• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Legitimacy

haymarket said:
because you cannot as the law is against you.
Click to expand...

The is no need since the point is moot.

The COURTS decided she has no standing. It doesn't matter if I can or can't quote the law.

Add to that she failed to provide EVIDENCE to warrant a continuation of the recount .

Live with it.
 
Glowpun said:
If Putin's meddling in the US election tipped the scale in favor of Trump, does not that make Trump's presidency questionable?

Why is Trump so eager to downplay that possibility?
Click to expand...
Im sure you have heard the unanswerable trap question "Is it true that you are no longer beating your wife?". So...if your enemies swear you beat your wife and they offer some vague evidence as 'proof' and they tell every neighbor you have and every friend and post pictures and run ads and start web pages and have everyone they know running a 24/7 campaign against you built on the allegation that you beat your wife and that they have experts that can prove that your behaviors certainly fit the pattern of someone that beats their wife (and far more) and some random person on the other side of the planet fabricates a 35 page report justifying the allegations that you beat your wife and other investigative agencies created a 13 page document that had zero facts and zero evidence but then went on to explain how its absolutely reasonable to assume you beat your wife...

can we just go ahead and assume you beat your wife? Should you be expected to defend yourself against all the allegations and should you be tainted by the allegations?
 
Fledermaus said:
The is no need since the point is moot.

The COURTS decided she has no standing. It doesn't matter if I can or can't quote the law.

Add to that she failed to provide EVIDENCE to warrant a continuation of the recount .

Live with it.
Click to expand...

The law said she has standing. That is the point.

One cannot provide evidence of bad election results until one recounts those same election results.
 
haymarket said:
The law said she has standing. That is the point.

One cannot provide evidence of bad election results until one recounts those same election results.
Click to expand...

The COURTS disagree with you.

And still no EVIDENCE of anomalies that would warrant the CONTINUATION of the recount.

Reality. Deal.
 
Fledermaus said:
The COURTS disagree with you.

And still no EVIDENCE of anomalies that would warrant the CONTINUATION of the recount.

Reality. Deal.
Click to expand...

Do you think judges should go by the law or by their political leans?

The evidence comes in the recount. That is why it is conducted in the first place.
 
haymarket said:
Do you think judges should go by the law or by their political leans?

The evidence comes in the recount. That is why it is conducted in the first place.
Click to expand...

Looks like they went by the law.

Reread their reasons for rejecting the CONTINUATION of the recount.

Note the word continuation.

As in continue.

They had a chance to present EVIDENCE to back up their claims. No EVIDENCE, no continuation.

So, no standing and no evidence.
 
Fledermaus said:
Looks like they went by the law.

Reread their reasons for rejecting the CONTINUATION of the recount.

Note the word continuation.

As in continue.

They had a chance to present EVIDENCE to back up their claims. No EVIDENCE, no continuation.

So, no standing and no evidence.
Click to expand...

I gave you the law. Tell me which part of the Michigan law on recounts they went by?
 
Fledermaus said:
NO EVIDENCE PRESENTED THAT WARRANTED A CONTINUATION OF THE RECOUNT.

Can you read that?
Click to expand...

The law says nothing about those grounds being necessary. Somebody made that up.
 
Fledermaus said:
Holy NON ANSWER Batman.....

How is Stien "aggrieved" in this case?
Click to expand...

She was a candidate for the office who was not satisfied with the numbers as reported.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom