Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Rationalizations from Trumptards wanted
Comments
-
Imagine being stupid enough to post content that has clearly been a cut and paste job by one of the rat media leaders of the "hate Trump and anyone who thinks differently than rats do club".AOG said:
You have zero idea of the context yet you stupidly post it as some sort of evidence to support your idiotic point.
You are not a smart individual, you are just another goose stepping rat moron who does whatever you are told. No one should waste two seconds on garbage like this. -
You are a rat and like always you support racist pol's if you think they can win. That's why many can't believe anyone would vote for Biden.insinceredawg said:
81M Americans did. What's your point old man?RaceBannon said:Imagine voting for Biden
-"I don't want my kids growing up in a racial jungle".
— “Well, I tell you what, if you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”
— “You got the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”
— “Unlike the African-American community, with notable exceptions, the Latino community is an incredibly diverse community with incredibly diverse attitudes about different things.”
— “In Delaware, the largest growth in population is Indian-Americans moving from India. You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.”
Last week, at a convention for Black and Hispanic journalists, a Black reporter asked Joe Biden whether he has taken a cognitive test.
“No, I haven’t taken a test. Why the hell would I take a test? Come on, man! That’s like saying you, before you got in this program, you’re taking a test whether you’re taking cocaine or not. What do you think, huh? Are you a junkie?”
Imagine if Trump had compared a cognitive test for himself to a cocaine drug test for a black journalist and then calling the black man a junkie. Biden could have come up with a 1000 different references but that is the first that came to his mind when looking at a black male. Again, can you imagine what would have happened to Trump if he said that? -
I haven’t seen the full audio posted on this thread
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/audio-trumps-full-jan-2-call-with-ga-secretary-of-state/2021/01/03/3f9426f4-7937-4718-8a8e-9d6052001991_video.html
Imagine getting made to look a fool in a settlement hearing between yourself, the plaintiff, and your legal teams; and your best response is to illegally leak the confidential audio to the WaPo to splice a hit piece together. -
Mission accomplished I guess. Idiots like AOG and the rest swallowed this cut and paste lie like Jerry Nadler on a cup cake. The dumb continue to attempt to dumb down the rest of society.LoneStarDawg said:I haven’t seen the full audio posted on this thread
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/audio-trumps-full-jan-2-call-with-ga-secretary-of-state/2021/01/03/3f9426f4-7937-4718-8a8e-9d6052001991_video.html
Imagine getting made to look a fool in a settlement hearing between yourself, the plaintiff, and your legal teams; and your best response is to illegally leak the confidential audio to the WaPo to splice a hit piece together. -
-
-
-
https://hereistheevidence.com/HHusky said:
Except there isn’t any evidence of voter fraud, Gasbag. None. Whatsoever.WestlinnDuck said:
Uh, a party dedicated to voter fraud is your choice not mine. We are seeing a crystal clear example of this with the dazzer who FEELS that voter ID is racist and so is an honest election.HHusky said:https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-corrupts/ar-BB1crvZg?item=flights:prg-enterpriseblended-t,1s-ent-microsoft&ocid=entnewsntp
A Republican Party based on the idea that power should be wielded whenever possible, and that Congress ought to override the states whenever Congress disagrees, is not in any way a conservative party.
The Republican Party became a cult of personality by the time Trump won the presidency. Now we’re seeing crystal clear the costs of that transition.
This is the evidence across the US that the media won't cover, the AGs choose to ignore, and the courts don't want to get involved with. You wouldn't know about this because you watch CNN you worthless fuck. -
-
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.
-
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?
