2020 U.S. Presidential Election - Took place November 3, 2020. Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden assumed office January 20, 2021.

[Esophagus]

Hi, Corbin! You should've at least registered the account before you got banned this time, so it wasn't so obvious

If I pretend to be Corbin, will you promise to admit yourself to psychiatric care?

 

[Mewtwo_Rain]

That's now it works. The onus is on the person trying to prove the fraud occurred. You can't prove something didn't happen... Like, you can't prove that you didn't fuck a horse last night.

Er but when it comes to positive claims vs. negative claims, negative claims have the advantage. "This was an honest and fair election" Where's the evidence for that claim? Something something dismiss said claims because the evidence is light in comparison to circumstantial evidence and a boat load of anomalies. (Note that's not proof, but it does lead credence to the negative claim unlike the positive claim)

 

[Blake Chortles]

That's 100% not how it works. In a court, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove something happened. Thus, the onus is on Trump's team to prove fraud did happen.

The police don't go to your house and say "prove you didn't murder someone". They instead have to prove you did murder someone.

You keep getting civil law mixed up with criminal law. Stop doing that and this will start making more sense. Or just watch CNN, gnash your teeth, and be afraid some more.

 

[All becomes gunt]

That's 100% not how it works. In a court, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove something happened. Thus, the onus is on Trump's team to prove fraud did happen.

The police don't go to your house and say "prove you didn't murder someone". They instead have to prove you did murder someone.

If I claim that you fuck a horse, the onus is on me to claim you did fuck a horse. Not on you to prove that you didn't fuck a horse

You are missing the mark again. They have to prove jack squat even though its possible that they can. The issue here is the states changing their election laws unconstitutionally. Not fraud. Is that too hard to grasp? You are batting on the wromg fucking court. This isnt 3 strikes you are out, this is also hitting yourself in the dick with the baseball bat.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

You keep getting civil law mixed up with criminal law. Stop doing that and this will start making more sense. Or just watch CNN, gnash your teeth, and be afraid some more.

Okay, prove that you never fucked a horse then. You claim you can prove a negative, so go ahead.

You are missing the mark again. They have to prove jack squat even though its possible that they can. The issue here is the states changing their election laws unconstitutionally. Not fraud. Is that too hard to grasp? You are batting on the wromg fucking court. This isnt 3 strikes you are out, this is also hitting yourself in the dick with the baseball bat.

Wrong conversation there, champ. We were talking about the fraud allegations specifically there. Try to keep up, I know it's hard.

 

[murdered meat bag]

That's 100% not how it works. In a court, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove something happened. Thus, the onus is on Trump's team to prove fraud did happen.

The police don't go to your house and say "prove you didn't murder someone". They instead have to prove you did murder someone.

If I claim that you fuck a horse, the onus is on me to claim you did fuck a horse. Not on you to prove that you didn't fuck a horse


You seem less mad today, little guy. Did your mommy remember to get honey mustard for your tendies?

right, and if you claim this was a legit election it's on you to prove it. in otherwords, i'm claiming you said "i have an uncle that works at nintendo" and i'm asking you to prove it.

 

[Blake Chortles]

Okay, prove that you never fucked a horse then. You claim you can prove a negative, so go ahead.

Wrong conversation there, champ. We were talking about the fraud allegations specifically there. Try to keep up, I know it's hard.

You literally can't separate the two in your head can you.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

right, and if you claim this was a legit election it's on you to prove it. in otherwords, i'm claiming you said "i have an uncle that works at nintendo" and i'm asking you to prove it.

No, that's not how it works. Unless you are going to prove that every other election before 2020 was also legit.

If I pretend to be Corbin, will you promise to admit yourself to psychiatric care?

You can deny it all you want, but you sure know a lot about this forum for someone who registered just a few days ago. You also have the exact same posting style as him.

 

[Blake Chortles]

No, that's not how it works. Unless you are going to prove that every other election before 2020 was also legit.

The elections previous to 2020 followed their election laws which were formulated to emphasize security and legitimacy.

Until they rolled all that back due to coof.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

The elections previous to 2020 followed their election laws which were formulated to emphasize security and legitimacy.

Until they rolled all that back due to coof.

That isn't how it works. They are claiming there was fraud, I asked them to prove it. They are saying I have to prove there wasn't, which is retarded

 

[murdered meat bag]

One election where this occurred. Name it. Point to the case or the procedure by which it was proven legitimate and would not have been legitimate otherwise.

(I'm mostly just keeping an eye out for when the SCOTUS makes a statement to the clown car, but this is a particularly retarded assertion.)

Er but when it comes to positive claims vs. negative claims, negative claims have the advantage. "This was an honest and fair election" Where's the evidence for that claim? Something something dismiss said claims because the evidence is light in comparison to circumstantial evidence and a boat load of anomalies. (Note that's not proof, but it does lead credence to the negative claim unlike the positive claim)

there's confusion. HHH and REA want to limit the discussion in court cases, while you and I are talking about it in terms of a debate. they're hiding behind the appeal to authority again.

 

[All becomes gunt]

Okay, prove that you never fucked a horse then. You claim you can prove a negative, so go ahead.

Wrong conversation there, champ. We were talking about the fraud allegations specifically there. Try to keep up, I know it's hard.

If you wanna change subject again, fine. The video itself and the tens of thousands of sworn affidavits by now is way over enough. You have it happening on camera and you are still in denial. Keep living in Copesville CNN buddy, this election is soiled.

 

[Esophagus]

You can deny it all you want, but you sure know a lot about this forum for someone who registered just a few days ago. You also have the exact same posting style as him.

Prove to everybody in this thread I'm Corbin then. If you can't then fuck off.

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

The elections previous to 2020 followed their election laws which were formulated to emphasize security and legitimacy.

Until they rolled all that back due to coof.

That's not fraud. That's (potentially) a violation of a specific reading of election law. You would be disenfranchising mail-in votes en masse, but that does not necessarily mean that those votes are fraudulent or that they would become fraudulent.

The furthest that the fraud case has gone is "it is possible there was fraud, isn't it possible there was fraud? there could maybe have even been a whole lot of fraud." There's one case down in GA which has managed to actually go somewhere and provide some evidence to this effect - mostly because it was making specific claims rather than just going "but COULDN'T it be really bad?"

If you wanna change subject again, fine. The video itself and the tens of thousands of sworn affidavits by now is way over enough. You have it happening on camera and you are still in denial. Keep living in Copesville CNN buddy, this election is soiled.

Would you mind sharing the full video of the day? I'd really like to be able to disprove what the GA election committee head said which completely explained the clips.
You should also recommend the Trump team use those affidavits in, like, an actual court of law and not at committee hearings. Committees don't tend to do much, and the "risk" of perjury really doesn't come up there. I could testify to a committee that I have three dicks and that I don't love Rich Evans; I wouldn't take that same risk in a court.

You've got a nanometer in this Texas case to get heard, a nanometer that the justices agree with the claims of electoral imprudence and order the legislatures to submit their own electors, and a nanometer that the legislatures do that. It's not impossible, no, but ignoring a 1-48 record and pretending it's a cakewalk is something I'd expect of a clevelander really into football.

 

[MrJokerRager]

Prove to everybody in this thread I'm Corbin then. If you can't then fuck off.

I admire your optimism, this is proof he is a newbie and not some sock.

 

[Corn Flakes]

Guys, I've got HHH on ignore and literally 12 out of the past 14 posts were you idiots replying to his baiting. You'll sooner squeeze milk out of a rock than get an honest argument out of that dude, just spare yourselves the effort.

 

[All becomes gunt]

Guys, I've got HHH on ignore and literally 12 out of the past 14 posts were you idiots replying to his baiting. You'll sooner squeeze milk out of a rock than get an honest argument out of that dude, just spare yourselves the effort.

Imagine ignoring people, imagine not being able to banter. My objective isnt an honest argument out of the dude, this isnt the halls of debate. I am here to pummel him.

 

[murdered meat bag]

Okay, prove that you never fucked a horse then. You claim you can prove a negative, so go ahead.

Wrong conversation there, champ. We were talking about the fraud allegations specifically there. Try to keep up, I know it's hard.

"i never fucked a horse" = i've never lived in an area with horses (then i would provide addresses so you can see, no horses), also not a zoophile. you're turn.

 

[Mewtwo_Rain]

Guys, I've got HHH on ignore and literally 12 out of the past 14 posts were you idiots replying to his baiting. You'll sooner squeeze milk out of a rock than get an honest argument out of that dude, just spare yourselves the effort.

Call me autistic but I actually enjoy this discussion and it may not produce super quality improvements to my ability to debate, but it keeps me thinking regardless. At least that's how I see it.

 

[ConfederateIrishman]

View attachment 1781775

Vermont?