Message from @Whithers
Discord ID: 784252567382130758
I watched that video already it doesnt show what you claim
Im sorry
oh ok
guess ill just stop believing my lying eyes
thank you for imparting your great wisdom on me
Well you might want to get glasses if you saw anyone being "kicked out" of anywhere
its simply not on that video
I am absolutely glad that it was videoed like most all polling places and counting centers are... Everyone knows they are videoed from several angles to discourage fraud and to catch mistakes. So if there is what you claim then it should be super easy to prove, shouldnt it?
No it was not debunked
@RobertGrulerEsq @FaithJoy Good show today! That video was certainly a spicy one, and I'm sure many people are waiting with baited breath for your commentary on Kyle's preliminary hearing tomorrow. (I know I am!)
Unfortunately the prosecutor seems much more coherent and well-spoken than Rittenhouse's representatives.
@RobertGrulerEsq Regarding the superchat I posted on your live stream, when unequivocal evidence that the election in Georgia was conducted in violation of the U.S. Constitution, Federal and State Law, how can the election be legally certified? In a legal perspective, allowing the election to stand when it was Unconstitutional and unlawful, it would set a precendent that the Law no longer applies to Georgia elections. Other States would then follow suit if they see that no one is held accountable for noncompliance with the Law. Just my thoughts.
That and I think Rittenhouse's representatives are intentionally misinterpreting the statute, which isn't the best look in my opinion.
Have a Constitution question for the boss man.
I am not sure he has attorneys.
I missed the video
@RobertGrulerEsq I consider from time to time Amendments, or how I would rewrite the Constitution. One that I have considered is a restriction on bailiwicks that grants SCotUS the authority to place the Legislature in emergency session to legislate clarifications for unclear or incomplete law using a Call of the House (until they fix the issue they may not leave the floor even to use the privy) in order to deal with emergency cases, such as death penalty and treason cases. And then also the power to place less important needs on the agenda of the session, where the session may not end and goes into a call of the house if they do not legislate on the issue by the end of the session. What do you think of this as part of an amendment requiring Originalism in the Court?
Did the Trump team denounce Sidney Powell as part of his team because of conflict of interest since she represented M.Flynn, seems like now that Trump pardon Flynn, she's back on the team
No
They had separate legal theories/approaches to the issue and they could not work them at the same time. It would confuse the issue and make a settlement in their favor more difficult.
no the reason was more likely that she pushed really batshit crazy ideas and pissed off the upper echelon of gop. They, gop, don't want do loose ga's senate seats in january.
Sounds like their checks just got balanced 💯
My gosh it is freezing in here. 29 degrees outside and same temp in the trailer as our heater went out!
@Bey If you wish to analyse the claim "no moral without God" it is a very interesting discussion.
Not God, in the general sense, but a Creator, as some religions, such as hinduism, had many gods
Well, the pantheon is not originally a set of personified deities.
But principles.
Where would "rules" originate without a belief other than one's own edict l?
Ugh texting on the cell not as easy as the computer
Well, those who have come closest to answering that question would be such thinkers as Nietzsche and Jung
Such morals would still be subjective
They basically make the argument that you become your actions. This is in concurrence with modern neuroscience.
well, yes and no. They would be very objective in that if you kill one person, killing becomes easier. And easier and easier. And you will lose the threshold for violence. This will down the line deprive you of many things and relationships.
If you are fine with that, then sure. But Im not sure anyone is.
It functions somewhat like newtons 3rd law of the human consciousness.
It is obvious, however, that this will not function as morality in a society, as the level of insight will not be sufficient.
So having people believe in a God and saying: "THis is wrong!" functions better. Most thinkers acknowledge that.
For some societies, killing was easy, of course, their beliefs were of sacrifice to their gods, such as the Aztecs
exactly