"standing"

https://discordapp.com/channels/760945067107680286/771201221145919499/793539097930891323

So why are you claiming to have not seen due process if you haven’t even looked at the court cases . You claim is that “courts have not looked at the evidence” which court case did not look at the evidence. You have about 60 to choose from @rip.lul

I digress

Do you understand what a positive claim is @rip.lul

enlighten me?

you got me bro. 1 you 0 me. No election fraud.

Its settled then \

lol

“Courts have not looked at the evidence” this is a positive claim of something the court did (the action being not looking at the evidence) . How are you justifying this positive claim @rip.lul

Im not. I retract my statement.

What court case meets this criteria of not looking at fraud evidence @rip.lul

Good

you got me.

So tomorrow will you continue to think that fraud evidence was not looked at by the courts @rip.lul

because they explained "standing" on this show

Or that the evidence of fraud was not looked at by the courts

I will still not have seen total due process.

@chuchomucho standing had to do with the Texas case which was about state procedures not fraud

@rip.lul ok name one where due process was not granted

That is fruad

No it isn’t @chuchomucho

That not voter or election fraud @chuchomucho

i HAVENT SEEEN IT

they changed the rules illegally

THERE IS NOTHING TO NAME

Same principle apples. Which court case did not give the plaintiff due process @rip.lul the positive claims being “courts did not give due process”

Maybe you could provide an instance of this and not some Op-ed saying no evidence,

I am only going by the court cases

can you provide me some?

and not an op-ed article.

Of the court cases which one did not give the plaintiff due process: I’m not doing your homework. You made the positive claims now support it @rip.lul

they changed the rules illegally, they did not go through the correct process of changing them

That is fruad

My claim; I have not seen nonpartisan due process. Its potentially out there. I just havent seen it.

@james j You could also just say 'no evidence'. That's how making claims works, as is my understanding.

No fraud. No evidence. Next.

@chuchomucho that isn’t fraud. That’s a state issue they argued in court and the Supreme Court of that court said it was permissible. That is the end of the line. Rule changes is not fraud and if the republicans really cared or thought it was bad they would have challenged it before the election in court. They did not do this. They only did this after they lost. Again this is not a fraud case showing any fraud occurred

I'll post it on Parler so I can use it as a source.

Heh Parler

no, its just a violation of the constituion.