Did you know 3 trillion lesbians voted in 2016 against Donald Trump? Its all in this graph:
Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)
- Thread starter Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)
- Start date
- Status
Context: "A perfectly ordinary year and election".
Yes, having coronavirus doesn't mean one is indefinitely confined. And all the myriad other medical concerns which are exacerbated by the virus or by lockdown? All of the postponed surgeries? All of the people who simply didn't realise that quarantining didn't count (because, quite frankly, it's just as intuitive that it would count)?
nitpick: Whether one is indefinitely confined due to having coronavirus is up to an individual voter's determination, and with the recommended/mandatory quarantines in place for those infected, it's easy to see how one might determine they were indefinitely confined.
It's awesome to see your standard MO in action.
Step 1: Make ridiculous claims backed up by what could generously be called "possible evidence" (more likely its some unsourced opinion piece or video).
Step 2: Have several users point out with actual evidence how you're entirely wrong.
Step 3: Ignore step 2 ever happened.
Step 4: Repeat step 1 with new assertions
Last edited:
Republicans circa 2016: "I don't believe all the intelligence agencies that are saying that Russia interfered with our election, it's just Democrats clutching at straws over how they lost."
Republicans come 2020: "See, this guy has a video on Youtube, and look at this Tweet! The Democrats totally stole the election!".
Brought to you by the party of "Epstein was killed by a lame-duck, loser former politician and not the guy currently sitting in the most powerful position on Earth (who was also involved with the deceased) because he said the lame-duck one did it".
Republicans come 2020: "See, this guy has a video on Youtube, and look at this Tweet! The Democrats totally stole the election!".
Brought to you by the party of "Epstein was killed by a lame-duck, loser former politician and not the guy currently sitting in the most powerful position on Earth (who was also involved with the deceased) because he said the lame-duck one did it".
There's as much proof that Trump was involved as any other individual and more than many of them.
Sure, and back in the 50s, if you couldn't get over the pass mark in that IQ test, you disenfranchised yourself as well.
So one of the Judges decided to listen to Trump's legal team's findings to see if there is any credit to what they are presenting.
Also, I know the Washington Examiner is a Right leaning publication, so I don't know how much stock I put into their predictions or what could happen. However, I do believe this is the goal of continuing finding vulnerable Democratic votes to discount.
Wait and see. Whatever the true Evidence says, we have to go with.
Eh, I mean...not really? It's just funny to me that the "Epstein totally didn't kill himself" gang always seem to jump from that straight into "...and it was Clinton that did it", which is kinda dumb that a guy who hasn't been relevant in politics for over a decade would order it (or the even more ridiculous notion that his wife ordered the hit), especially compared to another person who has the same evidence against him (IE was an associate of Epstein), but with the more damning evidence of also having access to America's clandestine services and more to lose.
Oh its going to be hysterical! 'cause in court, under oath, lying is a sin. And the punishment is a timeout in the naughty box. And just like every single case brought forward so far when it gets to court the allegations dry up, testimony is withdrawn, affidavits are reworded and claims removed, and the Trump team folds like a paper tiger.
I would LOVE to see Giuliani under oath, as a member of the Bar, swear he has evidence tens of thousands of dead people voted in Nevada and he can prove it, 'cause if even just one turns out to be untrue that's a timeout in the naughty box.
I take it from your response that you failed to notice this "hearing" was not an actual state legislature hearing? It's literally a press conference set up by Giuliani at a hotel...
It was designed to fool people like you into thinking it was real. If there was actual evidence of fraud, Trump's lawyers would have brought it up in court rather than abandoning his legal efforts to avoid being sanctioned for frivolous suits.
- Status