Howabout we use court findings.JKLivin wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 9:35 amI can provide evidence, but be honest - you're not going to accept it. You and the rest of the liberal hivemind have set up an impossible standard: prove that the election was stolen, but you can only use sources that are aligned with and are a tool of the entities that stole the election. Not gonna happen. But you not only know that, you're perfectly happy with it.twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 7:49 amThere is zero evidence to support the notion that the election results were stolen. None. You have provided no evidence to prove that any sort of activity happened that changed who won.
Countless amounts of evidence has been provided to the contrary however. Votes have been hand counted in states in questioned and audited by numerous officials. There is simply nothing to support your claim.
2024
Re: 2024
Defense. Rebounds.
Re: 2024
With as many court cases that have happened, I would have thought that the hundreds of lawyers who have been involved could have gotten their hands on such readily available proof and presented it to the courts but who knows. Maybe Randy has such great sources that he has info that none of those lawyers was able to access.jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 11:02 amAny reasonable person would always be willing to consider new evidence.twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 10:51 amI would be happy to at least consider your evidence if you provide it. Try me.JKLivin wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 9:35 am
I can provide evidence, but be honest - you're not going to accept it. You and the rest of the liberal hivemind have set up an impossible standard: prove that the election was stolen, but you can only use sources that are aligned with and are a tool of the entities that stole the election. Not gonna happen. But you not only know that, you're perfectly happy with it.
But I'd have to imagine that the parties who would benefit from that evidence being real would be using that evidence to their benefit.
Good evidence wouldn't be used to sow doubt and misinformation online in service of a long-con goal; it would be used to win in (favorable!) courts.
But when you can't get (favorable!) courts to back you, your evidence probably stinks!
There have been numerous judges appointed by Trump who no doubt share different political points of view than I do so to me, if there is proof out there that a Trump (or other Republican judge) accepted as proof of such an impactful occurrence, I would love to read it.
Last edited by twocoach on Mon Jul 17, 2023 11:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: 2024
Or even the evidence the pubs have introduced in their filings. To my knowledge, there hasn't even been evidence sufficient to move a claim ahead to trial - even when all inferences need to be made in the pubs' favor.jhawks99 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 11:08 amHowabout we use court findings.JKLivin wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 9:35 amI can provide evidence, but be honest - you're not going to accept it. You and the rest of the liberal hivemind have set up an impossible standard: prove that the election was stolen, but you can only use sources that are aligned with and are a tool of the entities that stole the election. Not gonna happen. But you not only know that, you're perfectly happy with it.twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 7:49 am
There is zero evidence to support the notion that the election results were stolen. None. You have provided no evidence to prove that any sort of activity happened that changed who won.
Countless amounts of evidence has been provided to the contrary however. Votes have been hand counted in states in questioned and audited by numerous officials. There is simply nothing to support your claim.
There is not only not fire, there's not even really smoke.
Pointing at four tangentially-related things and saying one thing you can't DISPROVE is that aliens did it...isn't evidence.
Re: 2024
They're all hiding it from you. Six dimensional mah-jongg, dontcha know.twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 11:16 amWith as many court cases that have happened, I would have thought that the hundreds of lawyers who have been involved could have gotten their hands on such readily available proof and presented it to the courts but who knows. Maybe Randy has such great sources that he has info that none of those lawyers was able to access.jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 11:02 amAny reasonable person would always be willing to consider new evidence.
But I'd have to imagine that the parties who would benefit from that evidence being real would be using that evidence to their benefit.
Good evidence wouldn't be used to sow doubt and misinformation online in service of a long-con goal; it would be used to win in (favorable!) courts.
But when you can't get (favorable!) courts to back you, your evidence probably stinks!
Re: 2024
But somehow hundreds of thousands of people have been able to access this to the point where it is "well known" and readily available.jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 11:19 amThey're all hiding it from you. Six dimensional mah-jongg, dontcha know.twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 11:16 amWith as many court cases that have happened, I would have thought that the hundreds of lawyers who have been involved could have gotten their hands on such readily available proof and presented it to the courts but who knows. Maybe Randy has such great sources that he has info that none of those lawyers was able to access.jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 11:02 am
Any reasonable person would always be willing to consider new evidence.
But I'd have to imagine that the parties who would benefit from that evidence being real would be using that evidence to their benefit.
Good evidence wouldn't be used to sow doubt and misinformation online in service of a long-con goal; it would be used to win in (favorable!) courts.
But when you can't get (favorable!) courts to back you, your evidence probably stinks!
Re: 2024
Well see the trick is that you have to find it for yourself. The information is all there. But if they simply showed you everything in one place and at one time, another they would shut it down. And they don't want them doing that.twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 11:29 amBut somehow hundreds of thousands of people have been able to access this to the point where it is "well known" and readily available.jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 11:19 amThey're all hiding it from you. Six dimensional mah-jongg, dontcha know.twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 11:16 am
With as many court cases that have happened, I would have thought that the hundreds of lawyers who have been involved could have gotten their hands on such readily available proof and presented it to the courts but who knows. Maybe Randy has such great sources that he has info that none of those lawyers was able to access.
Duh.
Re: 2024
Corrupt court findings? Why bother?jhawks99 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 11:08 amHowabout we use court findings.JKLivin wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 9:35 amI can provide evidence, but be honest - you're not going to accept it. You and the rest of the liberal hivemind have set up an impossible standard: prove that the election was stolen, but you can only use sources that are aligned with and are a tool of the entities that stole the election. Not gonna happen. But you not only know that, you're perfectly happy with it.twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 7:49 am
There is zero evidence to support the notion that the election results were stolen. None. You have provided no evidence to prove that any sort of activity happened that changed who won.
Countless amounts of evidence has been provided to the contrary however. Votes have been hand counted in states in questioned and audited by numerous officials. There is simply nothing to support your claim.
“First of all, AI is two letters. It’s kind of a fancy thing.” - Scary Smart Brilliant VP Kamala Harris
Re: 2024
All of them? At the same time? Even the judges Trump picked???JKLivin wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 11:49 amCorrupt court findings? Why bother?jhawks99 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 11:08 amHowabout we use court findings.JKLivin wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 9:35 am
I can provide evidence, but be honest - you're not going to accept it. You and the rest of the liberal hivemind have set up an impossible standard: prove that the election was stolen, but you can only use sources that are aligned with and are a tool of the entities that stole the election. Not gonna happen. But you not only know that, you're perfectly happy with it.
Conspiracy theorizing has reached critical mass; now the conspiracy is so broad and so well-disguised that it hides itself in plain sight?
Re: 2024
I hear ya, I don't like Trump appointed judges either.JKLivin wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 11:49 amCorrupt court findings? Why bother?jhawks99 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 11:08 amHowabout we use court findings.JKLivin wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 9:35 am
I can provide evidence, but be honest - you're not going to accept it. You and the rest of the liberal hivemind have set up an impossible standard: prove that the election was stolen, but you can only use sources that are aligned with and are a tool of the entities that stole the election. Not gonna happen. But you not only know that, you're perfectly happy with it.
Defense. Rebounds.
Re: 2024
Trump wants "increase" presidential powers so that he doesn't ever have to leave. And can imprison his enemies for trying to enforce laws against him. He, Bannon, et al., are really insurrectionists and should be removed from the political stage in jail.
Re: 2024
This is pretty valuable information to possess. One would imagine that the person that has this info at hand could make a killing selling it. Are they holding out for top top dollar? And how can they keep it a secret that they are in possession of such valuable goods?
Re: 2024
With Marge now seeing the light, how long before Randy and Psych follow?
NEW: Biden Build Back Better campaign ad just dropped:
https://youtu.be/Zy49pM9jgtQ
NEW: Biden Build Back Better campaign ad just dropped:
https://youtu.be/Zy49pM9jgtQ
“We are living through a revolt against the future. The future will prevail.”
Anand Giridharadas
Anand Giridharadas
Re: 2024
The catch, of course, is that you can't legally/constitutionally/morally do those things based on the hermeneutical skills of your friendly neighborhood message board nutcase.
Imjustheretohelpyoubuycrypto
Re: 2024
The problem -- which, to be blunt, pisses me off -- is that there are 535 people with the power not only to stop this but also to roll back the clock on executive overreach. They don't do so in part because (as Defix noted) they're drunk, in part because they're lazy, and in part because every damn one of them thinks he/she is gonna be president someday and wants that power to wield.
Imjustheretohelpyoubuycrypto
Re: 2024
I don't disagree, but suffice it to say I don't think you correct for executive overreach by simply codifying it.DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 1:29 pmThe problem -- which, to be blunt, pisses me off -- is that there are 535 people with the power not only to stop this but also to roll back the clock on executive overreach. They don't do so in part because (as Defix noted) they're drunk, in part because they're lazy, and in part because every damn one of them thinks he/she is gonna be president someday and wants that power to wield.
Re: 2024
Codification isn't the issue so much as retaking the power that the legislative branch used to have. The idea of "co-equal" branches is a myth. Congress is supposed to be the more powerful branch.
That would probably require overturning Chevron, but that won't bother me at all.
That would probably require overturning Chevron, but that won't bother me at all.
Imjustheretohelpyoubuycrypto
Re: 2024
Distinct issue, and I know you do not wholly agree, but Citizens United is a blight.DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 2:38 pm Codification isn't the issue so much as retaking the power that the legislative branch used to have. The idea of "co-equal" branches is a myth. Congress is supposed to be the more powerful branch.
That would probably require overturning Chevron, but that won't bother me at all.
I think it exacerbates the problem you're identifying, by moving our (giggle) representatives' accountability away from their direct constituents. It also dramatically bumps up the lifestyle available to so-called "career politicians," such that the profession no longer as efficiently self-sorts for those who would in fact act in service of the greater good.
Again, I'm aware we don't see this the same way.
Re: 2024
So all of the dozens of court cases in a number of different states have managed to collude in an effort at corruption? Let me guess, it is the same sources that are providing you your well-known evidence of a stolen election that are claiming this, correct?JKLivin wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 11:49 amCorrupt court findings? Why bother?jhawks99 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 11:08 amHow about we use court findings.JKLivin wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 9:35 am
I can provide evidence, but be honest - you're not going to accept it. You and the rest of the liberal hivemind have set up an impossible standard: prove that the election was stolen, but you can only use sources that are aligned with and are a tool of the entities that stole the election. Not gonna happen. But you not only know that, you're perfectly happy with it.
Oh, and I am still waiting on those sources as I am still very interested in seeing how they came to their conclusions. I have some time open for reading this week as I finished the genealogy project I have been working on in my free time. Feel free to send that link.
Re: 2024
I’ve been down this road too many times on these boreds and their iterations over the years. I have better things to do with my time.twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2023 3:56 pmSo all of the dozens of court cases in a number of different states have managed to collude in an effort at corruption? Let me guess, it is the same sources that are providing you your well-known evidence of a stolen election that are claiming this, correct?
Oh, and I am still waiting on those sources as I am still very interested in seeing how they came to their conclusions. I have some time open for reading this week as I finished the genealogy project I have been working on in my free time. Feel free to send that link.
“First of all, AI is two letters. It’s kind of a fancy thing.” - Scary Smart Brilliant VP Kamala Harris
- KUTradition
- Contributor
- Posts: 11333
- Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2022 8:53 am
Re: 2024
clown
Have we fallen into a mesmerized state that makes us accept as inevitable that which is inferior or detrimental, as though having lost the will or the vision to demand that which is good?