Someone wants to use the 14th Amendment to fix the 2024 election for Dems.

[martybegan]

Pretty easy to say when you refuse to consider anything they say could possibly be right. That makes you the hack.

You will believe whatever you want to believe and no one will ever convince you otherwise, facts be damned.

No, that makes me sure of my convictions, and distrusting of any lefty twat.

What facts have been presented here? It's opinion vs opinion.

 

[Faun]

It has to do with thinking the current information is all the information you are going to have.

No, it's you trying to argue with facts not in evidence.

The 2020 election was put into question by changes to absentee and mail in voting due to COVID, opening up multiple avenues to manipulate the vote.

Nope. There was no question until Trump claimed the only way he loses is if Democrats cheat; but if he wins, then it's fair. Then he planned on crying fraud if he lost, which is exactly what he did.

 

[martybegan]

No, it's you trying to argue with facts not in evidence.



Nope. There was no question until Trump claimed the only way he loses is if Democrats cheat; but if he wins, then it's fair. Then he planned on crying fraud if he lost, which is exactly what he did.

Opinions, not facts.

That's your opinion.

 

[Marener]

No, that makes me sure of my convictions, and distrusting of any lefty twat.

What facts have been presented here? It's opinion vs opinion.

I provided cases that proved you could sue before an election, before harm had occurred. Something which you said couldnt be done.

Thats not an opinion. That’s a fact.

You claim the courts had said what you claimed.

That’s not an opinon, that’s an assertion of a fact.

You won’t back it up. You just believe it because it’s convenient.

 

[Faun]

Opinions, not facts.

That's your opinion.

Meanwhile, you ignore facts. You have none. That's obvious.

 

[martybegan]

I provided cases that proved you could sue before an election, before harm had occurred. Something which you said couldnt be done.

Thats not an opinion. That’s a fact.

You claim the courts had said what you claimed.

That’s not an opinon, that’s an assertion of a fact.

You won’t back it up. You just believe it because it’s convenient.

You can sue, but then you are denied on standing, or told you have no case by the system defending the system.

You can sue is a fact, that it can lead anywhere is an opinion.

Nope.

 

[martybegan]

Meanwhile, you ignore facts. You have none. That's obvious.

What facts?

And fact facts, not "I pretend my opinion is a fact"

 

[Marener]

You can sue, but then you are denied on standing, or told you have no case by the system defending the system.

You can sue is a fact, that it can lead anywhere is an opinion.

Nope.

You can be dismissed on standing, but not for the reason you suggested. That’s a factual claim that is not true.

The fact that you can sue before the election and have your case heard proves that you don’t need to wait until after the election. Changing the rules of the election after the election is incredibly wrong.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Vermin democrats want a precedent so they can remove everyone the opposes the politburo.

 

[Faun]

What facts?

And fact facts, not "I pretend my opinion is a fact"

Such as it's a fact that someone sued about election laws being changed without legislation and prevailed.

You first claimed courts don't rule in favor of plaintiffs in such suits.

Then you changed your position to, ok, they do, but <conspiracy>.

 

[martybegan]

You can be dismissed on standing, but not for the reason you suggested. That’s a factual claim that is not true.

The fact that you can sue before the election and have your case heard proves that you don’t need to wait until after the election. Changing the rules of the election after the election is incredibly wrong.

No, it's an opinion. The decision rendered is a fact, the reasoning behind it is not.

It doesn't prove anything. You can sue whenever you want. That's a fact.

 

[Marener]

No, it's an opinion. The decision rendered is a fact, the reasoning behind it is not.

It doesn't prove anything. You can sue whenever you want. That's a fact.

You’re making an assertion about what qualifies as standing, which is based on legal precedent. This isn’t an opinion. You are factually wrong. The law says you’re wrong.

It appears we’ve exhausted your ability to fashion an argument.

”You can sue whenever you want” isn’t a fact if you want to win.

 

[martybegan]

Such as it's a fact that someone sued about election laws being changed without legislation and prevailed.

You first claimed courts don't rule in favor of plaintiffs in such suits.

Then you changed your position to, ok, they do, but <conspiracy>.

My claim was they weren't ruling that the elections were flawed because they weren't going to rule against the system.

Then I provided evidence of one such claim that actually went through, ironically with a Dem on Dem Primary.

 

[martybegan]

You’re making an assertion about what qualifies as standing, which is based on legal precedent. This isn’t an opinion. You are factually wrong. The law says you’re wrong.

It appears we’ve exhausted your ability to fashion an argument.

”You can sue whenever you want” isn’t a fact if you want to win.

I am giving an opinion on why these judges want to duck away from these cases as quick as possible. My opinion on their motives can't be factually wrong, because it's not a fact.

You pretend your opinions are facts, something I don't do because I'm far more honest than you are.

Suing and winning aren't the same thing. Another fact.

 

[Marener]

My claim was they weren't ruling that the elections were flawed because they weren't going to rule against the system.

Then I provided evidence of one such claim that actually went through, ironically with a Dem on Dem Primary.

You claimed that you couldnt sue before the election because no harm had happened. That was a lie.

You claimed some courts have said this but won’t provide any of these cases.

You have an opinion that judges who find your opinion on the legality of changes to the election to be wrong are somehow corrupt and not ruling on the law. Thats just wild speculation, especially since some cases did find the changes to be improper and were reversed.

The point here is that Trump and his cronies attempt to have the election overturned because of these bullshit reasons is every bit a court mandated coup as you accuse others of doing.

 

[Faun]

My claim was they weren't ruling that the elections were flawed because they weren't going to rule against the system.

Then I provided evidence of one such claim that actually went through, ironically with a Dem on Dem Primary.

You shifted your position. So why did you deny shifting...?

I am shifting nothing.

Now you're even shifting your own position because it already failed you.

Just sad.

​

 

[martybegan]

You claimed that you couldnt sue before the election because no harm had happened. That was a lie.

You claimed some courts have said this but won’t provide any of these cases.

You have an opinion that judges who find your opinion on the legality of changes to the election to be wrong are somehow corrupt and not ruling on the law. Thats just wild speculation, especially since some cases did find the changes to be improper and were reversed.

The point here is that Trump and his cronies attempt to have the election overturned because of these bullshit reasons is every bit a court mandated coup as you accuse others of doing.

I claimed that the suits were denied due to standing before the election. You are lying.

Look up your own shit.

Yes, and not wild.

Not even close.

 

[martybegan]

You shifted your position. So why did you deny shifting...?

​

Nope.

 

[Marener]

I claimed that the suits were denied due to standing before the election. You are lying.

Look up your own shit.

Yes, and not wild.

Not even close.

You’re pretending you didn’t post what you posted. I quoted them for you.

This was your excuse for why they could sue after the election and disenfranchise millions of voters.

It’s the only way you could justify that attempt at a court mandated coup. Now you’re bending over backwards to avoid admitting the basis for your firmly held convictions is bullshit.

 

[martybegan]

You’re pretending you didn’t post what you posted. I quoted them for you.

This was your excuse for why they could sue after the election and disenfranchise millions of voters.

It’s the only way you could justify that attempt at a court mandated coup. Now you’re bending over backwards to avoid admitting the basis for your firmly held convictions is bullshit.

You interpreted what I said to suit your desire to lie about me.

That's my opinion of why they sued after. It has nothing to do with if they can sue after or before.