1 hour ago, Dave Moss said:

Vikas must be e-mailing with Jonathan Turley or something

As opposed to private messaging on the EMB? 😳

That $1.50 of economic per $1 spent on SNAP is actually relatively conservative too, I've seen in as high as $1.80 but the data didn't seem as robust. And again it disproportionately boosts rural economies more than urban ones. So even if you ignore entirely the social/personal/moral grounds of the argument, SNAP is an incredibly effective government subsidy.

This is the dumbest form of new math I've seen birthed from the US education system.

22 minutes ago, Imp81318 said:

Yes because you continue to miss the point. Here is the language that sets the criteria for holding the office of President:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States

Which of those criteria would not be met?

The INTENT of the 22nd amendment was to assure that nobody would serve more than 2 terms as an elected president. That’s the point. People are trying semantics and saying "it’s only elected” but the overall intent was to limit a president to two terms via the normal election process thus making them ineligible To serve again and therefore being ineligible for the office of the VP. The only way he’s getting a 3rd term is if they change the constitution to remove the intent of that. Which takes 2/3 of congress to do and would take years.

It’s not happening.

29 minutes ago, lynched1 said:

As opposed to private messaging on the EMB? 😳

No thanks

58 minutes ago, lynched1 said:

That $1.50 of economic per $1 spent on SNAP is actually relatively conservative too, I've seen in as high as $1.80 but the data didn't seem as robust. And again it disproportionately boosts rural economies more than urban ones. So even if you ignore entirely the social/personal/moral grounds of the argument, SNAP is an incredibly effective government subsidy.

This is the dumbest form of new math I've seen birthed from the US education system.

Ok prove it wrong. Show your work.

2 hours ago, lynched1 said:

That $1.50 of economic per $1 spent on SNAP is actually relatively conservative too, I've seen in as high as $1.80 but the data didn't seem as robust. And again it disproportionately boosts rural economies more than urban ones. So even if you ignore entirely the social/personal/moral grounds of the argument, SNAP is an incredibly effective government subsidy.

This is the dumbest form of new math I've seen birthed from the US education system.

Wasn't it just two days that your failure in understanding how percentages work led you to conclude a majority of SNAP recipients aren't Americans? You're literally the dumbest person here. Please don't ever try to speak authoritatively on anything related to math ever again, dipsheet.

On 10/27/2025 at 11:27 PM, lynched1 said:

"45% of Afghanistan immigrants are on food stamps.”

"42% of Somali immigrants, 34% of every immigrant from Iraq, 23% of Haitians.”

"59% of ALL illegal aliens are collecting food stamps, meaning that most of the people getting food stamps from the U.S. Government and the U.S. Taxpayer are not even Americans.”

3 hours ago, lynched1 said:

This is the dumbest form of new math I've seen birthed from the US education system.

Seriously though, how are all of you this retarded? There's not a single one of you that could pass 5th grade math?

1 hour ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Wasn't it just two days that your failure in understanding how percentages work led you to conclude a majority of SNAP recipients aren't Americans? You're literally the dumbest person here. Please don't ever try to speak authoritatively on anything related to math ever again, dipsheet.

In his defense, all math is "new math" if you can't do math.

3 hours ago, pisceschica said:

He is literally insane. He probably believes an unused weapon is a useless weapon.

Rand Paul gets it. Charge Trump murder.

6 hours ago, Dave Moss said:

No thanks

Not the point I was making.

Slow your roll. You're not that entertaining. 😄

5 hours ago, DEagle7 said:

Ok prove it wrong. Show your work.

I'll skip to the answer.

$37T in debt.

If your "new" math worked we could have them purchase twice as much, throw half away and create a surplus.

Stop it.

3 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Please don't ever try to speak authoritatively on anything related to math ever again, dipsheet.

I dont know who the F you think you are but I'll speak to you however the F I please. ****

3 minutes ago, lynched1 said:

I'll skip to the answer.

$37T in debt.

If your "new" math worked well could have them purchase twice as much, throw half away and create a surplus.

Stop it.

That's...that's not how any of that works?

Wait is this a serious rebuttal?

3 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Seriously though, how are all of you this retarded? There's not a single one of you that could pass 5th grade math?

Pfffft. I was an an A/B student with very little effort. 😄

2 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Wait is this a serious rebuttal?

I have spelled it out numerous times on this board.

You really don't pay attention do you? 😄

4 minutes ago, lynched1 said:

Pfffft. I was an an A/B student with very little effort. 😄

Flexing on highschool grades eh? Tell me you've done nothing with your life without telling me.

3 minutes ago, lynched1 said:

I have spelled it out numerous times on this board.

You really don't pay attention do you? 😄

To you? Only when I'm bored and feel like punching down 😘

5 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Flexing on highschool grades eh? Tell me you've done nothing with your life without telling me.

I responded to his post referencing the fifth grade ratard.

To you? Only when I'm bored and feel like punching down 😘

A "punch" from you?

That's a healthy opinion you have of yourself and your "abilities". 🤣🤣🤣

8 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

You're arguing that eligibility is limited to being 35 years old and a natural born citizen.

I believe the 22nd amendment added additional eligibility requirements.

I read constitutional requirements as being not having already served two terms or their equivalent.

I posted the 22nd earlier. It says no person may be elected President more than twice. Says nothing about serving as President or the eligibility requirements to serve as President. Being elected and serving are 2 distinct things.

6 hours ago, DBW said:

The INTENT of the 22nd amendment was to assure that nobody would serve more than 2 terms as an elected president. That’s the point. People are trying semantics and saying "it’s only elected” but the overall intent was to limit a president to two terms via the normal election process thus making them ineligible To serve again and therefore being ineligible for the office of the VP. The only way he’s getting a 3rd term is if they change the constitution to remove the intent of that. Which takes 2/3 of congress to do and would take years.

It’s not happening.

And intent only matters legally when the contract language is ambiguous. It is not. The 22nd amendment could have said no person shall serve more than 10 years in office. That’s not what it says.

Seriously, guys, this really isn’t close. He can’t be elected again. But he can serve. If they meant no person could be President again after being elected twice, then it would say that. Right now, if Bill Clinton were speaker, and the POTUS and VP died, he would be President.