Search results

That was no explanation. That's just the same tired conspiracy trope.

Just to actually address this article and to show you in the clearest terms how it doesn't apply to me so you'll know better than to try and use it again. This is the outlier: "Chronological snobbery is an argument that the thinking, art, or science of an earlier time is inherently inferior to...

This is the article you linked to after accusing me of yet another fallacy. Can you not even follow your own posts?! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronological_snobbery

Yes they are and no, they're not. You've just made an erroneous claim that you can't support for starters and it's hardly the first time either. Quote me where I've supported anything regarding 'chronological snobbery' as per your article. I'll wait while that doesn't happen (again). Get your...

Seems like Powell just can't help herself... https://uk.yahoo.com/news/sidney-powell-just-eviscerated-her-162126316.html

Sure I do, but I don't throw around silly 'fallacy' accusations as certain folk love to do as if it somehow makes an argument. No, they aren't. With the advent of forensic science and other procedures we have a much more accurate standard of establishing the likelihood of guilt or innocence...

No, it isn't but you sure do like to throw this kind of stuff around don't you? Are our standards more advanced in terms of science and the like now as opposed to the bronze age? Uh, yeah. There's no 'snobbery' whatsoever about that, it's just fact.

You're not being met with any.

That had absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote and is just another diatribe that can be dismissed accordingly.

What "stacked deck"? If she had this so called "proof" then why are her lawyers saying what they are? Do explain.

She expressed the truth and had the courage to do so. Plenty other republicans agree.

She wasn't.

If she found 'proof' then why is she backing away from the allegations and her lawyers citing the following: "No reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact" https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/23/sidney-powell-trump-election-fraud-claims

What about Liz Cheney? Does she have to support the ongoing election fraud nonsense to count as a republican? Nope. She's one of those who has the guts to call it for what it is.

Yeah, so why has Sidney Powell started claiming that her allegations regarding such weren't to be taken seriously by reasonable people then? A billion dollar lawsuit perhaps?

The only evidence of any worth is the substantive sort, else it's worth what exactly? I don't reject God's word as much as you like to keep flinging that out in regards to me because I don't agree with you as to what God's standards are. Frankly, if you're going to go down that route...

See User Name's response. Mine echoes it.

Some 'witness' she was eh?

Seconded. I'm already on record here for saying that if such was uncovered I'd have no problem with results being overturned. No fan of Trump in any way, shape or form but fraudulent election rigging is inexcusable.

Would God's standard tolerate insubstantial evidence? It's all very well going back to the OT when such matters couldn't be established with more effective measures as we have today so would God be happy with the word of two or three witnesses in the present? The only kind of evidence that...