question for Trump supporters, Is Liz Cheney a warmonger?

perplexed said:

I probably should try this on another website but I would like to know what Trump supporters think of Liz Cheney.

Click to expand...

My deepest apologies. I take full responsibility.

Paulomycin said:

Refusing to hear a case does not mean the legal system was "exercised."

Click to expand...

There were only a handful of appeals that weren't heard, usually because there were no legal issues with the trial courts rulings.

Refusing to hear evidence does not mean no evidence existed.

Click to expand...

Claiming to have evidence that never, ever, appears, in any form or from any source, doesn't mean that evidence exists.

If, "there's nothing to see here," then why refuse to hear the case?

Click to expand...

Mostly because of a lack of grounds for appeal. Thing is, when the trial courts reviewed the evidence presented, they more often than not found it insufficient to prove the plaintiff's case....and, on appeal, no reason to reverse the decision.

-- A2SG, if you want a better outcome, then get better evidence......

Pommer said:

The Deep State was proven not to exist otherwise it’d’ve nailed Trump when it had the chance, President Trump was only a victim of his own paranoia.

Click to expand...

Paulomycin said:

Because it began at the Steele dossier. Well that, and your blind Trump hatred looking for a crime to validate it.

Click to expand...

First contracted by the Washington Free Beacon, a “conservative” publication.
Pfft.

Where's the collusion?

Click to expand...

This is where you begin to believe your own “version”, it was known that the Russians had had contact with various members of Trump’s campaign and later Administration members, this investigation was to look at how deeply these contacts went. Nothing more.
The “collusion” angle is your side’s reality but it was never, even for a moment, true.

I guess it magically disappeared. Along with all the other fake accusations lobbed at Trump.

Click to expand...

Trump the perpetual Martyr, ever the victim!

Pommer said:

The Deep State was proven not to exist otherwise it’d’ve nailed Trump when it had the chance

Click to expand...

The deep state failed to do something it tried to do, therefore it doesn’t exist? What kind of logic is that?

SoldierOfTheKing said:

The deep state failed to do something it tried to do, therefore it doesn’t exist? What kind of logic is that?

Click to expand...

Because...of course it exists! Trump told us as much!
We have his word on it!
He was TRYING to dismantle it, that’s why they hatched this all up!

(Is this close?)

A2SG said:

There were only a handful of appeals that weren't heard, usually because there were no legal issues with the trial courts rulings.

Click to expand...

Your rumormill is incorrect.

A2SG said:

Claiming to have evidence that never, ever, appears, in any form or from any source, doesn't mean that evidence exists.

Click to expand...

Because you're hiding from it. lol.

A2SG said:

Mostly because of a lack of grounds for appeal.

Click to expand...

No. It's called "lack of standing." The evidence was never seen in court.

Pommer said:

First contracted by the Washington Free Beacon, a “conservative” publication.
Pfft.

Click to expand...

Oh. You don't even believe the Steele dossier existed. Wow.

A2SG said:

This is where you begin to believe your own “version”, it was known that the Russians had had contact with various members of Trump’s campaign and later Administration members, this investigation was to look at how deeply these contacts went. Nothing more.
The “collusion” angle is your side’s reality but it was never, even for a moment, true.

Click to expand...

Were these contacts "collusion," or not?

Paulomycin said:

Oh. You don't even believe the Steele dossier existed. Wow.



Were these contacts "collusion," or not?

Click to expand...

OTIO
Fare thee well.

Paulomycin said:

Because it was dismissed due to "lack of standing." Doesn't sound fair to me, but you'll gladly accept it without question.

Click to expand...

doesn't sound fair to you? So what?
Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election
This wiki article has a great layout as to the status of the cases as well as reasoning behind judges decisions.

You mean the opposition. So, of course not. But they weren't allowed to debate it either. That doesn't seem to trouble you

Click to expand...

I was referring to trumps original more competent legal team.

Genetic fallacy. You're arguing to the content host, instead of the content itself

Click to expand...

.oh sure. Doesn't make me right. Doesn't make me wrong. There is no way to check the veracity of online videos so I can dismiss them out of hand. That's not to say they're all bad. I'm sure some are good. But I don't know which ones. And frankly every time someone I disagree with puts up a video its the exact same strategies I see that makes these videos high on emotive responses and low on probable details.

Teachers who work with troubled kids have to have college degrees, right? You really should know better

Click to expand...

.I have two uni degrees if that's what you need to know. And I do know better.
I allow my students to use YouTube vids to introduce themselves to topics. But we also do media literacy projects where we deconstruct ridiculous videos looking for biases. Under no circumstances can my kids ever use YouTube as a single source.

A college graduate should know what corroborating evidence is.

Click to expand...

I do.

Your confirmation bias?

Click to expand...

Ha! No actually. And not your confirmation bias either.

No, what counts as evidence is what judges have seen and viewed as not worthwhile.

Paulomycin said:

Your rumormill is incorrect.

Click to expand...

I didn't cite a single rumor, only the facts. If you feel I was incorrect in some way, please specify what facts were incorrect and what the correct facts are.

Because you're hiding from it. lol.

Click to expand...

Considering I've never seen anyone, not Trump, not any member of his various legal teams, nor any of his supporters, present this evidence, there doesn't seem to be anything to hide from.

But if you do, in fact, have access to their evidence, feel free to share.

No. It's called "lack of standing." The evidence was never seen in court.

Click to expand...

Only some cases were so ruled. Not all. Notably, SCOTUS ruled that Texas didn't have the standing to challenge the way Pennsylvania administered its election laws. And it doesn't.

As to the other cases where the plaintiffs did have standing to sue, the evidence was seen by trial courts in many different jurisdictions, and they all ruled the evidence presented as insufficient to prove the case the plaintiffs alleged. Now, Trump's legal teams did appeal these decisions, not one appeals court overruled any of the trial courts decisions on the matter.

It's also notable that, while Guiliani did claim fraud when speaking in public (loudly, and often), when he was in court, and bound by ethics rules, he never made that claim. In fact, he is on record as saying "this is not a fraud case."

So, if Trump actually had the evidence he claimed he did, he should have shown it in court. The evidence his team DID show was insufficient to make their case in any jurisdiction.

-- A2SG, not all evidence is credible, y'know.....

A2SG said:

I didn't cite a single rumor, only the facts.

Click to expand...

You can't assert facts without evidence.

A2SG said:

Considering I've never seen anyone, not Trump, not any member of his various legal teams, nor any of his supporters, present this evidence, there doesn't seem to be anything to hide from.

But if you do, in fact, have access to their evidence, feel free to share.

Click to expand...

I'm not repeating myself on this thread a third time. Edit: Not like you really care anyway.

You're done here.

rambot said:

There is no way to check the veracity of online videos so I can dismiss them out of hand.

Click to expand...

Just because they're youtube? So if I post a YouTube of the Apollo 11 landing, you'll dismiss it because it's YouTube?

Don't strain yourself with that reach.

rambot said:

I allow my students to use YouTube vids to introduce themselves to topics. But we also do media literacy projects where we deconstruct ridiculous videos looking for biases. Under no circumstances can my kids ever use YouTube as a single source.

Click to expand...

YouTube isn't cited as a "single source."

rambot said:

I do.

Click to expand...

Wow. It's sitting right in front of you, but suddenly you hate YouTube videos.

rambot said:

No, what counts as evidence is what judges have seen and viewed as not worthwhile.

Click to expand...

"Dismissal ongoing"
"Denied"
"Appeal dropped"
"Ruled"
"Dismissal affirmed"

Doesn't look as uniform as you're trying to spin it.

Pommer said:

OTIO
Fare thee well.

Click to expand...

Just because you feel trolled, doesn't necessarily mean I'm intentionally trolling you.

Besides, you can just duck-out of uncomfortable questions by accusing me of trolling.

Paulomycin said:

You can't assert facts without evidence.

Click to expand...

The facts, in this case, are public knowledge: No one who has asserted that there was widespread fraud during the 2020 election has produced even a single piece of credible evidence. No one. Not Trump, not anyone on any of his various legal teams, not a single Trump supporter. If you need details on those various court cases, here you go.

Now, having said that, I realize it's impossible to prove a negative, so my assertion should be easy to disprove. Simply provide the evidence I claim no one has been able to provide the courts.

It's that easy.

I'm not repeating myself on this thread a third time. Edit: Not like you really care anyway.

You're done here.

Click to expand...

Since you seem to prefer baseless accusations to providing actual, credible evidence to support your claims, it does seem a fruitless discussion, and it's off-topic anyway, but I do remain hopeful you'll either provide this proof you claim exists (but no one else can see) or admitting your error.

-- A2SG, while the former is extremely unlikely, I'm still hoping for it....who wouldn't want to see the holy grail?

Paulomycin said:

Evidence doesn't NEED a narrative.

Framed narratives are what leftists do.

Click to expand...

Never had to go before a judge, I see. Judges expect a coherent presentation, not a freshman link dump.

Edit: These posts on the Big Lie are off topic, as I was informally reminded. Therefore, I'm out since I have no additional thoughts on Cheney.