American election.

General chit-chat

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 27604
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: American election.

Post by Immanuel Can »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 6:08 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:41 pm https://hereistheevidence.com
don't hold yer breathe that any of the anti-fraudists will even click on the link
You were right.
Skepdick
Posts: 16022
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: American election.

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:43 pm I need somebody who knows what "evidence" means...or at least somebody who can read.
The person who knows what "evidence" means (me) is asking the person who doesn't (you) these questions:

Why does "the evidence" require explanation?
What is it that you insist OUGHT to be done in the event that all evidence is true?
What are you trying to achieve?
commonsense
Posts: 5380
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: American election.

Post by commonsense »

commonsense wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:23 pm
Skepdick wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 7:33 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:41 pm The evidence the Left has been saying "doesn't exist" for the theft of the election.

It's aaaaaalll here. Have fun.


https://hereistheevidence.com
Why do you continue to call it "evidence" if multiple courts in multiple states have dismissed it as such?

Are you suggesting that there is a nation-wide conspiracy in the justice system?
It isn’t evidence.
IC

You posted your link at 10:41 AM CDT. By 2:23 PM CDT I had read and digested all I could stand of your link. Where’s your evidence that I didn’t even try?
commonsense
Posts: 5380
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: American election.

Post by commonsense »

Evidence is proof, not something to be proved.

Crowdsourcing isn’t evidence.

Phrases in place of complete statements aren’t evidence.

Statements are not evidence just because they are claimed to be evidence.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 16379
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: 🔥AMERICA🔥
Contact:

Re: American election.

Post by henry quirk »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:44 pm
henry quirk wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 6:08 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:41 pm https://hereistheevidence.com
don't hold yer breathe that any of the anti-fraudists will even click on the link
You were right.
I ain't happy about it
commonsense
Posts: 5380
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: American election.

Post by commonsense »

If I’m an anti-fraudist, does that make you fraudulent? :mrgreen:
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 27604
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: American election.

Post by Immanuel Can »

commonsense wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 10:06 pm If I’m an anti-fraudist, does that make you fraudulent? :mrgreen:
A person who refuses to believe cancer is real isn't an "anti-cancerist." He hasn't actually prevented any cancer; he's just prevented himself from knowing of any. And a person who believes there's cancer isn't a "pro-cancerist," or "cancerist." He's a realist.
Last edited by Immanuel Can on Wed Dec 09, 2020 10:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 16379
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: 🔥AMERICA🔥
Contact:

Re: American election.

Post by henry quirk »

commonsense wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 10:06 pm If I’m an anti-fraudist, does that make you fraudulent? :mrgreen:
yeah, guy, whatever
commonsense
Posts: 5380
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: American election.

Post by commonsense »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 10:58 pm
commonsense wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 10:06 pm If I’m an anti-fraudist, does that make you fraudulent? :mrgreen:
A person who refuses to believe cancer is real isn't an "anti-cancerist." He hasn't actually prevented any cancer; he's just prevented himself from knowing of any. And a person who believes there's cancer isn't a "pro-cancerist," or "cancerist." He's a realist.
I believe “anti-fraudist” was your description. I would have chosen “skeptic” because I’m skeptical that an anomaly exists.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 27604
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: American election.

Post by Immanuel Can »

commonsense wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 11:54 pm I would have chosen “skeptic” because I’m skeptical that an anomaly exists.
Skepticism is fine. It's something we all should have. Especially when we're told that the people's choice has been Joe Biden.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 16379
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: 🔥AMERICA🔥
Contact:

Re: American election.

Post by henry quirk »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:35 am
commonsense wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 11:54 pm I would have chosen “skeptic” because I’m skeptical that an anomaly exists.
Skepticism is fine. It's something we all should have. Especially when we're told that the people's choice has been Joe Biden.
I foisted up anti-fraudist, not mannie, and -- yeah -- skeptic is better

there are skeptics who say an election wasn't stolen; there are skeptics who say a houseplant couldn't have won the election

as aside: smokin' joe knew/knows nuthin' about the theft (assumin' there was a theft)...he actually believes he won
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 27604
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: American election.

Post by Immanuel Can »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 1:55 am as aside: smokin' joe knew/knows nuthin' about the theft (assumin' there was a theft)...he actually believes he won
I don't know whether or not that will turn out to be true. Smokin' Joe has a long and very corrupt history with the Democrats, and is definitely an insider on their misdeeds...or has been. But in his present mental condition, I don't think the Dems would trust him with anything, so you're probably right...they've probably convinced him he won, and he probably believes it.

But God bless Texas.
commonsense
Posts: 5380
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: American election.

Post by commonsense »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 1:55 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:35 am
commonsense wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 11:54 pm I would have chosen “skeptic” because I’m skeptical that an anomaly exists.
Skepticism is fine. It's something we all should have. Especially when we're told that the people's choice has been Joe Biden.
I foisted up anti-fraudist, not mannie, and -- yeah -- skeptic is better

there are skeptics who say an election wasn't stolen; there are skeptics who say a houseplant couldn't have won the election

as aside: smokin' joe knew/knows nuthin' about the theft (assumin' there was a theft)...he actually believes he won
👍

You are a great and honorable man.

(Not Joking)
Last edited by commonsense on Thu Dec 10, 2020 3:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 16379
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: 🔥AMERICA🔥
Contact:

Re: American election.

Post by henry quirk »

But God bless Texas.

and the other 14 (I think) who've joined with texas in the suit (includin' my own)
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 27604
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: American election.

Post by Immanuel Can »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 3:01 am But God bless Texas.

and the other 14 (I think) who've joined with texas in the suit (includin' my own)
17 now, I heard. But good for the Bayou Boys.

They should. Any cheating obviously dilutes the impact of every vote in the country.
Post Reply