Leftists live in assertions and tu quoque fallacies

Leftists didn't throw out anything. Scotus threw out your "evidence". Scotus stopped your efforts to reverse the election. Federal courts stopped te Trump campaign from disputing the results. Therefore, your beef is with the federal judiciary. Not leftists. They have nothing to do with this and have no authority to "prevent" your idiots from fighting the results and presenting your "evidence". Stop acting like there is some leftist backed conspiracy when it's the Scotus and federal judges who determined there was nothing to dispute.

The scotus can easily be infiltrated or paid off by the left. And last time the left had the opportunity to kick trump out of office, they attempted to do so via threatening. It’s not out of their realm to cheat.

I said “or infiltrated”. And I didn’t say they definitely were.

But the threatening was totally done during Trump’s impeachment. They told people in the Supreme Court that if anyone voted to keep Trump in office, they would ensure that member would not get re-elected. And they’ve been busted many times.

Yes, conservatives have cheated in the past, and I know that, but it is nothing like this election and if they do it as much as Democrats, they’re much better at hiding it. Democrats just have blatant results that make no sense. Like Biden winning in districts where the residents all know each other and the majority of the district are Trump-supporting Republicans. Like Nevada having a district where 3100 people voted for Hillary when there are only 2000 people in the district. Republicans rarely have anything this suspicious, if ever.

Leftists get in their seats. If that happens, they could throw out any case that didn’t sit with their whims, or even know the cases are legit and just not want to hear about them. Infiltration is a method used.

Oh wait, I meant the Congress, not the Supreme Court. I got that mixed up. And yes it is a threat. You can’t threaten to ruin someone’s political career just because they might vote for someone you don’t like. Would it be right if I was a movie producer and told a group of actors and actresses that they would never get in a big movie again if they voted for Biden? No.

I got that from a YouTube video that was explaining the balloting system and showed the internet’s population count of a district (i forgot to mention this was in 2016 and not this election), and then showed a count of how many votes went to Hillary in that district and there were more Hillary votes than residents. I can’t find it though, even though I remember the exact title of the video, because it pulls up a bunch of stuff about this election.

You still haven't demonstrated how or if the Scotus was corrupted in any way. If you make an assertion without evidence, it can be dismissed without evidence. Again, you need to find a more reliable epistemology. Preferably one that relies on empirical evidence to reach conclusions. This can't be stressed enough. If you want to hold as many true beliefs and as little false beliefs as possible, reliable, evidence based epistemology is the only methodology.

I answered a question about a hypothetical possibility. It was not meant to be taken as an assertion. I do believe that is going on, but I have to find out more to just say it’s happening.

I do want that; that’s why I don’t watch any news channels and certainly don’t trust CNN.

Here's the BIG problem with your epistemology: How could you ever believe something without evidence?

The time to believe ANY claim is when it has met it's burden of proof. Not a moment before. In not doing so, you are prone to problematic traits like confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, fallacious reasoning, etc. If you truly want to hold as many true a as little false beliefs as possible, you would withhold belief until such evidence is provided to warrant it. Does this make sense?

It’s called a speculation.

Do you see the irony in you admitting to such a thing as speculation and assertion in the comments thread of a meme you made titled "Leftists live in Assertions..."?

Now I see in the future I’ll have to keep these sort of links up. This is the third time today that I cannot find an article I found just last week. I’m finding that quite odd.

It happens.

I didn’t mean I definitively am going to just say that’s happening. It’s something I am highly suspicious of. When a few members the Supreme Court turned down the Texas case and then later said they should have heard it and just thrown it out so it would look like their decision was more legitimate, that already shows some serious bias.

And regarding your claim that some justices regret ruling so hastily as it wasn't as legit seemingly as prolonging a decision to throw it out later... I cannot find any source confirming any justice making any such statement questioning the legitimacy of their hasty ruling. Can you help a brotha out?

You did say it's a belief you hold, though. Correct? I'm just wondering how anyone can believe anything without evidence.

"re-election"? Dude, they serve for friggin life!

I meant the Congress. I made a mistake.

My politics lean to the right. That doesn't change the facts, though.

How so?

The facts are the people voted for Biden.

https://i.imgflip.com/4r3meu.jpg

Sounds like a solid plan to me. Let's see how it works out for them.

Lol

2hsnp9.jpg (click to show) Upvoted!

Thx!

Noice!