Documents case dismissed!
- Thread starter Cornpop84
- Start date
I noticed that on this particular case, you didn’t mention anything about the judge’s politics, who appointed her, her past rulings, etc. that alway seem to come up when the judge in any case against Trump doesn’t align with your politics. That’s normally ok with me, as I believe a judge can have political leanings and still adjudicate fairly. But since you do not believe that, shouldn’t you admit that, according to your beliefs (not mine), this ruling is a sham?
Doesn't matter who the judge is, appointed of Smith and funding was clearly unconstitutional. AG just can't hire a private citizen and have him go after someone
The AG’s have done this over and over again.
She and you are clueless.
Well her, me, and some Supreme Court justices agree and obviously that's all that matters isn't it??
A justice. Not plural. Only the one who didn’t report millions in gifts on his tax returns. The one whose wife implored people to stop the steal.
Case is over
Georgia trial is over
New York verdict will be overturned soon because much of the evidence presented to the jury was from when Trump was President
Georgia trial is over
New York verdict will be overturned soon because much of the evidence presented to the jury was from when Trump was President
Awwwww. I see failed lawfure. Thanks for your thoughts though
I see lawfare that succeeded.
Judge Cannon has been slow walking this case from the beginning, and now has dismissed it at the perfect time, knowing that it will be overturned upon appeal, but effectively running out the clock if Trump is elected. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia repeatedly has addressed the issue of special prosecutors and come to exactly the opposite conclusion as Cannon. Repeatedly. That means over and over again and again. She is well aware of this. Lawfare succeeded.
Well maybe your hero, the meat puppet, will try to change the rules. Nothing else has worked during the lawfare campaign. Good luck, and keep thinking you're smart
A few things:
1. Joe Biden is not my hero. You see, most people not in Trumplandia don’t have to idolize a political leader.
2. You couldn’t refute anything I said, so you deflected and added in an ad hominem attack.
3. I get it, intellectual debate and rhetoric isn’t your thing, and that’s fine, it doesn’t have to be, but when your argument is nearly nonexistent and clearly outclassed, maybe get away from the personal attacks so it doesn’t look like you’re bringing a butter knife to a nuclear missile fight.
1. Since it appears you have TDS and never mention the obvious lies and concealment of Biden's cognitive condition, I just assumed he had to be one of your heros. Based on your post on your certainty that I pay attention to polls, you like to assume as well.
2. Deflect? No, more like repeat that I believe that lawfare has been the dem strategy. Do I really need to list the multiple examples of for you?
3. You telling me I watch polls is an intelligent argument? Thanks for knowing more about me than I do! Poor thing, not sure where there was a personal attack. You must be the sensitive type.
Number one above is one of the most startling things about the last decade.
There are 2 people in my subdivision who have five Trump signs or banners in their yards and 2 others with Trump flags despite association rules forbidding yard signs of any kind.
I never saw a Jimmy Carter shirt or a John Ashcroft hat or an HW Bush golf cart parade.
It’s not normal to be a fan of a public servant. It’s sick. It’s a cult. These people have no self awareness at all. It’s also dangerous.
Reading is also not your thing, clearly. I said either directly or indirectly. That means that the places you get your information from do indeed watch polls.
I should have been more specific when I said the words “personal attack,” since you seem unfamiliar with rhetoric. I thought the words ad hominem might blow your mind when talking about your logical fallacies, so I apologize if you thought “personal attack” meant that I felt offended, which I do not, as this is just playful banter and a fun mental exercise. To be clear, I was referring to the logical fallacy of ad hominem, and you can rest easy knowing that you are incapable of offending me.
Then why did you bring up personal attack or ad hominem if it didn't bother you? The point you made about judge Cannon is speculation. You can speculate what you want and vise-versa. I did mention that there's word of Biden wanting to change rules for the Supreme Court, since the dem lawfare has been unsuccessful and has actually heped Trump. So, let me get this straight, we can debate, as long is it's by your rules and you can use cute verbage in an attempt to insult. Nice try bruh
Because it’s a logical fallacy, that’s why. Pointing out a deficiency in your method of argument and making the logical conclusion, after repeated evidence, that you aren’t great at rhetoric is just calling it like I see it. I thought you guys liked that. I’ll stop if it’s hurting your feelings. I don’t want to be an asshole.
Yep, you clearly proved me wrong, lol. However, I,'m fine with my method and rhetoric on mosports, but you clearly a champion of rhetoric on here. Congratulations
