ARMED protest are planned in all 50 state capitals and DC

[oxmixmudd]

On television that night. On Youtube the following day.

Ok. Thanks for filling in the details.

[Ronson]

No the answer to my question is NOT in the link - WHERE did you see this. You just say you saw it in the link you gave. WHERE/WHEN.

On television that night. On Youtube the following day.

Again - it sounds like the same stuff giulianni et al claimed happened in Ga that Ga just put up a website with full access to all the videos showing nothing like what was described actually happened as described.

[oxmixmudd]

It's in the link. I keep listing the same things that I witnessed over and over and over here. It's exhausting. I trust my eyes. I know what I saw.

No the answer to my question is NOT in the link - WHERE did you see this. You just say you saw it in the link you gave. WHERE/WHEN.

Again - it sounds like the same stuff giulianni et al claimed happened in Ga that Ga just put up a website with full access to all the videos showing nothing like what was described actually happened as described.

[Ronson]

Oh good grief. Where? Are you talking about the fully debunked Trump lawyer team vidoes, or something you saw when physically present observing voting operations in your state?

It's in the link. I keep listing the same things that I witnessed over and over and over here. It's exhausting. I trust my eyes. I know what I saw.

[oxmixmudd]

https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...94#post1223294

Oh good grief. Where? Are you talking about the fully debunked Trump lawyer team vidoes, or something you saw when physically present observing voting operations in your state?

[Ronson]

No - I'm talking specifically about the recounts in Ga and the evidence presented in the EC debates for PA and Arizona.

'Saw them with my own eyes' - somehow I doubt that but feel free to make your case.

https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...94#post1223294

[oxmixmudd]

What would you have said if in 1963 if Alabama judges said there were no civil rights violations in their state? Would it be similar to what you're saying now, that we should just trust the judges in states where irregularities occurred?



That's like saying "Every person we asked if they were corrupt said they weren't. Therefore there is a lot of very solid evidence that the election processes in these states where absolutely ethical and above board."

There were astounding irregularities. I saw them with my own eyes.

No - I'm talking specifically about the recounts in Ga and the evidence presented in the EC debates for PA and Arizona.

'Saw them with my own eyes' - somehow I doubt that but feel free to make your case.

[Ronson]

And if the judges for a state don't believe there is enough evidence to proceed, then there is no reason to proceed. Who else is going to decide that Ronson. Some crazy lady sitting next to Giuliani saying such morbidly inane things even he has to try to get her to be quiet? At some point one has to trust that at least some of those judges the trump lawyers paraded their cases before are honest people of integrity. And they lost them all. There just isn't enough evidence to make the case, and that is just the simple truth.

What would you have said if in 1963 if Alabama judges said there were no civil rights violations in their state? Would it be similar to what you're saying now, that we should just trust the judges in states where irregularities occurred?

But it is actually a good bit more than just a lack of evidence Ronson. There is a lot of very solid evidence that the election processes in these states where absolutely ethical, above board, and thorough in all the ways that define a fair and legal election.

That's like saying "Every person we asked if they were corrupt said they weren't. Therefore there is a lot of very solid evidence that the election processes in these states where absolutely ethical and above board."

There were astounding irregularities. I saw them with my own eyes.

[oxmixmudd]

I see. The transcripts say "laughed out loud."

There was nothing in my comments that indicated that was annotated in the transcripts. It's kind of an absurd thing to assume. I was referring to reports from in the courtrooms of the judges reactionions, as well as the somewhat farcical intererations between Giulianni, the blond lady, and congress (or was it the senate) in the video I referenced.

I think there is sufficient evidence for new elections in contested states.

As I understand it, for there to be 'sufficient evidence for a new election' in a state, there has to be evidence there is a chance the old election was inaccurate enough to call into question the result. Since that was not the case, there was not sufficient evidence to new elections.

Because I don't answer loaded questions.

by definition, it wasn't a loaded question.

The judges believed there wasn't enough evidence to proceed.

And if the judges for a state don't believe there is enough evidence to proceed, then there is no reason to proceed. Who else is going to decide that Ronson. Some crazy lady sitting next to Giuliani saying such morbidly inane things even he has to try to get her to be quiet? At some point one has to trust that at least some of those judges the trump lawyers paraded their cases before are honest people of integrity. And they lost them all. There just isn't enough evidence to make the case, and that is just the simple truth.

But it is actually a good bit more than just a lack of evidence Ronson. There is a lot of very solid evidence that the election processes in these states where absolutely ethical, above board, and thorough in all the ways that define a fair and legal election. And that sits in stark contrast to the massive lack of evidence for fraud. For our republic to survive, at some point reason has to kick in and win out over emotion and partisan paranoia.

You aren't reading well today.

I was reading just fine. You are looking for proof of a negative - that is usually impossible. Proof there was NOT enough fraud. It doesn't work that way. There has to be proof there WAS enough fraud.

[Ronson]

According to transcripts of the proceedings.

I see. The transcripts say "laughed out loud."

But there is no reason to do that. There is no evidence of fraud sufficient to warrant it. You already admitted that.

I think there is sufficient evidence for new elections in contested states.

I suppose I could, but why would I need to do that?

Because I don't answer loaded questions.

You already admitted there was not sufficient evidence of fraud to change the result. So the question was based on that admission and is not therefore loaded.

The judges believed there wasn't enough evidence to proceed.

Eg if someone says:

You aren't reading well today.

[Gondwanaland]

That's pretty much what I thought when I saw your supposed point. You didn't actually have one, which I guess you know, like Trump knowing full well that there was never systemic fraud (or he is actually delusional) and it was just a fabrication to steal the election, so I decided to treat you like the piece of garbage I know you are.

However, you can prove me wrong:

What was my point, in full context, and how is it even remotely comparable to whatever you said, in full context.

You won't be able to do it, because, you're a retard. So, thanks for playing. Have a • Edited by a Moderator • life.

Moderated By: CP

Please familiarize yourself with the forum rules on profanity, and refrain from it.
Thanks

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

My, what a personality. I bet you're just a riot at parties.

[Zara]

*Yawn* Come up with better comebacks if you can't address people's points, bud, that was just embarrassing.

That's pretty much what I thought when I saw your supposed point. You didn't actually have one, which I guess you know, like Trump knowing full well that there was never systemic fraud (or he is actually delusional) and it was just a fabrication to steal the election, so I decided to treat you like the piece of garbage I know you are.

However, you can prove me wrong:

What was my point, in full context, and how is it even remotely comparable to whatever you said, in full context.

You won't be able to do it, because, you're a retard. So, thanks for playing. Have a • Edited by a Moderator • life.

Moderated By: CP

Please familiarize yourself with the forum rules on profanity, and refrain from it.
Thanks

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[oxmixmudd]

According to MSM? Gee, it's not like they're biased or anything.

According to transcripts of the proceedings.

Says me.



All I was hoping for was a new election in contested states.

But there is no reason to do that. There is no evidence of fraud sufficient to warrant it. You already admitted that.

Can you rephrase that?

I suppose I could, but why would I need to do that?

Thoroughly loaded question. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

You already admitted there was not sufficient evidence of fraud to change the result. So the question was based on that admission and is not therefore loaded.

Eg if someone says:

"I used to beat my wife"

Then:

"when did you stop beating your wife"

Is NOT a loaded question.

[Mountain Man]

I'm afraid you don't actually get to set such rules. Licona got spanked on that a while back.

Actually, he can. Thread starters can establish rules of decorum and have them enforced by moderators. What they can't do is tell people that they're not allowed to present valid and relevant arguments against their position. In other words, ox couldn't start a thread critical of President Trump and then make the rule that only people who agree with him are allowed to post, but he can establish a "no insults" rule.

[Ronson]

More often than not that was an accurate description of the response to the 'evidence. In some cases it was more angry, like 'how dare you waste the courts time on this ridiculousness. At least once giulliani admitted he didn't even have evidence of fraud to submit!

According to MSM? Gee, it's not like they're biased or anything.

Says who?

Says me.

And why would anyone even consider overturning an election on hearsay without any actual evidence? Hearsay in some cases coming from people that clearly don't have it all together- as we see above.

All I was hoping for was a new election in contested states.

And so you support Donald Trump's campaign over supposed election fraud that incited a mob to storm the capitol because ...?

Can you rephrase that?

If YOU understand Donald Trump's campaign that has completely undermined the peaceful transfer of power is itself fraudulent - i.e YOU know there is not evidence of sufficient fraud to change the result - how in the world do you justify supporting him as he has lied about that fact for nearly three months and as he has undermined the trust of the American people wrt one of the most critical elements of our democracy - to the point many are willing to threaten armed protests of the inauguration in 50 capitols and DC?

Thoroughly loaded question. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?