No it’s not fine. Forgive me for not taking the word of the Tug that the election was stolen from Trump.
How could someone prove fraud to you?
why dont you articulate your threshold, or is this some thing where you need an authoritative person/body telling you it happened in order to believe it happened?
Go to fucking court with some evidence. Stand in front of a judge, make your charge, and back it the fuck up with evidence.
So simple even a Democrat could do it.....................if they were right.
"Election fraud!!" The battle cry of the fucking loser. "It's still better than being at work!" is what the loser on the river says when the fish box is empty.
Sad!!
Deflecting to an authority when asked about the formation of a personal opinion
reminds me of my days of arguing with religious fanatics
Can't set an actual benchmark, would allow the tiny possibility of reaching it.
All opinions must be first successfully argued in court, the courts say so.
Opinions on college football message boards are like assholes.
No it’s not fine. Forgive me for not taking the word of the Tug that the election was stolen from Trump.
How could someone prove fraud to you?
why dont you articulate your threshold, or is this some thing where you need an authoritative person/body telling you it happened in order to believe it happened?
Is this a real question of are you pretending to be dumb? Fraud can be proven the same way fraud is always proven - with evidence. The Trump campaign had watchers in every swing precinct and has war chests and teams of lawyers expressly dedicated to uncovering this shit.
The supposed helplessness of Trump is a bunch of fucking histrionics.
I asked it because if you will only believe something when someone authoritative tells you what to believe its rather pointless to discuss it in the first place...
might as well argue about what REAL god said while we are at it too.
Not sure what you're getting at. Am I going to listen to a bunch of Breitbart fanatics on Twitter screaming about fraud with a handful of videos and half baked theories? No.
In the sense that I'll go ahead and defer to a judge on this one and LIFPO, then yeah, I suppose I need someone authoritative to weigh in.
And that leaves us with what?
It’s only possible to believe fraud (or anything) occurred if the majority of 9 philosopher kings decree is so?
The guy who blindly believes the Twitter fags is just as dumb as the guy who blindly believes Elena Kagen or kavanaugh are arbiters of truth.
There is another option... How about looking at evidence yourself and forming your own opinion? Which is why I asked what evidence might be compelling...
I don’t understand why is so difficult or absurd in asking someone what they think they would have to see/know to change their mind or believe something? Especially someone who is already ceding that they don’t already know the answer...
This is a flawed approach. You’re implying that you can’t trust authority, you can’t trust others, you can only trust yourself. Which isn’t true in any case. Human perspective is deeply biased and flawed. You’ll dismiss the evidence he presents as weak and feel biased toward your own evidence.
Authorities are certainly imperfect and ultimately they are run by humans too. But undermining them and implying your own judgement is somehow superior is just assbackwards thinking. So yes I’m going to trust the courts on this one over a bunch of internet warriors scouring 4chan for any random video or picture that supports their biased view.
Pro tip : the ballots that arrived too late were already not included in the reported counts as per SCOTUS directions from over a week ago -- their counts were already in a separate bucket. This ruling isn't going to help the loser Trump. At most it will just prevent his loss in PA from looking even bigger than it already looks.
Biden flipped 3 states.
Winners win.
The intent was to freeze the inflow. Once that’s been assured, the Audit starts. That’s where the Fun begins, so I’m told.
No it’s not fine. Forgive me for not taking the word of the Tug that the election was stolen from Trump.
How could someone prove fraud to you?
why dont you articulate your threshold, or is this some thing where you need an authoritative person/body telling you it happened in order to believe it happened?
Go to fucking court with some evidence. Stand in front of a judge, make your charge, and back it the fuck up with evidence.
So simple even a Democrat could do it.....................if they were right.
"Election fraud!!" The battle cry of the fucking loser. "It's still better than being at work!" is what the loser on the river says when the fish box is empty.
Sad!!
Deflecting to an authority when asked about the formation of a personal opinion
reminds me of my days of arguing with religious fanatics
Can't set an actual benchmark, would allow the tiny possibility of reaching it.
All opinions must be first successfully argued in court, the courts say so.
That is my personal fucking opinion.
Back up your shit in court with evidence or stfu. It's simple, and it's my opinion that's what you, or Trump, as it were, should do.
Opinions don't need to be argued in court. Elections do, though.
Tell me more about your days of arguing with religious fanatics. Did they show up to arguments with no evidence and ask you to refute their opinion?
No it’s not fine. Forgive me for not taking the word of the Tug that the election was stolen from Trump.
How could someone prove fraud to you?
why dont you articulate your threshold, or is this some thing where you need an authoritative person/body telling you it happened in order to believe it happened?
Go to fucking court with some evidence. Stand in front of a judge, make your charge, and back it the fuck up with evidence.
So simple even a Democrat could do it.....................if they were right.
"Election fraud!!" The battle cry of the fucking loser. "It's still better than being at work!" is what the loser on the river says when the fish box is empty.
Sad!!
Deflecting to an authority when asked about the formation of a personal opinion
reminds me of my days of arguing with religious fanatics
Can't set an actual benchmark, would allow the tiny possibility of reaching it.
All opinions must be first successfully argued in court, the courts say so.
That is my personal fucking opinion.
Back up your shit in court with evidence or stfu. It's simple, and it's my opinion that's what you, or Trump, as it were, should do.
Opinions don't need to be argued in court. Elections do, though.
Tell me more about your days of arguing with religious fanatics. Did they show up to arguments with no evidence and ask you to refute their opinion?
That pussy cuck Dubya took the Dems to court and fucking won like a man.
Pro tip : the ballots that arrived too late were already not included in the reported counts as per SCOTUS directions from over a week ago -- their counts were already in a separate bucket. This ruling isn't going to help the loser Trump. At most it will just prevent his loss in PA from looking even bigger than it already looks.
Biden flipped 3 states.
Winners win.
The intent was to freeze the inflow. Once that’s been assured, the Audit starts. That’s where the Fun begins, so I’m told.
No it’s not fine. Forgive me for not taking the word of the Tug that the election was stolen from Trump.
How could someone prove fraud to you?
why dont you articulate your threshold, or is this some thing where you need an authoritative person/body telling you it happened in order to believe it happened?
Is this a real question of are you pretending to be dumb? Fraud can be proven the same way fraud is always proven - with evidence. The Trump campaign had watchers in every swing precinct and has war chests and teams of lawyers expressly dedicated to uncovering this shit.
The supposed helplessness of Trump is a bunch of fucking histrionics.
I asked it because if you will only believe something when someone authoritative tells you what to believe its rather pointless to discuss it in the first place...
might as well argue about what REAL god said while we are at it too.
Not sure what you're getting at. Am I going to listen to a bunch of Breitbart fanatics on Twitter screaming about fraud with a handful of videos and half baked theories? No.
In the sense that I'll go ahead and defer to a judge on this one and LIFPO, then yeah, I suppose I need someone authoritative to weigh in.
And that leaves us with what?
It’s only possible to believe fraud (or anything) occurred if the majority of 9 philosopher kings decree is so?
The guy who blindly believes the Twitter fags is just as dumb as the guy who blindly believes Elena Kagen or kavanaugh are arbiters of truth.
There is another option... How about looking at evidence yourself and forming your own opinion? Which is why I asked what evidence might be compelling...
I don’t understand why is so difficult or absurd in asking someone what they think they would have to see/know to change their mind or believe something? Especially someone who is already ceding that they don’t already know the answer...
This reads like the thought process of dipshit college kids who just got their first whiff of philosophy 101.
"The guy who blindly believes the Twitter fags is just as dumb as the guy who blindly believes Elena Kagen or kavanaugh are arbiters of truth."
This is the fucking stupidest thing I've read in a very long time. Nobody is saying blindly believe anyone, those are your words. But giving anonymous Twitter fags the same credibility as SCOTUS justices in this explicitly legal matter is beyond the pale of retarded. Besides, you're not even adhering to your own shitty false equivalency. You're blindly believing and sucking down everything given to you by the Twitter fags.
No it’s not fine. Forgive me for not taking the word of the Tug that the election was stolen from Trump.
How could someone prove fraud to you?
why dont you articulate your threshold, or is this some thing where you need an authoritative person/body telling you it happened in order to believe it happened?
When evidence is presented in court and fraudulent votes are disqualified and Trump wins.
I only believe things successfully argued in the court of law.
legal system, especially the supreme court, always gets it right.
Best system in the world, just ask Dred Scott or Korematsu.
Imagine if we only determined guilt or innocence based on accusations.
like the last 5 years
And the collusion bros ended up looking like Jack asses didn’t they. It’s wise in life to not get out over one’s skis.
No it’s not fine. Forgive me for not taking the word of the Tug that the election was stolen from Trump.
How could someone prove fraud to you?
why dont you articulate your threshold, or is this some thing where you need an authoritative person/body telling you it happened in order to believe it happened?
When evidence is presented in court and fraudulent votes are disqualified and Trump wins.
I only believe things successfully argued in the court of law.
legal system, especially the supreme court, always gets it right.
Best system in the world, just ask Dred Scott or Korematsu.
Imagine if we only determined guilt or innocence based on accusations.
like the last 5 years
And the collusion bros ended up looking like Jack asses didn’t they. It’s wise in life to not get out over one’s skis.
Sadly, that really hasn't hurt anyone.
Yup. Those folks have no remorse it would seem. Mother nature stepped in to save them as we've discussed. No Covid and Trump stands a pretty good chance at re-election (possibly by a wide margin depending on the economy). The ridiculous House push towards impeachment would have certainly played a role.
Comments
Authorities are certainly imperfect and ultimately they are run by humans too. But undermining them and implying your own judgement is somehow superior is just assbackwards thinking. So yes I’m going to trust the courts on this one over a bunch of internet warriors scouring 4chan for any random video or picture that supports their biased view.
We’ll just have to see what happens.
Back up your shit in court with evidence or stfu. It's simple, and it's my opinion that's what you, or Trump, as it were, should do.
Opinions don't need to be argued in court. Elections do, though.
Tell me more about your days of arguing with religious fanatics. Did they show up to arguments with no evidence and ask you to refute their opinion?
Trump lost.
He is just too much of a pussy to admit it.
It's not over one way or another.
The ruling in Penn today helps Trump and let's fucking lets the rest of this shit play out.
"The guy who blindly believes the Twitter fags is just as dumb as the guy who blindly believes Elena Kagen or kavanaugh are arbiters of truth."
This is the fucking stupidest thing I've read in a very long time. Nobody is saying blindly believe anyone, those are your words. But giving anonymous Twitter fags the same credibility as SCOTUS justices in this explicitly legal matter is beyond the pale of retarded. Besides, you're not even adhering to your own shitty false equivalency. You're blindly believing and sucking down everything given to you by the Twitter fags.