The Trump Pandemic

[Hermit]

Geez, you guys must miss him.

If you wanted to discuss racism, I suggest a place free of moderation, and having more than one opinion represented. Oh, but don't talk to anyone labeled 'racist', because then you get cooties too.

Mindromp, maybe?

You would also have to find someone to respectfully disagree with. I doubt you can, since I have not seen you show respect for those who disagree.

Oh, the irony of being lectured about respectful disagreement by someone who has been repeatedly suspended for launching argumenta ad hominem.

Your facts are easy to value...

Or you could respectfully refute them. A good start would be to prove me wrong about Rudy and Team Trump's 61 court cases that are meant to prove a stolen election through voter fraud.

[pErvinalia]

Haven't you seen youtube, Hermit?! All the facts are there.

[Cunt]

Why bother? If I disagree here, I risk getting moderated.

You can have all the high ground. I'm just listening to Rudy, and other nutters. Pompeo, Trump and Giuliani are a conspiracy theory, and not really worth your time.

I like them for the entertainment value though. LIke sasquatch.

In other news, I remember Rogan saying something VERY interesting about sasquatch hunters. He pointed out that every one he ever met, was NEVER going to get laid again.

[Hermit]

Why bother? If I disagree here, I risk getting moderated.

You have never been suspended, or even merely moderated, for respectfully refuting facts. So, convince me that I am wrong about Rudy & Co's failure to make their allegations of a stolen election through voter fraud stick in 61 court cases?

[Cunt]

Why bother? If I disagree here, I risk getting moderated.

You have never been suspended, or even merely moderated, for respectfully refuting facts. So, please, what is so clear and convincing about Rudy & Co's allegations of a stolen election through voter fraud when they fail to stick in 61 court cases?

His podcast. Which also sells cigars, and gold.

Sketchy as fuck.

Now, I'm sure you would like me to defend Rudy's position, but I won't do that.

He's convincing. You make clear you don't know what he said.

If this is important to you, of COURSE you would hear his side of things, so you will if it is.

My opinion is that the giant piles of evidence he has offered are ignored, then people say they haven't seen any evidence. Including courts who dismiss a case on 'standing', so that they never do see the evidence.

Reminds me of the Earl Silverberg case, where he uttered threats SOLELY to get some evidence into court. The court backed off and withdrew their complaint though, so he never was able to have his evidence officially seen.

[pErvinalia]

He's convincing.

What alternative universe do you live in?

My opinion is that the giant piles of evidence he has offered are ignored, then people say they haven't seen any evidence. Including courts who dismiss a case on 'standing', so that they never do see the evidence.

So it's back to conspiracy theories? You do love them.

[Hermit]

Why bother? If I disagree here, I risk getting moderated.

You have never been suspended, or even merely moderated, for respectfully refuting facts. So, please, what is so clear and convincing about Rudy & Co's allegations of a stolen election through voter fraud when they fail to stick in 61 court cases?

His podcast.

It refutes the fact that Rudy & Co's allegations of a stolen election through voter fraud failed to stick in 61 court cases?

[Cunt]

Why bother? If I disagree here, I risk getting moderated.

You have never been suspended, or even merely moderated, for respectfully refuting facts. So, please, what is so clear and convincing about Rudy & Co's allegations of a stolen election through voter fraud when they fail to stick in 61 court cases?

His podcast.

It refutes the fact that Rudy & Co's allegations of a stolen election through voter fraud failed to stick in 61 court cases?

It is him, freely expressing his side of things.

I am fully aware, that the Trumptweets said 'fraudfraudfraud' and he word in court was more...careful. I doubt their public display matches what they can prove, I mean.

So don't expect me to defend him. It is a pretty clear example of you not wanting to look at that side of things though.

Which is fine. It really has nothing to do with the Trump Pandemic, or the Trump Vaccines.

[Brian Peacock]

tp

qt

[Tero]

Mandates

[Tero]

[Hermit]

It is a pretty clear example of you not wanting to look at that side of things though.

I know Rudy's side of things. He made his position perfectly clear. He alleged widespread voter fraud. He also said: "Of course courts set aside elections when they’re illegal. In this particular case, I don’t know if there’s enough evidence to set aside the entire election. Certainly not around the country, maybe in Pennsylvania." So, Giuliani doesn't know if there’s enough evidence to set aside the entire election. And he wants the courts to decide the matter.

And again: "It’s not my job to determine if the ballots are right or not, it’s their job"

At the same press conference the Sky News correspondent Mark Stone mentioned that all of the major news networks were now joining in projecting Biden's victory. Giuliani asked "Which networks!?" Stone replied: "All of them". Giuliani looked heavenward, struck a pose of mock crucifixion, and bellowed sarcastically: "Woooooow! All the networks? We have to forget the law! Judges don't count!"

What is to be argued in court? Giuliani again: "President Trump’s campaign was denied its right to a fair count"
The transcript of the presser is here. You can easily find these quotes by hitting <Ctrl-f> and pasting a relevant search term into the search box. Or you can watch a video of it here.


So what happened? Two possibilities, I suppose. Either what the plaintiffs presented was not convincing, or the judges, including those appointed by Republicans up to the level of the President himself, presiding over 61 cases unanimously conspired against Trump. If the latter, I would like you to provide a link with a verbatim quote if it is in written form, or a time stamp if it is a video to what Giuliani has to say about that.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Giuliani doesn't have time for that--he has to treat his giant piles.

[Cunt]

It is a pretty clear example of you not wanting to look at that side of things though.

I know Rudy's side of things. He made his position perfectly clear. He alleged widespread voter fraud. He also said: "Of course courts set aside elections when they’re illegal. In this particular case, I don’t know if there’s enough evidence to set aside the entire election. Certainly not around the country, maybe in Pennsylvania." So, Giuliani doesn't know if there’s enough evidence to set aside the entire election. And he wants the courts to decide the matter.

And again: "It’s not my job to determine if the ballots are right or not, it’s their job"

At the same press conference the Sky News correspondent Mark Stone mentioned that all of the major news networks were now joining in projecting Biden's victory. Giuliani asked "Which networks!?" Stone replied: "All of them". Giuliani looked heavenward, struck a pose of mock crucifixion, and bellowed sarcastically: "Woooooow! All the networks? We have to forget the law! Judges don't count!"

What is to be argued in court? Giuliani again: "President Trump’s campaign was denied its right to a fair count"
The transcript of the presser is here. You can easily find these quotes by hitting <Ctrl-f> and pasting a relevant search term into the search box. Or you can watch a video of it here.


So what happened? Two possibilities, I suppose. Either what the plaintiffs presented was not convincing, or the judges, including those appointed by Republicans up to the level of the President himself, presiding over 61 cases unanimously conspired against Trump. If the latter, I would like you to provide a link with a verbatim quote if it is in written form, or a time stamp if it is a video to what Giuliani has to say about that.

You say you know his side, so no biggie. To me, it is important to distinguish whether a court has declined to review evidence, or reviewed and rejected evidence. But someone said all 61 courts saw the evidence and rejected it. That's got a number in it, so MUST be the sciency answer.

But I'm not convinced you are correct in your assessment.

I keep remembering your declared bias, and considering how it might affect your thoughts on this.

[pErvinalia]

Hermit's bias? What about the courts' bias? They are clearly Never-Trumpers.