2024

[jhawks99]

Yup, that’s definitely it. You’re right and we’re wrong. Thanks for talking some sense into me.

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.

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.

Howabout we use court findings.

[twocoach]

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.

I would be happy to at least consider your evidence if you provide it. Try me.

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!

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.

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.

[jfish26]

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.

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.

Howabout we use court findings.

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.

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.

[jfish26]

I would be happy to at least consider your evidence if you provide it. Try me.

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!

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.

They're all hiding it from you. Six dimensional mah-jongg, dontcha know.

[twocoach]

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!

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.

They're all hiding it from you. Six dimensional mah-jongg, dontcha know.

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]

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.

They're all hiding it from you. Six dimensional mah-jongg, dontcha know.

But somehow hundreds of thousands of people have been able to access this to the point where it is "well known" and readily available.

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.

Duh.

[JKLivin]

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.

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.

Howabout we use court findings.

Corrupt court findings? Why bother?

[jfish26]

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.

Howabout we use court findings.

Corrupt court findings? Why bother?

All of them? At the same time? Even the judges Trump picked???

Conspiracy theorizing has reached critical mass; now the conspiracy is so broad and so well-disguised that it hides itself in plain sight?

[jhawks99]

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.

Howabout we use court findings.

Corrupt court findings? Why bother?

I hear ya, I don't like Trump appointed judges either.

[Sparko]

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.

[defixione]

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?

[Shirley]

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

[DCHawk1]

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.

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.

[DCHawk1]

Well it is smaller. Which is sort of the problem! The whole play would be to consolidate power in fewer (and less accountable) places. Autocracy in increasingly-tattered "conservative" clothes.

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.

[jfish26]

Well it is smaller. Which is sort of the problem! The whole play would be to consolidate power in fewer (and less accountable) places. Autocracy in increasingly-tattered "conservative" clothes.

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.

I don't disagree, but suffice it to say I don't think you correct for executive overreach by simply codifying it.

[DCHawk1]

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.

[jfish26]

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.

Distinct issue, and I know you do not wholly agree, but Citizens United is a blight.

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.

[twocoach]

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.

How about we use court findings.

Corrupt court findings? Why bother?

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?

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.

[JKLivin]

How about we use court findings.

Corrupt court findings? Why bother?

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?

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.

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.

[KUTradition]

clown