Biden popularity

[foszoe]

The constitution lays out the eligibility requirements. It also lays out the redress of grievances. Why on earth would you believe that I have the burden of proof to prove you are ineligible and if I can't you are then constitutionally eligible?

The second amendment does not specify ANY eligibility requirements, hence we have infringement by governments with age requirements. Logically if they can make a 21 age limit stick, why can't it be raised to 91?

Several time I have laid out the process to get that done. I don't believe a partisan crowd meets the process.

I do believe it is in the realm of the courts and legislators. Who decided the limitations on the first?

If the republicans, who tried to pass legislation to clear this mess up, believed it was a constitutional crisis in need of resolution they had 2016-2018 to do so. Why didn't they? Well that's speculation but apparently it wasn't a big deal anymore.

This is concrete though, how many here were writing letters to representatives and senators to accomplish that goal?

 

[BugI02]

So the exact opposite of how everything else is treated in the US pretty much? In just about every other instance the accuser bears the burden of proof.

So, when the officer initiating a traffic stop asks for proof of insurance, it's up to him to prove you don't if you fail to show that proof? Who knew?

I thought they just charged you with being uninsured and it was up to the accused to prove they were innocent of that charge (via presenting needed documentation in court, no less). And that happens - in America! - every ****ing day. So, an exception to 'how everything else is treated in the US' that disproves where I think you want to go with this

Or, why do you - a (presumed) American - need a passport (which you have to show a birth certificate to obtain)? Shouldn't they just take your word that you're an American citizen? Is it incumbent on them to prove you're not in order to deny you re-entry?

Your argument is only slightly better than 'Does it say in the constitution that a presidential candidate has to show a birth certificate?' and I'm being generous with that descriptor

 

[BugI02]

Can someone spell out for me the requirements/diagnoses needed for each stage?

No. It doesn't say anything about TDS in the constitution, so we figure why make the good faith effort if you ultimately won't accept it

 

[BugI02]

I wish someone would tie their justification directly to the constitution. I made a long post about it with several points.

Called it

 

[Ingomike]

Do you believe social security is constitutional or covered by the constitution? I certainly don't believe the latter. Especially like voting and being president.

It's not that they are challenged, its by whom? Courts and Legislators.

First off I was replying to the "everything else" quote, and offering examples.

And here is where the courts have neglected their duty with the specious "standing" argument. I would be shocked if there were not many citizen cases, on BHO eligibility, that the courts did not take up and dismissed for "standing".

This topic has allowed me to see the perfect parallels between the Obummer constitutional eligibility and the election aftermath and the dereliction of responsibility by the courts.

 

[foszoe]

No. It doesn't say anything about TDS in the constitution, so we figure why make the good faith effort if you ultimately won't accept it

What is the point you are trying to make with this post?

 

[BugI02]

Who decided whether you did or not? Citizens, courts, or legislators?

Now apply that concept to fraudulent presidential elections and you might get some traction

 

[BugI02]

What is the point you are trying to make with this post?

That pedants are pedantic?

 

[foszoe]

First off I was replying to the "everything else" quote, and offering examples.

And here is where the courts have neglected their duty with the specious "standing" argument. I would be shocked if there were not many citizen cases, on BHO eligibility, that the courts did not take up and dismissed for "standing".

This topic has allowed me to see the perfect parallels between the Obummer constitutional eligibility and the election aftermath and the dereliction of responsibility by the courts.

Again not a legal scholar....

But wouldn't the Republican party have the most standing to sue?

Why didn't they?

Also, if the accusers have widely varying stories why should they have credence?

Again I say everyone of you would want me on the jury in a capital crime case against you. Or even a civil suit where you could lose everything you worked for.

 

[foszoe]

That pedants are pedantic?

Can you dumb that down to the level you think I am at? Thanks.

 

[foszoe]

Now apply that concept to fraudulent presidential elections and you might get some traction

Up until todays posts, I was enjoying our conversation. back to the one liners. Fine I can do that too.

 

[Ingomike]

Again not a legal scholar....

But wouldn't the Republican party have the most standing to sue?

Why didn't they?

Also, if the accusers have widely varying stories why should they have credence?

Again I say everyone of you would want me on the jury in a capital crime case against you. Or even a civil suit where you could lose everything you worked for.

Parties are not constitutionally recognized. Anyone should be able to sue to force a candidate to prove eligibility. So only if the uniparty members of the Republican Party can challenge the eligibility of a candidate or president?

Who cares about accusers stories? The candidate should prove it, not the other way around.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Maybe you should talk about what is your political outlook instead of dragging people when they get it wrong.

So it should go something like this:

INGO: Kut believes blah, blah, and blah.

Kut: Huh? No I don't, I believe this other thing.

INGO: Oh. I see.

Jamil: Just be straight up.

Yeah, I’ve done that. You’ve got 2 of 3 right though. The part were it goes “Oh, I see,” never happens. You're not dumb Jamil, you know exactly what my political outlook is. But then again... thinking on it, maybe you don't maybe you think similarly a number of left-wings, in that they think a large portion of Trump supporters have underlying beliefs they are reluctant to say.

 

[BugI02]

Yeah, I’ve done that. You’ve got 2 of 3 right though. The part were it goes “Oh, I see,” never happens. You're not dumb Jamil, you know exactly what my political outlook is. But then again... thinking on it, maybe you don't maybe you think similarly a number of left-wings, in that they think a large portion of Trump supporters have underlying beliefs they are reluctant to say.

I would give you good odds that, absent any prior consultation, if jamil enumerated what he truly believes your political outlook is you would not agree with or accept it. I doubt that would be a unique situation, either - it would apply to almost any comparison of two individuals on INGO

You think you've laid down plenty of breadcrumbs to figure out who you really are, and everyone else just thinks you're a messy eater. People are unlikely to do the real work it takes to truly understand another that isn't family

 

[Hatin Since 87]

For 4 years we were told if we support trump it makes us a racist, misogynistic, nazi, homophobic, transphobic, white supremacists.

Now it only seems fair to apply that standard to Biden supporters. If you support Biden you are anti-2A, a pedophile, and a war monger.


Also, this thread is about Biden popularity. I will try my hardest out of respect for T Lex to not engage in any discussion outside of that topic.

My issue with Biden supposedly being the most popular president in history is he had literally no support from the beginning. Hell, they had to rig the primary for him in states. Nobody at rallies, nobody watched his speeches, nobody cared about the man. He didn’t even attempt to campaign... I believe because he knew what was going on, so it wasn’t needed.

Even recently, his speeches get next to no views. The argument can be made “he won because people voting against trump” but that’s plain false. Trump GAINED votes from 2016, and a lot of people voted AGAINST him in 2016. People who were weary of voting for him in 2016 voted for him in 2020. I don’t know anyone personally that voted for him in 2016, not knowing how he would be as president, then didn’t do so in 2020.


TL;DR

Biden sucks and isn’t popular at all. MSM attempts to make him seem he has support he doesn’t. Nobody watches his speeches, nobody attended his rallies, nobody cares about a man that has to have his wife save him during interviews. He isn’t the most popular president in history, he had to rig the primary to even win that.

Fake news.

 

[foszoe]

For 4 years we were told if we support trump it makes us a racist, misogynistic, nazi, homophobic, transphobic, white supremacists.

Now it only seems fair to apply that standard to Biden supporters. If you support Biden you are anti-2A, a pedophile, and a war monger.


Also, this thread is about Biden popularity. I will try my hardest out of respect for T Lex to not engage in any discussion outside of that topic.

My issue with Biden supposedly being the most popular president in history is he had literally no support from the beginning. Hell, they had to rig the primary for him in states. Nobody at rallies, nobody watched his speeches, nobody cared about the man. He didn’t even attempt to campaign... I believe because he knew what was going on, so it wasn’t needed.

Even recently, his speeches get next to no views. The argument can be made “he won because people voting against trump” but that’s plain false. Trump GAINED votes from 2016, and a lot of people voted AGAINST him in 2016. People who were weary of voting for him in 2016 voted for him in 2020. I don’t know anyone personally that voted for him in 2016, not knowing how he would be as president, then didn’t do so in 2020.


TL;DR

Biden sucks and isn’t popular at all. MSM attempts to make him seem he has support he doesn’t. Nobody watches his speeches, nobody attended his rallies, nobody cares about a man that has to have his wife save him during interviews. He isn’t the most popular president in history, he had to rig the primary to even win that.

Fake news.

You know I don't deny much of what you post here if anything but I don't believe it happened here on INGO. Even if it did it wasn't to the level of mainstream media or all of the others.


The Merry-Go-Round we have going on here is basically the majority try to fit the minority into the box that they've seen outside in the real world not here.

The problems arise when people here are treated the way the majority would like to treat everyone outside of here that they view as enemies. It's on even simple thing people here will decide who you voted for without ever asking but just based on you disagree with Trump. It's a microcosm of 1984 in reverse.

People here told me if you spell out what you say what you think what you believe then people will understand what you trying to say or ask questions about it. But it's still the same old same old and that stood out to me the most when Jamil replied.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I wish someone would tie their justification directly to the constitution. I made a long post about it with several points.

How were such things as constitutional meaning decided before by a group of citizens deciding or courts and legislators?


Driving is a privilege issued by the State. It doesn't seem apples to apples.

When I read it, it sound's very similar to the democratic argument that a 2nd amendment is a right but we you need to prove you are a proper person and carry your license to carry at all times.

I made an example of the 2nd saying if you are stopped by a LEO solely because you are open carrying a pistol, If he asks your name and to see your paper proof, are you required to show it?

Who decided whether you did or not? Citizens, courts, or legislators?

All of my posts on this birth certificate issue have been about how the world really is not how it should be. That includes these questions.

OK. The Constitution establishes criteria for eligibility. Such criteria are of no use unless affirmative proof is required in the case of there being a question.

It is obvious you are being argumentative for entertainment. I do not believe you are stupid enough to believe in the notion of right and proper you are suggesting with your question

 

[Hatin Since 87]

You know I don't deny much of what you post here if anything but I don't believe it happened here on INGO. Even if it did it wasn't to the level of mainstream media or all of the others.


The Merry-Go-Round we have going on here is basically the majority try to fit the minority into the box that they've seen outside in the real world not here.

The problems arise when people here are treated the way the majority would like to treat everyone outside of here that they view as enemies. It's on even simple thing people here will decide who you voted for without ever asking but just based on you disagree with Trump. It's a microcosm of 1984 in reverse.

People here told me if you spell out what you say what you think what you believe then people will understand what you trying to say or ask questions about it. But it's still the same old same old and that stood out to me the most when Jamil replied.

Agree and disagree.


I think people are skeptical of intentions. I think, if you read through previous posts, some are done with no other intention than to stir the pot.

For example... there was a post with a link in a thread a couple weeks ago about Biden already saying he WILL pass gun control and assault weapons. The reply was “You will probably be mad because I would happily vote for him again”. This is a gun forum first and foremost... so in a reply about an article of the president expressing his intentions to pass gun control, the reply is to tell someone “they’d be mad” because “I would happily vote for him again”? That’s obvious trolling, no matter how you frame it. That’s the type of comments that make people on edge, and they’re not going to give any respect to people who are just trying to **** in their Cheerios.


Another thing, and I know this isn’t what we’re going for here, but every single major platform on the internet is dominated by leftists. Go on Reddit and post something positive about trump, you get banned or doxxed or trolled. Same on Twitter. Same on Facebook. Most users here don’t use any other platform because of that reason. A gun forum, that is “indiana” gun owners, is supposed to be a place where citizens of our great state go to discuss, advocate for, and defend our 2A. The mods have done an awesome job by allowing people from all over the world come here and join those talks. They allow a political section. They allow opposing views and any political preferences. They even allow us to occasionally get rowdy and bent out of shape. I don’t understand the need to come to a forum that’s dedicated to the 2A and tell people you’d happily vote for the man telling the country he’s going to ban assault weapons and regulate firearms more. That isn’t advocating for the 2A... that’s trying to rile people up, plain and simple. There’s no other reason. This is the one place many of us have on the internet to converse and discuss, to have someone intentionally throw rocks at our house every day is tiresome.



And damn you!!!! I said I was sticking to Biden’s popularity out of respect for TLex. He probably thinks I’ve disrespected him now! Sorry Lex. I’ll add something to get back on track.

Biden sucks. He’s not the most popular POTUS in history, he wasn’t even the most popular democrat in the party. Although he may be the most popular in his psychiatric ward.

 

[BugI02]

You know I don't deny much of what you post here if anything but I don't believe it happened here on INGO. Even if it did it wasn't to the level of mainstream media or all of the others.


The Merry-Go-Round we have going on here is basically the majority try to fit the minority into the box that they've seen outside in the real world not here.

The problems arise when people here are treated the way the majority would like to treat everyone outside of here that they view as enemies. It's on even simple thing people here will decide who you voted for without ever asking but just based on you disagree with Trump. It's a microcosm of 1984 in reverse.

Wouldn't a 'microcosm in reverse' actually be a macrocosm, ie: everything else

People here told me if you spell out what you say what you think what you believe then people will understand what you trying to say or ask questions about it. But it's still the same old same old and that stood out to me the most when Jamil replied.

Saying unambiguously what you believe might go something like:

"I believe Obama indeed met the constitutional requirements of eligibility for the office of president, despite legally enshrouding every fact about his past possible and vigorously resisting any effort to verify those requirements"

Under no circumstances can I conceive of it looking like:

"But the constitution doesn't specifically say he has to show a birth certificate"

It certainly seems like you are arguing Obama was legitimate, despite a near total lack of proof

 

[IndyDave1776]

I found this sign of Biden's popularity in Ohio.