He's the Imperial Wizard.

[CorpusChristie]

14 minutes ago, polpott said:

He's the Imperial Wizard.

Could you clarify whether you are being serious or humorous ?

[bluehippie]

On 9/25/2020 at 11:29 AM, earlinclaifornia said:

Do you read your own posts? I think you are seriously deluded

1000USD I can have a third party hold both of bet and release to the winner.

Betting, AKA gambling is illegal in the kingdom? That's a no-no. Do you recall the geriatric bridge club arrests in the sea side swamp Pattaya.

[Scott]

An inflammatory post has been removed.  Continue and face a suspension.   Keep it civil.