Search results

They reported what they had to and what was already known outside of far right conspiracy circles. No fraud, Trump lost, Biden won.

Yeah, was being a bit "conservative" in my last estimation...

Nope. Dealt with. Nope, not legally. Detailed and substantive unlike your one sentence tropes.

Recognizing oppressive regimes and the victims of such should be taught, I've no problem with it.

They'll still be moaning on about this come 2032...

Probably scared of a lawsuit.

Nope. This was clearly explained to you a few posts ago so what tripped you up? The one he provided was lame and wouldn't make it anywhere near court. Dunno how the legal system works in New Zealand but over here there's a certain standard of evidence required before things go before a jury...

Nope. Well, he should have concocted a better scenario then shouldn't he cos the one he's proposed wouldn't make it anywhere near the courtroom. That's the only sensible way to address it. No juror would either be required or expected to give a verdict given the complete derf - sorry, dearth of...

It's almost funny...

No. At this point you're either thick or willfully dishonest or both. There's no "verdict" in this as as explained numerous times already. In order for a verdict there'd have to be sufficient evidence in order for a case to make it to court. Now, you do get that right? Right? That ain't gonna be...

As you seem to be stuck on loop let me make the clear even clearer - even to you. Cases require evidence to get to court in our legal systems and the likes of Derf's feeble scenario don't count, remotely. If only you put so much effort into taking the guy to task who wouldn't consider it rape if...

"Not anything" then. From the get go it was proof that was required had you been reading along. Lame scenarios don't warrant a verdict as there can't even be one.

It isn't, remotely. Derf's scenario wouldn't have even made it to court and if you actually read people's posts properly you'd know that nobody would advocate the man being found guilty based on his lame hypothetical. Cases need evidence so no verdict even required. Maybe if you spent less time...

Did you think that you could just snip a quote (again) and pretend that you've not made a complete clown of yourself in doing so (again)? There's no way a guilty/not guilty verdict can even be given in Derf's scenario for reasons already outlined and unless your idea of worthwhile contribution...

Gonna be replying to yourself then are you? If you'd read things through properly instead of inventing your own moronic "assessments" about what other people believe in regards to the topic you'd have had your answer multiple times over.

Oh, so it's 'either/or' with you is it? There's room for question if little else with Derf's scenario and obviously there's nothing in it that resembles "evidence" in it that would justify a conviction. How have you not got this yet?

You're not really all that surprised though, right?

There's not enough in Derf's scenario to decide guilt or innocence. It's nowhere near detailed enough.

I didn't concoct any scenario and the answer was given to Derf's in my immediate response to it. That you somehow missed it and idiotically rambled on about how I would convict people without evidence and other rubbish is solely on you. The answer was there from the get go. Proof. As with any...

I gave a straight answer from the get go with Derf's scenario that could hardly have been clearer. The sort that proves that someone had forced themselves on another. Duh. Oh wow, are you going for an irony award?! You've failed to read what I said in a clear and straightforward manner...