BE Advised!

[Truth Detector]

I think not, Bullshit Blob.

You don't think you silly dumb little twat.

 

[Old Trapper]

I'd be very interested in the section or amendments that "infer" parties in the Constitution, please direct me there.

I'd be very interested in which part of your dead brain cannot grasp the concept of the English language. Try reading what I actually said, not what your brain dead mind thinks I said.

Parties are formed of disagreements. The ratification process was set up for debate, not blind agreement as you would wish. The amendment clause does the same. Read your history, and quit acting the fool.

 

[Old Trapper]

We need coalitions because if we have multiple viable parties, that means that none of them would have a 50%+1 majority and could therefore not get anything passed without forming coalitions.

You obviously don't know the first thing about either politics or government.
Not even at a ninth grade level.

You're every bit as useless as a Trumpanzee.

I asked a very simple question, and got the response of a child having a tantrum.

Your childlike response ASSumes that a majority of the vote cannot be acquired by a single party. If that be the case then perhaps the issue is the problem, and is what needs to be remedied.

 

[Robo]

K is a lush among other things, and the alt right does not care. They care about power not America.

He's a "lush" because you have evidence of from?

 

[Lightbringer]

I'd be very interested in the section or amendments that "infer" parties in the Constitution, please direct me there.

Don't hold your breath, it's not in there.

 

[Robo]

I'd be very interested in which part of your dead brain cannot grasp the concept of the English language. Try reading what I actually said, not what your brain dead mind thinks I said.

So, with childish insult you admit there's no constitutional amendment or article I can go to in my copy of the Constitution that promotes/infers the creation of political parties. Thank you sir.

Parties are formed of disagreements. The ratification process was set up for debate, not blind agreement as you would wish.

Please sir post my quotes that prove I "wished" as you accuse.

The amendment clause does the same. Read your history, and quit acting the fool.

I'll need your explanation sir of how the "amendment clause," (as you call it), promotes/infers political parties. Actually, the amendment "PROCESS" is covered in article 5 of our Constitution and I find nary a word about political parties. The FACTS show that's only your opinion. Thanks for the "OPINION!" I disagree!

 

[SouthernUnkleRitchie]

Be advised that if you’re thinking about voting in the midterm election, that Democrats have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that they believe that due process of the law isn’t an American principle to be used in every official national government procedure, but it’s only a rule for court of law proceedings Anything goes in congressional hearings, even destroying a man’s reputation, life and family based on zero concurring witnesses or otherwise evidence.

6th Amendment Text |
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. “

Take note that the 6th amendment says nothing about the Democrats arguments of a necessity for a “court of law” or “Job interviews.” Simply by and through the Senate discourse between right and left, the Senate confirmation hearing was turned into a “CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.” as identified by the 6th amendment. It was and still is a Kabuki Theater Kangaroo Court proceeding that denied Judge Kavanaugh the right to face his accuser. The basic fundamental principle of “innocent until proven guilty” was not invoked. The Judge was subjected to a court on not a jury of his peers, but rather subjected to a court of “Public Opinion” and a possible vigilante lynch mob.

If Democrats are so concerned about women’s rights and truly believe Judge is a sexual predator, they can still take Dr. Ford to the criminal justice system and law enforcement in the State of Maryland where there is no statute of limitations on sex crimes. Stay tuned for that.

John Gotti couldn't have said it better.

 

[SouthernUnkleRitchie]

You don't think you silly dumb little twat.

You need some shock treatments and dinner with hannibal.