Insurrection 2021

  • 🔧 At about Midnight EST I am going to completely fuck up the site trying to fix something.

What's going to happen on January 6th?

  • TRUMP JUNTA GOVERNMENT

    Votes: 40 10.1%
  • CHICOM BIDEN ROUNDUP

    Votes: 18 4.5%
  • BOOMERS STANDING AROUND IN Q MERCH ACCOMPLISHING NOTHING

    Votes: 340 85.4%

  • Total voters
    398
  • Poll closed .
1.) positive claims have the burden of proof.
2.) "this election was fair, secure and legit" is a positive claim
3.)"this election was fair, secure and legit" has the burden of proof.
"Murdered meat bag's penis has never been inside of a cat". is a positive claim. So now prove you've never fucked a cat.

btw, that isn't a positive claim, you retard. A positive claim would be that there was fraud because fraud would be the positive in this case. You never took a logic class, did you?
 
Still waiting on that time stamp. I may be autistic enough to post on Kiwi Farms, but I ain't watching a 12 hour video of some retards and 3 hours of some retarded senator sperging

You also should send those time stamps to Trump's lawyers and get your $1 million bounty for the evidence of voting fraud.

You didn't watch it, either, did you?
i did, it doesn't disprove the "illicit suitcases pulled from under the table" because it doesn't show the cases being put under there.
That is not how it works. "This election was fraudulent" is the positive claim.

they're both positive claims. if you're focused on wording than i say "there was no fair election", a negative claim, so i don't bear the burden of proof. you idiots have a hard time explaining why the premises are wrong.

"Murdered meat bag's penis has never been inside of a cat". is a positive claim. So now prove you've never fucked a cat.
did it already. did you figure out how DNA figures into rape cases yet?
btw, that isn't a positive claim, you retard. A positive claim would be that there was fraud because fraud would be the positive in this case. You never took a logic class, did you?
A secure election is the positive in the other case. theyr'e both positives.
 
That is not how it works. "This election was fraudulent" is the positive claim.
You're new in the poo poo doo doo trenches, soldier, so let me clue you in:
He's been doing that for literal months at this point, with the ultimate conclusion being "we literally can't say ANY election was secure ever"
 
You're new in the poo poo doo doo trenches, soldier, so let me clue you in:
He's been doing that for literal months at this point, with the ultimate conclusion being "we literally can't say ANY election was secure ever"
Except 2016, of course, because daddy won then
 
i did, it doesn't disprove the "illicit suitcases pulled from under the table" because it doesn't show the cases being put under there.


they're both positive claims. if you're focused on wording than i say "there was no fair election", a negative claim, so i don't bear the burden of proof. you idiots have a hard time explaining why the premises are wrong.
Here's a good rule of thumb: the positive claim is the one that can be affirmatively proven, whereas the negative claim is the one that can be assumed in the absence of any evidence supporting the positive claim. You can affirmatively prove that there was fraud by providing evidence of fraud, therefore that one is the positive claim.
 
You're new in the poo poo doo doo trenches, soldier, so let me clue you in:
He's been doing that for literal months at this point, with the ultimate conclusion being "we literally can't say ANY election was secure ever"
that's your tantrum conclusion after you realized the states aren't publishing information so you can prove the election is real. all you have is "official said it was secure" and that's the end of it. your response to "prove your claim" is a non sequitor, you can't even explain how it ties to this argument.

Here's a good rule of thumb: the positive claim is the one that can be affirmatively proven, whereas the negative claim is the one that can be assumed in the absence of any evidence supporting the positive claim. You can affirmatively prove that there was fraud by providing evidence of fraud, therefore that one is the positive claim.
you can also prove this was a secure election by looking records and data because there are procedures and safeguards set in place before elections. You can't just walk into the polling place and vote without jumping through those hoops. an election being secure isn't assumed because of those procedures.
 
If the Dems wind up unseating Mitch Mconnel's senate majority powers because of Stacey Abrams and her basically allowing legalized fraud(1 million people from out of state moving into the state to vote in the elections over the course of a month? lol)then he may well decide to back Trump's efforts to overturn the fraudulent presidential election.

We'll see.
 
that's your tantrum conclusion after you realized the states aren't publishing information so you can prove the election is real. all you have is "official said it was secure" and that's the end of it. your response to "prove your claim" is a non sequitor, you can't even explain how it ties to this argument.
So where are those timestamps, then? You've refused to give them and spent way more time avoiding doing so than just giving them. Admit you got nothing and stop wasting your time
 
you can also prove this was a secure election by looking records and data because there are procedures and safeguards set in place before elections. You can't just walk into the polling place and vote without jumping through those hoops. an election being secure isn't assumed because of those procedures.
No, actually, you can't. Because even if you prove that every single vote counted was legally cast, there is still the possibility that you made a mistake. It is literally impossible to prove that fraud did not occur, it is only possible to prove that fraud did occur. Therefore, we assume that fraud did not occur if there is no evidence of fraud.
 
If the Dems wind up unseating Mitch Mconnel's senate majority powers because of Stacey Abrams and her basically allowing legalized fraud(1 million people from out of state moving into the state to vote in the elections over the course of a month? lol)then he may well decide to back Trump's efforts to overturn the fraudulent presidential election.

We'll see.

lol he'll lose on principle. He's still respected by the democrats despite the bullshit division they play up on tv. Feinstein and Graham were hugging at one point after trump's loss (pretty sure after the loss).
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: FunPosting101
maxresdefault.jpg

DUUUUUUUUUUUUMP THE BALLOTS
 
Back