VP Debate: Vance vs Walz

[Strike 4,802]

5 minutes ago, OldMaid said:

In law, standing or locus standi is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have, by demonstrating to the court, sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. A party has standing in the following situations:

The party is directly subject to an adverse effect by the statute or action in question, and the harm suffered will continue unless the court grants relief in the form of damages or a finding that the law either does not apply to the party or that the law is void or can be nullified. In informal terms, a party must have something to lose.[1] The party has standing because they will be directly harmed by the conditions for which they are asking the court for relief.

The party is not directly harmed by the conditions by which they are petitioning the court for relief but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their situation, and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief. In the United States, this is the grounds for asking for a law to be struck down as violating the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, because while the plaintiff might not be directly affected, the law might so adversely affect others that one might never know what was not done or created by those who fear they would become subject to the law. This is known as the "chilling effects" doctrine.

The party is granted automatic standing by act of law.[2] For example, under some environmental laws in the United States, a party may sue someone causing pollution to certain waterways without a federal permit, even if the party suing is not harmed by the pollution being generated. The law allows the plaintiff to receive attorney's fees if they substantially prevail in the action. In some U.S. states, a person who believes a book, film or other work of art is obscene may sue in their own name to have the work banned directly without having to ask a District Attorney to do so.

In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless they can demonstrate that they are or will "imminently" be harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks standing" to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality.

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

Seems like the bolded is what pertains to this discussion, no? If they didn’t meet the threshold then that’s the end of the line. Which is what happened here. So what exactly are you complaining about? 

You're just hyperfocused on that one word/term when I have not once said that is the ONLY reason.  In fact I've stated repeatedly that it is not.  And you've ignored the broader point that many of the cases were dismissed for reasons OTHER  than whether their claims had merit.   I'll pass.

[OldMaid 2,108]

2 minutes ago, Strike said:

You're just hyperfocused on that one word/term when I have not once said that is the ONLY reason.  In fact I've stated repeatedly that it is not.  And you've ignored the broader point that many of the cases were dismissed for reasons OTHER  than whether their claims had merit.   I'll pass.

How about you give some of the OTHER examples? Oh wait, you’re gonna pass…

 

 

[Strike 4,802]

Just now, OldMaid said:

How about you give some of the OTHER examples? Oh wait, you’re gonna pass…

 

 

Yeah because I've had to repeat myself three times already.  That suggests this discussion will not be fruitful and I'd rather not waste my time.

[OldMaid 2,108]

3 minutes ago, Strike said:

Yeah because I've had to repeat myself three times already.  That suggests this discussion will not be fruitful and I'd rather not waste my time.

Ok. Buh bye.  

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,409]

2 hours ago, thegeneral said:

Florida came down to about 500 votes. One state. Al Gore conceded in early Dec.

Hillary conceded in early November.

Take Trump’s balls off your chin.

They're not on my chin - they're in his apartment inside your brain where he gets free rent. 

Have some more kool-aid. 

[thegeneral 2,490]

9 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

They're not on my chin - they're in his apartment inside your brain where he gets free rent. 

Have some more kool-aid. 

Nah they are on your chin. 

[Jeff Probst 59]

49 minutes ago, OldMaid said:

Ok. Buh bye.  

This is what Strike does when he gets proven wrong.  He'll never admit it, he just runs away.  Nice job.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,409]

36 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Nah they are on your chin. 

Negative.  In your head. 

That is undeniable and irrefutable.  But go ahead, tell everyone they aren't. 

You might be able to fool the rest of your Boyosexual pals, but logical thinking adults see right through you.

[thegeneral 2,490]

21 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Negative.  In your head. 

That is undeniable and irrefutable.  But go ahead, tell everyone they aren't. 

You might be able to fool the rest of your Boyosexual pals, but logical thinking adults see right through you.

Nope. On your chin.

You are the dope equating Gore in 2000 to what your orange king did

[Hardcore troubadour 14,164]

13 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Nope. On your chin.

You are the dope equating Gore in 2000 to what your orange king did

Awesome last word.  You win. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,409]

18 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Nope. On your chin.

You are the dope equating Gore in 2000 to what your orange king did

Negative.  In your brain. 

The delusion is strong with you.  I get it.  It's (D)ifferent. 

Hypocrisy, thy name is thegeneralretard.  

[Strike 4,802]

55 minutes ago, Jeff Probst said:

This is what Strike does when he gets proven wrong.  He'll never admit it, he just runs away.  Nice job.

How was I proven wrong?  She certainly didn't do it.  Honcho didn't.  You didn't.  OM doesn't seem to dispute that many of the lawsuits were not adjudicated on their merits, which was my point, so she's actually proving me right. 

[Maximum Overkill 1,363]

20 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Nope. On your chin.

You are the dope equating Gore in 2000 to what your orange king did

 

 

[Maximum Overkill 1,363]

1 hour ago, Jeff Probst said:

This is what Strike does when he gets proven wrong.  He'll never admit it, he just runs away.  Nice job.

 

 

[Fnord 1,664]

2 hours ago, jerryskids said:

WSJ article about Walz's compulsive lying:

https://archive.ph/QZurw#selection-6043.0-6075.22

The bolded is duly noted.   

Also, you don't "misspeak" about being in Asia during Tiananmen Square.  That's a flat out lie.

Also also, he has a history of avoiding interviews that might have follow up questions or challenges.  No wonder Kamala picked him.   

Jer, lemme know if you need a translator. I speak Walz.

Also, someone voting for Trump calling out another politician for lying is... well, pathetic is a nice way to put it.

[Maximum Overkill 1,363]

 

 

[Fnord 1,664]

1 hour ago, thegeneral said:

Nah they are on your chin. 

I would have guessed he was gargling them with a nice effeminate white wine. Riesling maybe?

[Jeff Probst 59]

4 minutes ago, Strike said:

How was I proven wrong?  She certainly didn't do it.  Honcho didn't.  You didn't.  OM doesn't seem to dispute that many of the lawsuits were not adjudicated on their merits, which was my point, so she's actually proving me right. 

All of the 62 court cases , 61 were dismissed.  One one was upheld in PA which did not result in any changes to the outcome of the election, and it was later overturned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_U.S._presidential_election

If there is no standing then there is no merit, at least not for the plaintiff that brings the case.

 

[purdygood 306]

1 hour ago, thegeneral said:

Nah they are on your chin. 

What do you call nuts on a wall?

 

Walnuts  

 

 

What do you call nuts on your chest?

 

Chestnuts. 
 

What do you call nuts on your chin?

 

A DI+k in your mouth!

[BrahmaBulls 627]

1 hour ago, Jeff Probst said:

This is what Strike does when he gets proven wrong.  He'll never admit it, he just runs away.  Nice job.

Okay, GutterPedo

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,409]

4 minutes ago, purdygood said:

What do you call nuts on your chin?

A DI+k in your mouth!

Rumour has it those are thegeneralretard favorite type.

[BrahmaBulls 627]

7 minutes ago, purdygood said:

What do you call nuts on a wall?

 

Walnuts  

 

 

What do you call nuts on your chest?

 

Chestnuts. 
 

What do you call nuts on your chin?

 

A DI+k in your mouth!

You lib fellas are obsessed with sucking c0ck.  Take it to the Squis thread.

[Maximum Overkill 1,363]

 

 

[Strike 4,802]

11 minutes ago, Jeff Probst said:

All of the 62 court cases , 61 were dismissed.  One one was upheld in PA which did not result in any changes to the outcome of the election, and it was later overturned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_U.S._presidential_election

If there is no standing then there is no merit, at least not for the plaintiff that brings the case.

 

You're making the same tired arguments she did.  Either you two can't read or something.

[Maximum Overkill 1,363]

3 minutes ago, Strike said:

You're making the same tired arguments she did.  Either you two can't read or something.

He can't read but he can Groom Children with the best of them. 

[thegeneral 2,490]

31 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Negative.  In your brain. 

The delusion is strong with you.  I get it.  It's (D)ifferent. 

Hypocrisy, thy name is thegeneralretard.  

I’m sorry you are too dim to understand. 

[thegeneral 2,490]

37 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Awesome last word.  You win. 

The “last word” shtick. The calling card of the nitwits

[purdygood 306]

13 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Rumour has it those are thegeneralretard favorite type.

Many people are saying that about Trump too. (Many people)

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,409]

Just now, purdygood said:

Many people are saying that about Trump too. (Many people)

no one is saying that.

[purdygood 306]

Just now, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

no one is saying that.

I've heard many people say it. And i only listen to the best people. 

[thegeneral 2,490]

2 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

no one is saying that.

it’s like talking with a child.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,409]

7 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

it’s like talking with a child.

I think you'll find that everyone agrees that you're like a retarded child. 

Go ahead, I'll let you have the last word since you can never let go.  Go ahead.  I bestow this gift upon you. 

[Horseman 1,986]

19 minutes ago, Strike said:

You're making the same tired arguments she did.  Either you two can't read or something.

Gutterboy reading problem?  No kidding.  

[thegeneral 2,490]

8 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

I think you'll find that everyone agrees that you're like a retarded child. 

Go ahead, I'll let you have the last word since you can never let go.  Go ahead.  I bestow this gift upon you. 

I don’t think I have ever seen you post anything other than a post that can be summed up as “NUH UH”. It’s kind of impressive actually. 

You can have the last word!

[avoiding injuries 1,363]

5 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Jan 6. Cough cough. 

“I can’t kill my baby” cough cough

[Hardcore troubadour 14,164]

50 minutes ago, Jeff Probst said:

All of the 62 court cases , 61 were dismissed.  One one was upheld in PA which did not result in any changes to the outcome of the election, and it was later overturned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_U.S._presidential_election

If there is no standing then there is no merit, at least not for the plaintiff that brings the case.

 

How many of those lawsuits did Trump bring? 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,164]

32 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

The “last word” shtick. The calling card of the nitwits

It’s not shtick. It’s specific to you.  It’s an accurate observation.  Learn the difference. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,409]

16 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

You can have the last word!

Nope.  I promised you that YOU could have the last word.  Go ahead. 

[OldMaid 2,108]

1 hour ago, Strike said:

How was I proven wrong?  She certainly didn't do it.  Honcho didn't.  You didn't.  OM doesn't seem to dispute that many of the lawsuits were not adjudicated on their merits, which was my point, so she's actually proving me right. 

Well, I guess if you want to ignore that they didn’t meet the requirements to bring a lawsuit in the first place… I don’t think this is the win you think it is.

[thegeneral 2,490]

12 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

It’s not shtick. It’s specific to you.  It’s an accurate observation.  Learn the difference. 

But here you are responding.