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

[Marener]

Wanting to do something like this idiot wants to is far worse than anything that actually happened so far, including Jan 6th, i.e. Reichstag Fire 2021.

Nope. Trump and his cronies actually tried to disenfranchise tens of millions of legitimate voters.

Wanting to keep some republicans off a ballot isn’t anywhere close to that.

And you are so far up Trump’s ass you can’t even admit that changing the rules after the election is wrong.

 

[martybegan]

You refuse to engage in an honest debate.

Because you can’t. You need to realize you’re not as smart as you think. Instead you’ll whine, moan and run away like a little bitch.

You don't debate, you smear and claim things never happened, or everything is fine, or just toe the lefty party line.

You would celebrate what this guy wants to do to Trump and 1/2 the Republicans in congress because it would mean you win.

 

[martybegan]

Nope. Trump and his cronies actually tried to disenfranchise tens of millions of legitimate voters.

Wanting to keep some republicans off a ballot isn’t anywhere close to that.

And you are so far up Trump’s ass you can’t even admit that changing the rules after the election is wrong.

Far far worse. Prior restraint against political opponents is far far worse than reacting to potential fraud and methods of increasing fraud.

 

[Marener]

You don't debate, you smear and claim things never happened, or everything is fine, or just toe the lefty party line.

You would celebrate what this guy wants to do to Trump and 1/2 the Republicans in congress because it would mean you win.

Funny you accuse me of smearing anybody given the way you talk about people. Honestly, you sound like a wretched human being.

You claim things happened that never did. Then you walk back those claims after failing to show evidence.

Correcting your false statements is debating. You just don’t like it.

 

[Marener]

Far far worse. Prior restraint against political opponents is far far worse than reacting to potential fraud and methods of increasing fraud.

You didn’t react to potential fraud. It was too hard.

Attempting to change the rules after an election is way worse than merely talking about challenging the qualifications for some politicians to be on the ballot.

You would disenfranchise tens of millions of voters and take away their opportunity to participate in the election. The author of the OpEd wouldn’t. That’s why it’s worse.

 

[Faun]

Pointing out court verdicts like they are some talisman that ends all discussion sure as hell is.

It's amazing how the left went from "question everything" to "shut up and sit down" in less than 3 decades.

Nope. You denied the courts would find in favor of a plaintiff suing over ad-hoc changes to the law. You even framed it as though that's the "system protecting the system."

I proved you wrong by citing such a case which was won by the plaintiff.

You simply can't admit defeat when you've lost. How Trump of you.

 

[Faun]

Look it up.

Nope.

LOL

It's not my job to hunt for YOUR claims.

If you can't prove your bullshit, it's because you're full of shit.

 

[Faun]

And you don't either, but since it's from a Republican it can be ignored.

LOLOL

You don't know what their evidence is yet you idiotically claim the case was erroneously dismissed.

 

[Faun]

If anyone showed it you would deny it, and call it conspiracy anyway.

Nope. I would research to see if the evidence was real or not.

But it's a moot point now that you confess you don't even know what the evidence was.

 

[Dagosa]

The little fish and the idiots.

You probably still believe OJ is innocent.

You believe Trump is innocent. That’s about as asinine and bogus hero worship as you can get.
So you’re good at name calling when pinned in the corner by facts.
And, I believe the science used in the OJ trial was convincing to me. The OJ MF is as guilty as Trump is a fraud and traitor. You Humpers don’t even believe science or you have no idea what it is.

 

[Unkotare]

You don’t want that tuff-guy…every time the shooting starts you cry like bitches about our AR-15’s.

You are YOU to talk, PUSSY?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Oh? How many of the people banned from holding office again under the umbrella of the 14th Amendment were ever convicted of insurrection?

It doesn’t matter. The constitution is clear. If you are going to refer to that guy in New Mexico, his ruling was not lawful, the judge was wrong. It was a bench trial and the guy wasn’t charged with the relevant statute. The judge just decided on his own that the guy was guilty of insurrection, even though he didn’t participate in the violence or enter the capitol.

I’m sure you’ll find some leftist judge somewhere who will try to say trump is guilty of insurrection, but you’ll find as many on the right who will say he’s not.

Do you think we should go by what a judge decides on his own, or by what the constitution and the rule of law says?

 

[Faun]

It doesn’t matter. The constitution is clear. If you are going to refer to that guy in New Mexico, his ruling was not lawful, the judge was wrong. It was a bench trial and the guy wasn’t charged with the relevant statute. The judge just decided on his own that the guy was guilty of insurrection, even though he didn’t participate in the violence or enter the capitol.

I’m sure you’ll find some leftist judge somewhere who will try to say trump is guilty of insurrection, but you’ll find as many on the right who will say he’s not.

Do you think we should go by what a judge decides on his own, or by what the constitution and the rule of law says?

Not referring to him. There were about 20 people convicted of seditious conspiracy, which is the planning or incitement of insurrection.

 

[martybegan]

Funny you accuse me of smearing anybody given the way you talk about people. Honestly, you sound like a wretched human being.

You claim things happened that never did. Then you walk back those claims after failing to show evidence.

Correcting your false statements is debating. You just don’t like it.

The way I talk about certain people. And I'm only wretched to my enemies.

I claim nothing, I ask questions that I haven't been given acceptable answers to. Show me where I have said fraud happened with certainty, I just don't trust Dems and Progs, especially in cities where Republicans are extinct.

Nothing I say is false, it's just opinions you don't like.

 

[martybegan]

You didn’t react to potential fraud. It was too hard.

Attempting to change the rules after an election is way worse than merely talking about challenging the qualifications for some politicians to be on the ballot.

You would disenfranchise tens of millions of voters and take away their opportunity to participate in the election. The author of the OpEd wouldn’t. That’s why it’s worse.

At the time it was better to go after the procedures first, it's called fighting battles you think you can win.

The rules were changed before, the lawsuits were because the rules were changed illegally.

If people think cheating for their side is acceptable, then justice demands the non cheaters on their side suffer due to the cheaters actions.

 

[martybegan]

Nope. You denied the courts would find in favor of a plaintiff suing over ad-hoc changes to the law. You even framed it as though that's the "system protecting the system."

I proved you wrong by citing such a case which was won by the plaintiff.

You simply can't admit defeat when you've lost. How Trump of you.

A few minor wins doesn't change the fact the system protects itself.

Like the ACLU throwing Trump a bone over the gag order.

"Hey look, we're impartial!"

 

[martybegan]

Nope. I would research to see if the evidence was real or not.

But it's a moot point now that you confess you don't even know what the evidence was.

Bull-fucking-shit.

I know what the evidence was in the Conn case. But you know that one already and are just pretending to not know about it.

 

[martybegan]

You believe Trump is innocent. That’s about as asinine and bogus hero worship as you can get.
So you’re good at name calling when pinned in the corner by facts.
And, I believe the science used in the OJ trial was convincing to me. The OJ MF is as guilty as Trump is a fraud and traitor. You Humpers don’t even believe science or you have no idea what it is.

100%.

I'm good at name calling when it suits me and the target is worthy, mouth breather.

"Women can have penises, and I believe in science" <-Every leftard on this board

 

[Marener]

The way I talk about certain people. And I'm only wretched to my enemies.

I claim nothing, I ask questions that I haven't been given acceptable answers to. Show me where I have said fraud happened with certainty, I just don't trust Dems and Progs, especially in cities where Republicans are extinct.

Nothing I say is false, it's just opinions you don't like.

You claim the courts never heard evidence, that Trump couldn't take cases to court before the election. These are false claims.

And you ignore much more than that. You ignore the cases that were adjudicated. You ignore the incompetence of Trump. You ignore the attempts by Trump and his cronies to disenfranchise millions of people.

I am your enemy because I have opinions you don't like.

 

[Marener]

At the time it was better to go after the procedures first, it's called fighting battles you think you can win.

The rules were changed before, the lawsuits were because the rules were changed illegally.

If people think cheating for their side is acceptable, then justice demands the non cheaters on their side suffer due to the cheaters actions.

If you think the rules were changed illegally, you don't wait until after people voted to sue.

The battle you picked would disenfranchise millions of legitimate voters who did nothing wrong and overthrow the result of the election.

And all that without proving a single vote was fraudulent.

If you can't see how incredibly bad that it is, you are deplorable.