ZRX1200
a year ago

true, true.
but a job is a job...have you packed yet?

frankj1 wrote:




And $20 is $20 right?
View All Posts by User
Robert Sanders 1
a year ago
Kamala Harris is the LEGAL Democratic nominee for the 2024 presidency. It is easy to understand that Kamala Harris followed the rules. The poster wrote the truth in an understandable manner. It is inelegant, preposterous, and untruthful to call her nomination a coup. You forgot to do the math and came up with an erroneous conclusion.
View All Posts by User
MACS
a year ago

The only people really complaining are Republicans and Trumpers.
They are afraid she could win.

rfenst wrote:



I have absolutely no fear that she could win, unless they cheat... like they did last time.
View All Posts by User
drglnc
a year ago

And $20 is $20 right?

ZRX1200 wrote:



Damn inflation... it used to be 15 bucks little man, put that $h!t in my hand
View All Posts by User
jeebling
a year ago

if you read the links, or even what I c&p'd from them, you'd realize this has been in place for the last 50 years or so, roughly It's not "what we've come to"...

It's got nothing to do with the particular participants either, it's a lesson...like when the thug being arrested says "I know my rights" and really doesn't. Claiming her nomination is illegal or unconstitutional is to not know our own system...and it has changed before and could again, thanks to the Framers.

frankj1 wrote:



You clearly do not understand my comments.
View All Posts by User
frankj1
  • frankj1
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
a year ago

And $20 is $20 right?

ZRX1200 wrote:


well, yah...but wrong website, freak.
View All Posts by User
frankj1
  • frankj1
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
a year ago

Kamala Harris is the LEGAL Democratic nominee for the 2024 presidency. It is easy to understand that Kamala Harris followed the rules. The poster wrote the truth in an understandable manner. It is inelegant, preposterous, and untruthful to call her nomination a coup. You forgot to do the math and came up with an erroneous conclusion.

Robert Sanders 1 wrote:


thanks for seeing what I thought would be easy.

Now I'm wondering why no outrage that one person gets to pick their running mate/VP...his/her own successor (in the event of death or incapacity).

Once upon a time the loser of the POTUS election would be VP...no outrage about that?
View All Posts by User
frankj1
  • frankj1
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
a year ago

You clearly do not understand my comments.

jeebling wrote:


certainly not personal...wanna reword it?
View All Posts by User
Mr. Jones
a year ago
Hey you DUMMIES!!

LISTEN TO FRANKIE!!!

HE BE WICKED SMMMMAAAHHHT
AND DOUBLEY C.o.R.r.E.c.T. !!!

By golly... by all's vaaakllleemmmppt!!
View All Posts by User
frankj1
  • frankj1
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
a year ago

Hey you DUMMIES!!

LISTEN TO FRANKIE!!!

HE BE WICKED SMMMMAAAHHHT
AND DOUBLEY C.o.R.r.E.c.T. !!!

By golly... by all's vaaakllleemmmppt!!

Mr. Jones wrote:


thanks Y.O.G.I.

and it wasn't even an opinion piece!
Maybe I shoulda posted it in Recently Discovered Knowledge?


I would like to follow up again by asking about why no one questions what gives the right to a single person to select the next president if something were to happen to that single person (the elected one).
Talk about screwing over voters!
At least when the runner up became VP he/she had a known number of votes for the job.

The Framers never foresaw the development of parties, among other (understandable) missed future changes and mistakes made at the time.

Perhaps they were human after all?
View All Posts by User
DrMaddVibe
a year ago

The Framers never foresaw the development of parties, among other (understandable) missed future changes and mistakes made at the time.

frankj1 wrote:



They had political parties...except back then they were busy creating a nation and throwing off the yoke of tyranny. Now, the Democrats only want to put people back on the plantation and join CCP in communism.
View All Posts by User
ZRX1200
a year ago
Eric Weinstein has had some interesting tales on this
View All Posts by User
Robert Sanders 1
a year ago
Frankj1, the founding fathers were brilliant men with their own personal foibles. For instance Thomas Jefferson was one of the two truly brilliant founding fathers in my opinion, yet he had a thing for black courtesans from Paris, and a rather oddly unique take on Christianity. Or consider Benjamin Franklin, the other brilliant founding father in my opinion. He enjoyed this place in Europe called the Hellsfire Club, from what I have read, a rather perverted place. On an ancillarynote about myself, I grew up on a street in northern Illinois called Sanders road, about two miles north of where I lived it became Saunders road. Interestingly enough John Saunders was one of Benjamin Franklin’s pseudonyms. Yet what us a poor boy to do? Hence my handle of John Saunders was born. Just for laughs and giggles, my address listed here is that of Freedom Hall in Philidelphia.

OK, back to the vice president thingy. I think it would if the person with the second most votes became vice president in this particular election cycle. If Harris loses she would be the vice president for an old man who is bat**** crazy. If Trump loses maybe he would be vice president from a federal penitentiary or a state prison. I know he could be president from either location; as far as vice president I find no reason to research this.

Anywho these are just random thoughts of mine that give me a chuckle or two.
View All Posts by User
drglnc
a year ago

thanks Y.O.G.I.

and it wasn't even an opinion piece!
Maybe I shoulda posted it in Recently Discovered Knowledge?


I would like to follow up again by asking about why no one questions what gives the right to a single person to select the next president if something were to happen to that single person (the elected one).
Talk about screwing over voters!
At least when the runner up became VP he/she had a known number of votes for the job.

The Framers never foresaw the development of parties, among other (understandable) missed future changes and mistakes made at the time.

Perhaps they were human after all?

frankj1 wrote:




The Federalists and the Democratic-Republican party would like a word with you sir...
View All Posts by User
DrMaddVibe
a year ago

The Federalists and the Democratic-Republican party would like a word with you sir...

drglnc wrote:



And it gets worse too!

https://www.government-and-constitution.org/history-us-political-parties/timeline-us-political-parties.htm [/i][/color]
View All Posts by User
RayR
a year ago
Ya, it's kind of silly believing the Framers never foresaw the development of parties. Many feared the inevitable factions that would develop over time vying for power. Those opposing factions were there from the very beginning.
View All Posts by User
frankj1
  • frankj1
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
a year ago
thought it would be understood "parties" as have evolved today...there were parties in England before there was a US.

far looser connections, and no primary voting needed for POTUS by the citizenry...and again, the runner up in the general election became VP.

Today, one person picks the successor when they name their running mate. Voters have no say.
View All Posts by User
Users browsing this topic
Mobile! Terms | Privacy | Contact Us | Help | © 1998-2026, CigarBid.com