Rationalizations from Trumptards wanted
Comments
-
Central law school?
I don’t have to prove shit, Einstein. This shit is going down regardless of what you, Me or anyone else thinks about it.
Christ.
As the players emerge with their increasingly outlandish claims, I find it fascinating to watch as history is being played out real time. Nothing more. -
WELL. Here's the problem, buddy. Courts keep refusing to look at or rule on the proof. The media won't cover the proof and in fact debunks, wrongly, the proof in general terms which is causing the populous to not worry about asking for answers.AOG said: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.
I get that you will respond with a technicality saying that means there's no proof but you should very easily be able to comprehend the argument I'm making. This is not some conspiracy theory.
Here's just one example:
https://hereistheevidence.com/election-2020/pa-update-records/
Literally no one will look into this. Of course you won't bother digging into this at all, you'll just keep pissing in the wind trying to repeat your narrative.
-
I'm just hear to spit on the grave of the Biden mandatedoogie said:Central law school?
I don’t have to prove shit, Einstein. This shit is going down regardless of what you, Me or anyone else thinks about it.
Christ.
As the players emerge with their increasingly outlandish claims, I find it fascinating to watch as history is being played out real time. Nothing more. -
No, the parties alleging fraud don't argue it in court because it's illegal to allege false fraud charges.
A good example of election fraud is the fucking tape here. Trump is demanding fraud to give him more votes by threatening a vague criminal offense. It's called extortion. This is an example of proof. NO "disproof" needed. -
-
here is the evidence dot com is your source?!? LOL you fucking morons have all gone full @Sledog.DoogieMcDoogerson said:
WELL. Here's the problem, buddy. Courts keep refusing to look at or rule on the proof. The media won't cover the proof and in fact debunks, wrongly, the proof in general terms which is causing the populous to not worry about asking for answers.AOG said: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.
I get that you will respond with a technicality saying that means there's no proof but you should very easily be able to comprehend the argument I'm making. This is not some conspiracy theory.
Here's just one example:
https://hereistheevidence.com/election-2020/pa-update-records/
Literally no one will look into this. Of course you won't bother digging into this at all, you'll just keep pissing in the wind trying to repeat your narrative.
-
Found another Pigeon.insinceredawg said:
here is the evidence dot com is your source?!? LOL you fucking morons have all gone full @Sledog.DoogieMcDoogerson said:
WELL. Here's the problem, buddy. Courts keep refusing to look at or rule on the proof. The media won't cover the proof and in fact debunks, wrongly, the proof in general terms which is causing the populous to not worry about asking for answers.AOG said: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.
I get that you will respond with a technicality saying that means there's no proof but you should very easily be able to comprehend the argument I'm making. This is not some conspiracy theory.
Here's just one example:
https://hereistheevidence.com/election-2020/pa-update-records/
Literally no one will look into this. Of course you won't bother digging into this at all, you'll just keep pissing in the wind trying to repeat your narrative.
One that doesn’t read of course. -
doogie said:
Central law school?
I don’t have to prove shit, Einstein. This shit is going down regardless of what you, Me or anyone else thinks about it.
Christ.
As the players emerge with their increasingly outlandish claims, I find it fascinating to watch as history is being played out real time. Nothing more.
-
Dear Jury....sure we have a video of my client shooting the victim and numerous eyewitnesses that signed affidavits that said my client told them to leave the room before the claimed "incident", but there was no actual body found by the police. Sure the police didn't show up to look, but that's not my client's fault.AOG said: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.
Do you realize how stupid you sound?
Liar. -
If Raf did nothing wrong, he has nothing to worry about, right?AOG said:
Seriously, Trump can use the implied threat since he appoints the director of the DOJ. Trump is making a threat. Whether he can follow through may be in doubt, but we know Barr went along with Trump's plans. Why would Raf... not assume he was the next target? Trump is using his position of power over the DOJ (which he has clearly now demonstrated) as a threat.NorthwestFresh said:
That’s not threatening him and Trump can’t prosecute anyone.AOG said:
Listen -- Trump said he was "notifying" him that what he's doing is a crime (paraphrased! -- that what it is though)NorthwestFresh said:
How did he threaten him with a criminal charge? Use your words.AOG said:
Anybody can tell somebody to fuck on in an anonymous forum. But tell me how you excuse a president that threatens a secretary of state with a criminal charge of some kind if he doesn't "find" some votes, and gives a specific number? Yeah? How?TheKobeStopper said:
This had to hurt their souls.AOG said:I wanted to catch you assholes before you got the official excuse.
You’re lying, which is no surprise.
Jesus, you fucking snowflakes will turn every comment or gripe into a constitutional crisis, won't you?
