binger has basically failed to provide any evidence for this though. their closing rebuttal amounts to corncob literally saying "people take a beating sometimes."
@twotwenty @freemo
@icedquinn This case will not be decided on the facts but on the politics of the jurors.
@icedquinn How are they threatening the jurors?
🇳🇱
@NEETzsche @twotwenty
It’s super plausible though, leftist stormtroopers have been doing that for years now, and all eyes are on this trial. It’s almost impossible that somebody somewhere isn’t threatening to do this, the real question is whether they have genuine intent and capability.
Its plausible even though Jack was very clearly lying based on what he said.
@NEETzsche @twotwenty
Yea honestly the prosecution seemed to be acting kinda emotional and unhinged. At least, while trying to hide it under a thin veil of professionalism
@freemo The prosecution’s melting down was hilarious. That doesn’t entail a not guilty verdict in a highly politicized nation, though. It means basically nothing, honestly.
All I know is if the jury was comprised of 12 truly objective people we would have had a verdict back after 15 minutes of not-guilty.
@freemo Which means the fact that they took the whole day is evidence that they have a MUH STATE LINES Karen on the jury.
@icscarythings If they fail to acquit, this is the Last Straw for the legitimacy of the system. As though the rigged election weren’t enough, The System on a national level has decided that defending yourself against child rapists is murder.
Anything short of a full acquittal on all charges justifies direct violent action against the State and its agents, like cops and judges. It’s just cause for regime change, and everybody knows it. Anything short of a not guilty verdict is an expression of intent by The System to murder-rape you.
This is why Schroeder should’ve just mistrialed it with prejudice when the prosecution tried to throw it. He’s playing with the stature of the nation by trying to play it straight.
Not that we need to go down this rabbit hole. But I do want to make it clear, I think the idea that the election was "rigged", at least with any evidence to support that, is complete nonsense.
The idea that any election *wasn't* rigged is complete nonsense.
@Eris Thanks for posting some of the evidence again. I’m just sick of rehashing these topics over and over again. It reminds me of the Binger prosecution engaging in the most vile Talmudry to pretend that the video evidence shows something other than what it does.
>I’m just sick of rehashing these topics over and over again.
You're not "rehashing" them. He is refusing to let you hash them. That's why the same conflict comes up again and again: Those in the wrong refuse to have their minds changed.
i would have liked to see some of those lawsuits tried on the merits and SCOTUS saying states have no standing is just retarded.
On this I agree. Which is why I didnt claim it wasnt rigged and simply said there is no evidence showing it was. I am perfectly ok with the idea that the government has done little to secure our trust in general and as such nothing can really be trusted.
> Which is why I didnt claim it wasnt rigged and simply said there is no evidence showing it was.
Either it was or it wasn't. You don't get bonus points for sitting on the fence. Being wrong would be preferable, at least then you'd have some balls.
Just because something is either true or false doesnt mean your going to be respected for deciding which happens to be the case when you lack any evidence to make a conclusion. Wisdom is knowing when to say "I dont have the evidence to draw a conclusion"
All I know is this
1) every shred of claimed evidence the election was rigged turned out to be utterly false
2) Trumps phone conversations made it clear he was asking people to lie and make up numbers to show a rigged election, discrediting his case
3) showing the election is not rigged is an attempt to prove a negative, which is often extremely difficult or impossible to do no matter how much evidence you hope to accumulate
As such no reasonable person would claim with certainty the election is rigged. The best anyone can do, and I would agree with this, is say the government is a shady bastard and I wouldnt put it or anything else past them.
>every shred of claimed evidence the election was rigged turned out to be utterly false
That's just a lie though.
>Trumps phone conversations made it clear he was asking people to lie and make up numbers to show a rigged election, discrediting his case
That's also just a lie though. He was doing the exact opposite of that: Asking them to show the real numbers.
>showing the election is not rigged is an attempt to prove a negative, which is often extremely difficult or impossible to do no matter how much evidence you hope to accumulate
It's still the standard we should hold them to.
>As such no reasonable person would claim with certainty the election is rigged.
Any reasonable person would reconize the obvious fact that the election was rigged. You have to lie to make it even seem reasonable to doubt it.
Your argument is literally "I have debunked all of your claims before you made them. No I will not show any of this debunking. I don't want to rehash things. Obviously I am perfectly reasonable here and you are insane."
Stop doing this lol.
No thats fair. Obviously the fact that I have debunked it int he past and not willing to rehash it for the 1000th time is not a good argument, and by itself is not going to convince you nor should it.
I am ok with that. I've had the argument so many times and so often proved every point in detail that for me personally it has been settled and there is nothing to be gained to do it again. So im happy to just end the conversation and let you be wrong.
>I've had the argument so many times
I sincerely doubt you've had it even once.
I know you well enough and had to block you enough times to know that your opinion of me has 0 value. So feel free to think that.
See? Anyone who contradicts you just gets "I'm not having that argument!" and a block.
Have you ever actually had an argument?
Nope, I didnt threaten to block you, nor did I block you now. In fact up until about 5 minutes you were blocked and I **unblocked** you specifically so you had a chance to voice yourself. Kinda the opposite of what you just claimed I do.
What's the point of a "chance to voice myself" that just gets ignored lmao why even unblock in the first place? For all intents and purposes I'm still blocked: I get no coherent replies to what I argue.
I am under no obligation to debate you and the 1000 other people who I think are wrong just because you demand it.. I have finite amount of time in the day and I will prioritize my time as I see fit. You simply do not make a high enough priority to make it to my agenda. Period.
>I am under no obligation to debate you and the 1000 other people who I think are wrong just because you demand it.
Yes you are. It's called intellectual integrity.
If you aren't willing to rise to that standard, stop speaking.
Ok buddy... sure.. when i say I think something is true I am obligated to argue with people ad infinitum until every last person int he world who disagrees with me is satisfied. I need to quit my job cancel my hobbies and devote the rest of my life appeasing every person who wants a piece of my time to debate me. sounds fair.
With 20,000 some followers I barely have time to talk with and keep in touch with the people I actually enjoy talking to, let alone everyone else.
You have enough time to type these replies. Instead of typing excuses not to argue you could spend the exact same time and effort typing an argument.
You reveal your dishonest motivations.
I am typing these replies because
1) they take much much less time then me digging up thruough and formal research on the subject like I did before (which was several hours of invested time at the time).. beleive it or not but unlike your responses where you just pull the first nonsense quote off the internet you can find to agree with you (if you even do that much) when I debate something I try to actually do real research. So yes these replies are virtually effortless compared to the time I'd invest in debating this topic in earnest.
2) I actually want to show you some small degree of respect by letting you know why i am engaging you at all. I could have just kept you blocked, and yes you are convincing me slowly I should have done just that. But I felt taking the time to explain to you why I do not wish to engage might be more thoughtful. I guess I was wrong.
I will not comment on this further, as you said it is a time sink and there is no more value in me in explaining this to you in any more detail than I already have.
You don't need to invest several hours research into a simple argumentative reply. It should not be that difficult to just look at what I've posted and interpret it yourself.
@twotwenty @Eris @icedquinn @NEETzsche @freemo @icscarythings @ademan Oh it's a Covid-19 joke.