Why Democrats are Exactly Like Nazis

chair

Well-known member
Worry about the plank in your own eye.

Although, TG might be completely wrong since a case could be made the Democrats are worse than Nazis since at least Nazis more often waited for Jews be born before they murdered them (and please note, I'm not saying all Democrats kill innocent babies before they are born, but that Democrats are the primary force in enabling the murder of millions of innocent humans).

I admitted my exaggeration. I am hoping against hope that TG will get some horse sense.
 

exminister

Well-known member
Denying the evidence exists won't make it go away, EM. Means, motive, and opportunity have been presented, along with the hard evidence that voting machines have been compromised, and that Eric Coomer, a terrorist antifa member, is close to the center of it all.



I am reading only assertions. I have seen no evidence.

If there was evidence why didn't Trump's lawyers not present them? They had 60 opportunities. The Supreme Court rejected two cases. Why haven't Kavanaugh and Barrett and Gorsuch spoken up against such an outrageous assertion? Why did his lawyers quit? Why did Gulliani say to one judge the case was not about fraud? Are all these people denying evidence, people paid or appointed by the president?

Why do you believe one man's assertion when it cannot be held up in any court of law even those favoring him?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I am reading only assertions.


I have seen no evidence.

Doesn't mean there isn't any.

Don't use fallacies. They're bad for your arguments.

If there was evidence why didn't Trump's lawyers not present them?

Why does it have to be Trump's lawyers?

They had 60 opportunities. The Supreme Court rejected two cases.

But not on the merits.

I'm no legal expert, but from my basic understanding, the SC rejected them due to technicalities, not because of lack of evidence.

Why haven't Kavanaugh and Barrett and Gorsuch spoken up against such an outrageous assertion?

Why do they have to, when there's plenty of evidence elsewhere?

Why did his lawyers quit?

Supra.

Why did Gulliani say to one judge the case was not about fraud?

Cite?

Are all these people denying evidence, people paid or appointed by the president?

Denying evidence? Cite please.

Why do you believe one man's assertion when it cannot be held up in any court of law even those favoring him?

Because it's not just one man's assertion. Have you not been paying attention to the news lately?
 

chair

Well-known member
Why do you believe one man's assertion when it cannot be held up in any court of law even those favoring him?
This is a key point. The courts haven't seem any merit in these claims, and it is rather difficult to claim that all the courts are controlled by liberals.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
This is a key point. The courts haven't seem any merit in these claims,

False. They did not reject the Texas Lawsuit on merits. Again, don't just watch liberal news sites.

and it is rather difficult to claim that all the courts are controlled by liberals.

From my standpoint, they're all a bunch of liberals.
 

exminister

Well-known member



Doesn't mean there isn't any.

Don't use fallacies. They're bad for your arguments.



Why does it have to be Trump's lawyers?



But not on the merits.

I'm no legal expert, but from my basic understanding, the SC rejected them due to technicalities, not because of lack of evidence.



Why do they have to, when there's plenty of evidence elsewhere?



Supra.



Cite?



Denying evidence? Cite please.



Because it's not just one man's assertion. Have you not been paying attention to the news lately?

I don't watch news that are into promoting conspiracy theories. All other news say Biden has clearly won in a fair election, even McConnell.

What a tragedy for America. I would have hoped you would judge rightly, but you would rather believe conspiracy theories and baldfaced lies from this president.

The rule of law is now longer respected. Our most significant expression is elections to reflect the will of the people and the courts. It is a dark time for the country when so many go off conspiracy theories rather than evidence.

Technicalities...what a laugh. The technicality is that Trump expects to do nothing but lie and everyone is to bow down. He has your heart for sure.

High paid lawyers, the full authority of the executive branch and he still came up empty. His 3 appointed justices to the Supreme Court know that it was all just crazy assertions and that is why they remained silent.

We certainly got lucky this time, but with a large part of Americans primed for conspiracy theories and believing regardless, the next go round with someone smarter than this president, we may well have an effective coup, resembling fascist Germany - right wing, fear mongering, cult of personality, racist.
 

exminister

Well-known member
Why did Gulliani say to one judge the case was not about fraud?

Cite?
Gulliani - this is not a fraud case







"Calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here," said a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, based in Philadelphia.

The opinion was written by Judge Stephanos Bibas, who was appointed to the court by Trump. The other two judges were appointed by President George W. Bush.



How did your news media miss this? Perhaps they are biased.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I don't watch news that are into promoting conspiracy theories.

In other words, you've already decided you're not interested in hearing the other side.

All other news say Biden has clearly won in a fair election, even McConnell.

No, "all other news" do not say that.

Unless by "all other news" you mean all the news sites you agree with?

What a tragedy for America. I would have hoped you would judge rightly, but you would rather believe conspiracy theories and baldfaced lies from this president.

Question: Who do you think I voted for?

The rule of law is now longer respected.

"Now"?

The rule of law hasn't been respected for the past 50 years or so.

Our most significant expression is elections to reflect the will of the people and the courts. It is a dark time for the country when so many go off conspiracy theories rather than evidence.

And yet, you have yet to establish that it's a conspiracy theory.

On the other hand, There are any number of threads currently in the Politics section, many with multiple links, that provide significant amounts of evidence that it is NOT a conspiracy theory.

All it would take is for you to look at them.

Technicalities...

I don't really remember the wording used, so I used "technicality" for lack of the correct term.

what a laugh. The technicality is that Trump expects to do nothing but lie and everyone is to bow down. He has your heart for sure.

See my above question.

High paid lawyers, the full authority of the executive branch and he still came up empty.

They're not the only ones involved in this, you know, right?

His 3 appointed justices to the Supreme Court know that it was all just crazy assertions and that is why they remained silent.

Alternate posibility: they were bought out. The CCP has lots of money, and there's plenty of evidence they were involved in some way this election.

We certainly got lucky this time, but with a large part of Americans primed for conspiracy theories and believing regardless, the next go round with someone smarter than this president, we may well have an effective coup, resembling fascist Germany - right wing, fear mongering, cult of personality, racist.

Or you've bought the lie that it's actually the republican party that is trying to steal the election, in spite of the lack of evidence for it, and plenty of evidence to the exact opposite...
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Gulliani - this is not a fraud case







"Calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here," said a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, based in Philadelphia.

The opinion was written by Judge Stephanos Bibas, who was appointed to the court by Trump. The other two judges were appointed by President George W. Bush.



How did your news media miss this? Perhaps they are biased.

Question: Are judges always right all the time, never deceptive or lying?
 

exminister

Well-known member
In other words, you've already decided you're not interested in hearing the other side.



No, "all other news" do not say that.

Unless by "all other news" you mean all the news sites you agree with?



Question: Who do you think I voted for?



"Now"?

The rule of law hasn't been respected for the past 50 years or so.



And yet, you have yet to establish that it's a conspiracy theory.

On the other hand, There are any number of threads currently in the Politics section, many with multiple links, that provide significant amounts of evidence that it is NOT a conspiracy theory.

All it would take is for you to look at them.



I don't really remember the wording used, so I used "technicality" for lack of the correct term.



See my above question.



They're not the only ones involved in this, you know, right?



Alternate posibility: they were bought out. The CCP has lots of money, and there's plenty of evidence they were involved in some way this election.



Or you've bought the lie that it's actually the republican party that is trying to steal the election, in spite of the lack of evidence for it, and plenty of evidence to the exact opposite...
I think you voted for Trump. Is that wrong? Who did you vote for then?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I think you voted for Trump. Is that wrong? Who did you vote for then?

It was somewhat of a trick question.

I didn't vote at all.

Had I voted, I would have voted for Tom Hoefling.

I personally don't like Trump. And even more, I don't like having to defend him. But if he is wronged, then the needs of justice must be met.
 

exminister

Well-known member
Question: Are judges always right all the time, never deceptive or lying?
No, the judges are not always right. However, when such a nationwide agreement has occurred, it is very clear Trump lost. When recounts have been done twice and treble times, even with Trump paying millions for one of them, and yet come up with essentially the same result, it is clear Trump lost. With all this talk of fraud (since before he was president and 4 years to prepare and prevent this case) and there is only hearsay which is presented in the courts and when even Trump's personal lawyer says this is not a case about fraud, one has to pause and think.

Frankly all this has built my confidence in our election like never before. When this corrupt president who uses everything in his vast powers, who is joined by his fellow sycophant congressmen and yet it still cannot be overturned. Such a wide variety of people from both the left and right consenting Biden won, I think this president's corrupt obsession about this power grab, trying to steal the election, attempted disenfranchisement, he has given us far more confidence in our elections unlike never before. Maybe in time this will be his major accomplishment, stress testing our ability to remain a democratic republic and no one man is above the law, even the president.
 

exminister

Well-known member
It was somewhat of a trick question.

I didn't vote at all.

Had I voted, I would have voted for Tom Hoefling.

I personally don't like Trump. And even more, I don't like having to defend him. But if he is wronged, then the needs of justice must be met.
Thank you for telling me that.

Trump, in his mind, is always wronged. He has a dominant personality and many people are attracted to such a personality. If he had been a man of conviction and high morals, I think he could have been one of the best presidents. But his whole life has been about treating others horribly for his own gain. He thinks of nothing else. He is such a pitiful narcissist.
 

chair

Well-known member
I'm no legal expert, but from my basic understanding, the SC rejected them due to technicalities, not because of lack of evidence.

"Technicalities" might include things like these issues aren't federal- but state. Or that there was so little merit in the case that the court didn't want to waste its time. The SC isn't require to explain why- yet the fact that the court leans conservative these days, and refused to even hear the cases says something.

In the history books, Trump will be remembered as the president that broke with US foreign policy traditions- sometimes with good results, as the president who mishandled an epidemic, and mostly as the president who who caused much of the American public to mistrust their own democratic institutions.
 

ok doser

Well-known member
In the history books, Trump will be remembered ... as the president who mishandled an epidemic ...
By partisan leftist historians perhaps. Those who are honest and unbiased might have a different viewpoint.

The following is sorted by deaths per one million population:



Screenshot_20201219-150635_Chrome.jpg
 
Top