Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That's one thing to draw from it.
The other is that it does happen, and in this case is was so blatant even Dems had to do something about it.
You assholes can’t just say whatever you want because you’re too stupid to know better.
You claimed that Trump couldn’t sue before the election because the courts wouldn’t take the case due to lack of injury. I proved you wrong. It was a lie. Or I guess you’re just ignorant. Either way, that’s how you would address election procedures.
What you don’t do is change the rules after the election. I can’t imagine anything less fair than that.
Well I asked you to show what evidence was offered in a case that was dismissed but you couldn't show anything. Let's me know the "other" doesn't happen. If there's evidence, the court reviews. If there's no evidence, the court throws it out.
It's the very basis of our Judicial system.
And that system is no longer what it is supposed to be.
The Trump show trials with hack judges are exhibit B. All the election bullshit is exhibit A.
All that is on exhibit is your paranoia.
You said you can’t sue before the election because you won’t have standing.Now who's making shit up....
I never said that. I'm saying some of those cases were denied on standing. Were there cases like that or not?
And not just Trump, other people running for office in those States, or voter groups in those States.
Kind of like impeaching someone for show after they are already leaving the office?
They were changed on the fly right before the election, and then you don't have standing according to the courts.
How do you fight it if the courts won't hear it due to standing?
You don't reward rule breaking and cheating.
No, because before the election you can't show any harm..... It's a circular argument intended to ignore the issue.
Nope. People were saying those thinking the Wuhan flu came from a lab were paranoid, now not so much.
You said you can’t sue before the election because you won’t have standing.
I’m pretty sure some bullshit right wing media source told you this and you accepted it. If I had to guess, I would say it was Robert Barnes. Am I right?
Doesn't matter what people said about coronavirus. Has nothing to do with this.
The 2020 election was as fair and square as any election. The only bullshit came from Trump who refused to accept defeat so he resorted to lying about election fraud instead. His plan from even before the election in case he lost.
I posted your words. You said they couldnt have standing since they couldn’t prove harm before the election.No, I said the courts were denying the suits because of standing.
Who?
I posted your words. You said they couldnt have standing since they couldn’t prove harm before the election.
Some were denied because of standing. Lawsuits can always be denied because of standing if they aren’t crafter correctly. In one of the few lawsuits Trump filed before the election, in Nevada, he was denied based on standing because no Nevada resident was on his lawsuit and the court didn’t think the campaign could sue on their behalf without having one of them as part of the complaint.
That’s not a conspiracy or as you put it “circular argument“. That’s Trump’s lawyers being incompetent.
I don’t know why I have to keep explaining this to you. for someone supposedly intelligent I would have thought you’d have gotten it by now, but you’re pretty motivated to remain ignorant so that you can keep believing whatever you want.
Show me where the courts said it.That's what the courts were saying. If you want to dig even further into semantics, blow yourself.
They weren't all cases brought by Trump.
Because going over the same thing repeatedly in the background makes my day go by quicker. Om nom nom nom.
Show me where the courts said it.
This isn’t semantics. You can’t just change the meaning of what you wrote. You claimed they couldn’t sue before the election. I proved you wrong.
Not that your fragile little ego can admit it.
That’s what I thought.No.
My meaning hasn't changed a bit.
Om nom nom nom.
That’s what I thought.
You don’t want to know the truth. If you did, you wouldn’t be able to keep saying the lie. Because if you don’t know it’s a lie, you’re not a liar.
Such a fragile little child.
I backed my statements up. You didn’t.I know the lies come from the left. And the denials.
I backed my statements up. You didn’t.
Seems you want to stay ignorant.
Excuses. I’d ask what was bullshit but I doubt you have any answer. You have a bunker mentality and are afraid to acknowledge anyone else could be right except for you.Bullshit backing up bullshit.
Seems you believe anything that fits your worldview.
Excuses. I’d ask what was bullshit but I doubt you have any answer. You have a bunker mentality and are afraid to acknowledge anyone else could be right except for you.
Pretty easy to say when you refuse to consider anything they say could possibly be right. That makes you the hack.If they are right I can.
I just don't bend the knee to partisan hacks.
