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

[martybegan]

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.

I said most of the courts denied on standing, and the ones that didn't still were in the hock.

Adjudicated doesn't mean shit when the courts don't want to take a position that would question the entire system.

I can handle opinions not my own, you are just a smarmy shit about it.

 

[martybegan]

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.

You sue whenever you can. Before, after, and next time you make sure you set up a system to watch ballot drop places like hawks. If Republicans don't do that in swing States in 2024 it's their own damn fault.

They would benefit from the poison fruit. If one side cheats, sorry but you can't let that pass.

Yet.

Being called deplorable by a mouth breathing SJW moron like you is a badge of honor.

 

[Marener]

I said most of the courts denied on standing, and the ones that didn't still were in the hock.

Adjudicated doesn't mean shit when the courts don't want to take a position that would question the entire system.

I can handle opinions not my own, you are just a smarmy shit about it.

It’s always a fucking conspiracy with you. You just handle that the courts ruled against you because the courts don’t share your opinion.

You’re changing what you said because you were wrong and can’t admit it.

 

[Marener]

You sue whenever you can. Before, after, and next time you make sure you set up a system to watch ballot drop places like hawks. If Republicans don't do that in swing States in 2024 it's their own damn fault.

They would benefit from the poison fruit. If one side cheats, sorry but you can't let that pass.

Yet.

Being called deplorable by a mouth breathing SJW moron like you is a badge of honor.

When it comes to the election procedures, you can sue before the election. Not after.

Any moron would be able to tell you that you can’t just change the rules after the election.

Trump and his cronies could have sued before the election but mostly didn’t. That’s their fault You don’t disenfranchise millions of voters because your side wasn’t competent.

 

[martybegan]

It’s always a fucking conspiracy with you. You just handle that the courts ruled against you because the courts don’t share your opinion.

You’re changing what you said because you were wrong and can’t admit it.

Not always. Don't believe in 9/11 or moon landing ones. Don't believe in the JEWS ARE OUT TO GET US (like so many on the left do).

I do believe progressives like their Marxist ilk will do anything to win, and I do believe people in the system will protect the system no matter what.

Not changing at all.

 

[martybegan]

When it comes to the election procedures, you can sue before the election. Not after.

Any moron would be able to tell you that you can’t just change the rules after the election.

Trump and his cronies could have sued before the election but mostly didn’t. That’s their fault You don’t disenfranchise millions of voters because your side wasn’t competent.

You can sue whenever the fuck you want, as the left has shown us time and time again. Lawfare.

Meaningless point is meaningless

"mostly". So cheaters should be rewarded then? Good to know for future reference.

 

[Marener]

Not always. Don't believe in 9/11 or moon landing ones. Don't believe in the JEWS ARE OUT TO GET US (like so many on the left do).

I do believe progressives like their Marxist ilk will do anything to win, and I do believe people in the system will protect the system no matter what.

Not changing at all.

Youre just making excuses because you can’t handle the idea that you’re wrong.

You can sue whenever the fuck you want, as the left has shown us time and time again. Lawfare.

Meaningless point is meaningless

"mostly". So cheaters should be rewarded then? Good to know for future reference.

You can’t sue whenever you want if you want to win. When you lose, as expected and as you should, it’s not a conspiracy. It’s incompetence.

Changing election procedures isn’t cheating. Disenfranchising millions of voters after the election because they don’t vote for you is cheating.

 

[martybegan]

Youre just making excuses because you can’t handle the idea that you’re wrong.

You can’t sue whenever you want if you want to win. When you lose, as expected and as you should, it’s not a conspiracy. It’s incompetence.

Changing election procedures isn’t cheating. Disenfranchising millions of voters after the election because they don’t vote for you is cheating.

I can handle it, can you?

Or the system is rigged to protect itself.

Changing election procedures without following the actual law in question is illegal, and the changes were made to make cheating easier.

 

[Marener]

I can handle it, can you?

Or the system is rigged to protect itself.

Changing election procedures without following the actual law in question is illegal, and the changes were made to make cheating easier.

It’s always a conspiracy. You obviously can’t handle the idea that you’re wrong, because you think the only way someone disagrees with you is because of some corrupt ulterior motive.

The system isn’t rigged. You just don’t get to have it your way every time.

If you think changing election procedures is illegal, then file a lawsuit and get them changed for the next election. But don’t use that as an excuse to disenfranchise people just because they didn’t vote for your candidate.

 

[Faun]

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!"

Your paranoia makes you look retarded. Now you're even shifting your own position because it already failed you.

Just sad.

 

[Dagosa]

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

Babble.

 

[Dagosa]

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?

And you’re law degree is from where ?

 

[martybegan]

It’s always a conspiracy. You obviously can’t handle the idea that you’re wrong, because you think the only way someone disagrees with you is because of some corrupt ulterior motive.

The system isn’t rigged. You just don’t get to have it your way every time.

If you think changing election procedures is illegal, then file a lawsuit and get them changed for the next election. But don’t use that as an excuse to disenfranchise people just because they didn’t vote for your candidate.

Just like the Wuhan flu maybe coming from a lab?

I can handle it, I just don't believe that I am.

So you say.

They did, and got rejected on standing.

 

[martybegan]

Your paranoia makes you look retarded. Now you're even shifting your own position because it already failed you.

Just sad.

You aren't paranoid when the other side is out to get you.

I am shifting nothing.

 

[martybegan]

Babble.

Coming from you that is sad and hilarious.

Sadlarious.

 

[Dagosa]

Coming from you that is sad and hilarious.

Sadlarious.

More Babble.

 

[Faun]

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.

LOL

Yesterday, you implied you don't know.

Today, you say you do know.

But you still can't say what it was.

 

[Faun]

You sue whenever you can. Before, after, and next time you make sure you set up a system to watch ballot drop places like hawks. If Republicans don't do that in swing States in 2024 it's their own damn fault.

They would benefit from the poison fruit. If one side cheats, sorry but you can't let that pass.

Yet.

Being called deplorable by a mouth breathing SJW moron like you is a badge of honor.

Most of the actual cheating I saw came from Republicans.

 

[Faun]

I can handle it, can you?

Or the system is rigged to protect itself.

Changing election procedures without following the actual law in question is illegal, and the changes were made to make cheating easier.

LOL

I like how you think Republicans can change election laws. Refuse to revert them before the election. Then cry like babies about those changes after they lose the election.

 

[Marener]

Just like the Wuhan flu maybe coming from a lab?

I can handle it, I just don't believe that I am.

So you say.

They did, and got rejected on standing.

No one believes they’re wrong, but they’re open to the possibility with having to resort to conspiracy theories. You are demonstrating intellectual fragility. It takes a strong individual to consider the possibility they’re wrong.

Again, you claim they did sue before the election and rejected on standing when that’s just not true. Trump filed very few lawsuits before the election and numerous lawsuits challenging legality of election procedure changes were filed and were not rejected based on standing.

Carson v. Simon
Michigan All. for Retired Americans v. Benson

Hotze v Abbott