Message from @thebrodys
Discord ID: 781622534625558608
How I feel about veritas ^
Give it a listen if you guys can please. It does seem valid and relevant
Since this is a legal argument perhaps @RobertGrulerEsq might be interested in hearing it
Yes
Started with labels supplanting ideas as operative in current context. Maybe finish it later.
?
Qanon has a doctor?
Some doctor that followed/was a part of the movement.
😂 Oh lord
I’ll be down a rabbit hole later
...put it at 26:10 and turn your phone face down. Just listen to his oral argument for the Supreme Court.
I'm listening
@realz, you just advanced to level 19!
Yes that crazy lady from Africa that did the covid briefing to.. that said covid came from demon sperms.. Trump retweeted her comments
But how is statistical evidence of fraud also "state action" @thebrodys
I forgot about her
😂
Some of the discussion is over my head. I admit that, which is why I was asking for help in understanding it all.
I’ll have a listen later 👍🏼
Her name is Dr. Stella Immanuel
Also just because you have a case (assuming that there is such statistical evidence) doesn't mean you can throw stuff out, because, as Robert explained many times, usually you have to show a remedy that is less damaging than the problem (fraud)
Lmao I will never forget that woman and her bizarre rant on the steps.
Lol. That was crazy..
Succubuses, no?
Hilarious though
It gets me how everyone on the right states as fact that rampant fraud happened. And those on the left always refers to it as unfounded. Neither is correct. There has been some fraud, but no proof yet that it is widespread or of enough scale to impact the results.
Did you guys see the "amulet cures corona" paper I linked here
Oh hilarity of the highest order.
No. Please repost.
Ty!
The response is even better than the paper
I actually skimmed the paper to debunk it but the discussion is above my understanding
I'm fickle that way... Which thing is it that I didn't want to do? There are so many of them.
Broadly generalizing and categorizing people based on their political leanings.
Lmao 'His non-answer:'
You are right... Not all... A preponderance of media and pundits.
@thebrodys so yea the flaw I see is that:
A. the statistical evidence may not be convincing.
B. If it is convincing, just showing fraud doesn't implicate the "state action"