Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="zubenelgenubi" data-source="post: 4777626" data-attributes="member: 63706">If the facts support Trump, I accept them, you won&#039;t. If they don&#039;t support Trump, I accept them, same as you. I don&#039;t support him pushing a fast tracked vaccine through approval. I didn&#039;t like how much he antagonized the media, I don&#039;t think he acted with the dignity of the office. But, considering all that, I preferred him to the alternative.As for the judiciary conspiracy issue, I do not stipulate your premise. It does not take the entire judiciary acting in conspiracy in order to see the outcomes we did. You are trying to get me to agree to your outlandish and unprovable theory that a conspiracy of the judiciary was the only way that we could have the outcome that you claim we had. It won&#039;t work. I don&#039;t stipulate your claim that the courts all agreed there was no evidence, and I don&#039;t stipulate your premise that the courts had to be engaged in conspiracy. You already listed cases that proved the point I was making, thanks for that. There&#039;s no need for me to do anything else. Prove the courts all heard evidence and ruled against Trump in 64 cases, that&#039;s your claim. Prove that a conspiracy was necessary for the courts to unjustly dismiss cases before evidence was presented. That&#039;s your claim.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="zubenelgenubi, post: 4777626, member: 63706"] If the facts support Trump, I accept them, you won't. If they don't support Trump, I accept them, same as you. I don't support him pushing a fast tracked vaccine through approval. I didn't like how much he antagonized the media, I don't think he acted with the dignity of the office. But, considering all that, I preferred him to the alternative. As for the judiciary conspiracy issue, I do not stipulate your premise. It does not take the entire judiciary acting in conspiracy in order to see the outcomes we did. You are trying to get me to agree to your outlandish and unprovable theory that a conspiracy of the judiciary was the only way that we could have the outcome that you claim we had. It won't work. I don't stipulate your claim that the courts all agreed there was no evidence, and I don't stipulate your premise that the courts had to be engaged in conspiracy. You already listed cases that proved the point I was making, thanks for that. There's no need for me to do anything else. Prove the courts all heard evidence and ruled against Trump in 64 cases, that's your claim. Prove that a conspiracy was necessary for the courts to unjustly dismiss cases before evidence was presented. That's your claim. [/QUOTE]

Verification