WestCanMan Posted January 18, 2021 Report Share Posted January 18, 2021 4 hours ago, Boges said: I think Mitch McConnell would make certain confirmations difficult. TBH I don't know if Garland is '9th circuit crazy' or just a run of the mill leftist with no regard for the constitution. I never heard any major accusations against him. There's a really good chance that he would have been confirmed if the country wasn't so divided, it wasn't so late in 2016, and if it wasn't Scalia's spot up for grabs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannucklehead Posted January 18, 2021 Report Share Posted January 18, 2021 https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/us-politics/article-new-mexico-elected-official-who-founded-cowboys-for-trump-arrested-in/ I wonder how much time Biden has before someone takes him out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infidel Dog Posted January 18, 2021 Report Share Posted January 18, 2021 4 hours ago, Aristides said: None of it demonstrated in court in spite of 60 attempts. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infidel Dog Posted January 18, 2021 Report Share Posted January 18, 2021 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/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 18, 2021 Report Share Posted January 18, 2021 3 hours ago, Infidel Dog said: 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. Could that be because Trump lawyers never actually claimed outright fraud in court? It's always the potential for fraud. Even Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz didn't allege outright fraud in their seditious opposition in the Senate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nefarious Banana Posted January 18, 2021 Report Share Posted January 18, 2021 16 minutes ago, Boges said: It's always the potential for fraud. Even Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz didn't allege outright fraud in their seditious opposition in the Senate. You toss the word 'seditious' around like the rest of the left wingers toss 'racist' around. Even your beloved CBC is on track . . . . . 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 18, 2021 Report Share Posted January 18, 2021 Just now, Nefarious Banana said: You toss the word 'seditious' around like the rest of the left wingers toss 'racist' around. Even your beloved CBC is on track . . . . . Cuz, what happened on January 6th was Sedition. I can see why you'd want to deny that, but that doesn't change the fact that everything about what happened at the Capitol that day was a textbook example of sedition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 18, 2021 Report Share Posted January 18, 2021 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Boges said: Cuz, what happened on January 6th was Sedition. I can see why you'd want to deny that, but that doesn't change the fact that everything about what happened at the Capitol that day was a textbook example of sedition. You support book burning. Correct? What? You don't?? Well a small minority of your group DO support burning books. So you support book burning...in the same sense that was sedition on the part of the Trump movement. Edited January 18, 2021 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 18, 2021 Report Share Posted January 18, 2021 (edited) 2 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said: Well a small minority of your supporters DO support burning books. So you support book burning...in the same sense that was sedition on the part of the Trump movement. My supporters? You mean people that oppose Trumpism? Cite a sympathetic word I've ever made about ANTIFA. I know you aren't capable from differentiating a violent uprising of individuals invited to DC by the current POTUS and riled up by the same man, and an instance of Left-wingers doing something appalling. It's all black and white for you. Edited January 18, 2021 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted January 18, 2021 Report Share Posted January 18, 2021 3 hours ago, Infidel Dog said: 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. So why didn’t they present it in court, they had 60 opportunities Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 18, 2021 Report Share Posted January 18, 2021 Just now, Boges said: My supporters? You mean people that oppose Trumpism? Cite a sympathetic word I've ever made about ANTIFA. I know you aren't capable from differentiating a violent uprising of individuals invited to DC by the current POTUS and riled up by the same man, and an instance of Left-wing protestors doing something appalling. It's all black and white for you. You misquoted me...more book burning. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nefarious Banana Posted January 18, 2021 Report Share Posted January 18, 2021 14 minutes ago, Boges said: Cuz, what happened on January 6th was Sedition. I can see why you'd want to deny that, but that doesn't change the fact that everything about what happened at the Capitol that day was a textbook example of sedition. 'Sedition/seditious behavior' opposition in the Senate . . . . . get a grip! What's next on your odd thought process? Seditious thoughts? You're true to form . . . congratulations! Carry on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted January 18, 2021 Report Share Posted January 18, 2021 3 hours ago, Infidel Dog said: 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/ The burden of proof is on the accuser. Why hasn’t it been presented? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 18, 2021 Report Share Posted January 18, 2021 Just now, Nefarious Banana said: 'Sedition/seditious behavior' opposition in the Senate . . . . . get a grip! What's next on your odd thought process? Seditious thoughts? You're true to form . . . congratulations! Carry on. Quote conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch. That's exactly what Sedition is. The more video that gets released the more appalling their actions appear. Again, if they did so on their own accord, that would be one thing, but they did so in service of #45. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infidel Dog Posted January 18, 2021 Report Share Posted January 18, 2021 5 hours ago, Aristides said: So why didn’t they present it in court, they had 60 opportunities 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. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 18, 2021 Report Share Posted January 18, 2021 Just now, Infidel Dog said: 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. Correct. It's not like they actually looked at the evidence...at all. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infidel Dog Posted January 18, 2021 Report Share Posted January 18, 2021 5 hours ago, Aristides said: The burden of proof is on the accuser. Why hasn’t it been presented? 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infidel Dog Posted January 18, 2021 Report Share Posted January 18, 2021 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted January 18, 2021 Report Share Posted January 18, 2021 1 hour ago, Infidel Dog said: 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. Bull Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infidel Dog Posted January 18, 2021 Report Share Posted January 18, 2021 Just now, Aristides said: Bull 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted January 18, 2021 Report Share Posted January 18, 2021 9 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said: 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. Trump has never lost an election he hasn't claimed was rigged. He even claimed primaries that he lost were rigged. He claimed the 2012 election was rigged in favour of Obama. The guy is the biggest effing liar ever to live in the Whitehouse and that takes quite some doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 18, 2021 Report Share Posted January 18, 2021 In other-words...no such cross examinations...or ANYTHING exists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted January 18, 2021 Report Share Posted January 18, 2021 (edited) 20 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said: In other-words...no such cross examinations...or ANYTHING exists. Maybe because none of the so called "evidence" was ever presented. Judges don't waste their time when there is clearly no case. Republican judges and the Trump packed SCOTUS said there was no case. Edited January 18, 2021 by Aristides Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infidel Dog Posted January 18, 2021 Report Share Posted January 18, 2021 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OftenWrong Posted January 18, 2021 Report Share Posted January 18, 2021 That is what I read the other day- judges wouldn't even touch the case. Too incendiary. Presumably it was better to have a stolen election and ake democracy than a civil war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.