Infidel Dog

I know you're there Argus. I see you on the activity scroll. Having trouble finding this link you've accessed multiple times, are you? It may be a software problem. Perhaps you posted it again and I still can't see it. My software is not equipped to read links that only go up your butt. Speaking of links Aristides, do you have a link to Alzheimer Joe's teleprompter so we can see what you're talking about.

I've got some time right now Argus. I'm sitting here waiting watching the screen. You tell me you've posted it twice you must have easy access to it.

Damned if I saw it. I'd love to though. I don't doubt you saw something. I'd really like to know what it was. I promise I'll click every link you post on this page this time though. I'll find a way to watch for it.

I still don't know what you're talking about. Give me the link. I believe this is the second time I've asked for it.

You can't demonstrate something that can't be considered. Could you demonstrate secularism to the Spanish Inquisition?

Yes, the suit alleged that 4 states had unconstitutionally changed their election statutes. Constitutional issues are what the Supreme Court deals with. And your theory is that because the states' allegations dealt specifically with what they saw as a constitutional matter that means they were afraid to mention all the other incidents of outright voter fraud. Explain this one then. This is one of the cases that could not be expedited to be considered before the inauguration but are, as far as I know, still waiting in the Supreme Court's lineup. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-815/163621/20201211163936285_Petition Michigan .pdf I was reading a judge's decision on another case. I'm pretty sure I gave you a link to it once before. The lawyer's had proposed at least one allegation of outright fraud, but like you guys say, in this one particular case the judge didn't think the lawyers could prove it if he allowed the case to be considered. However the judge didn't dismiss the case on those grounds. He dismissed it on the grounds he didn't think the litigants bringing the case before him had standing. So in that case who was afraid to consider the allegations? The lawyers alleging voter fraud or the judge who didn't want to take the case? Here's my point then. There are multiple considerations as to why a case might be brought before a court and make allegations of voter irregularities. Whether or how irregularities are considered is multi-faceted. A blanket statement as to why or even if any lawyer will or won't allege outright voter fraud is hiding behind a generality. Or to put it another way, it's wrong.

I'd be surprised if the Dominion lawsuit makes it past the discovery phase. I suspect Dominion will withdraw once Lin Wood starts demanding to look through their logs, books and have forensic audits done on their machines. The cases that interest me are the ones still waiting to be seen in the Supreme court. They were filed. They weren't rejected. So what happens to them now? As to this theory no lawyer was willing to go in front of a judge to present allegations of wrong doing, show me how that works. Let's take the most well known one for example. Show me how Texas and the 18 states weren't alleging voting irregularities in the case they filed before the Supreme that was dismissed on grounds they didn't have standing. Because I'm pretty sure they did allege that. If they weren't alleging voting irregularities what were they alleging?

I didn't get past your first two paragraphs Brutus. As I've told others of your ilk, if slurs and smears are all you've got, you've got nothing.

Not sure what you're talking about but at least you're admitting now that the cases filed including the few filed by Trump were not judged based on evidence. Good for you. It takes a big man to admit when he's wrong.

Look here for your answer: The Left FEARS This Video…

That's a fair assessment. I could see somebody making that argument, but this claim 60 or more judges carefully assessed all evidence and found it lacking is nonsense. It never happened. It's a lie from liars for the gullible.

So judges don't have to consider evidence, because they just know? Is that what you're saying? Sounds like it. Because if it is, I just have to scratch my head and wonder, 'Is this guy serious?" The Supreme Court refused to take the case the 18 states asked them to consider on the grounds they didn't believe those states had the standing to present the case. It had nothing to do with evidence. I'm pretty sure you know that so I have to believe you're getting desperate to divert from the fact no court ever considered the evidence.

Feel free to show me a witness being cross examined in any of these 60 court cases you claim all the evidence was considered and prove it. You can't because such a case doesn't exist.

There were cases where it was suggested cases of voting irregularities would be presented if the case was allowed to go forward and the judge thought the odd one of those allegations couldn't be proved if the case went forward but ultimately all cases were denied or dismissed on procedural grounds. No witnesses were ever called forward to produce evidence.

This isn't a court case. There is no burden of proof. Surely you're not asking me to prove a negative. What you're claiming exists, doesn't. Produce your evidence of a case where all the evidence was considered or admit no such case ever happened.

Because they didn't. There was no opportunity to present evidence in anything like an evidentiary hearing. If you're saying there was you're lying or choosing to remain ignorant. The cases were all denied or dismissed primarily on procedural grounds. Filed too early. Filed too late. Lack of standing etc.

Feel free to prove me wrong though. Show me the case where all of this at the link below has been presented and considered: https://hereistheevidence.com/

Attempts at what? Being heard? If so then you're right. All the evidence has yet to be heard by any court. There has never been an evidentiary hearing.

" The litany of election criminality is intricate and involved, and orchestrated by those with the means to do so. The criminality includes forging signatures, ballot-box stuffing, ballot harvesting, paying for voting, offering raffle prizes for voting, voting in place of the deceased, doctoring ballots, voting twice, not delivering opposition ballots, destroying opposition ballots, backdating ballots, re-running ballots through counting machines, restricting access of poll observers, and even assaulting and threatening observers. Also, advising voters at the voting booth, ‘finding’ stacks of ballots hours and days later, feigning water main breaks to clear out voting precincts and then manipulate counting machines, delivering truckloads of computer-generated ballots, employing software susceptible to vote-switching, and untold numbers other illegal and un-democratic schemes." https://politicrossing.com/not-merely-election-deceit-a-plot-against-the-u-s/

Hard to say. All the hijackers and infiltrators haven't been voted out of it yet.

Then there's this: " President Trump’s White House put together a list of accomplishments to date from the President’s efforts while in office. The list is a mile long. https://www.whitehouse.gov/trump-administration-accomplishments/?utm_source=link" If somebody is governing the way you want him to you tend to approve. I get that progressive socialist types find that difficult to comprehend though. They can never experience the phenomena because even if they get what they're told they want they won't like it.

I was just watching that and thinking this is good but how can you share it? It's Alex Jones. The Corporates have convinced their people they're not to listen, watch or acknowledge the existence of Alex Jones. If anybody suggests they do they must be immediately shouted down with digital screams of gay frogs and Sandy Hook. I'm not a follower of AJ but I'm not afraid to listen to what he has to say. When he goes off the rails I either just listen for the entertainment or get bored and click away. For the Jonesophobic though they've been trained to smear and slur down anybody daring to acknowledge the existence of Alex Jones. Beave will require a fainting couch if anybody dares to admit they watched the video. So try this. If you're scared, don't listen but click it then mute it. Watch the video without sound. You should at least know who those guys in the background of the video are who were provoking the trouble at the capitol building. The provocateurs were not trump supporters. You can tell that by looking at them. They were there before Trump's speech was finished. They were there while Trump was speaking away from the Capitol building. Jones' opinion is they were a combination of Antifa/BLM and other anarcho-Marxists combined with Boogaloo Boy types and Qanon followers.

It's convenient for you to say you're not concerned with that when it becomes inconvenient, but take the politics out and what do you have to discuss? Are you pushing the idea a catastrophe is eminent as a result of fossil fuels and you have "The Science" that shows that beyond debate. Because if you are you just got political. You're with the types demanding a political solution. If you are taking the more reasonable position that evidence how much warming there is from anthropocentric causes and how much added warmth is produces requires further study before we pretend we know the answer and currently there is no real evidence any possible ill effects of too much nice weather poses any real threat to the world at large then you're for giving it as much political attention as you would say a possible asteroid strike. If you're choosing the first option then I request you make your best data driven, Scientific method supported case for it. If you're with me on the second one then who cares, and yeah those "sky is falling, we must run and tell the king" types don't matter much. They only matter in so far as they're able to bother the rest of us by bringing unnecessary government taxes and restrictions down on us. So that needs to be discussed.

True it can be done. Did you ever see the one though where Gore had to cheat because he couldn't make the experiment work? That was funny. Seriously though, it's pretty much agreed you can get 1 degree of warming per doubling of CO2. The problem is that isn't enough to create the kind of catastrophe you need to justify Greta and Extinction Rebellion's climate hysterics. So what they do is they introduce the possibility of positive feedbacks. There is no experiment you can reproduce in the lab to show that. Some were suggesting increases as high as a 9 degree per doubling increase from positive feedbacks. Actual science not "THE science" pretty much debunked that so in the last report the IPCC winnowed their claim down to 2 degrees per doubling. Even if true it's debatable how much catastrophe that could cause. But CNN founder, Ted Turner's prophecy of the last scattered humans eating each other at the South Pole becomes even more laughable.