- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Newt: an absolutely rigged election in 2020
Posted on 6/2/25 at 4:26 pm to NC_Tigah
Posted on 6/2/25 at 4:26 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
actions of the courts
Not fraud
quote:
is itself fraudulent.
No
Just because you disagree (because your team was on the wrong side of the ruling) doesn't make it fraud.
quote:
Given that fact, the rest of your arguments are not even relevant.
Yes, if you build your argument on a point lacking logic, you can build any fantasy.
2
Posted on 6/2/25 at 4:27 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:As you are.
Yes, if you build your argument on a point lacking logic, you can build any fantasy.
Posted on 6/2/25 at 4:27 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Of course they are. Sorry.
Based on what, exactly?
Posted on 6/2/25 at 4:28 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
As you are.
No. Me saying judicial rulings are binding and precedential and not evidence of fraud is stating a fact that reflects reality.
You're trying to argue the opposite, which does not.
Posted on 6/2/25 at 4:30 pm to Padme
Should’ve used seashells
Posted on 6/2/25 at 4:31 pm to Penrod
what if man... what if
never evidence, just more frickin what ifs.
never evidence, just more frickin what ifs.
Posted on 6/2/25 at 4:32 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:The facts in those circumstances were not in dispute. The fact is the undisputed actions were indisputably unconstitutional. The courts refused to act. Their job is to uphold the constitution. They were negligent. Antithetical claims are not "opinions". They are fruad.
Just because you disagree
Posted on 6/2/25 at 4:34 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
actual evidence
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs = except when you have to propose a complex solution to 'explain away' an evident truth that you don't want to admit.
Posted on 6/2/25 at 4:34 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
The facts in those circumstances were not in dispute.
The law was the problem more than the facts.
quote:
The courts refused to act. Their job is to uphold the constitution. They were negligent. Antithetical claims are not "opinions". They are fruad.
No this is just a bunch of sore loser-based opinions b/c your team lost.
You've yet to explain how legal rulings made legally and creating precedential rulings within the law are fraud.
All you've done is say you disagree with the rulings and project that they were illegitimate based on your disagreement.
This post was edited on 6/2/25 at 4:35 pm
Posted on 6/2/25 at 4:39 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:They knowingly enabled overtly unconstitutional conduct
You've yet to explain how legal rulings made legally and creating precedential rulings within the law are fraud.
Posted on 6/2/25 at 4:41 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
They knowingly enabled overtly unconstitutional conduct
You're only making your evidentiary burden more onerous creating another layer to the conspiracy theory
Posted on 6/2/25 at 4:42 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:The law was not the problem. The courts were the problem. Hell dude, in GA the courts even acknowledged that, albeit far too late for any reasonable remedy.
The law was the problem more than the facts.
Posted on 6/2/25 at 4:43 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Hell dude, in GA the courts even acknowledged that, albeit far too late for any reasonable remedy.
Hindsight bias fallacy
Posted on 6/2/25 at 4:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:No. Again, the FACTS cited are not in dispute.
You're only making your evidentiary burden more onerous creating another layer to the conspiracy theory
Posted on 6/2/25 at 4:48 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:You evidently don't know what the term "fallacy of hindsight," actually references. Here's a hint. Contemporaneous and consistently raised observations do not become "fallacy of hindsight" when noted later in a continuum.
Hindsight bias fallacy
Posted on 6/2/25 at 4:50 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Again, the FACTS cited are not in dispute.
Yes. The law is, and it wasn't on your team's side.
Posted on 6/2/25 at 4:50 pm to Padme
quote:
Is there anyone who actually believes that it wasn’t rigged?
Everyone who’s not a fricking idiot believes it wasn’t rigged.
This post was edited on 6/2/25 at 4:51 pm
Posted on 6/2/25 at 4:51 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Biden was more unpopular...in the future. The other conditions weren't present in 2024 and the DEMs were routed. Your point?
George bush was mid 20s Gallup approval in October 2008.
My point is that the president after and 2nd before had worse approval ratings than what you said was “one of the most unpopular administrations ever”.
Posted on 6/2/25 at 4:52 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
You evidently don't know what the term "fallacy of hindsight," actually references. Here's a hint. Contemporaneous and consistently raised observations do not become "fallacy of hindsight" when noted later in a continuum.
When you're dealing with an evaluation of the time in question, trying to give a legal analysis, you are bound by the rulings of the time being analyzed.
Otherwise Louisiana could prosecute a lot of people for abortions that happened until June 2022/Dobbs
Posted on 6/2/25 at 4:54 pm to lotik
quote:
what if man... what if
never evidence, just more frickin what ifs.
Nice non answer to a thoughtful response. I think this shows you are unserious.
Page 8 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News