Comments posted organically
SelectSmart.com Homepage
Display Order:

The silent Trump voter
Politics by HatetheSwamp     April 28, 2024 7:28 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (3 comments) [79 views]

Republicans: Do you know where your political donations are?
Politics by Curt_Anderson     April 24, 2024 6:12 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (13 comments) [451 views]

James Comer hopes for divine intervention to save him from embarrassing impeachment fiasco.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     April 24, 2024 7:05 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (5 comments) [138 views]

pb's Legal Goobers #s 2 & 3: The NY v Trump case is collapsing
Law by HatetheSwamp     April 26, 2024 3:43 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (6 comments) [54 views]

The Oval Office Oaf calls for "Four more years. Pause."
Entertainment by HatetheSwamp     April 24, 2024 2:56 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (6 comments) [110 views]

Trump, Giuliani, Meadows are unindicted co-conspirators in Michigan fake elector case, hearing reveals
Law by Curt_Anderson     April 24, 2024 4:53 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (4 comments) [66 views]

Turley: The "haymaker" in Supreme Court arguments. Chief Justice Roberts. "Openly mocking of DC Circuit."
Law by HatetheSwamp     April 26, 2024 5:59 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (8 comments) [194 views]

The latest general election polls from this weekend reveal something interesting.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     April 22, 2024 11:03 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (10 comments) [424 views]

So Ukraine got money.
Military by oldedude     April 24, 2024 3:58 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (6 comments) [99 views]

Donna may be getting her wish granted: Gateway Pundit to file for bankruptcy
Law by Curt_Anderson     April 24, 2024 7:28 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (1 comments) [39 views]

President selectors, pages, etc.
I'm just curious...
By Ponderer
December 22, 2023 6:41 am
Category: President

(0.0 from 0 votes)
Rules of the Post
SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com


Rate this article
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars
(5=best, 0=poor)

How many here believe...

...that it was the intention of those who wrote and implemented the 14th Amendment to only bar insurrectionists from state office, but were quite happy to not exclude insurrectionists who tried to overturn the United States government from becoming president...? That an insurrectionist should be kept from public state office, but an insurrectionist becoming president was all hunky dory with them?

How many here think that was their actual intention?

Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "I'm just curious...":

  1. by islander on December 22, 2023 7:06 am
    Not me, Pondy !! I don’t believe for a second that was their intention.

    We all saw Trump, in real time, commit the crime. At Trump’s impeachment trial the majority of the House and Senate found him guilty. However, here’s the problem, according to the rules for that kind of proceeding, they needed more votes than a majority of votes, and Congress gets to make their own rules. So technically, according to their rules, one can say he wasn’t found guilty even though millions of Americans watched him commit the crime.

    The conundrum is that even though we all saw him commit the crime he hasn’t yet been convicted.

  2. by HatetheSwamp on December 22, 2023 7:14 am

    Section 3:

    "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

    Says it all.

  3. by Ponderer on December 22, 2023 9:13 am

    Section 3:

    "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

    Says it all.


  4. by HatetheSwamp on December 22, 2023 9:35 am

    As they say at Harvard, "subjectivity is Veritas."

  5. by Indy! on December 22, 2023 9:52 am

    The law is clear, Trump is not allowed to run.

  6. by HatetheSwamp on December 22, 2023 9:57 am

    Indy.

    po predicted and doubled down on the prediction that the US Supreme Court will uphold the Colorado ruling.

    You going there, too?


  7. by Indy! on December 22, 2023 10:11 am

    I have no idea who is paying off the Clowns this time around, so there's no reason to bother.

  8. by oldedude on December 22, 2023 12:20 pm
    I thought it was very clear and an inane question (as usual).

    And where you're going next? Everyone has a right to due process.

  9. by Ponderer on December 23, 2023 5:53 am

    "I have no idea who is paying off the Clowns this time around, so there's no reason to bother.
    "     -Indy!

    Well, I'm a sucker for always expecting the Supremes to do the right thing. Consequently, I am quite often disappointed.

    You're right, Indy!. The Constitution is quite clear that Donald Trump is not qualified to run for president. But all these people think that if They want something that the Constitution doesn't allow, the Constitution can gofuck itself because They want it.

    Conservative Republicans are the most narcissistic, sociopathic people in this country. Laws only apply to Their enemies. Civil rights only belong to Them. The Constitution can be interpreted however They want it to be.

  10. by oldedude on December 23, 2023 6:13 am
    The Constitution is quite clear that Donald Trump is not qualified to run for president. But all these people think that if They want something that the Constitution doesn't allow, the Constitution can gofuck itself because They want it.
    Actually both you and indy "can gofuck itself because They want it." Because you refuse to actually read, I've made it easy for you (both). In section One, it explains the jurisdictions where the law applies. In this case, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." I don't think there's any issue between you and the rest of the US and legal beagles about that. AND.... you actually have to read the rest of it (in bold). It adds that you can't lynch a person by a mob without a trial. That's what you're trying to do.

    Section 3, we're all in agreement about that also. THAT'S why you actually have to read it before you vote on it!


    Fourteenth Amendment
    Section 1
    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


    Section 2
    Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.


    Section 3
    No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.


    Section 4
    The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.


    Section 5
    The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
    constitution.congress.gov

  11. by HatetheSwamp on December 23, 2023 6:16 am

    The Constitution is quite clear that Donald Trump is not qualified to run for president.

    po,

    I wish I'd investedmy younger years as wisely as you...

    ...and, looking back, could say thatI clerked at the US Supreme Court and am now an Ivy League law school prof. Alas, one can't go back in time.

  12. by Ponderer on December 23, 2023 6:16 am

    I know, od. It' couldn't be any clearer.


  13. by islander on December 23, 2023 6:46 am

    I’m curious about something too, Pondy…I wonder if OD or Hate has the courage to honestly tell us if they think Trump is guilty of the crimes we all watched him commit without trying to avoid answering using the old, “A person is to be presumed innocent until proven guilty” shield.

    You and I are both well aware that that only applies in a court of law and that we have the ability and the right to form our own opinions as to a person’s guilt or innocence. If My home were invaded, and I saw the perpetrators smash in the door…I would know they were guilty of that crime even before they went to court…It would be sheer nonsense to think I would presume that they were innocent until they were proven guilty in a court of law.

    I saw Trump commit the crime so of course I think he’s guilty.


  14. by HatetheSwamp on December 23, 2023 7:38 am

    I’m curious about something too, Pondy…I wonder if OD or Hate has the courage to honestly tell us if they think Trump is guilty of the crimes we all watched him commit without trying to avoid answering using the old, “A person is to be presumed innocent until proven guilty” shield.

    po, isle:

    Surprisingly, I have ended up agreeing with the J6 Committee. Trump did nuthin for 187 minutes.

    What the three of us agree on is that Donald Trump is despicable. But, as Indy and I have agreed since early on in his term, Trump is too slimy actually to be busted. You should never have gotten your hopes up.


    As far as insurrection is concerned, it's curious to me that even Jack Smith didn't change Trump with Insurrection.

    What is the legal definition of Insurrection as a crime.

  15. by oldedude on December 23, 2023 10:20 am
    isle- I didn't know you were in DC and the Whitehouse on J6😱 since you "saw Trump commit the crime so of course I think he’s guilty."

    And here I thought you were just an "artist." Wow.

    Lead- I do agree with Smith not charging trumpster with "Insurrection," "treason," or "sedition" is really interesting. If they had any sort of case, they would have gone for it. And as vague as sedition is legally defined, it really makes you wonder.


    Insurrection-
    Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
    law.cornell.edu
    law.cornell.edu

  16. by Indy! on December 23, 2023 10:23 am

    OD thinks copying and pasting makes us believe he's intelligent.

  17. by HatetheSwamp on December 23, 2023 10:29 am

    Thanks, OD.

    In that case, Trump would never be convicted of insurrection in a way that could survive appeal.

    He's despicable but he's not an insurrectionist.

  18. by islander on December 23, 2023 10:58 am

    ” I’m curious about something too, Pondy…I wonder if OD or Hate has the courage to honestly tell us if they think Trump is guilty of the crimes we all watched him commit without trying to avoid answering using the old, “A person is to be presumed innocent until proven guilty” shield.”

    So far no answer to the simple straightforward question.



  19. by islander on December 23, 2023 11:02 am

    "OD thinks copying and pasting makes us believe he's intelligent."

    LoL !! You got that right, Indy !! 🤣


  20. by HatetheSwamp on December 23, 2023 11:06 am

    So far, in the US, being despicable still ain't a crime and even the despicable are innocent until proven guilty.

    I personally didn't see Trump commit any crimes. All of pb's Legal Goobers suggest that Trump is extremely vulnerable on the documents charges.

    Still, unlike po and you, I didn't clerk at the US Supreme Court. I can only base my opinion on what the informed think.

    Just curious, isle. What crimes did you watch Trump commit?

  21. by Ponderer on December 23, 2023 12:15 pm

    "So far no answer to the simple straightforward question." -Isle

    Yeah. They seem to have no compunctions about going on and on and on and on about how they have christened it the Biden Crime Family with no evidence whatsoever. But Trump, with the mountains of evidence around his neck involving dozens of felonies, much of it the entire country has witnessed the blatant evidence of already...? Well... let's just wait and see what the courts think on that.

    The flaming bald-faced hypocrisy on these assholes is phenomenally gobsmacking.


  22. by oldedude on December 23, 2023 12:25 pm
    Contrary to the "artist" formally known as princess and isle, who don't cite anything and have extremely stupid "arguments" they can't support with fact.

    I also find that facts are the bane of your existence. When facts get presented, TAFKAP shifts to stupid arguments like ""OD thinks copying and pasting makes us believe he's intelligent."" At that point, you know it has nothing to defend itself.

    and isle doesn't have an original thought, so he'll agree to make itself look like one of the cool kids of the 2nd grade.

  23. by HatetheSwamp on December 23, 2023 12:25 pm

    First, po. You're humorless. Yet, still, Hunter is facing two indictments for crimes.

    And, while lovers of the Constitution understand that even baby-deniers like Hunter are innocent until proven guilty, the Crime Family joke is low-hanging fruit...for people capable of cracking...I'm guessing you don't get the pun...a smile.

    After all, there's documentary evidence that "that feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap" lied about knowing about Hunter and his business partners. Baha.

  24. by islander on December 23, 2023 12:33 pm

    Proof is evidence that convinces and it is cumulative. I saw and read
    the evidence as it piled up leading to Jan. 6 and I watched what happened ‘live’ as Trump’s supporters attacked our Capital in an attempt to stop the vote count based on their believing Trump’s lies that the election was stolen.

    Trump took an oath to protect the Constitution…How many hours did he sit back and watch his followers desecrate our Capital in an attempt to stop the vote count and overturn the election? Trump could have and should have gone out and stopped the attack immediately…He refused to do so despite those around him pleading with him to stop them.

    Violation of the Presidential Oath of Office is a "high crime or misdemeanor".

    You apparently think he is innocent I think he is guilty.



  25. by oldedude on December 23, 2023 3:08 pm
    Proof is evidence that convinces and it is cumulative. I saw and read
    the evidence as it piled up leading to Jan. 6 and I watched what happened ‘live’ as Trump’s supporters attacked our Capital in an attempt to stop the vote count based on their believing Trump’s lies that the election was stolen.

    Please read; I Can't Fathom Being a Citizen of the US and not Know What Due Process is
    You might get what you're continually missing. Something called "due process," a cornerstone of our constitution. (cited below)
    selectsmart.com

  26. by islander on December 23, 2023 4:43 pm

    oldedude wrote:

    Please read; I Can't Fathom Being a Citizen of the US and not Know What Due Process is
    You might get what you're continually missing. Something called "due process," a cornerstone of our constitution. (cited below)     ~ od

    We know what due process is, and we know what the Constitution says.

    Here is where I think you are somewhat confused.

    What we are doing here is NOT trying Donald trump in a court of law.

    Our opinions have no legal status, which is why what you have been posting is irrelevant and doesn’t apply here. What we are doing here is giving our own opinions on whether we think Donald Trump is guilty of what he has been accused of.

    There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids a private citizen from forming his or her own opinions. Those opinions have no bearing whatsoever on the legal status as to the guilty or not guilty conclusion of a defendant in a court of law. See post # 13


  27. by HatetheSwamp on December 23, 2023 4:53 pm

    Here is where I think you are somewhat confused.

    What we are doing here is NOT trying Donald trump in a court of law.

    The Colorado Supreme Court judged him guilty of the crime of insurrection without giving him the opportunity to confront his accusers.

  28. by islander on December 23, 2023 5:02 pm
    You are making the same mistake as od, Hate...

    We are giving our opinions. Listen to Mitch McConnell give his opinion, one with which I fully agree by the way. Apparently you don't agree with him but for some reason seem unable (or unwilling) to express your opinion.



  29. by islander on December 23, 2023 5:06 pm

    This should work:


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxRMoqNnfvw&t=61s

  30. by islander on December 23, 2023 5:08 pm

    Here it is. This should make it easier.

     View Video

  31. by Curt_Anderson on December 23, 2023 5:14 pm
    Hi Islander,
    I fixed your youtube link while you were. If you are on your laptop (not a smartphone) looking at youtubes, there is a "share" button below the video. Click that. There is an option to "embed" the video in a page like this. Click that and copy & paste the resulting code into your comment.


  32. by islander on December 23, 2023 6:43 pm


    Thanks Curt !

  33. by HatetheSwamp on December 24, 2023 3:41 am

    isle,

    If we all had a $ for every time you posted that, we'd all be as rich as Curt.

    You'll probably recall that your first time, I replied saying that Mitch was noting that Trump did nuthin impeachable and that he'd vote not to impeach. I was right. He didn't. EFFINMitch was right.

    Trump is despicable. He's a crook. But. He's too slimy to be a criminal.

  34. by islander on December 24, 2023 6:01 am

    Thanks again Curt, I like the method of embedding the video in the post rather than just posting a link to the video site.

    I don’t like McConnell one bit but I can still praise him when and if he does the right thing.

    In the video McConnell states in no uncertain terms Trumps responsibility for 1/6 ;

    ”There’s no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it.”

    He also explains why, at the impeachment trial, Trump could not be found guilty and removed from office for what happened on 1/6. As he explained, Trump was no longer in office at the time of the trial and Congress cannot impeach a private citizen which of course, is what Trump was.







  35. by HatetheSwamp on December 24, 2023 6:15 am

    ”There’s no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it.”

    "Provoking the events" not "leading an insurrection."

    Trump is despicable, isle. OD and pb were on SS while the mostly peaceful J6 riot was taking place...AND WE DENOUNCED IT.

    There is a difference between irrational TrumpHate and the sort of vigorous and rational political opposition life in a constitutional republic demands. Speaking for both of us, you're welcome to join us.

  36. by oldedude on December 24, 2023 6:51 am
    We know what due process is, and we know what the Constitution says.

    Here is where I think you are somewhat confused.

    What we are doing here is NOT trying Donald trump in a court of law.

    Our opinions have no legal status, which is why what you have been posting is irrelevant and doesn’t apply here. What we are doing here is giving our own opinions on whether we think Donald Trump is guilty of what he has been accused of.

    There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids a private citizen from forming his or her own opinions. Those opinions have no bearing whatsoever on the legal status as to the guilty or not guilty conclusion of a defendant in a court of law.

    I don't think you knew anything about due process prior to me posting that thread. I reference the book I recommended to curt, you, and the other "artist" formally known as princess.

    The point has continually been about the Colorado law keeping trumpster off the ballot in CO (et al) WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. That's different than a simple "I watched him commit a crime therefore he needs to be hung by the neck until dead. dead. dead." po would've thrown in many more f bombs, but you get the message. You just climb on the homer bandwagon and agree. And for the most part, the sheep have claimed the CO ruling was perfectly legal regardless of the DUE PROCESS required by the constitution. You're now changing that (deflecting when being proven wrong). I don't make any of this up. I was told to show po and curt where in the amendments (because it wouldn't be in the "constitution" or laws) it said that. AND I had to show it several times. THEN, because people still didn't get it, I had to do a separate thread to explain it to you (all) on a second-grade level.

    The dims know they can't beat trumpster in a fair fight, so they're doing everything they can to get him elected. Regardless of the law. They're no better than Putin.


  37. by HatetheSwamp on December 24, 2023 7:06 am

    I don't think you knew anything about due process prior to me posting that thread. I reference the book I recommended to curt, you, and the other "artist" formally known as princess.

    OD,

    I wish I could agree with you but I think isle, especially and in particular, hates America. Life in Banana Republic, I think, would suit him perfectly fine.

    T'other day on Fox, someone asked, if, in Mexico, a state court would remove the leading figure in the opposition political party from an election ballot, would Americans be okay with that. T'answer is, of course not. But, when four Dem judges in a US state do that to Trump, our woke, white, electric limousine lovin progressive Swampcultists can't stop cheering.

    Idiots or hypocrites?...

    ...or, AmericaHaters?


  38. by oldedude on December 24, 2023 7:15 am
    Okay, good points. It seems the most unknowledgeable in our laws hate them the most, and the US. I think Haiti would be a good place to experience for awhile. Don't you think?

  39. by islander on December 24, 2023 7:54 am

    In the video McConnell states in no uncertain terms that Trumps responsibility for 1/6 ; ”There’s no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it.”


    Provoke Synonyms *
    • arouse
    • encourage
    • excite
    • fire (up)
    • impassion
    • incite
    • instigate
    • move
    • pique
    • rev (up)
    • spark
    • stimulate

    * Merriam Webster Dictionary

  40. by Ponderer on December 25, 2023 7:39 am

    Islander, give it up. You are simply never going to ever get Hate to stop supporting and defending Donald Trump. He says that Trump is despicable, but everything Trump does is perfectly fine with him, even though he says that Trump is despicable. No matter what crimes Trump commits, Hate believes he should be allowed to get away with them. You are never going to get him to stop worshiping and throwing himself on any grenade tossed in the direction of his Mango Messiah. You just never will.


  41. by HatetheSwamp on December 26, 2023 4:21 am

    Islander, give it up. You are simply never going to ever get Hate to stop supporting and defending Donald Trump.

    po,

    Ahhhhhhhhhhh, if you only had a funny bone, eh. If that was a joke it'd be a kneeslapper. If it wasn't the content of 10%+ of your posts it'd be fine. But, c'mon man, gimme a break!

    Here's the thing. Back in the day. When Mitch went to the Senate floor, to make that statement, pb splained that he was signaling that he'd vote against impeachment... which he did. I was exactly right.

    I know how to listen to English... and, I wish isle and you'd be able to, too.

    Trump is despicable...

    ...but the EFFINFounders wrote into the Constitution the grounds for impeachment. Despicability ain't one of em.

    My Xmas hope for you is that Donald Trump could be surgically removed from your brain.

    I wish you mental health.

  42. by islander on December 26, 2023 6:21 am

    "You are simply never going to ever get Hate to stop supporting and defending Donald Trump." ~ Ponderer

    Don't worry !! I have no illusions as far as that goes. I think we both know why od and Hate post here. 😀

  43. by Ponderer on December 26, 2023 7:16 am

    Yeah, Isle. They make no secret of it.

  44. by oldedude on December 26, 2023 7:25 am
    I find it interesting when I support pedojoe and his decisions. Those are forgotten before the ink dries on the post. Things like how he's done so far in Ukraine, which I've supported much to the dismay of many conservatives. But again, that doesn't matter. It's a lot like the sheep looking through beer goggles at a bar here. You see what you want to, and nothing else matters.

  45. by HatetheSwamp on December 26, 2023 9:47 am

    Don't worry !! I have no illusions as far as that goes. I think we both know why od and Hate post here. 😀

    Neato. Please share.

  46. by Ponderer on December 26, 2023 10:00 am

    "I find it interesting when I support pedojoe and his decisions. Those are forgotten before the ink dries on the post. Things like how he's done so far in Ukraine, which I've supported much to the dismay of many conservatives. But again, that doesn't matter." -olde dude

    That's great to hear, od. Sorry I missed all that.


    It's just that stuff like that doesn't negate how you seem to support and condone, or at least defend the heinous things Trump has done and is accused of. It's like you can't even allow yourself to imagine that he just may well be guilty of every single thing he is accused of. You can't even allow yourself to imagine such a reality. So you hide behind all this effusive and irrelevant obfuscation and declarations of impartiality to somehow insulate you from that universe before you absolutely positively are forced by the total stark lack of any conceivable doubt to face it.

    Way back at the beginning of Trump's reign, I said how I supported his meeting with Kim in North Korea. He eventually turned it into an embarrassing circus, but I agreed with the initial contact. I got no points for that at the time or since either.

  47. by oldedude on December 26, 2023 10:24 am
    It's just that stuff like that doesn't negate how you seem to support and condone, or at least defend the heinous things Trump has done and is accused of. It's like you can't even allow yourself to imagine that he just may well be guilty of every single thing he is accused of.

    My goal is only NOT to make a mockery of the justice system. There is a lot he's guilty of. I also think TDS has a large part of what he's charged with. And then there's the flagrant Constitutional violations DOJ continues to do against him. And many TDS'rs still believe the Steele Dossier to be true, because it took so long for the left MSM to pull their heads out of their butts. That is the true threat to our Republic. And I will continue to call it out regardless of who's the victim of their BS. If it happens to pedojoe, I'll be right there. Obomber, same thing. What matters to me is having everyone under the same set of laws. It's almost been 10 years now, that have been trials (or non-trials) by political whim.

  48. by Ponderer on December 26, 2023 1:41 pm

    See. That's what I'm talking about.

  49. by HatetheSwamp on December 26, 2023 1:58 pm

    po,

    The first step in getting help is admitting that you have a problem.

    OD ain't a Trump supporter. He's made that clear in scores of ways.

  50. by oldedude on December 26, 2023 3:23 pm
    See. That's what I'm talking about.

    WTF?

  51. by HatetheSwamp on December 27, 2023 3:20 am

    OD. They don't call it derangement for nuthin.

  52. by islander on December 27, 2023 4:46 am

    Hate…You’re embarrassed by Trump’s crude and vulgar behavior and you might even cringe at his lies. You’ll even say that you despise him…but that has never stopped you from voting for him. You’re stuck having to defend him while at the same time saying you’re not. You’ll accept anything Trump does, and you’ll work with him and cunningly spread his lies in order to insure Biden does not get re-elected.

    That’s why you’re a Trump enabler and a Trump apologist.

  53. by HatetheSwamp on December 27, 2023 5:54 am

    Hate…You’re embarrassed by Trump’s crude and vulgar behavior and you might even cringe at his lies. You’ll even say that you despise him…but that has never stopped you from voting for him.

    See, Curt!

    This is exactly why I say you should pass a few $Jacksons to someone who'd have fun with a MAGA role play. SS has become a place of irrationality. Insanity.


    isle,

    I despise Trump. I support Ron DeSantis for President... still. And, I've promised to vote third party in 024. I state that regularly. Repeatedly.

    Are you merely lying... to yourself?... or has your deranged TrumpHate become so debilitating that you no longer can access the real world!!!!?

Go To Top

Comment on: "I'm just curious..."


* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:

SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
 SelectSmart.com home page