It's an attack on me and my character, not on any argument.
You didn't make any argument.
That's been my contention all along, but you obnoxiously keep asking if they matter, why they matter, how much they matter and to prove to you that they matter personally to me.
Facts matter to me, because I think truth is important. Plenty of people on here ask for facts, I provide them, and yet they repeat the same stupid assertion as if they weren't given facts. Some people on here can't even tell fact from opinion.
You are half right . If you prove it - that the petitioners are biased, then I will acknowledge that. At the same time, since facts do matter, the law is the law and any bias of the petitioners would not affect the truth of the petition. Do you think otherwise? If so, please explain how.
And this is exactly why the facts don't matter to you....
You aren’t arguing that they aren't biased. After I waste my time proving my assertion...your actual contention is that their bias doesn't matter. That's the substantive argument you're actually going to make. I'm not magic, I don't read minds, I'm not capable of seeing the future.
You gave it away when you asked me to prove a point you never contended. You didn't contend it...because you don't actually care about bias. So why ask me to prove it?
Why don't we move onto the substantive argument first? I'll actually agree that normally, if we were discussing a law or rule that commonly removed candidates from ballots (like not submitting enough signatures) I would 100% agree that it does not matter at all what sort of bias the person or group requesting a candidate be removed from the ballot.
That's not what we're seeing though, we're seeing an obscure post civil war addition to the Constitution dragged out into the public perception as if it's valid. Read article 5...and you'll see that Congress decides who has committed insurrection, not some state judges or courts.
I mean obviously, they didn't write this article to keep confederates out of office and then leave it up to states like Mississippi or Georgia to decide who committed insurrection.
This is the equivalent of a pile of feces thrown at the wall...alongside a prayer that it sticks. I don't think every lawyer or judge in this hail Mary desperation attempt is mentally impaired....so bias seems to matter here.
Wouldn't you agree?
You claimed it is a self described liberal/leftist group - but you refuse to give any evidence that it is so. I don't know.
And you don't care. In argumentation, the technique you're using here is commonly called "playing dumb" and I stress, I'm not calling you dumb. If you wanted to find this information....because it mattered in some way....you could. You're on the interwebs. You can use the Googles.
I don't know which is why I asked.
Same as above. I'm not attacking your character and I can't attack your argument if you don't make one. You didn't make one.
"I don't know" isn't an argument.
You don't know what...how to tell if a legal group is politically biased?
If that's really the situation, say so...I'll walk you through it.
No, no one is obligated to behave civilly.
It does help though.
Conduct yourself as you will, but maybe try to tone down these character assassination attempts?
There has been no character assassination attempts on my side...you didn't make an argument for me to address, you seem to be claiming that...
1. You have no idea how to look up whether or not a group is biased.
And oddly...
2. It doesn't matter if the group is biased.
Yet you demand over and over through many different threads that I personally demonstrate to you that this is so.
Well you seem to be making a strange argument...
1. You don't know how to judge if someone or group is biased.
Or...
2. You don't think bias matters either specifically in this case or generally in the application of the law.
Ignore my posts if you don't want to answer. I'm not jumping thru your stoopid hoops.
I can't address an argument you didn’t make.
And there's no reason why I should prove a point you aren't actually disagreeing with.
You have made a point of disbelieving what I say re what I think and believe.
No no no....we both know that when you asked "how I knew" these groups were biased...that wasn't an honest good faith question.
That's why when I replied "I looked it up" that wasn't a good faith response.
I think we both understand that we were "playing dumb"...and that's probably why you're stuck. You don't want to make an argument or state a position for some reason...and I've been incredibly generous in not jumping to conclusions.
There's simply no reason for me to prove a point you don't disagree with....and if it doesn't actually matter to whatever position you hold, there's even less reason to bother.
Do you disagree with the biased nature of these groups making this attempt to remove Trump from the ballot?
Does bias not matter to you either specifically in this instance for some reason or more generally in the application of the law and you believe in the letter of the law?
In fact, this is about you: my theory is you think others must be insincere because you are that way yourself and you can't understand anyone not like you.
I've been 100% sincere since I stopped the "playing dumb" act...and I've asked you a reasonable question. I also agree it's entirely reasonable for you to ask for proof of my assertion....as long as it matters in some way. If someone were to step outside into the rain, and I told them to bring an umbrella because they'll get wet....and they replied with "prove water is wet"....I'm going to ask why and if they're going to grab an umbrella after I explain why water is wet.
I wouldn't want to go into any long explanation if they actually agree that water is wet...and they didn't disagree, did they?
Nor would I waste my time if the response to my explanation was "I don't care I'm not taking the umbrella anyway".
Perhaps you are afraid of stating an actual position and you don't want to be shown wrong. Don't be. It happens all the time, we're all human, we make mistakes. I did it on this thread. I forgot about 2 pages of classified docs later found by Trump's attorneys. I admitted it right away. Real easy, real simple...and the poster was nice enough to be gracious about it. I promise I'll do the same.
You made a specific claim that I think is questionable. Support your claim or don't.
You think it's questionable in what way? What part are you questioning? The existence of bias or if it really matters in some way?
See without that information there's really no point in bothering...I'll be wasting time and effort. If you don't understand how I'm assessing bias genuinely....say so...I'll lay it all out for you. I'll even be nice about it. It may come off a little condescending, but it's a pretty simple question and it's fair to ask.
Last chance, state a point of contention or address a substantive argument, but don't reply again as if I have to cite literally everything I say to you at your request for no good reason at all. That's ridiculous.
If you don't have any substantive argument either with that particular point (the bias) or my statements in general...and you're just grasping at straws....say that. I promise I'll just thank you for being honest and let it go.
Don't accuse me of attacking you when I'm not. In this post alone you've insinuated I'm obnoxious, stoopid, and insincere. I'm not stoopid, nor insincere, but I'll grant I'm obnoxious at times. Sure. You're sealioning, something I get wrongly accused of whenever I seek clarity on an argument someone made. You're asking me to prove assertions you didn't actually disagree with and accusing me of not addressing an argument you didn’t actually make. This isn't my college term paper, I don't have to provide citations for no reason at all.
Pick one in your next reply or I'll address every possible point you could be making and it's going to come off obnoxious.
