Biden popularity

[thompal]

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.

 

[JettaKnight]

As long as you didn't want to cling to your guns and Bible.

I'm not convinced that those presidents have held to those, much less clung to either of those items.

 

[IndyDave1776]

*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.

Lenin called them "useful idiots" for a reason".

 

[Kutnupe14]

It proves how ignorant Biden is, as neanderthals were more intelligent than homo-sapiens at the time.

uhhhh... yeah, not true

 

[Timjoebillybob]

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...

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.

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... yeah, not true

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

 

[Kutnupe14]

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.

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

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

 

[Timjoebillybob]

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

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.

 

[Kutnupe14]

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.

“as Neanderthals WERE more intelligent that Homo Sapiens...”
-Direct Quote

Read your posts bro. That ain’t true.

 

[foszoe]

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...

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.

If the voter is considered UNINFORMED then PASS legislation and let the government inform them. Personally, I LIKE to make my OWN decisions and NOT let the STATE make them for me.

Is anyone actively pushing for a birth certificate requirement that specifically outlines what piece of paper satisfies the constitutional age requirement thus solving this constitutional crisis? Where is their website? When was the last time they introduced legislation to do so?

If the only time its talked about or becomes a concern is when the discussion centers around Obama who PRODUCED a birth certificate that far right activists refused to accept then my opinion remains its about Obama for them not the constitution.

 

[Ingomike]

SIMPLE THE CONSTITUTION SAYS A PRESIDENT MUST MEET THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS, THEREFORE IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE CANDIDATE TO PROVE IT.

NO LAW NEEDED.

 

[foszoe]

SIMPLE THE CONSTITUTION SAYS A PRESIDENT MUST MEET THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS, THEREFORE IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE CANDIDATE TO PROVE IT.

NO LAW NEEDED.

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.

 

[KG1]

This is one of many stupid ass never ending discussions I'm glad not to be involved in.

 

[foszoe]

This is one of many stupid ass never ending discussions I'm glad not to be involved in.

man I was just getting to writing a dissertation complete with Points to silence the troll critics by making the points clear

 

[KG1]

man I was just getting to writing a dissertation complete with Points to silence the troll critics by making the points clear

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.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

“as Neanderthals WERE more intelligent that Homo Sapiens...”
-Direct Quote

Read your posts bro. That ain’t true.

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.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

SIMPLE THE CONSTITUTION SAYS A PRESIDENT MUST MEET THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS, THEREFORE IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE CANDIDATE TO PROVE IT.

NO LAW NEEDED.

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.

 

[Kutnupe14]

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.

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.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

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.

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.

 

[Ingomike]

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.

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...

 

[IndyDave1776]

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.

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.