Discussion Random Discussion

[George]

But you're claiming that's evidence. Hearsay, 50% of which is incorrect and all of which is from people who don't actually run vote counting centers is pretty shoddy evidence compared to actual data and statements from both republican and democrat vote counting officials in literally every state.

I'm not claiming anything. Your first sentence claims it is hearsay and then you go on to admit it is evidence. You are arguing about the strength of different types of evidence but the fact remains - sworn statements under oath = evidence. Let me be clear too, I've never said this is going to be enough to overturn the result. They need more than that. But the fact remains.

Wow George, surely you can do better than that!

Statements made under oath aren't evidence of anything other than that person's testimony of their belief in and support for the statement they are making. Five witnesses to an event invariably have five variations of the event itself. Our entire judicial system is based on the infallibility of human experience while accepting the sincerity of those witnesses to record their "truth." Perjury is deliberate misrepresentation of what are or become the facts that are accepted to most accurately represent the event that occurred.

Your defense of the arguments you have been proposing have degenerated into the farce the posters who do not support your view object to. You do not seem to appreciate that point and continue to dig a hole so deep that it could emerge on the dark side of the moon. Still technically in the earth's orbit but definitely out in space!

Statements made under oath are evidence, I don't know where you have read otherwise - if you can prove it please do so.

Again - never said it is enough to overturn the result, in fact I think the complete opposite. My point was statements under oath = evidence. This is a fact, regardless of what you think.

No not a short memory at all.


Yes mate in that instance you did have your character assassinated.

Not when I posted, I asked you a question so you could reflect on calling everyone who disagrees with you a lefty.

I did not call you a racist right winger - you take me out of context as you do:

'Would never want for you to find it offensive to be called a racist right winger, Trump lover. Nothing offensive about that. '

This is a question to you it shows how destructive labels can be and this morning you have reverted to them once again.

Nuance George is important, have a gooed day.

Fair enough - now I have repeated multiple times to you how my character was assassinated I would expect you to not question the validity of my claim towards it anymore.

 

[Verdun]

Fair enough - now I have repeated to you how my character was assassinated I would expect you to not question the validity of my claim towards it anymore.

Depends on the context you are using it.

I could quote what you have said about me and then say 'to not question the validity of my claim towards it anymore.'

The context of you quoting me is important to the discussion.

Back to the media and Trump - when do you think Trump should acknowledge that Biden is the President elect?

 

[George]

Depends on the context you are using it.

I could quote what you have said about me and then say 'to not question the validity of my claim towards it anymore.'

The context of you quoting me is important to the discussion.

Back to the media and Trump - when do you think Trump should acknowledge that Biden is the President elect?

Not you - the other example I gave to you that I had also given to you before. When I say I have my character assassinated for having a different view and you say to show you - this is example of that.

As for your question - don't think we should be prematurely acknowledging anything. Legal process will see to that.

Thought you were going?

 

[Verdun]

Not you - the other example I gave to you that I had also given to you before. When I say I have my character assassinated for having a different view and you say to show you - this is example of that.

As for your question - don't think we should be prematurely acknowledging anything. Legal process will see to that.

Thought you were going?

Yes George I know that , but that is not in context of you quoting me. Nuance is important. My point is labels are important as you point out in your instance hence the need to not always use them.

So you think there is enough evidence of electoral fraud to overturn 306 electoral votes to 232???

Do you think the media is not reporting the 'evidence'?

Want me out of here mate!?

 

[Joffaboy]

This place is a pathetic shitshow. I am dumber for reading the half truths, the unsubstantiated and frankly the looney misinformation peddled by people who are gullible and frankly not too bright.

I am out. This thread depresses me.

 

[George]

Yes George I know that , but that is not in context of you quoting me. Nuance is important. My point is labels are important as you point out in your instance hence the need to not always use them.

So you think there is enough evidence of electoral fraud to overturn 306 electoral votes to 232???

Do you think the media is not reporting the 'evidence'?

Want me out of here mate!?

Not sure if there is enough evidence to overturn the result - have mentioned this many times already.
Media definitely not reporting the evidence - or at least dismissing written statements that if are to come under oath are classed as evidence.

No you are amusing

 

[Verdun]

This place is a pathetic shitshow. I am dumber for reading the half truths, the unsubstantiated and frankly the looney misinformation peddled by people who are gullible and frankly not too bright.

I am out. This thread depresses me.

Fair call and apologies if I have contributed to it.

I'm out as well.

 

[George]

This place is a pathetic shitshow. I am dumber for reading the half truths, the unsubstantiated and frankly the looney misinformation peddled by people who are gullible and frankly not too bright.

I am out. This thread depresses me.

It's had a good run. Many definitely contributed to it, even the posters that question if they have.

This thread is about to hit 10K replies, lets call it a day. Agree to disagree. We have a politics forum let me sort this mess out

 

[Verdun]

Not sure if there is enough evidence to overturn the result - have mentioned this many times already.
Media definitely not reporting the evidence - or at least dismissing written statements that if are to come under oath are classed as evidence.

No you are amusing

Fair call and apologies if I have contributed to it.

I'm out as well.

Cheers George, thanks for that .

I'm done.