trump might stand a chance with this texas law suit

Author: n8nrgmi

Posts

Total: 186
#121
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
already provided
lol, if you had it would probably be alot easier to just post it as I requested than to just keep repeating that you did. But since we both know you are lying and have no evidence, we both know why you can't do that. 

it's sad you feel the need to keep saying it though. At some point don't you just get tired of lying? I mean you just look dumber every time you do it. Everyone can see you don't have any evidence. So just repeating that you do is just childish and dumb. But that is exactly what trump is doing, so you aren't alone. 

#122
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
then yeah that would be an example of systemic racism in criminal justice. 

So you agree that the fact that they commit more crimes is not systemic racism. And America isn't a fundamentally racist country for acknowledging this fact.

My point is both sides eagerly clutch unfounded conspiracies if it can lead to more power.

Whataboutism only condones the tradition. And it's a VERY long tradition, from the Lusitania to WMD to Obama's Libya lies, to Putingate.

#123
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
So you agree that the fact that they commit more crimes is not systemic racism. 

"Similarly if black communities have higher crime rates, then a greater police presence wouldn't necessarily indicate racism in criminal justice. But if black people are far more likely to be stopped for ‘reasonable suspicion’ (as opposed to actually breaking a law) and are three times more likely than any other group to be searched, even though searches of white people were more likely to turn up contraband -- then yeah that would be an example of systemic racism in criminal justice."
#124
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
I've decided I'm not going to waste time arguing whether or not there is systemic racism in criminal justice today. Everyone with half a brain knows there is. Some examples are exaggerated; that doesn't mean it doesn't exist all-together. A blatant example is the policing and sentencing disparity between black and white people when it comes to drug offenses. The way black vs. white addicts are treated has a stark contrast, and that was WAY more prevalent in the 80s and 90s. Black communities are still experiencing the ripple effects of that today regarding criminal records, lack of opportunities, bad schools, fatherlessness, addiction, living in areas of concentrated crime and poverty, etc. To think there wasn't and aren't systemic problems is just beyond ignorant. 

Can we go back to discussing Trump's failed lawsuits?  <3 
#125
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
i think I have gotten the best of this conversation
#126
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
i think I have gotten the best of this conversation
lol you make baseless claims. I ask for evidence. You lie and say you already provided it. 

If you think that is getting the best of the conversation then you REALLY don't belong on a debating website. Maybe you should find a safe space where your crazy conspiracy theories can just be reflected back at you. 

#127
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Greyparrot
Please provide a reference that black people commit more crimes.

Note: Note a reference that more black people are arrested for crimes, charged with crimes, or are convicted of more crimes, a statistic that shows that they are actually committing more crimes, including crimes not reported, and crimes that don't result in arrest, charges, or convictions.
#128
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@drafterman
I'm sure I can find some FBI statistics, but it is far more accurate to claim black culture is responsible for the violence, not the skin.

Unless you are one of those "all cultures are equal" retards, in which case I concede to your mighty wisdom.










#129
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
Can we go back to discussing Trump's failed lawsuits?  <3 

Noob sniper!

#130
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Greyparrot
FBI only has statistics on arrests and convictions and such, not on actual crimes committed.
#131
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
evidence has gone ignored
#132
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
evidence has gone ignored
i think you will find it is impossible to ignore something that never existed in the first place. Since the "evidence" isn't real, how can I ignore it? Am I ignoring unicorns and dragons too?

#133
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
In case anyone is interested, here is an interesting video breaking down the texas lawsuit and why it was always doomed for many, many reasons. Basically, it had no legal merit at all and was just a political stunt

#134
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Has anyone heard about the recorded phone call between the chief justice and another member of SCOTUS about how to keep Trump from winning the election?
#135
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ethang5
Has anyone heard about the recorded phone call between the chief justice and another member of SCOTUS about how to keep Trump from winning the election?
no, and on the face of it, that doesn't even make sense. The Supreme court has no bearing on the election. Each state can run their elections how they want, that is in the constitution. Any cases of fraud or objections to voting laws would be handled by lower courts. 

So the supreme court is pretty irrelevant where elections are concerned. So please tell us more about this alleged phone call that makes no sense. 
#136
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@ethang5
Is this another conspiracy theory?
#137
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
inam king of evidence
#138
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
inam king of evidence
lol, so you cannot provide a single shred of evidence, but are kind of evidence? This would be funny if it weren't so sad. I think you might actually believe the complete nonsense you are spewing. That's very sad for you that you are that delusional. 

#139
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
@dustryder
@HistoryBuff
So please tell us more about this alleged phone call that makes no sense. 
Calm down leftie. I was asking if anyone had heard anything like that, not advancing it as proof.

Is this another conspiracy theory?
I don't know if this is true or not, nor do I know what your other conspiracy theories might be.

It's starting to trend on twitter. I think it was recorded earlier this year before the election. I just thought someone here might have heard of it.

GP, anything on this from your vast plethora of knowledge?
#140
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ethang5
Calm down leftie. I was asking if anyone had heard anything like that, not advancing it as proof.
So you have no evidence that anything of the sort has ever happened? That is the definition of a conspiracy theory. 

It's starting to trend on twitter. I think it was recorded earlier this year before the election. I just thought someone here might have heard of it.
sounds like more right wing insanity. I mean, the Supreme court has nothing to do with elections, so it doesn't even make any sense. Why would you put any stock in this at all without hard evidence?
#141
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
sounds like more right wing insanity.
You would have more credibility with me if you didn't consider everything "rightwing" to be insanity.

I mean, the Supreme court has nothing to do with elections, so it doesn't even make any sense.
What doesn't make any sense? That the Chief Justice would have an opinion on Trump? That he would be speaking to another justice about the election? You're acting as if I have offered this as an official ruling of the Supreme Court.

Why would you put any stock in this at all without hard evidence?
I did not "put stock" in it, and I have no reason to discount it right now either.

The story is still hard to get but it seems that people claimed to hear liberal justices shouting about why they should not take Trumps case. And some are trying to link that with a chief justice's alleged comment that the Al Gore case was different because we didn't have rioters in the streets then. And finally that the Chief justice intimidated Alito and Thomas into agreeing to refuse the case.

I have no proof of any of it, but with the MSM burying some stories, that this one in not being reported does not necessarily mean it isn't true.
#142
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
From Twitter:

Supreme Court staffer on Texas case:

Justice Roberts screaming at the top of his lungs, and could be heard through the wall.

Verbatim "I don't give a shit about Bush/Gore, we didn't have riots then".

Roberts used fear mongering to influence other justices decision in case.

#143
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ethang5
GP, anything on this from your vast plethora of knowledge?

HB has it right this time. SCOTUS has no constitutional jurisdiction over this.
#144
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ethang5
What doesn't make any sense? That the Chief Justice would have an opinion on Trump? That he would be speaking to another justice about the election? You're acting as if I have offered this as an official ruling of the Supreme Court.
Let me be more specific. If he was just giving his opinion that he would prefer trump not win, then who cares? everyone has an opinion. Therefore the conspiracy theory is meaningless. If the point is that he was trying to do something to stop trump winning, then it makes no sense because he isn't part of the election process. 

I did not "put stock" in it, and I have no reason to discount it right now either.
of course you do. There is no evidence any such thing happened. You don't have evidence mermaids aren't real, do you assume that they do?

The story is still hard to get but it seems that people claimed to hear liberal justices shouting about why they should not take Trumps case.
your story is changing from a call a month before the election, to a discussion about a legal case recently. You can't even keep your nonsense straight. 

 And finally that the Chief justice intimidated Alito and Thomas into agreeing to refuse the case.
what are you talking about? the only disagreement Alito and Thomas had is over a specific legal doctrine. They believe that if one state sues another then the Supreme court must take up the case no matter how bonkers the case is. The rest of the court disagreed. They did not say that Texas' case had merit, only that the court should listen to the bullshit before tossing them out. 

I have no proof of any of it, but with the MSM burying some stories, that this one in not being reported does not necessarily mean it isn't true.
that 1st part is the critical bit. You have no evidence anything happened, but choose to engage with it as if it was a credible report. That is a problem.

Roberts used fear mongering to influence other justices decision in case.
lol, basically every lawyer in the country knows that case had no merit for lots of different reasons. 

Here is a link to a lawyer breaking down exactly why that lawsuit could never have gone anywhere. There is no reason for anyone to use "fear". The lawsuit was completely stupid on the face of it for half a dozen reasons. I mean, they actually admitted in the brief that the reason they didn't sue before the election was because they didn't know how the election was going to turn out. That is openly admitting that they are only suing because they lost the election. 
#145
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
@HistoryBuff
-->@GP - All I did was ask if you had heard the story, not if SCOTUS has constitutional jurisdiction over it.

-->@HB - I have no interest in engaging your TDS. I'm just asking questions. But I can see now how the MSM can think repressing a story is justified.

If he was just giving his opinion that he would prefer trump not win, then who cares?
I do. And millions of others do too. It was possible for cases concerning the election to reach the supreme court. Some have.

If the point is that he was trying to do something to stop trump winning, then it makes no sense because he isn't part of the election process.
This is misleading. The Supreme Court isn't part of the election process, but can make rulings on whether those processes adhere to the constitution. Stop being paranoid and trying to suppress everything you don't like. That isn't free speech.

I'm not here to review the merits of the Trump case. As I told you, both your objectivity , and your ability to be objective, are highly suspect. Let me ask a question without someone going full karen on me.

I heard this. I don't know if its true or not. I have no reason to believe it and I currently have no reason to doubt it. So I seek information.

 You have no evidence anything happened, but choose to engage with it as if it was a credible report. That is a problem.
Only in your fevered mind. I did not "engage with it as if it was a credible report." Unless you mean I should not have asked a question. If that is what you mean, I reject that as fascist. It is better to ask, and asking need not be censored.

There isn't a right winger under every question seeking to....  Who knows what it is you're so  afraid of...but please calm down. There is really nothing here for you to get triggered about.
#146
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ethang5
-->@HB - I have no interest in engaging your TDS. I'm just asking questions. But I can see now how the MSM can think repressing a story is justified.
ok, so what if I just said, "I heard someone watched trump kill and eat a baby. I don't have any proof, but I think he did". Would that be reasonable? no. there is no reason to believe something like that without evidence. That is essentially what you are doing. Spreading rumor and conspiracy theories online with no evidence that anything happened. 

I do. And millions of others do too. It was possible for cases concerning the election to reach the supreme court. Some have.\
guess what, he has an opinion. Everyone does. Maybe he would prefer Biden, maybe he would prefer trump. It is one of those two things. So if you get bent out of shape because of that fact, then you are an idiot. 

This is misleading. The Supreme Court isn't part of the election process, but can make rulings on whether those processes adhere to the constitution.
not really, no. The states have the constitutionally protected right to do their election however they want. There is absolutely nothing SCOTUS can do about that. 

I heard this. I don't know if its true or not. I have no reason to believe it and I currently have no reason to doubt it. So I seek information.
having no information confirming it happened is a reason to doubt it. You are basically saying you have reason to doubt it, but choose not to. 

Only in your fevered mind. I did not "engage with it as if it was a credible report." Unless you mean I should not have asked a question. If that is what you mean, I reject that as fascist. It is better to ask, and asking need not be censored.
lol sure. because anyone who expects there to be a shred of evidence for things, must be fascist. My god republicans are terrified of facts. 


#147
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
i am the king of evidence
#148
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
i am the king of evidence
yes your majesty. You can be king of the evidence and the leprechauns and the mermaids. And any other fictional things you want. Since you seem to really believe in these delusions you keep repeating. 

Topic's author
#149
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
two justice on the supreme court said they would have took the case instead of throwing it out. but they also said they wouldn't have let trump win. it was a technical point regarding the standing to sue, in the case. 
Politics

do you have the ability to understand the above quote? that trump didn't have two justices that wanted him to win the case? or, are you too brainwashed to comprehend? 
#150
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
ok, so what if I just said, "I heard someone watched trump kill and eat a baby. I don't have any proof, but I think he did". Would that be reasonable? no. there is no reason to believe something like that without evidence. That is essentially what you are doing. Spreading rumor and conspiracy theories online with no evidence that anything happened. 
Please stop being stupid. I did not say I believed it. I said I did not know if it was true, and I had no reason as yet to believe or deny it. And the CJ just talking to another SCOTUS member is hardly like Trump killing and eating a baby. I would tell you to calm down except that I already know people with TDS don't respond to reason.

I do. And millions of others do too. It was possible for cases concerning the election to reach the supreme court. Some have.

guess what, he has an opinion. Everyone does. Maybe he would prefer Biden, maybe he would prefer trump. It is one of those two things. So if you get bent out of shape because of that fact, then you are an idiot. 
Are you trying to be stupid? You asked me " who cares?" I said I care, and you conclude I'm "bent out of shape"? The only idiot here is you. Why do you think no one should care about the personal opinion of the chief justice of the Supreme Court? The only one " bent out of shape is you.

This is misleading. The Supreme Court isn't part of the election process, but can make rulings on whether those processes adhere to the constitution.

not really, no. The states have the constitutionally protected right to do their election however they want. There is absolutely nothing SCOTUS can do about that. 
This is untrue. SCOTUS can rule on cases brought to it, as it did in the All Gore case in 2,000. State law cannot violate Federal law.

I heard this. I don't know if its true or not. I have no reason to believe it and I currently have no reason to doubt it. So I seek information.
having no information confirming it happened is a reason to doubt it. You are basically saying you have reason to doubt it, but choose not to.
I just said I have no reason to believe it, you saw only the part of the comment saying I had no reason to doubt. That is your TDS working.

Only in your fevered mind. I did not "engage with it as if it was a credible report." Unless you mean I should not have asked a question. If that is what you mean, I reject that as fascist. It is better to ask, and asking need not be censored.
lol sure. because anyone who expects there to be a shred of evidence for things, must be fascist. My god republicans are terrified of facts. 
Please stop being a fool. I was asking to find out if there was evidence. I told you I did not yet believe it because I had no evidence to do so. But in your partisan mind, I'm already killing and eating babies! I'm here asking if there is any evidence, and you are rabid. I'm asking for facts, you are the one angry that I asked, and republicans are terrified of facts?

I have only asked a question. If you think questions should not be asked until a story is validated, then you ARE a fascist. How will stories ever get debunked or verified without questions? But you are so wrecked by TDS, all you see is someone killing and eating a baby when they simply ask a question.

These is the kind of people into whose hands the govt. is about to be entrusted. If Kavenaugh thought his denial of due process was bad, wait until these loonies are in power.