Garland testifies at House hearing with DOJ mired in controversies

The SC has shown in this election cycle that States will rule the day as far as how Electoral College votes are awarded and Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan will just send those who vote for the Republican candidate no matter the state vote totals. Originally Posted by WTF

Paranoid much, wtf? Read the fucking Constitution. Start with the US one. Then read the state ones. Now tell me - when has ANY state sent electors "who vote for the Republican outcome regardless of the state vote totals"?

Oh wait, that's never happened, has it?

The REAL THREAT to the survival of our Constitutional Republic comes from the party that want to abolish the filibuster, expand the SC (but only if/when a dim-retard POTUS is in office to appoint all those new justices), grant statehood to DC, and federalize election rules to allow unvetted mail-in votes, rampant ballot harvesting and the undetected enlargement of the non-citizen voting bloc.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot... that party also wants to abolish the Electoral College.

Why don't they stop beating around the bush and just have a "Burn the Constitution" night? You can do the torching!

Paranoid much, wtf? Read the fucking Constitution. Start with the US one. Then read the state ones. Now tell me - when has ANY state sent electors "who vote for the Republican outcome regardless of the state vote totals"?

Oh wait, that's never happened, has it?

The REAL THREAT to the survival of our Constitutional Republic comes from the party that want to abolish the filibuster, expand the SC (but only if/when a dim-retard POTUS is in office to appoint all those new justices), give statehood to DC, and federalize election rules to allow unvetted mail-in votes, rampant ballot harvesting and the undetected enlargement of the non-citizen voting bloc.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. That party also wants to abolish the Electoral College.

Fuck, they should stop beating around the bush and just have a "Burn the Constitution" night. Originally Posted by lustylad

i'm TWK and i approve this post.

Can you honesty say that you would be comfortable with Garland on the Court.? Originally Posted by Jackie S

Not anymore. The guy is showing his true colors as AG. Political hack par excellence!

I'm TWK and i approve this post. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Welcome back!!

The REAL THREAT to the survival of our Constitutional Republic comes from the party that want to abolish the filibuster, expand the SC (but only if/when a dim-retard POTUS is in office to appoint all those new justices), grant statehood to DC, and federalize election rules to allow unvetted mail-in votes, rampant ballot harvesting and the undetected enlargement of the non-citizen voting bloc.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot... that party also wants to abolish the Electoral College.

Why don't they stop beating around the bush and just have a "Burn the Constitution" night? You can do the torching! Originally Posted by lustylad

I subscribed to the Washington Post a couple of months ago. It only costs $40 for a year and I figure I'll let the subscription go when they jack the rate up after a year.

Anyway I've done a little posting in the comments section. It seems nobody likes what I have to say.

I posted this yesterday in a thread about Kyrsten Sinema. It's dripping with sarcasm, but apparently no one there realized it:

You don't go far enough. After we get rid of the filibuster, make D.C. and Puerto Rico states. Stack the Supreme Court. Stack the other courts too. Or better yet make all federal judges resign and President Biden can appoint new ones. Then put voting in red states under the supervision of the courts, and let the courts determine the boundaries of voting districts. That's the way it was up until 2013, and it worked.

We must do this or Republicans, who are all racist and anti-Democratic, will steal elections and make America a fascist state.

I got 22 likes! Twenty-two fucking likes! The Washington Post readership loved my post!

Now this is no comment on WTF, whose political views are eclectic. I agree with him on a number of points, like government spending, and if you look into your heart of hearts I believe you'll realize you agree with him on some things too.

But it is a sad commentary on the mainstream and progressive Democrats, who read the Washington Post, who saw fit to FINALLY "like" something I wrote, and it's this.

Welcome back!! Originally Posted by lustylad

... Too right! ... Welcome back, mate.

(even though I don't know you)

### Salty

... Too right! ... Welcome back, mate.

(even though I don't know you)

### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again

You will in a good way. He's a good poster.

You will in a good way. He's a good poster. Originally Posted by Levianon17

I think they’re actually old friends. Or at least cyber-friends.

... Surely appreciate you mates saying so,
but again I don't understand.

### Salty

LL and Tiny - Thank you, good sirs!

Garland revealed one of two concepts:

1. He doesn't have a clue as to what his department is doing
or
2. He's a fucking liar.

You pick.

BOTH!!!!!!!!!!!

AG -I DONT KNOW Hmm ,,,,Both and denial of facts

Garland revealed one of two concepts:

1. He doesn't have a clue as to what his department is doing
or
2. He's a fucking liar.

You pick. Originally Posted by LexusLover

He had a deer in the headlights look for most of the hearing

I honestly think he is unaware and is due so from his poor and ideological information sources

garland on Jan. 6, he has admitted that no one has been charged with insurrection.