question for Trump supporters, Is Liz Cheney a warmonger?

[cow451]

Is it true because you said so, or is it true because Mona Charen said so?

We happen to both be correct. You got nothing but The Big Lie that cannot be backed up with facts.

So which elected or appointed officials committed or abetted massive election fraud?

 

[cow451]

Was that before or after they looked at the evidence?

You can't answer that.



I'm sorry, I don't make accusations before following the evidence. That's a lefty tactic.

Meaning you got nothing and aren’t finding any prospects outside baseless accusations. Interestingly, none of Trump’s legal team could come up with any name of any elected or appointed official engaging in said activity. Get back to us if you ever come up with any thing. You get the word that SCOTUS tossed another Kraken case?

 

[Paulomycin]

We happen to both be correct. You got nothing but The Big Lie that cannot be backed up with facts.

You're just asserting you're correct. Your confirmation bias is assuming there are facts when you're not even willing to lift a finger to demonstrate them. What, is it really too much of a chore?

So which elected or appointed officials committed or abetted massive election fraud?

As I already stated, I don't make accusations before following the evidence. That's a lefty tactic; not what I do.

 

[Paulomycin]

Meaning you got nothing and aren’t finding any prospects outside baseless accusations. Interestingly, none of Trump’s legal team could come up with any name of any elected or appointed official engaging in said activity. Get back to us if you ever come up with any thing. You get the word that SCOTUS tossed another Kraken case?

I see you're still stalling on placing the events in necessary order. lol.

 

[cow451]

You're just asserting you're correct. Your confirmation bias is assuming there are facts when you're not even willing to lift a finger to demonstrate them. What, is it really too much of a chore?
As I already stated, I don't make accusations before following the evidence. That's a lefty tactic; not what I do.

Your side must live in some other universe where a court case of great import can get a hearing and immediate injunctive relief on the basis of vague assertions without vetting witnesses and doing less than even a half-rear ended investigation.

It’s easy enough to disprove the massive fraud allegations because there isn’t anything to support them.

Ask yourself why the EX President’s legal team could not name a single person of any import under oath. Even Giuliani said in court he was not alleging fraud.

And my signature... tell me why a respected media outfit like American Thinker issue such a strong disclaimer. Think about it.

 

[Paulomycin]

Your side must live in some other universe where a court case of great import can get a hearing and immediate injunctive relief on the basis of vague assertions without vetting witnesses and doing less than even a half-rear ended investigation

Your side immediately says everyone they disagree with is lying, instead of looking at both sides of the story in a fair and open-minded manner. Most of the cases were thrown out "for lack of standing," which is a procedural way of refusing to hear the question.

Period.

It’s easy enough to disprove the massive fraud allegations because there isn’t anything to support them.

"Appeal to ignorance - the claim that whatever has not been proven false must be true, and vice versa. (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore, UFOs exist, and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." -Carl Sagan

In other words, you can't make any conclusions either way, regardless.

And in this case, there is evidence, but if you just hide your eyes away from it, I guess you think it magically disappears.

Ask yourself why the EX President’s legal team could not name a single person of any import under oath. Even Giuliani said in court he was not alleging fraud.

Not yet. You cannot allege a fraudulent individual until the irregularities are even addressed. And your side conveniently failed to do so.

First 'A,' then 'B,' and then 'C.' But you hate necessary legal procedure. It just gets in the way of your narrative. I get it already.

And my signature... tell me why a respected media outfit like American Thinker issue such a strong disclaimer. Think about it.

1. Legal intimidation.
2. I read the retraction, which hilariously contains zero specifics (not that you care). It's a great way to get out of a pickle and then continue reporting as if nothing happened. lol.

Then there's the Time magazine elephant in the room. lol.

 

[rambot]

Commutations of Trump supporters will not be tolerated.

You expect any of those yokels to serve 10 years????Pfffft. I'll be SHOCKED if any of them except the police murderer are held for more than 3 years.
Frankly, I'll also bet the police murderer gets less than 10.

How many years do you think the police murderer deserves, by the way? You know the "American revolutionary", the police murderer?

So it's only an attack on American Democracy when Trump supporters do it. Got it.

strawman. Didn't even come CLOSE to saying that.

This was already refuted in this thread. "COURTS" refused to hear the cases. You either can't or won't tell me which comes first: Agreeing to hear the case, then presenting the evidence, or presenting the evidence before agreeing to hear the case. That's how the lefty scam works.

So my neighbour was a bit of a psychopath. She tried to charge a coyote for trespassing.
You'll never believe it but the court didn't want to hear her argument. I wonder why that is?


Honestly, if you already believe that the courts that Republicans and TRump have been stacking for the last four years are employing "leftie scams" while Shammeister Trump doesn't get a second look, I can already predict I won't be discussing much with you past this post; I can't get dragged into convos with that type anymore.

Your racialized motive fallacy is ignored

. Not a fallacy but a nonsequitor to the discussion so feel free.

^ Can't decide if it's real terrorism or mere LARPing. Can you at least try to get your story straight before posting, please?

No silly. They do the LARPing in the backwoods of Michigan, Iowa etc.

^ Still confused about Russian collusion. Pick a lane, buddy.

Not confused at all. If you're going to misrepresent the Mueller Report and blather on about "No Collusion" so all the Trump critics can explain it to Trump supporters again, I just thought I'd cut you off at the pass and remind you that the Mueller Report clearly indicated that Russia worked against Clinton in the election.

 

[rambot]

Your side immediately says everyone they disagree with is lying, instead of looking at both sides of the story in a fair and open-minded manner. Most of the cases were thrown out "for lack of standing," which is a procedural way of refusing to hear the question.
Period..

Yes because the question was without merit.

I'm a teacher. I'm a parent.

Trust me.

Not only is there such a thing as a stupid question, they are plentiful. And yes, I ABSOLUTELY think it's okay to not spend time on stupid questions.

Here are some examples of some stupid questions
"So do animal cells all have faces on them? Like a nose, eye brows and stuff?"
"If you get turned inside out what would you see?"
"What is the one kind of fruit that should have facial hair?"

You know what? I didn't spend 4 hours having conversations about stupid questions. And you know why? Because apparently, instead of holding people to an intellectual standard, I should have to, not only SUFFER through, but also humour these stupid questions AND have meaningful, important conversations around them.

No. Sorry stupid people. Learn or get left behind.

Sorry Trump legal team. Create a good argument with solid evidence or get left behind.

I mean his ENTIRE legal team quit a week before the trial. He didn't FIRE them. They quit. Why would they quit? Why would a legal team representing the president IN A SLAM DUNK CASE, just quit?

I mean, where is the reason and logic being employed?

 

[Paulomycin]

You expect any of those yokels to serve 10 years????Pfffft. I'll be SHOCKED if any of them except the police murderer are held for more than 3 years.

The point is they will still be prosecuted in the progressive media as-if they were serial killers.

Frankly, I'll also bet the police murderer gets less than 10.

You mean the one you're still falsely assuming was killed with a fire extinguisher? You people really like to chase hype, instead of waiting for the evidence.

Honestly, if you already believe that the courts that Republicans and TRump have been stacking for the last four years are employing "leftie scams" while Shammeister Trump doesn't get a second look, I can already predict I won't be discussing much with you past this post; I can't get dragged into convos with that type anymore.

Because you'll lose?

. Not a fallacy but a nonsequitor to the discussion so feel free.

You mean like trespassing coyotes? lol.

No silly. They do the LARPing in the backwoods of Michigan, Iowa etc.

And you're arguing that LARPing = literal terrorism. Go on. . .

Not confused at all. If you're going to misrepresent the Mueller Report and blather on about "No Collusion" so all the Trump critics can explain it to Trump supporters again, I just thought I'd cut you off at the pass and remind you that the Mueller Report clearly indicated that Russia worked against Clinton in the election.

But the failed witch hunt was all about "collusion" with Russia. You were just moving the goalposts, I get it.

 

[rambot]

The point is they will still be prosecuted in the progressive media as-if they were serial killers.

I haven't seen that anywhere.

You mean the one you're still falsely assuming was killed with a fire extinguisher? You people really like to chase hype, instead of waiting for the evidence.

Oh good! You also have taken the reasoned position that the police officer died for a justifiable and reasonable reason. And certainly the cop killer should not be charged.
Because blue lives matter right, Pauolmycin

Because you'll lose?

No because folks like that are hopelessly disattached from reason.

You mean like trespassing coyotes? lol.

That story was a metaphor. But I understand why you'd think I was being literal. I'm sorry for working ahead of you there; shoulda stayed where you are at.

And you're arguing that LARPing = literal terrorism. Go on. . .

strawman again.

But the failed witch hunt was all about "collusion" with Russia. You were just moving the goalposts, I get it.

I knew it. Well, I'll be honest, I didn't know for sure but I was suspicious it was going to happen.
You already forgot what I initially said and how, again, you are creating a strawman trying to undermine my original point.

 

[Paulomycin]

Yes because the question was without merit.

So you're just taking them on blind authority.

I'm a teacher. I'm a parent.

And not a lawyer.

Trust me.

It looks like your leftism is a much higher priority than being a teacher or a parent. No surprise there.

Not only is there such a thing as a stupid question, they are plentiful. And yes, I ABSOLUTELY think it's okay to not spend time on stupid questions.

Not what my teachers taught me. Why so dogmatic?

Here are some examples of some stupid questions
"So do animal cells all have faces on them? Like a nose, eye brows and stuff?"
"If you get turned inside out what would you see?"
"What is the one kind of fruit that should have facial hair?"

What, too lazy to simply answer and explain? They don't look too difficult to answer. That is, unless you hate being a teacher and/or a parent (probably both).

You know what? I didn't spend 4 hours having conversations about stupid questions. And you know why? Because apparently, instead of holding people to an intellectual standard, I should have to, not only SUFFER through, but also humour these stupid questions AND have meaningful, important conversations around them.

And yet you're angry and ranty all the same. I wonder why. Maybe it's because you would much rather avoid the questions that evidently trouble you.

No. Sorry stupid people. Learn or get left behind.

A lefty political dogma is never learned. It is forced. You're not here to dialogue, but to propagandize.

Sorry Trump legal team. Create a good argument with solid evidence or get left behind.

There's no point in having evidence. You can just throw the case out "for lack of standing," which is a procedural way of refusing to hear the question.

 

[Paulomycin]

I haven't seen that anywhere.

Selective notice is selective. I could post evidence, but you'll refuse to see that too, since it messes with your arbitrary framed narrative.

Oh good! You also have taken the reasoned position that the police officer died for a justifiable and reasonable reason. And certainly the cop killer should not be charged.
Because blue lives matter right, Pauolmycin

You're continuing to stall on the actual cause of death.

No because folks like that are hopelessly disattached from reason.

"Reason" ≠ Prog-dogma.

That story was a metaphor.

But you're not explaining the alleged "metaphor," nor the application. My teachers would have held me accountable to that. You know, real teachers.

strawman again.

Is it "LARPing," or a terrorist training camp? Why can't you commit to anything here? A fat guy running around in the woods wearing a robe & wizard hat does not a terrorist training camp make.

I knew it. Well, I'll be honest, I didn't know for sure but I was suspicious it was going to happen.

What, you moving the goalposts? I think you're better than that.

You already forgot what I initially said and how, again, you are creating a strawman trying to undermine my original point.

The problem with accusing someone of making a strawman fallacy is that the one accusing it must (a.) state their actual position, and (b.) deconstruct the false one, or at the very least state the misrepresentation.

But you're not doing that.

 

[rambot]

So you're just taking them on blind authority.

HAHA! Yes I am. And you know who you are taking on Blind Authority? A raving pillow salesman and a serial lying misanthrope.

Way to choose your "authorities" so wisely.

And not a lawyer.



It looks like your leftism is a much higher priority than being a teacher or a parent. No surprise there.

Your response to my point is a train wreck.

Not what my teachers taught me. Why so dogmatic?

Listen guy. If you've never heard a stupid question, you aren't talking to people.

What, too lazy to simply answer and explain? They don't look to difficult to answer. that is, unless you hate being a teacher and/or a parent (probably both).

Excuse me guy. I love being a teacher and a parent and I'm dang good at both.

I did answer the question. I gave them a one word question. That's all those stupid questions deserved. I didn't belittle the kid or humiliate them. I didn't drone on. I gave that question EXACTLY the airing it deserved; a 1 sentence or one word answer. Then I moved on.

This is exactly what the court did. They listened to their stupid question, gave them a brief explanation and that was the end of the discussion.
I'm praying you may understand THIS metaphor too, but now I'm not holding out hope.

It's now becoming a bit clearer why you were, likely often told "no such thing as a stupid question".

And yet you're angry and ranty all the same. I wonder why. Maybe it's because you would much rather avoid the questions that evidently trouble you.

No.
I would rather:
1) The flow of my lessons wasn't interrupted by stupid questions
2) The class wasn't disrupted by the stupid questions
3) The questions were NEVER related to the work being done.


There's no point in having evidence. You can just throw the case out "for lack of standing," which is a procedural way of refusing to hear the question. [/QUOTE]because it is a stupid question.....

Why would a Trump appointed judge refuse to hear a question?

 

[cow451]

Your side immediately says everyone they disagree with is lying, instead of looking at both sides of the story in a fair and open-minded manner. Most of the cases were thrown out "for lack of standing," which is a procedural way of refusing to hear the question.

Period.



"Appeal to ignorance - the claim that whatever has not been proven false must be true, and vice versa. (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore, UFOs exist, and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." -Carl Sagan

In other words, you can't make any conclusions either way, regardless.

And in this case, there is evidence, but if you just hide your eyes away from it, I guess you think it magically disappears.
Not yet. You cannot allege a fraudulent individual until the irregularities are even addressed. And your side conveniently failed to do so.

First 'A,' then 'B,' and then 'C.' But you hate necessary legal procedure. It just gets in the way of your narrative. I get it already.

1. Legal intimidation.
2. I read the retraction, which hilariously contains zero specifics (not that you care). It's a great way to get out of a pickle and then continue reporting as if nothing happened. lol.

Then there's the Time magazine elephant in the room. lol.

IOW you got nothing. No facts indicating anything of the scale necessary to “steal” the election. Nothing. Zip. Nada. Zero. The only two sides are the facts and your side.
How Republicans Are Selling the Myth of Rampant Voter Fraud
And
2020 Election Misinformation Tracking Center - NewsGuard
And
US election 2020: Fact-checking Trump team's main fraud claims

 

[Paulomycin]

IOW you got nothing. No facts indicating anything of the scale necessary to “steal” the election. Nothing. Zip. Nada. Zero. The only two sides are the facts and your side.

That's funny, I never cited those links.

Here Is The Evidence

^ Needs time to load because of, you know, so much evidence.

Who checks the fact-checkers?

 

[Paulomycin]

How Republicans Are Selling the Myth of Rampant Voter Fraud

TIME Magazine? Seriously?

BOMBSHELL: Time Magazine Admits How the 2020 Election Was “Rigged” - The GOP Times

I might as well post the direct link: The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election

^ Note how the dates are more recent than your links.

 

[cow451]

That's funny, I never cited those links.

Here Is The Evidence

^ Needs time to load because of, you know, so much evidence.

Who checks the fact-checkers?

Ooooooo.... crowdsourcing. That’s so cute.

It’s nothing unless someone makes enough sense to write a coherent narrative.

IOW you got nothing.

 

[Pommer]

That's funny, I never cited those links.

Here Is The Evidence

^ Needs time to load because of, you know, so much evidence.

Who checks the fact-checkers?

How do we know ANY of this is true!?

Why should we listen to do-nothing judges who won’t even hear the evidence!?

Oh yeah, because they did what they’re paid to do, make sure a lawsuit will stand up to scrutiny even favoring the plaintiff by assuming the “facts” they bring to the court to open a case, are indeed, true.

The previous President wanted to use the courts (because he lost the election), in order to retain power for himself.

That’s not what our courts are for, however.

 

[Paulomycin]

HAHA! Yes I am.

My teachers always taught me to question authority.

And you know who you are taking on Blind Authority? A raving pillow salesman and a serial lying misanthrope.

Which is only true because. . .you never question authority. lol.

Your response to my point is a train wreck.

You mean your lefty "point."

Listen guy. If you've never heard a stupid question, you aren't talking to people.

It's because you magically assert "stupidity" to them? If you can't at least explain why a question is allegedly "stupid," then why should anyone trust you?

Excuse me guy. I love being a teacher and a parent and I'm dang good at both.

Yet it's evident your leftist dogma is getting in the way of that.

I did answer the question. I gave them a one word question. That's all those stupid questions deserved. I didn't belittle the kid or humiliate them.

But it does. It really does. After awhile they'll just stop asking questions and not want to learn anything. <-- Great job.

This is exactly what the court did. They listened to their stupid question, gave them a brief explanation and that was the end of the discussion.

No, "lack of standing" is a procedural excuse to get around hearing the evidence. It is both spineless and unjust.

I would rather:
1) The flow of my lessons wasn't interrupted by stupid questions

While you're pretending to teach law?

2) The class wasn't disrupted by the stupid questions

Assuming there aren't other solutions, "Write the question down and turn it in." Unless you're too lazy to take on a bit more work at night.

3) The questions were NEVER related to the work being done.

Then get them to pay attention and focus. Don't belittle their question as "stupid."

The Lion King. . .really? Is this another metaphor or something?

Why would a Trump appointed judge refuse to hear a question?

1. Because they have a procedural rule that gets them out of having to answer it and then getting a retaliatory firebombing from Antifa in-return.

2. Why bother when you can bump it up to SCOTUS? Blame-shifting knows no party lines.

3. Trump chose from an already pre-determined list of candidates. He could have been sold a bill of RINOs for all we know.

 

[Paulomycin]

That’s not what our courts are for, however.

Awesome. Well then, I guess you have license to commit voter fraud anytime you want.