Liberal Forum

golfboy » 13 Feb 2023, 9:06 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Feb 2023, 9:06 pm

^^ bitch can't prove his claim.  How unsurprising.

from the guy who cannot disprove it... funny stuff!

golfboy » 13 Feb 2023, 9:07 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Feb 2023, 9:07 pm

English not your first language?  YOU are the liberal sheep, *******.

you were the guy who claimed that no court in the land would call for a presidential revote... and I pointed out that, if a SCOTUS with a 6-3 tilt toward the republican side and fully half of that 6-3 majority having been appointed by the guy who was begging them to do so, maybe the evidence that would cause such a strongly tilted court to call for a revote was whisper thin.

maineman » 13 Feb 2023, 9:36 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Feb 2023, 9:36 pm

from the guy who cannot disprove it... funny stuff!

You lied.  I have no responsibility to disprove your lie simply because you're incapable of proving it's true. 
*******.
 

maineman » 13 Feb 2023, 9:39 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Feb 2023, 9:39 pm

you were the guy who claimed that no court in the land would call for a presidential revote... and I pointed out that, if a SCOTUS with a 6-3 tilt toward the republican side and fully half of that 6-3 majority having been appointed by the guy who was begging them to do so, maybe the evidence that would cause such a strongly tilted court to call for a revote was whisper thin.

SCOTUS wouldn't either.  Regardless their political makeup. 

 

golfboy » 13 Feb 2023, 9:24 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Feb 2023, 9:24 pm

So the vote would have been the same if Democrats didn't change the rules, send out mail ballots to EVERYONE, allow ballot "harvesting" and decline signature matching?

It is amusing though that you can't even say the name Trump.
It's stunning how badly you hate.

nothing in the rules explicitly favored democrats.  The rule changes were totally non-partisan.  If MY party did the work and figured out how to better GOTV using those rules...and your party was too **** lazy to give a ****.... too **** bad.  And when you lost, you all thought that the best way to rectify that situation was not to hone your GOTV efforts for the next  election, but, instead, to hang the vice president and overthrow our democracy??????   You should all be lined up and shot like the traitorous dogs that you are.

golfboy » 13 Feb 2023, 9:41 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Feb 2023, 9:41 pm

SCOTUS wouldn't either.  Regardless their political makeup.

because it would have been unconstitutional to do so.

Thank you for your white flag.... 

now crawl away.
 

golfboy » 13 Feb 2023, 9:39 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Feb 2023, 9:39 pm

You lied.  I have no responsibility to disprove your lie simply because you're incapable of proving it's true. 
*******.

the fact that Joe Biden is president proves my claim true.

maineman » 13 Feb 2023, 9:44 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Feb 2023, 9:44 pm

because it would have been unconstitutional to do so.

Thank you for your white flag.... 

now crawl away.

What?  
Please quote the Constitutional provision to which you are referring. 
I gotta hear this. 
 

maineman » 13 Feb 2023, 9:45 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Feb 2023, 9:45 pm

the fact that Joe Biden is president proves my claim true.

lol.   That's pathetic.  Even for you.   
 
 

golfboy » 13 Feb 2023, 9:47 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Feb 2023, 9:47 pm

lol.   That's pathetic.  Even for you. 

it's true. If any court had demanded a revote, we all would know about it.  Even the 6-3 SCOTUS with fully half of the majority put there by the clown himself wouldn't even CONSIDER the stupidity of his request.

golfboy » 13 Feb 2023, 9:47 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Feb 2023, 9:47 pm

What?  
Please quote the Constitutional provision to which you are referring. 
I gotta hear this.

Let SCOTUS tell you...they are the ones who even you admit would not go near this request.  

maineman » 13 Feb 2023, 9:54 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Feb 2023, 9:54 pm

Let SCOTUS tell you...they are the ones who even you admit would not go near this request.

Thanks for proving my point.
 

maineman » 13 Feb 2023, 9:53 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Feb 2023, 9:53 pm

it's true. If any court had demanded a revote, we all would know about it.  Even the 6-3 SCOTUS with fully half of the majority put there by the clown himself wouldn't even CONSIDER the stupidity of his request.

Still waiting for just ONE court ruling... since you said "EVERY" court had found the votes were legal. 
 

golfboy » 13 Feb 2023, 10:02 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Feb 2023, 10:02 pm

Still waiting for just ONE court ruling... since you said "EVERY" court had found the votes were legal.

keep waiting.  and prove my statement wrong, if you can.

And I never said that every court found the votes were legal... I merely said that every court had found that votes that were cast by well intentioned voters using the  rules that were in place would be COUNTED.  Votes cast by registered voters using rules promulgated by duly appointed election officials are not LEGAL or ILLEGAL... they just are RECORDED.

sucks to be you.

golfboy » 13 Feb 2023, 10:01 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Feb 2023, 10:01 pm

Thanks for proving my point.

Joe Biden sitting in the oval office proves MY point.

loser.
 

maineman » 13 Feb 2023, 10:09 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Feb 2023, 10:09 pm

Joe Biden sitting in the oval office proves MY point.

loser.

No, it actually doesn't.   But when you can't prove your own point, you have to keep moving the goalposts. 
 

maineman » 13 Feb 2023, 10:08 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Feb 2023, 10:08 pm

 I merely said that every court had found that votes that were cast by well intentioned voters using the  rules that were in place would be COUNTED.  

Link?   Surely you can find ONE court making that statement in a ruling, right?
 

Pastor Blast » 13 Feb 2023, 5:31 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Feb 2023, 5:31 pm

So how can your intellect be implemented to help people?

Rescuing the species from itself same way the specific ancestors corrupted everyone within it.

golfboy » 13 Feb 2023, 10:13 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Feb 2023, 10:13 pm

Link?   Surely you can find ONE court making that statement in a ruling, right?

right back atcha.

Surely YOU can find ONE court that ruled that votes cast by well intentioned voters were ILLEGAL.  right?

maineman » 14 Feb 2023, 7:41 am » wrote: ↑

14 Feb 2023, 7:41 am

right back atcha.

Surely YOU can find ONE court that ruled that votes cast by well intentioned voters were ILLEGAL.  right?

MM the bitchboi, can't provide a link once again