Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Penn Judge says No to late arriving ballots
Comments
-
Opinions on college football message boards are like assholes.Houhusky said:
Deflecting to an authority when asked about the formation of a personal opiniondflea said:
Go to fucking court with some evidence. Stand in front of a judge, make your charge, and back it the fuck up with evidence.Houhusky said:
How could someone prove fraud to you?YellowSnow said:
No it’s not fine. Forgive me for not taking the word of the Tug that the election was stolen from Trump.RaceBannon said:Fraud is fine if you don't like the candidate
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?
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!!
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. -
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.Houhusky said:
And that leaves us with what?GreenRiverGatorz said:
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.Houhusky said:
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...GreenRiverGatorz said:
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.Houhusky said:
How could someone prove fraud to you?YellowSnow said:
No it’s not fine. Forgive me for not taking the word of the Tug that the election was stolen from Trump.RaceBannon said:Fraud is fine if you don't like the candidate
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?
The supposed helplessness of Trump is a bunch of fucking histrionics.
might as well argue about what REAL god said while we are at it too.
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.
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...
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. -
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.HairyBallsDawg said: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.
We’ll just have to see what happens. -
That is my personal fucking opinion.Houhusky said:
Deflecting to an authority when asked about the formation of a personal opiniondflea said:
Go to fucking court with some evidence. Stand in front of a judge, make your charge, and back it the fuck up with evidence.Houhusky said:
How could someone prove fraud to you?YellowSnow said:
No it’s not fine. Forgive me for not taking the word of the Tug that the election was stolen from Trump.RaceBannon said:Fraud is fine if you don't like the candidate
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?
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!!
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.
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.dflea said:
That is my personal fucking opinion.Houhusky said:
Deflecting to an authority when asked about the formation of a personal opiniondflea said:
Go to fucking court with some evidence. Stand in front of a judge, make your charge, and back it the fuck up with evidence.Houhusky said:
How could someone prove fraud to you?YellowSnow said:
No it’s not fine. Forgive me for not taking the word of the Tug that the election was stolen from Trump.RaceBannon said:Fraud is fine if you don't like the candidate
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?
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!!
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.
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? -
Holy fuck LIFPO
-
It's already happened.doogie said:
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.HairyBallsDawg said: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.
We’ll just have to see what happens.
Trump lost.
He is just too much of a pussy to admit it. -
Ain’t no quit in Anton.PostGameOrangeSlices said:Holy fuck LIFPO
-
Gore didn't concede until 12/13...over a month from now
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. -
This reads like the thought process of dipshit college kids who just got their first whiff of philosophy 101.Houhusky said:
And that leaves us with what?GreenRiverGatorz said:
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.Houhusky said:
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...GreenRiverGatorz said:
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.Houhusky said:
How could someone prove fraud to you?YellowSnow said:
No it’s not fine. Forgive me for not taking the word of the Tug that the election was stolen from Trump.RaceBannon said:Fraud is fine if you don't like the candidate
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?
The supposed helplessness of Trump is a bunch of fucking histrionics.
might as well argue about what REAL god said while we are at it too.
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.
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...
"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.
