CHECKS AND BALANCES IN ALL BRANCHES......ARTICLE 1 is major.....which the king has
eliminated and continues to ASSUME only he has the power.....the Feds,the judicial system,
the senate and ANY other entity is HIS to reign over.
Huh, Trump has eliminated Article 1? Can you show me that evidence? Seems like that would be a big deal that would be impeachable, if it was at all possible... and it's not. Nice try though.
I omitted the word ATTEMPT from the statement....my bad....the remainder of the post is ACCURATE and if others can NOT see the seriousness of the actions...we are SCREWED.
I omitted the word ATTEMPT from the statement....my bad...
What did he attempt to do? I mean other than trying to be a horror of a human being.
Therein lies the PROBLEM.....I am NOT linking EVERY illegal action the king has taken, IF the
loyal followers want to play a convoluted "I got ya" game and canNOT/willnot view the vast and
various violations......""we have a problem Huston".....here is a visual...."see no evil,hear no evil,
speak no evil" 3 primates....covering their eyes,ears,mouth.....(I don't have the time nor the
inclination to search out the image)
The king's visit to the CDC and the horror show the king presented as the TRUTH.....beyond any
person's understanding of sane and sound science....This WILL be the person you want to
head up our government???
You think Biden is blatantly loosing it.....OMG the king should be jailed and a mental assessment
should be mandatory.....he is endangering the populace,as if he had a gun....
TRY THIS ON FOR SIZE......fits quite nicely,attempting to censor life saving information....YOUR
HEALTH is not important to this horror of a human being
DeflectAgain,
I once AGAIN opened your citation, but stopped reading when they attributed the article to anonymous sources.
I, like many others in this website would be interested in what you think.
ramage wrote: DeflectAgain,
I once AGAIN opened your citation, but stopped reading when they attributed the article to anonymous sources.
I, like many others in this website would be interested in what you think.
IF you are referring to REUTERS.....reread the article THERE ARE TWO SOURCES NAMED
Is there a reason that you chose not to reference these sources, rather told us to re-read the article?
I would like to think that you can put your opinion into a simple declarative statement. But you keep proving me wrong.
Last edit: 11 Mar 2020 19:57 by ramage. Reason: typographical error