The GSA has informed the President-elect that the Trump administration is ready
-
You're somewhere in lala land bro. We got this. Thank you for conceding that you are lost in the sauce.
-
Who's "we" ?
-
We is my reputation vs yours.
-
You know exactly what I'm talking about.
-
As in the minority, yes I know. There are some that will keep fighting even as their cause gets more lost and lost in the upcoming years.
Trump did succeed at riling people up, to their detriment. Some of the harm done will be irreparable. But at least they will stand in testament that this should never be permitted to happen again.
-
No. I'm calling you out. The evidence is there. Now I see you went from the limp little dog to the fierce facade.
-
Naw, going to bed.
What I will not do, is to come here on January 20, 2021 just to say I Told You So.
Are you able to state the same?
-
We all saw it as a game you were playing a long time ago…
-
Well, yea, it will. Because the People know there was fraud. The idea that you guys deny any wrong or anything is ludicrous. You're just stating your opinion and not facts. You don't like my posts because they're not telling you what you want to hear: "Joe Biden won, get over it Trump supporters." No he didn't win, and I'm not a Trump supporter. I don't want to be on the side of cheaters. Your team clearly cheated, the evidence is mind-boggling. You're finally investigating the subject cuz I kept informing you of it. You probably picked a source that reconfirms your confirmation bias. PA is going to Trump.
You're misrepresenting our arguments - which I can only assume is because you know that your own arguments are fallacious.
At no point have we denied anything - that is not our job, nor what we need to do. What you have done is made claim after claim - and what we have done is asked for the evidence of those claims. You've provided some things which you claim are evidence, but which on reviewing them with a little more curiosity, show themselves to not be conclusive - or to be demonstrably wrong.
This still does not mean we are saying there is no widespread voter fraud. All we are asking for is the proof of it that stands up to scrutiny. This hasn't appeared in any of the court cases so far, hasn't happened in any of your posts about it so far. When you do, you will convince us. That's the only test you have to pass.
If, however, you can't do this, then the only conclusion anyone can have is that the allegation is made up and is simply a matter of you and Trump being sore losers.
-
At no point have we denied anything??? Are you serious? You're whole statement is a denial. Of the obvious.
-
At no point have we denied anything??? Are you serious? You're whole statement is a denial. Of the obvious.
As you still don't seem to understand this… let me spell it out for you:
1. You stating something is obvious, does not mean it is the case...
2. You stating something is the case, does not mean it is it the case...
3. You believing something, does not make it true...
4. Evidence is something which is hard to refute, not easy to refute...Those 4 things mean: not one piece of evidence has been provided yet which makes the vote in any way look invalid.
There are loads of claims - none backed up with evidence. There are a lot of people who believe it was invalid... but they've not come up with any evidence either.So you either believe one of these two things:
1. The Trump campaign is intentionally losing its court cases... and wasting millions of dollars on recounts... for fun...
2. You are so much smarter and more capable than everyone in the Trump campaign as you've managed to find all this 'proof' that the vote was rigged, but somehow... none of them are using it...So please, which one is it?
-
Well, you made three cases.
Your first case is correct pretty fully, the basics of what truth represents and how we can know if something is true. That is a pretty good way to know if something is true. That has nothing to do with this particular case, just cases in general. Truth is obvious. I applaud that statement.
Your next case however, is very lacking, as is the one after that. You state as fact that every piece of evidence so far is totally invalid. That's where you go from one extreme to the next. And it's absurd.
Then your next case is that Trump is just having fun, or the evidence I've presented is just silly. Well. You're about to find out otherwise. And you'd make a terrible lawyer, I'd eat you alive. You're pathetic.
-
Well, you made three cases.
Your first case is correct pretty fully, the basics of what truth represents and how we can know if something is true. That is a pretty good way to know if something is true. That has nothing to do with this particular case, just cases in general. Truth is obvious. I applaud that statement.
Your next case however, is very lacking, as is the one after that. You state as fact that every piece of evidence so far is totally invalid. That's where you go from one extreme to the next. And it's absurd.
Then your next case is that Trump is just having fun, or the evidence I've presented is just silly. Well. You're about to find out otherwise. And you'd make a terrible lawyer, I'd eat you alive. You're pathetic.
Great! I'm glad we finally found something we can agree on. We agree on what constitutes evidence…
We only now disagree on whether the 'evidence' that has been collected so far is indeed evidence. Or only claims.
The things which make me think it is not evidence are as follows:
1. These claims have been struck down in every court when asked for evidence to support them… Trump has only one 1 case so far... and it didn't make much difference for him. So... why are the people claiming these things not using the 'evidence' you claim is so clear and evident...? Why haven't all these cases been won?
2. The claims seem to constantly change... from one moment to another... soon as it's been shown not to be the case enough times, a new claim mysteriously appears. This doesn't mean that it's wrong... but it's suspicious... highly.
3. I've used my 4 points to test each piece of evidence... and none of them stands up to those tests.So please now explain to me how my belief that the evidence so far is invalid is "absurd"? It's not an extreme view at all - merely a view formed by looking at the information critically (which is how you work out whether it's valid or not) and analysing as I have outlined above.
I see you fall into my number 2 - you think you're much much more impressive than everyone in Trump's legal and campaign teams... as you "know what's going on" (more than everyone else... and yet don't provide any of this information to anyone else so they can know too... instead claiming it and not backing it up...) and "can see the evidence is clear" (despite everything saying to the contrary and you not, again, providing any of this evidence for anyone to see).
I look forward to finding out otherwise! I keep asking you the same questions on this though: when and where? Can I see anything on this ahead of time so I can know the same thing you do? I want to see the evidence! Share it! (and, again, claims unsupported by evidence are NOT evidence... just in case you try to say you've provided any evidence at all yet).
And lastly - no one cares what you think about whether you would make a better lawyer than I would. I suspect you've never been to law school and know very little about law based on your comments... but... then again... Giuliani has been to law school and knows quite a bit about law... and he makes the same claims (albeit in public where he can't be accused of perjury... and not in court... where he could...). So keep those opinions to yourself - it's too childish and doesn't belong here in an adult conversation.
Ditto name calling. "You're pathetic" is extremely childish and not worthy of you or your debate.
-
Your approach and premise is all wrong. Trump’s lawyers are going to the Legislatures for their remedy, not the courts. They’re only going to the courts to get the ball moving towards the SCOTUS, who is eager to exercise their power. SCOTUS has already been following the case, and Alito is like: Gimme Dat Now. Trump's team doesn't need the lower courts, he already knows what they're going to do. The process with those courts is merely a formality, the appeal to SCOTUS has already been prepared.
-
Your approach and premise is all wrong. Trump’s lawyers are going to the Legislatures for their remedy, not the courts. They’re only going to the courts to get the ball moving towards the SCOTUS, who is eager to exercise their power. SCOTUS has already been following the case, and Alito is like: Gimme Dat Now. Trump's team doesn't need the lower courts, he already knows what they're going to do. The process with those courts is merely a formality, the appeal to SCOTUS has already been prepared.
Already considered. And yes, this must be his plan.
The problem with this? He’s got to prove it’s a case for them - which means proving the case. So far, all the legislatures don’t seem to be thinking this is going to go anywhere… and will also strike it down (fairly confident of that as Guliani hasn’t managed to prove there is a case for them to hear, although we will have to see!).
This being the case, SCOTUS will also have no option but to also strike it down.
-
The legislatures gave it an audience, so the idea that you claim they're not interested is just wrong.
