If I had the choice between who I’d like my children to be more like, it would be Obama easily.
As long as you didn't want to cling to your guns and Bible.
If I had the choice between who I’d like my children to be more like, it would be Obama easily.
I'm not convinced that those presidents have held to those, much less clung to either of those items.As long as you didn't want to cling to your guns and Bible.
Lenin called them "useful idiots" for a reason".*to your face
Then when they're behind your back and in the shadows, they vote to effectively end your life. They're evil people who can smile, nothing more.
uhhhh... yeah, not trueIt proves how ignorant Biden is, as neanderthals were more intelligent than homo-sapiens at the time.
Never said that anything you think should be in place would be unconstitutional. What I have stated is there currently are no laws requiring a candidate to prove their eligibility. What do you think is currently in place to ascertain eligibility? I have no idea how a person can verify their eligibility under the current status, but did propose ways that it could be done. Including having your state government write/pass/sign into law a bill requiring a candidate to provide proof before they are put on the ballot, or perhaps before their electors are appointed. That would be IMO constitutional, and I would have no problem with it.So basically what you are saying is you have no idea how we are to ascertain that constitutional eligibility but that any suggestions we think are in place or should be are unconstitutional.
You get lumped in with the left because you argue their points. Like this one, it is heads you win tails I lose...
uhhhh... yeah, not true
You said Neanderthals WERE more intelligent. That’s a statement of “fact,” that simply isn’t true. And a larger brain doesn’t default to being smarter. The processes of said brain, when comparing species, factor inNever said that anything you think should be in place would be unconstitutional. What I have stated is there currently are no laws requiring a candidate to prove their eligibility. What do you think is currently in place to ascertain eligibility? I have no idea how a person can verify their eligibility under the current status, but did propose ways that it could be done. Including having your state government write/pass/sign into law a bill requiring a candidate to provide proof before they are put on the ballot, or perhaps before their electors are appointed. That would be IMO constitutional, and I would have no problem with it.
How do you know Trump was constitutionally eligible?
I'm not arguing the lefts points, I'm discussing facts and the law. Fact is there is currently no requirement for a candidate to prove their eligibility.
uhhhh...possibly true. Neanderthals had larger brains, and were quite possibly as smart as if not smarter than homo sapiens sapiens.
Rethinking Neanderthals
Research suggests they fashioned tools, buried their dead, maybe cared for the sick and even conversed. But why, if they were so smart, did they disappear?www.smithsonianmag.com
No I didn't say that. I said it is possibly true. You made a statement of fact that it isn't true. Which is unknown if that is true or false. Same as Tombs statement of fact. But going by the available evidence, I'd say it's safe to say that they were most likely as intelligent if not more so than homo sapiens sapiens.You said Neanderthals WERE more intelligent. That’s a statement of “fact,” that simply isn’t true. And a larger brain doesn’t default to being smarter. The processes of said brain, when comparing species, factor in
“as Neanderthals WERE more intelligent that Homo Sapiens...”No I didn't say that. I said it is possibly true. You made a statement of fact that it isn't true. Which is unknown if that is true or false. Same as Tombs statement of fact. But going by the available evidence, I'd say it's safe to say that they were most likely as intelligent if not more so than homo sapiens sapiens.
Until there is legislation that is passed determining HOW constitutional eligibility is met, then deciding IF constitutional eligibility is met is decided by the VOTER, not the STATE. There IS a DECISION on the ELIGIBILITY of the candidate, it is just not made by the STATE.So basically what you are saying is you have no idea how we are to ascertain that constitutional eligibility but that any suggestions we think are in place or should be are unconstitutional.
You get lumped in with the left because you argue their points. Like this one, it is heads you win tails I lose...
Your logic fails. The constitution provides no mechanism, NONE, for determining if the ELIGIBILITY requirements are met.SIMPLE THE CONSTITUTION SAYS A PRESIDENT MUST MEET THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS, THEREFORE IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE CANDIDATE TO PROVE IT.
NO LAW NEEDED.
man I was just getting to writing a dissertation complete with Points to silence the troll critics by making the points clearThis is one of many stupid ass never ending discussions I'm glad not to be involved in.
I'm just not interested in discussions covering the same talking points over and over again that don't get anywhere or change any minds. It's like arguing for the sake of arguing just to be disagreeable. Seems to be a lot of that going on lately. I tend to stay off the merry-go-round in the amusement park.man I was just getting to writing a dissertation complete with Points to silence the troll critics by making the points clear
No that is not a direct quote from me. At least not an unedited quote from me. The closest direct quote from me would be, "and were quite possibly as smart as if not smarter than homo sapiens sapiens".“as Neanderthals WERE more intelligent that Homo Sapiens...”
-Direct Quote
Read your posts bro. That ain’t true.
Did Trump prove his eligibility? And if he did, how?SIMPLE THE CONSTITUTION SAYS A PRESIDENT MUST MEET THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS, THEREFORE IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE CANDIDATE TO PROVE IT.
NO LAW NEEDED.
Mea Culpa. That post was from Tombs. I was in error. You just kinda picked up where he left off, and I wasn't diligent is recognizing who was who.No that is not a direct quote from me. At least not an unedited quote from me. The closest direct quote from me would be, "and were quite possibly as smart as if not smarter than homo sapiens sapiens".
Learn to read user names bro. Hint not all white people post(look) alike.
So your saying all us white folk post alike, and you have a hard time telling the difference? ETA sorry if Tombs is not white and I assumed his race incorrectly.Mea Culpa. That post was from Tombs. I was in error. You just kinda picked up where he left off, and I wasn't diligent is recognizing who was who.
I previously explained, in this thread, how the constitution handles this, but getting to the answer was never the goal. Not digging up the post...Your logic fails. The constitution provides no mechanism, NONE, for determining if the ELIGIBILITY requirements are met.
The responsibility falls to the VOTER. It's called PERSONAL responsibility. If the VOTER does not want the responsibility, the the VOTER can pursue LEGISLATION that makes the GOVERNMENT do it for him/her/it.
Where is the legislation? Is there anything in any Republican held state pursuing such a thing? In 2010, the Republicans tried to do so at the national level and it failed. In 2016-2018.....they had all three and did they introduce legislation?
Anyone who has made a handgun sale without checking for a Birthdate does the exact same thing. The LAW says the BUYER must be 21.
Again if nothing is being done, I believe it's about the man, not the constitution.
He didn't answer a question that was never asked. That is significantly different than having the question asked, saying "**** you" and having the evidence sealed.Did Trump prove his eligibility? And if he did, how?
ETA How do we know you didn't vote for Biden? You could just be protesting to save face on this forum.