Evidently you got me pegged as some sort of person that would salivate at the mouth over "secrets revealed".
Repudiated is not refuted. Need to be mindful of that. Plenty of people on this forum have openly admitted they have no interest of even looking, and that Trump needs to be removed at all costs.
Why? So I can argue over Alex Jones or some stupid Q crap?
I do wish I owned stock in Gillette -- there would be a demand for their extra large blades...
I just enjoy reminding the powers that be that when they rob the people of their legal rights, there are... other options.
This time... I shudder to think what would happen if Democracy were threatened by a competent opponent.
Incorrect. If a person cannot support his arguments are it takes is an act of repudiation to refute that person. You have not provided any evidence for your claims. Over thirty cases have been quickly ended when the Trump supporters could not provide any evidence for their allegations.Evidently you got me pegged as some sort of person that would salivate at the mouth over "secrets revealed".
Repudiated is not refuted. Need to be mindful of that. Plenty of people on this forum have openly admitted they have no interest of even looking, and that Trump needs to be removed at all costs.
Incorrect. If a person cannot support his arguments
I agree with you completely if they were smarter in there planning or at least didn't tend broadcast their plans loudly months like a third rate villain they probably would have worked. Although I'm still trying to figure in general have we been overestimating how sleazy and corrupt politicians are or has it just been a ton of honor among thieves going on through our country. Because the vulnerabilities Trump has exploited with various things he has done throughout his Presidency have always been there.
I have listened. And I have found that you have no evidence. That is why in a case like this repudiation does equal refutation.That is the whole distinction between repudiated and refuted. Just because you or someone else refuses to listen... does not make what was presented incorrect.
He started on the big lie of election fraud back in 2016, maybe earlier, and has repeated it on a regular basis ever since.
"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over."― Joseph Goebbels (Nazi Minister of Propaganda)
I have listened. And I have found that you have no evidence. That is why in a case like this repudiation does equal refutation.
Do you expect people to believe you without evidence?
OOh look! Another nothingburger. A toothless and unpassed resolution is not evidence.Senate Co-Sponsorship Memoranda
View attachment 289615
Thank you for your opinion... and moving on...
I may be responding to you even tho you are not the intended recipient of that information.
Creationist Playbook, page 5. If you have no evidence to present keep asserting that the evidence is there but that your opponent refuses to see it, then when they say they can't see it because it doesn't exist, triumphantly proclaim that merely proves that they refuse to see it and claim victory.That is the whole distinction between repudiated and refuted. Just because you or someone else refuses to listen... does not make what was presented incorrect.
Creationist Playbook, page 5. If you have no evidence to present keep asserting that the evidence is there but that your opponent refuses to see it, then when they say they can't see it because it doesn't exist, triumphantly proclaim that merely proves that they refuse to see it and claim victory.
Creationist Playbook, page 5. If you have no evidence to present keep asserting that the evidence is there but that your opponent refuses to see it, then when they say they can't see it because it doesn't exist, triumphantly proclaim that merely proves that they refuse to see it and claim victory.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but if Trump's plan was to take it to the supreme court, isn't this the outcome that he wanted?https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...6540ba-30d7-11eb-bae0-50bb17126614_story.html
Sorry, Donald -- You. Just. Keep. Failing.
Thoughts?
Please correct me if I am wrong, but if Trump's plan was to take it to the supreme court, isn't this the outcome that he wanted?
True, but if the supreme court is what determines who ultimately wins that war, does it matter how many battles were lost to get there? For trump that is.Winning is always better than losing.
True, but if the supreme court is what determines who ultimately wins that war, does it matter how many battles were lost to get there? For trump that is.
Fine analogy except this isn’t chess, it’s a “popularity-contest” that was lost and now the “loser” is trying to turn it from a popularity-contest into a legal contest, but has no evidence that this needs to be done.True, but if the supreme court is what determines who ultimately wins that war, does it matter how many battles were lost to get there? For trump that is.
Like loosing all your pawns (and perhaps a queen) to maneuver the opponent's king into a checkmate?