On audits, elections and public trust

[Mayan Elephant]

Anyway. This is one of the weirder right-wing meltdowns I’ve witnessed on this board. ME, there was no need to come out swinging. You can just make your argument, and then set about educating us. Any proof that supports your position is welcome, and ought to be debated in order to figure out what’s what.

- Doc

Doc, you are the proof. You are the evidence.

The topic was ideology, post-Mormons and fault lines. And you are proof that even fault lines as a metaphor for plate tectonics and the continental intersection of ideologies among post Mormons is not a strong enough metaphor.

I have said that I will not vote in an election with VBM. So what? Why is that even a point of contention. How ever is that conspiratorial? It is not. In fact, it is a very non-confrontational way of opting out of a process that does not meet my standards. VBM meets a lot of people's standards, mine are not met. So I am out. So what? I can have a beer with people that buy the NFL season package and with people that think the NFL is a barbarian spectacle of brain injuries and racial exploitation. I do not need to decide if one consumer is a moron and one non-consumer is a moron. YOU are the evidence that within this community, and this board, your ideology is an absolute or else you will sh*t on whoever you must to make this a continent that soothes your needs.

Nice talenting on the bolding and upsizing of the font, by the way. ctrl+b, well done.

Would you like to debate that there is no fault line between ideologies?

I have made it very clear that I do not have evidence of fraud, nor is my decision based on speculative evidence. You have made it very clear that Standing preceded Laches in cases involving elections. WE AGREE ON THE FACTS FOR CHRISSAKES. And yet, you must crap on anything that is not ideologically paired with you. You are the evidence. I have no clue what it is you are trying to debate here. I am not disagreeing with you that lots and lots of people like VBM and always did and always will. That does not hurt my feelings.

[Mayan Elephant]

That’s B.S.. They needed to bring a SPECIFIC allegation and then provide PROOF of the said allegation. The, what, 60? cases that were brought to various courts and then dismissed had no standing because they brought nonsensical broad allegations that the court rightly dismissed. Specific. Proof. Then they would’ve had standing. Anyway:


- Doc

wow. just wow. mmmmmkay Doc.

Keep on being the evidence in the topic at hand - ideology. Wow wow wow wow wow.

you have no clue what you are talking about on this one. NONE. None whatsoever. Zero.

Standing is not about the issues, it’s about who is bringing the lawsuit and whether they a legal right to sue.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

ME,

You are mistaken. The topic you’re bringing up is on the Terrestrial forum. This topic, on this forum, is “On audits, elections and public trust”.

- Doc

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

That’s B.S.. They needed to bring a SPECIFIC allegation and then provide PROOF of the said allegation. The, what, 60? cases that were brought to various courts and then dismissed had no standing because they brought nonsensical broad allegations that the court rightly dismissed. Specific. Proof. Then they would’ve had standing. Anyway:


- Doc

wow. just wow. mmmmmkay Doc.

Keep on being the evidence in the topic at hand - ideology. Wow wow wow wow wow.

you have no clue what you are talking about on this one. NONE. None whatsoever. Zero.

Standing is not about the issues, it’s about who is bringing the lawsuit and whether they a legal right to sue.

-_-

[Mayan Elephant]

FTR, this was never a conversation about audits, elections and public trust. This was a conversation about ideological fault lines. And something as simple as audits, elections and public trust are so effing ideologically founded that they cannot even happen in the telestial world, such a suggestion must be banished. Ain't that somethin? God forbid there would ever be a conversation about censorship, imagine the uselessness of facts in a conversation like that.

Hello Doc.

[Mayan Elephant]

Standing is not about the issues, it’s about who is bringing the lawsuit and whether they a legal right to sue.

-_-

Can you source your outlandish interpretation standing?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

-_-

Can you source your outlandish interpretation standing?

Sure.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)

https://adflegal.blob.core.windows.net/ ... f?sfvrsn=4

In your case, regarding the nonsense voter fraud claims by various Trumpists:

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/publ ... itigation/

Crtl + F “standing” so you don’t have to read, which, you know, I’d urge you to read the entire page, regardless.

- Doc

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Anyway. My point in engaging you is to try to persuade you to keep voting, whichever way you’re inclined to vote. I think we have a good system, so don’t let the nonsense get into your head.

- Doc

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

FTR, this was never a conversation about audits, elections and public trust. This was a conversation about ideological fault lines. And something as simple as audits, elections and public trust are so effing ideologically founded that they cannot even happen in the telestial world, such a suggestion must be banished. Ain't that somethin? God forbid there would ever be a conversation about censorship, imagine the uselessness of facts in a conversation like that.

Hello Doc.

It’s literally the title of this thread, and this is the OP:

https://www.discussmormonism.com/viewto ... 526#p25526

Please stop doubling down when you’re wrong.

- Doc

[Icarus]

My issue is that standing prevents evidentiary hearings and then laches says it is too late.

It is not a conspiracy to say that is the case. I am just not interested in playing along. I do not find that pattern acceptable.

Oh brother. If there were actual evidence then they'd present it to the court of public opinion and stop whining about how the courts didn't want to see it. Every time I hear these Trumpers talk about "evidence" of fraud, trying to get them to produce it beyond Trump's say so is impossible. But they like to talk about "signed affidavits" of people claiming some kind of shenanigans. Weird how its always the Qanon types who see fraud.