Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Rationalizations from Trumptards wanted
Comments
-
Heard some news babe say its only 17 days but Trump should be impeached for this audio
-
He will be. Don’t worry.
First President to work for Free with No pension -
-
RaceBannon said:
Heard some news babe say its only 17 days but Trump should be impeached for this audio
Btw, if you haven’t watched the documentary “Hoaxed” on how this all goes down, it’s worth the $4.99 on AppleTV.
-
OK, so it took you assholes a few hours to recover and rationalize the taped Trump extortion mostly with the usual set of debunked "fraud" charges (none of which actually are much more than half baked distortions omitting some critical considerations). But, you didn't know what to do for a while.
-
what I just said... It's disproven if you can't prove fraud. The reason is that "proof of disproof" doesn't mean it's happened. Think about it. If I say HoustonHusky is a fag, I have no proof. But I can't disprove it (you not being a fag) either. If you 1) can't prove it and 2) can't disprove it, then you aren't a fag. If you can't prove fraud and can't disprove fraud, there was no fraud.HoustonHusky said:
There is a video showing election laws being broken as I previously specified...you didn’t contradict a single thing I said because you can’t.AOG said:
That's a twist of the facts.... if you can't prove fraud nor disprove fraud nothing happenedHoustonHusky said:
You beat your wife but ok.AOG said:
An investigation report that proves something didn't happen? This is known as:HoustonHusky said:
Have a link to the investigation report? Trump even asked for it in the phone call...Georgia SOS didn’t know how to respond.AOG said:The ballot-suitcase video has been debunked for literally months
Liar.
Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true.
Example: HoustonHusky is a fag. If I can't prove that false does it mean it's true?
Thing is, if I didn’t have a video of you beating your wife me saying so doesn’t mean a whole lot. When I have a video of somebody lying about a leak in the building which records prove didn’t happen to clear the room of observers, and then go on to “count” ballots without observers in any form which is against all election laws, much less counting from unidentifiable boxes not in the standard storage location, that is the equivalent of a video of you hitting your wife and gives the accusation a lot more weight.
Feel free to try and explain why you were hitting your wife and provide the police report absolving you, but don’t tell me my own eyes are lying to me.
Liar.
You claimed that video has been disproven...I asked for the link to the report explaining/disproving it. You can’t provide that either.
Because you are a liar. -
-
Hey look...another poast from a proven liar who can't refute a single thing I said about the video.AOG said:
what I just said... It's disproven if you can't prove fraud. The reason is that "proof of disproof" doesn't mean it's happened. Think about it. If I say HoustonHusky is a fag, I have no proof. But I can't disprove it (you not being a fag) either. If you 1) can't prove it and 2) can't disprove it, then you aren't a fag. If you can't prove fraud and can't disprove fraud, there was no fraud.HoustonHusky said:
There is a video showing election laws being broken as I previously specified...you didn’t contradict a single thing I said because you can’t.AOG said:
That's a twist of the facts.... if you can't prove fraud nor disprove fraud nothing happenedHoustonHusky said:
You beat your wife but ok.AOG said:
An investigation report that proves something didn't happen? This is known as:HoustonHusky said:
Have a link to the investigation report? Trump even asked for it in the phone call...Georgia SOS didn’t know how to respond.AOG said:The ballot-suitcase video has been debunked for literally months
Liar.
Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true.
Example: HoustonHusky is a fag. If I can't prove that false does it mean it's true?
Thing is, if I didn’t have a video of you beating your wife me saying so doesn’t mean a whole lot. When I have a video of somebody lying about a leak in the building which records prove didn’t happen to clear the room of observers, and then go on to “count” ballots without observers in any form which is against all election laws, much less counting from unidentifiable boxes not in the standard storage location, that is the equivalent of a video of you hitting your wife and gives the accusation a lot more weight.
Feel free to try and explain why you were hitting your wife and provide the police report absolving you, but don’t tell me my own eyes are lying to me.
Liar.
You claimed that video has been disproven...I asked for the link to the report explaining/disproving it. You can’t provide that either.
Because you are a liar.
What was this, round 3?
Keep lying. -
Fantastic logic. Actually, fantasy-logic. You probably aren't a lawyer, are you?AOG said:
what I just said... It's disproven if you can't prove fraud. The reason is that "proof of disproof" doesn't mean it's happened. Think about it. If I say HoustonHusky is a fag, I have no proof. But I can't disprove it (you not being a fag) either. If you 1) can't prove it and 2) can't disprove it, then you aren't a fag. If you can't prove fraud and can't disprove fraud, there was no fraud.HoustonHusky said:
There is a video showing election laws being broken as I previously specified...you didn’t contradict a single thing I said because you can’t.AOG said:
That's a twist of the facts.... if you can't prove fraud nor disprove fraud nothing happenedHoustonHusky said:
You beat your wife but ok.AOG said:
An investigation report that proves something didn't happen? This is known as:HoustonHusky said:
Have a link to the investigation report? Trump even asked for it in the phone call...Georgia SOS didn’t know how to respond.AOG said:The ballot-suitcase video has been debunked for literally months
Liar.
Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true.
Example: HoustonHusky is a fag. If I can't prove that false does it mean it's true?
Thing is, if I didn’t have a video of you beating your wife me saying so doesn’t mean a whole lot. When I have a video of somebody lying about a leak in the building which records prove didn’t happen to clear the room of observers, and then go on to “count” ballots without observers in any form which is against all election laws, much less counting from unidentifiable boxes not in the standard storage location, that is the equivalent of a video of you hitting your wife and gives the accusation a lot more weight.
Feel free to try and explain why you were hitting your wife and provide the police report absolving you, but don’t tell me my own eyes are lying to me.
Liar.
You claimed that video has been disproven...I asked for the link to the report explaining/disproving it. You can’t provide that either.
Because you are a liar. -
No but it is called the "burden of proof." You have to prove something happened. Proving it didn't happen is not necessary. So no "disproof" is ever required.
