Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

---

ohhh Yeahhh wrote:

---

SeattleSilver wrote:

---

ohhh Yeahhh wrote:

---

johnny99 wrote:
With all due respect, making up unfounded allegations doesn't give you the right to access everything that you want. If I accuse you of stealing money from me, would you turn over your bank statements to me?

It may be hard to come to grips with the fact that Trump was such a bad candidate that he even lost Georgia, but that's what happened.

---

Ok my man...let's examine your analogy.

If I say you stole from me. I would go to the police and charge you with the crime. And yes, they would audit your finances if you stole my money! Happens all the time with white collar crimes.

But this isn't a Trump or Biden isssue.

Again, why would you want software that isn't independently audited before and AFTER the election? Please tell me?

---

That is a poor example. The police wouldn't audit the accused finances just because you claimed that he/she stole your money. You would have to provide sufficient claim that you had the money, how and when the money disappeared, and why you are pointing a finger at the accused.

In this election, we don't know that Trump has unfairly lost, and his lawyers have been unable to convince a court that he unfairly lost. And while the lack of success in court certainly reflects some of the worst legal work I have seen in high profile matters, it mostly is due to the lack of credible evidence.

The fact that Trump lost isn't credible evidence that he was cheated, it just is credible evidence that his vote total is less than Biden's vote total. Applying that to your example, you would claim that the accused is guilty of stealing your money just because his bank balance is greater than yours. That isn't enough.

---

That is the whole point. The state, who the Trump team is saying is part of the dominion scam, won't let them have access to the voting machine software or do an actual audit of the ballots (not a recount of fraudulent ballots). And asking the officials, whose job it was to make sure there is no fraud, if there was no fraud, is like asking a basketball player if he fouled the other player. It is a pointless question.

But let's assume there is no "evidence" of that, which the data experts and 100's of eye witness testimony is evidence, should not the counties, state election boards make sure that the votes are reconciled and properly audited and the software code and machine is audited properly?

Why not do an audit of the signature mail in ballots?
Why not do an independent audit of the software code and machine?

Please answer, i hope you do, but I doubt it.

---

2016:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/0-000002-percent-of-all-the-ballots-cast-in-the-2016-election-were-fraudulent/

2012:
https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2012/02/06/146473653/indianas-top-election-official-convicted-of-voter-fraud

2008:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/oct/13/election-acorn-voter-fraud

There are ALWAYS cries of voter fraud by the losing side. If it happens it's never to the extent that would matter.

Alan

---

SeattleSilver wrote:

---

ohhh Yeahhh wrote:

---

SeattleSilver wrote:

---

ohhh Yeahhh wrote:

---

johnny99 wrote:
With all due respect, making up unfounded allegations doesn't give you the right to access everything that you want. If I accuse you of stealing money from me, would you turn over your bank statements to me?

It may be hard to come to grips with the fact that Trump was such a bad candidate that he even lost Georgia, but that's what happened.

---

Ok my man...let's examine your analogy.

If I say you stole from me. I would go to the police and charge you with the crime. And yes, they would audit your finances if you stole my money! Happens all the time with white collar crimes.

But this isn't a Trump or Biden isssue.

Again, why would you want software that isn't independently audited before and AFTER the election? Please tell me?

---

That is a poor example. The police wouldn't audit the accused finances just because you claimed that he/she stole your money. You would have to provide sufficient claim that you had the money, how and when the money disappeared, and why you are pointing a finger at the accused.

In this election, we don't know that Trump has unfairly lost, and his lawyers have been unable to convince a court that he unfairly lost. And while the lack of success in court certainly reflects some of the worst legal work I have seen in high profile matters, it mostly is due to the lack of credible evidence.

The fact that Trump lost isn't credible evidence that he was cheated, it just is credible evidence that his vote total is less than Biden's vote total. Applying that to your example, you would claim that the accused is guilty of stealing your money just because his bank balance is greater than yours. That isn't enough.

---

That is the whole point. The state, who the Trump team is saying is part of the dominion scam, won't let them have access to the voting machine software or do an actual audit of the ballots (not a recount of fraudulent ballots). And asking the officials, whose job it was to make sure there is no fraud, if there was no fraud, is like asking a basketball player if he fouled the other player. It is a pointless question.

But let's assume there is no "evidence" of that, which the data experts and 100's of eye witness testimony is evidence, should not the counties, state election boards make sure that the votes are reconciled and properly audited and the software code and machine is audited properly?

Why not do an audit of the signature mail in ballots?
Why not do an independent audit of the software code and machine?

Please answer, i hope you do, but I doubt it.

---

I have no history of dodging your questions, yet you assert that you doubt that I will. Hardly a good way to indicate that you are interested in a good faith dialog, so I think I can be forgiven for thinking that you are not.

But I'll answer this one time, which given your rude dismissal is more of my time than you deserve. The Gov and SoS are in charge of elections, and they are empowered to decide when enough is enough. I would agree that an inquiry could go beyond where they are willing to go if there was credible evidence that the Gov and SoS were compromised. But despite accusations from Attorneys Powell and Wood, there is no such evidence. So the authorities can shut it down and stop wasting taxpayer money while preparing to conduce another set of statewide elections.

And now I'm done with your churlishness for the evening.

---

---

ohhh Yeahhh wrote:

---

SeattleSilver wrote:

---

ohhh Yeahhh wrote:

---

SeattleSilver wrote:

---

ohhh Yeahhh wrote:

---

johnny99 wrote:
With all due respect, making up unfounded allegations doesn't give you the right to access everything that you want. If I accuse you of stealing money from me, would you turn over your bank statements to me?

It may be hard to come to grips with the fact that Trump was such a bad candidate that he even lost Georgia, but that's what happened.

---

Ok my man...let's examine your analogy.

If I say you stole from me. I would go to the police and charge you with the crime. And yes, they would audit your finances if you stole my money! Happens all the time with white collar crimes.

But this isn't a Trump or Biden isssue.

Again, why would you want software that isn't independently audited before and AFTER the election? Please tell me?

---

That is a poor example. The police wouldn't audit the accused finances just because you claimed that he/she stole your money. You would have to provide sufficient claim that you had the money, how and when the money disappeared, and why you are pointing a finger at the accused.

In this election, we don't know that Trump has unfairly lost, and his lawyers have been unable to convince a court that he unfairly lost. And while the lack of success in court certainly reflects some of the worst legal work I have seen in high profile matters, it mostly is due to the lack of credible evidence.

The fact that Trump lost isn't credible evidence that he was cheated, it just is credible evidence that his vote total is less than Biden's vote total. Applying that to your example, you would claim that the accused is guilty of stealing your money just because his bank balance is greater than yours. That isn't enough.

---

That is the whole point. The state, who the Trump team is saying is part of the dominion scam, won't let them have access to the voting machine software or do an actual audit of the ballots (not a recount of fraudulent ballots). And asking the officials, whose job it was to make sure there is no fraud, if there was no fraud, is like asking a basketball player if he fouled the other player. It is a pointless question.

But let's assume there is no "evidence" of that, which the data experts and 100's of eye witness testimony is evidence, should not the counties, state election boards make sure that the votes are reconciled and properly audited and the software code and machine is audited properly?

Why not do an audit of the signature mail in ballots?
Why not do an independent audit of the software code and machine?

Please answer, i hope you do, but I doubt it.

---

I have no history of dodging your questions, yet you assert that you doubt that I will. Hardly a good way to indicate that you are interested in a good faith dialog, so I think I can be forgiven for thinking that you are not.

But I'll answer this one time, which given your rude dismissal is more of my time than you deserve. The Gov and SoS are in charge of elections, and they are empowered to decide when enough is enough. I would agree that an inquiry could go beyond where they are willing to go if there was credible evidence that the Gov and SoS were compromised. But despite accusations from Attorneys Powell and Wood, there is no such evidence. So the authorities can shut it down and stop wasting taxpayer money while preparing to conduce another set of statewide elections.

And now I'm done with your churlishness for the evening.

---

I am being rude? I have been called multiple names and all I am asking for is an answer to simple questions. And then you call me childish. I know it is impossible to have decent dialog here, but man.

I am not asking you if you think the Gov or the SoS should audit, I am asking you if you think they should audit?

I will give you my simple answer.

All software needs to be audited, before and after by independent 3rd parties. Voter roles needs to be audited and reconciled.

NONE of those things happened. The Trump team has shown many many times evidence of this.

But as I said, you are asking the basketball player (Giv and SoS) if he fouled. Of course they will not admit they did a crappy job.

And of course, lots of these politicians are corrupt and may not like Trump or Biden who knows.

But if you don't have an election where you actually reconcile and audit the machines and mail ins, you get lots and lots of fraud.

But of course, if you are not wanting Trump, you will ignore these things, which is what I think is happening all over the place. Good for you until it is against you of course.

I could care less if Trump won, but the fact we have an election that has less auditing than my job back in high school at the grocery store if freaking redonculous.

But thanks for actually being the childish thing you are. I actually expected that.

---

So much fun.
Trumpers trying to disassociate from Lin Wood.
In other words, like in the French Revolution, the crazies are taking over and there’s no stopping them.
Good luck GOP. You created a monster - it will destroy you.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/12/02/records-lin-wood-decades-voted-donated-democrats-including-barack-obama-david-perdues-2014-opponent/

January 20th cannot come soon enough. Good riddance.

---

SeattleSilver wrote:

---

ohhh Yeahhh wrote:

---

SeattleSilver wrote:

---

ohhh Yeahhh wrote:

---

SeattleSilver wrote:

---

ohhh Yeahhh wrote:

---

johnny99 wrote:
With all due respect, making up unfounded allegations doesn't give you the right to access everything that you want. If I accuse you of stealing money from me, would you turn over your bank statements to me?

It may be hard to come to grips with the fact that Trump was such a bad candidate that he even lost Georgia, but that's what happened.

---

Ok my man...let's examine your analogy.

If I say you stole from me. I would go to the police and charge you with the crime. And yes, they would audit your finances if you stole my money! Happens all the time with white collar crimes.

But this isn't a Trump or Biden isssue.

Again, why would you want software that isn't independently audited before and AFTER the election? Please tell me?

---

That is a poor example. The police wouldn't audit the accused finances just because you claimed that he/she stole your money. You would have to provide sufficient claim that you had the money, how and when the money disappeared, and why you are pointing a finger at the accused.

In this election, we don't know that Trump has unfairly lost, and his lawyers have been unable to convince a court that he unfairly lost. And while the lack of success in court certainly reflects some of the worst legal work I have seen in high profile matters, it mostly is due to the lack of credible evidence.

The fact that Trump lost isn't credible evidence that he was cheated, it just is credible evidence that his vote total is less than Biden's vote total. Applying that to your example, you would claim that the accused is guilty of stealing your money just because his bank balance is greater than yours. That isn't enough.

---

That is the whole point. The state, who the Trump team is saying is part of the dominion scam, won't let them have access to the voting machine software or do an actual audit of the ballots (not a recount of fraudulent ballots). And asking the officials, whose job it was to make sure there is no fraud, if there was no fraud, is like asking a basketball player if he fouled the other player. It is a pointless question.

But let's assume there is no "evidence" of that, which the data experts and 100's of eye witness testimony is evidence, should not the counties, state election boards make sure that the votes are reconciled and properly audited and the software code and machine is audited properly?

Why not do an audit of the signature mail in ballots?
Why not do an independent audit of the software code and machine?

Please answer, i hope you do, but I doubt it.

---

I have no history of dodging your questions, yet you assert that you doubt that I will. Hardly a good way to indicate that you are interested in a good faith dialog, so I think I can be forgiven for thinking that you are not.

But I'll answer this one time, which given your rude dismissal is more of my time than you deserve. The Gov and SoS are in charge of elections, and they are empowered to decide when enough is enough. I would agree that an inquiry could go beyond where they are willing to go if there was credible evidence that the Gov and SoS were compromised. But despite accusations from Attorneys Powell and Wood, there is no such evidence. So the authorities can shut it down and stop wasting taxpayer money while preparing to conduce another set of statewide elections.

And now I'm done with your churlishness for the evening.

---

I am being rude? I have been called multiple names and all I am asking for is an answer to simple questions. And then you call me childish. I know it is impossible to have decent dialog here, but man.

I am not asking you if you think the Gov or the SoS should audit, I am asking you if you think they should audit?

I will give you my simple answer.

All software needs to be audited, before and after by independent 3rd parties. Voter roles needs to be audited and reconciled.

NONE of those things happened. The Trump team has shown many many times evidence of this.

But as I said, you are asking the basketball player (Giv and SoS) if he fouled. Of course they will not admit they did a crappy job.

And of course, lots of these politicians are corrupt and may not like Trump or Biden who knows.

But if you don't have an election where you actually reconcile and audit the machines and mail ins, you get lots and lots of fraud.

But of course, if you are not wanting Trump, you will ignore these things, which is what I think is happening all over the place. Good for you until it is against you of course.

I could care less if Trump won, but the fact we have an election that has less auditing than my job back in high school at the grocery store if freaking redonculous.

But thanks for actually being the childish thing you are. I actually expected that.

---

OK, I'll respond to that as follows:

1. How hard is it to read the post your quoted? You accused me of calling you "childish", which I quite clearly did not do.

2. I hadn't called you names here, and if others did it hardly is my fault. I did say that your behavior was rude and churlish, which I believe is an accurate charge for someone that would preemptively accuse me of poor behavior because you believe that other posters here are guilty of bad behavior. And it certainly isn't childish of me to take offense at your preemptive accusation; it is what a reasonable person does.

3. The following statement from your post is nonsensical: "I am not asking you if you think the Gov or the SoS should audit, I am asking you if you think they should audit?" The appropriate "they" would be the Gov or SoS. If you have another "they" in mind, you are leaving the reader to guess. However, it would be absolutely absurd to allow the party screaming "fraud" to audit and have that audit be the deciding factor. So the "they" is either the Gov/SoS, or some neutral party if the State agrees to it.

4. A reasonable person can draw inferences from the fact that judges, including GOP judges, have been less than impressed with the supposed "evidence" offered by the Trump legal team. Even the judge in Georgia who approved a very limited examination of a few of the voting machines did so reluctantly and explicitly noted that he found the allegations to be very speculative.

4. The rest of us can only wonder what you meant with the last three words of this statement: "... the fact we have an election that has less auditing than my job back in high school at the grocery store if freaking redonculous".

So have fun with the people here who called you names. I'm closing the browser on this waste of time.

---

---

ohhh Yeahhh wrote:

---

Real Obvi wrote:

---

ohhh Yeahhh wrote:

---

MelRnr wrote:. And No reason, because there is no evidence of fraud. Stop being absurd. Real patriotic Americans respect the Constitution and the rule of law. Respect democracy and make be on. Pick your next battle, but move on.

---

You honesty believe the election had no fraud?

If you do, why won't they allow the voting machines to be audited?

There are many many other reasons to believe there is fraud, but what could be your explanation for that?

---

I know, right? That's why they've provided a veritable MOUNTAIN of evidence in court proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that this election was stolen by fraud on a truly MASSIVE scale!

---

Thanks for not answering the question. Typical. But I'll try again.

Why will they not allow the machines to be audited? And are you comfortable with voting machines that can't be audited? Or is anyone for that matter?

Also, how can you present evidence if they don't allow you to have access to the information?

I hope you answer these questions, but I have my doubts.

---

---

Flybang mash wrote:

---

1101 wrote:

---

Flybang mash wrote:

---

1101 wrote:

---

Calamity Joe wrote:

---

1101 wrote:

---

Sally Vix wrote:

---

agip wrote:
Some Republicans are showing their true colors.
Shake a right wing party and some number of fascists will come out.
Mo Brooks. Remember the name.
He is trying to end democracy in America.
I'm sure he'll find a R senator to play coup with him, and they will jam up the proceedings for a day.

MO PROBLEMS -- Scooplet: Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) has been telling colleagues and allies that he plans to challenge the Electoral College votes when Congress officially certifies Joe Biden’s victory on Jan. 6, as long as a Senate Republican joins him in the long-shot effort, sources tell your Huddle host.

Brooks confirmed his plans in a phone interview, adding that he is still considering objecting to the vote-counting process even if no one joins him — though he acknowledged that would be more of a symbolic protest. Brooks, echoing President Donald Trump’s baseless claims of voter fraud without providing evidence, argued that the election was “badly flawed” and that most mail-in voting is “unconstitutional.”

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/huddle/2020/12/02/the-gops-electoral-mischief-491033

---

Agip - It was YOU who was calling for the Electoral College voters to go against the norm in 2016 and refuse to elect Trump.! Am I right? Are you not the biggest hypocrite here???

---

Not relevant.

There are two possible topics to discuss:

1) The holiness (or lack thereof) of a particular poster

of

2) The actual topic at hand

Neither is relevant to the other. So pick one.

If you pick 1) you are officially on record as being unwilling or unable to talk about the actual topic at hand. Indeed, it seems you already did pick 1).

Let us know when you think you are ready to discuss 2) the actual topic at hand.

---

If a poster is blatantly practicing hypocrisy, then that is relevant to any discussion. Would you not agree with that? It kind of negates anything he is throwing out there. He or she needs to be admonished. Yes?

---

INCORRECT! It negates absolutely nothing (unless he is "throwing out there" the notion that he is not a hypocrite).

The holiness and/or stupidity and/or hypocrisy and/or . . . of the poster does not in any way impact the truth of the facts presented or the validity of the arguments espoused.

I repeat:

There are two possible topics to discuss:

1) The holiness (or lack thereof) of a particular poster

or

2) The actual topic at hand

Neither is relevant to the other. So pick one.

---

That's not even close to true. Credibility of an author is a factor in determining whether his arguments or evidence holds mud.

Some additional nonsense.

---

INCORRECT!

Indeed, ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT!

Facts are either true or false. The identity or character of the person stating them in no way impacts which of these applies.

---

Hundreds of thousands of juries in 200+ years of American jurisprudence would tell you differently. American evidentiary law, developed over hundreds of years from English common law, in tens of thousands of judicial opinions testing the law, say you are wrong as well.

Your steadfast ignorance of all that, and resort to capital letters, makes all of us here start to wonder about your credibility.

---

---

1101 wrote:

---

Flybang mash wrote:

---

1101 wrote:

---

Flybang mash wrote:

---

1101 wrote:

---

Calamity Joe wrote:

---

1101 wrote:

---

Sally Vix wrote:

---

agip wrote:
Some Republicans are showing their true colors.
Shake a right wing party and some number of fascists will come out.
Mo Brooks. Remember the name.
He is trying to end democracy in America.
I'm sure he'll find a R senator to play coup with him, and they will jam up the proceedings for a day.

MO PROBLEMS -- Scooplet: Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) has been telling colleagues and allies that he plans to challenge the Electoral College votes when Congress officially certifies Joe Biden’s victory on Jan. 6, as long as a Senate Republican joins him in the long-shot effort, sources tell your Huddle host.

Brooks confirmed his plans in a phone interview, adding that he is still considering objecting to the vote-counting process even if no one joins him — though he acknowledged that would be more of a symbolic protest. Brooks, echoing President Donald Trump’s baseless claims of voter fraud without providing evidence, argued that the election was “badly flawed” and that most mail-in voting is “unconstitutional.”

---

Agip - It was YOU who was calling for the Electoral College voters to go against the norm in 2016 and refuse to elect Trump.! Am I right? Are you not the biggest hypocrite here???

---

Not relevant.

There are two possible topics to discuss:

1) The holiness (or lack thereof) of a particular poster

of

2) The actual topic at hand

Neither is relevant to the other. So pick one.

If you pick 1) you are officially on record as being unwilling or unable to talk about the actual topic at hand. Indeed, it seems you already did pick 1).

Let us know when you think you are ready to discuss 2) the actual topic at hand.

---

If a poster is blatantly practicing hypocrisy, then that is relevant to any discussion. Would you not agree with that? It kind of negates anything he is throwing out there. He or she needs to be admonished. Yes?

---

INCORRECT! It negates absolutely nothing (unless he is "throwing out there" the notion that he is not a hypocrite).

The holiness and/or stupidity and/or hypocrisy and/or . . . of the poster does not in any way impact the truth of the facts presented or the validity of the arguments espoused.

I repeat:

There are two possible topics to discuss:

1) The holiness (or lack thereof) of a particular poster

or

2) The actual topic at hand

Neither is relevant to the other. So pick one.

---

That's not even close to true. Credibility of an author is a factor in determining whether his arguments or evidence holds mud.

Some additional nonsense.

---

INCORRECT!

Indeed, ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT!

Facts are either true or false. The identity or character of the person stating them in no way impacts which of these applies.

---

Hundreds of thousands of juries in 200+ years of American jurisprudence would tell you differently. American evidentiary law, developed over hundreds of years from English common law, in tens of thousands of judicial opinions testing the law, say you are wrong as well.

Your steadfast ignorance of all that, and resort to capital letters, makes all of us here start to wonder about your credibility.

---

Fascinating take on my credibility. Truly fascinating.

Nonetheless, not fascinating enough for me to be interested in making this a discussion about me.

Now, let me ask you a very simple question: Do you think that out of those "hundreds of thousands of juries in 200+ years of American jurisprudence", the jury EVER (oh dear, I must worry about my credibility here!) got it wrong - convicted an innocent man or vice versa?

---

---

Flybang mash wrote:

---

1101 wrote:

---

Flybang mash wrote:

---

1101 wrote:

---

Flybang mash wrote:

---

1101 wrote:

---

Calamity Joe wrote:

---

1101 wrote:

---

Sally Vix wrote:

---

agip wrote:
Some Republicans are showing their true colors.
Shake a right wing party and some number of fascists will come out.
Mo Brooks. Remember the name.
He is trying to end democracy in America.
I'm sure he'll find a R senator to play coup with him, and they will jam up the proceedings for a day.

MO PROBLEMS -- Scooplet: Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) has been telling colleagues and allies that he plans to challenge the Electoral College votes when Congress officially certifies Joe Biden’s victory on Jan. 6, as long as a Senate Republican joins him in the long-shot effort, sources tell your Huddle host.

Brooks confirmed his plans in a phone interview, adding that he is still considering objecting to the vote-counting process even if no one joins him — though he acknowledged that would be more of a symbolic protest. Brooks, echoing President Donald Trump’s baseless claims of voter fraud without providing evidence, argued that the election was “badly flawed” and that most mail-in voting is “unconstitutional.”

---

Agip - It was YOU who was calling for the Electoral College voters to go against the norm in 2016 and refuse to elect Trump.! Am I right? Are you not the biggest hypocrite here???

---

Not relevant.

There are two possible topics to discuss:

1) The holiness (or lack thereof) of a particular poster

of

2) The actual topic at hand

Neither is relevant to the other. So pick one.

If you pick 1) you are officially on record as being unwilling or unable to talk about the actual topic at hand. Indeed, it seems you already did pick 1).

Let us know when you think you are ready to discuss 2) the actual topic at hand.

---

If a poster is blatantly practicing hypocrisy, then that is relevant to any discussion. Would you not agree with that? It kind of negates anything he is throwing out there. He or she needs to be admonished. Yes?

---

INCORRECT! It negates absolutely nothing (unless he is "throwing out there" the notion that he is not a hypocrite).

The holiness and/or stupidity and/or hypocrisy and/or . . . of the poster does not in any way impact the truth of the facts presented or the validity of the arguments espoused.

I repeat:

There are two possible topics to discuss:

1) The holiness (or lack thereof) of a particular poster

or

2) The actual topic at hand

Neither is relevant to the other. So pick one.

---

That's not even close to true. Credibility of an author is a factor in determining whether his arguments or evidence holds mud.

Some additional nonsense.

---

INCORRECT!

Indeed, ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT!

Facts are either true or false. The identity or character of the person stating them in no way impacts which of these applies.

---

Hundreds of thousands of juries in 200+ years of American jurisprudence would tell you differently. American evidentiary law, developed over hundreds of years from English common law, in tens of thousands of judicial opinions testing the law, say you are wrong as well.

Your steadfast ignorance of all that, and resort to capital letters, makes all of us here start to wonder about your credibility.

---

Fascinating take on my credibility. Truly fascinating.

Nonetheless, not fascinating enough for me to be interested in making this a discussion about me.

Now, let me ask you a very simple question: Do you think that out of those "hundreds of thousands of juries in 200+ years of American jurisprudence", the jury EVER (oh dear, I must worry about my credibility here!) got it wrong - convicted an innocent man or vice versa?

---

As you should know, you can't discuss two topics, when they are not relevant to each other.
There are two possible topics to discuss:

1) Your lack of credibility

or

2) Whether, under American evidentiary law, the credibility of FACT and expert witnesses is determined by the jury in rendering decisions.

Neither is relevant to the other, so you are compelled to pick one or the other. If you pick (2), you are officially on record as having admitted that you have no credibility. Your choice.

---

Pages and pages of sally posting under different handles and writing lengthy paragraphs of nonsense. Sally is nothing but a butthurt loser tzee trying desperately to anger people on the thread. If you are going to keep responding to him, I suggest you give him the proper treatment and call him a butthurt loser, or at best ask him a stupid question and let him spin his wheels. Refer to my next post below.

---

Flybang mash wrote:

---

1101 wrote:

---

Flybang mash wrote:

---

1101 wrote:

---

Flybang mash wrote:

---

1101 wrote:

---

Calamity Joe wrote:

---

1101 wrote:

---

Sally Vix wrote:

---

agip wrote:
Some Republicans are showing their true colors.
Shake a right wing party and some number of fascists will come out.
Mo Brooks. Remember the name.
He is trying to end democracy in America.
I'm sure he'll find a R senator to play coup with him, and they will jam up the proceedings for a day.

MO PROBLEMS -- Scooplet: Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) has been telling colleagues and allies that he plans to challenge the Electoral College votes when Congress officially certifies Joe Biden’s victory on Jan. 6, as long as a Senate Republican joins him in the long-shot effort, sources tell your Huddle host.

Brooks confirmed his plans in a phone interview, adding that he is still considering objecting to the vote-counting process even if no one joins him — though he acknowledged that would be more of a symbolic protest. Brooks, echoing President Donald Trump’s baseless claims of voter fraud without providing evidence, argued that the election was “badly flawed” and that most mail-in voting is “unconstitutional.”

---

Agip - It was YOU who was calling for the Electoral College voters to go against the norm in 2016 and refuse to elect Trump.! Am I right? Are you not the biggest hypocrite here???

---

Not relevant.

There are two possible topics to discuss:

1) The holiness (or lack thereof) of a particular poster

of

2) The actual topic at hand

Neither is relevant to the other. So pick one.

If you pick 1) you are officially on record as being unwilling or unable to talk about the actual topic at hand. Indeed, it seems you already did pick 1).

Let us know when you think you are ready to discuss 2) the actual topic at hand.

---

If a poster is blatantly practicing hypocrisy, then that is relevant to any discussion. Would you not agree with that? It kind of negates anything he is throwing out there. He or she needs to be admonished. Yes?

---

INCORRECT! It negates absolutely nothing (unless he is "throwing out there" the notion that he is not a hypocrite).

The holiness and/or stupidity and/or hypocrisy and/or . . . of the poster does not in any way impact the truth of the facts presented or the validity of the arguments espoused.

I repeat:

There are two possible topics to discuss:

1) The holiness (or lack thereof) of a particular poster

or

2) The actual topic at hand

Neither is relevant to the other. So pick one.

---

That's not even close to true. Credibility of an author is a factor in determining whether his arguments or evidence holds mud.

Some additional nonsense.

---

INCORRECT!

Indeed, ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT!

Facts are either true or false. The identity or character of the person stating them in no way impacts which of these applies.

---

Hundreds of thousands of juries in 200+ years of American jurisprudence would tell you differently. American evidentiary law, developed over hundreds of years from English common law, in tens of thousands of judicial opinions testing the law, say you are wrong as well.

Your steadfast ignorance of all that, and resort to capital letters, makes all of us here start to wonder about your credibility.

---

Fascinating take on my credibility. Truly fascinating.

Nonetheless, not fascinating enough for me to be interested in making this a discussion about me.

Now, let me ask you a very simple question: Do you think that out of those "hundreds of thousands of juries in 200+ years of American jurisprudence", the jury EVER (oh dear, I must worry about my credibility here!) got it wrong - convicted an innocent man or vice versa?

---

As you should know, you can't discuss two topics, when they are not relevant to each other.
There are two possible topics to discuss:

1) Your lack of credibility

or

2) Whether, under American evidentiary law, the credibility of FACT and expert witnesses is determined by the jury in rendering decisions.

Neither is relevant to the other, so you are compelled to pick one or the other. If you pick (2), you are officially on record as having admitted that you have no credibility. Your choice.

---

Trumper logic: bar owner knowingly breaks the law, gets arrested, and somehow standing up for him in a massive massless crowd makes you a patriot. Suddenly they don’t like the police. These people really are not Americans.

https://twitter.com/abc7ny/status/1334324176749027329?s=21

---

Rigged for Hillary wrote:
Dementia Joe hides in his basement having others write his tweets - because he can’t read or talk without making a complete fool of himself. It should be obvious to anyone with a brain, but then again we are talking about Iibtards with TDS like Sourpole.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaZuKSwXsAYdUWV?format=jpg&name=small

"Come on, man!"

---

I'm starting to think Sydney Powell and Lin Wood are going to run for office soon. They are stepping up their trumpism to whole new levels. Trump has had to try to contain them on the boycott GA vote idea, how long before they split from him and sell their own brand of crazy? How can anyone look at the GOP today and not think it's pure embarrassment?

https://twitter.com/ReallyAmerican1/status/1334242778969071616?s=20

I think they finally created Frankenstein with Powell and Lin. The perfect ending can get more perfect. Parler is now riddled with calls to boycott GA and the GOP senators are being referred to as #paycheckpurdue and #lyinloeffler. I hope the Dems are using this to their advantage. A little bit of money goes a long way in organizing boycott the vote rallies. These trumpers seem to show up any day any time they are called upon to protest and they are way too stupid to understand they are being conned, regardless of who is doing it. Dems are going to need something extra special to take those two seats but I'm not sure it will ever get as good as this for them in GA.

Sally, you wanted something tangible to investigate, here go after this guy and report your findings back to us.

https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1334356275140964352?s=20

---

ohhh Yeahhh wrote:

---

Real Obvi wrote:

---

ohhh Yeahhh wrote:

---

MelRnr wrote:. And No reason, because there is no evidence of fraud. Stop being absurd. Real patriotic Americans respect the Constitution and the rule of law. Respect democracy and make be on. Pick your next battle, but move on.

---

You honesty believe the election had no fraud?

If you do, why won't they allow the voting machines to be audited?

There are many many other reasons to believe there is fraud, but what could be your explanation for that?

---

I know, right? That's why they've provided a veritable MOUNTAIN of evidence in court proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that this election was stolen by fraud on a truly MASSIVE scale!

---

Thanks for not answering the question. Typical. But I'll try again.

Why will they not allow the machines to be audited? And are you comfortable with voting machines that can't be audited? Or is anyone for that matter?

Also, how can you present evidence if they don't allow you to have access to the information?

I hope you answer these questions, but I have my doubts.

---