mrttao
Well-known member
there was overwhelming voter fraud, and a massive coverup. It was so blatant as to be pathetic.It's not, there was no voting fraud beyond the normal crap that happens and we caught those guys so system works game on
there was overwhelming voter fraud, and a massive coverup. It was so blatant as to be pathetic.It's not, there was no voting fraud beyond the normal crap that happens and we caught those guys so system works game on
Please don't try to gaslight us about what we've seen and the evidence that has come out.It's not, there was no voting fraud beyond the normal crap that happens and we caught those guys so system works game on
You mean that cases SCOTUS punted, both before and after the election, because Roberts is coward who hated Trump?yeah 60 plus cases says you're wrong, and those all came due before, Jan 6, but if you want to gaslight yourself and build yourself up for more failure I can't stop you
Oh, but there is, and no amount of gaslighting is going to change what people here have seen.No there wasn't there is no evidence of any of that
In any war where the home front is attacked, you have to pull together as a country.
That means if things go down the shitter if you vote you fight. If your not willing to fight that's fine but you shouldn't have the right to vote.
How sad it is that you think that.so you got nothing and doubling down on nothing
yeah 60 plus cases says you're wrong, and those all came due before, Jan 6, but if you want to gaslight yourself and build yourself up for more failure I can't stop you
Grammatically, do you mean to say that this: "is fraud but is not enough to budge the needle" or "this is fraud that could have budged the needle"?thats not fraud thats not even enough to budge the needle
Grammatically, do you mean to say that this: "is fraud but is not enough to budge the needle" or "this is fraud that could have budged the needle"?
Uh, that's the worst possible option. English may have an imposed mathematical grammar, but it still makes double negatives intrinsically incorrect, since they are completely unintuitive when recursive. No one would likely make that mistake due to lack of education, attention or being a native of a foreign language, it would have to be due to malice, being a smartass.He is saying it isn't fraud, and it is not enough to budge the needle- I'd wager.
Uh, that's the worst possible option. English may have an imposed mathematical grammar, but it still makes double negatives intrinsically incorrect, since they are completely unintuitive when recursive. No one would likely make that mistake due to lack of education, attention or being a native of a foreign language, it would have to be due to malice, being a smartass.
yes post election legal action changed some things, thats not fraud thats not even enough to budge the needle and frankly good on them for making the challenges thats at least honest honorable conduct
I mean hell did you even read those they're clouds of disconnected conclusioary statements to justify points decided before pen went to paper, well that and sad attempts to bilk the reader out of money
How much and what kind of evidence, specifically, would it take to change your mind?so you got nothing and doubling down on nothing
Dude's a willfully ignorant goalposts shifter. Don't waste your time.How much and what kind of evidence, specifically, would it take to change your mind?
My god, you are actually taking the bullshit from the Jan 6th Committee seriously?to quote Bill Barr, thats bullshit, well that and a poor understanding of how elections are held
are you interested in a point by point refutation of this? or is this too important to your self image ?
give it a watch, I'm reviewing it the whole thing to see if I can give you time stamps
I'm open on the idea of whether or not there was fraud, but this position doesn't make a lot of sense. Do you think Dredd Scott was a good decision? That was what the courts said. How about abortion? Was it not a constitutional right until the 1960s, then became constitutional until the 2020s when it quit being constitutional again?Something that can be proven in a court of law is generally the bed rock in public matters of finding fact
None of those are edge cases and they're all highly relevant.well those are interesting edge cases I don't think they apply to this kind of question given it's specific and limited as it is
When people line up across the entrance and refuse to budge for people trying to get in or out, that's when the protest is a blockade. Even when the people are "memaws and pawpaws".
11 years sounds excessive, but I can't say I disagree with the idea that "I have family in a chaotic warzone halfway across the planet, please let me visit" sounds like a flight risk.
The unrelated arrest of Zastrow was a specific application of the easily and often abused "disturbing the peace" charge. He got a payday from the city and the police were enjoined from hitting pro-life protesters with the same charge in the future, which is disappointing only in its specificity.
I mean, they aren't blockading if you're fine with the clinic hiring bully boys to shove them aside. I would guess you aren't, but maybe I'm wrong?Yeah, I'm sure the elderly woman is a "flight risk", but they guy who murdered a teenage republican and got bail was clearly not a flight risk.
Lets be honest, 11 unarmed old people aren't "blockading" jack shit. This is tyrannical overreach by a rogue government. They are arresting old people and fringe individuals now, how long before they come for the rest of us?
I mean, they aren't blockading if you're fine with the clinic hiring bully boys to shove them aside. I would guess you aren't, but maybe I'm wrong?
As for the one elderly woman in particular, there's a difference between out on bail and in a different country on bail. Are you suggesting she was denied bail? I didn't think that was the case but I would be inclined to agree with your outrage if she was. Or are you saying that the guy who ran over that kid (I assume you mean) in fact fled the jurisdiction?
That's not what begging the question is. Begging the question requires circular reasoning that isn't supported. What I did was provide support with examples ahead of time, literally the polar opposite of begging the question.I 'll answer your begged questions
1)no, that's why we have appeals and then no system is perfect but on average the correct answer is arrived at
2) I would say it's more that some questions are so ill founded that they can not be addresses with any level of seriousness
3)it's possible but we do maintain and update things,
You were literally presented with proof they didn't blocking the entrance and agreed that was the case in your post 7,699 of this thread.I mean, they aren't blockading if you're fine with the clinic hiring bully boys to shove them aside. I would guess you aren't, but maybe I'm wrong?
As for the one elderly woman in particular, there's a difference between out on bail and in a different country on bail. Are you suggesting she was denied bail? I didn't think that was the case but I would be inclined to agree with your outrage if she was. Or are you saying that the guy who ran over that kid (I assume you mean) in fact fled the jurisdiction?