Good chance team name gets changed per report.

[chillerdab]

Except you didn’t use a single fact to back it up.

No sense arguing facts with somebody who doesnt accept facts as facts.

Nice try though.

 

[gkekoa]

No sense arguing facts with somebody who doesnt accept facts as facts.

Nice try though.

Which fact did I not accept?

 

[redskinsfan1963]

Again just trying to have you engage in a conversation like an adult .

I can easily fix it so wont or can’t be In this conversation

Now I can inflict butt hurt on you if you like or we can respectfully debate and disagree

suit yourself. you ain,t worth arguing with.

 

[chillerdab]

It’s hard to argue with people who have a fundamental lack of understanding of what the constitution is , what an insurrection is , what a higher court will do to overturn bogus convictions .

Hard to argue with somebody who doesnt understand what it means to be convicted by jury of his peers.

 

[chillerdab]

Which fact did I not accept?

Over the years that youve posted here, you’ve posted several hunderd posts that fly in the face of basic science and established fact.

You seem to care deeply about debating me even though you pretend you dont.

I am not evenly slightly inclined to research your ignorance through countless threads over the years.

You seem to prefer to live in your weird little bubble. Good for you.

You do you.

 

[skinsdad62]

Hard to argue with somebody who doesnt understand what it means to be convicted by jury of his peers.

A jury of his peers you say ? Not one conservative person was in the jury , . A fact that the higher courts will address

 

[skinsdad62]

suit yourself. you ain,t worth arguing with.

Suit yourself and when the hammer drops look in the mirror

 

[chillerdab]

A jury of his peers you say ? Not one conservative person was in the jury , . A fact that the higher courts will address

Find for me the part of the constitution that suggests that a jury of your peers needs to include people on the jury that are aligned to the defendents political persuasion.
I’ll wait….

 

[Rowdy]

Seriously. The political thread should be put back in place if we’re going political. I understand where others are coming from for sure with politics being in football subjects. If there’s a thread on its own they don’t even have to open it. Just as long as dad doesn’t accidentally post in the wrong thread.

 

[j_y19]

What exactly did he do to overthrow the election?
[/QUOTYou might want to read the congressional report on Jan 6. That might answer your question.

 

[redskinsfan1963]

Suit yourself and when the hammer drops look in the mirror

oh i,m crushed a cultist disagrees with me on a sportsforum. lol

 

[skinsdad62]

Find for me the part of the constitution that suggests that a jury of your peers needs to include people on the jury that are aligned to the defendents political persuasion.
I’ll wait….

They weren’t his peers, they were picked to get a conviction

 

[j_y19]

They weren’t his peers, they were picked to get a conviction

Who picked them?

 

[gkekoa]

Over the years that youve posted here, you’ve posted several hunderd posts that fly in the face of basic science and established fact.

You seem to care deeply about debating me even though you pretend you dont.

I am not evenly slightly inclined to research your ignorance through countless threads over the years.

You seem to prefer to live in your weird little bubble. Good for you.

You do you.

Show me a single one. I argued from day one when your science started claiming the jab was more effective than natural immunity. Well, now even your science admits natural immunity is far stronger than the jab.

 

[chillerdab]

Show me a single one. I argued from day one when your science started claiming the jab was more effective than natural immunity. Well, now even your science admits natural immunity is far stronger than the jab.

Cool story, bro.

No, I’m not going to search for you.

Not when you have never - not once - admitted that you were wrong about anything, big or small on this message board.

I’d rather watch paint dry.

 

[chillerdab]

They weren’t his peers, they were picked to get a conviction

So you couldnt find it in the constitution, could you?

Thank you for admitting that, like almost always when we tangle, I am right and you are wrong.


Do you want to get schooled on how jury selection works, skinsdad, or just admit that you dont know shit about that either?

 

[reptec101]

Chiller,, if you really believe that Trump was fairly convicted by a impartial jury and a fair and balanced judge who donates to the democrat party who then gave the jury favorable conviction instructions in the most liberal city in the United States. You may have TDS. Now if you're not talking about this particular case I then apologize. Came here late to the party.

 

[skinsdad62]

So you couldnt find it in the constitution, could you?

Thank you for admitting that, like almost always when we tangle, I am right and you are wrong.


Do you want to get schooled on how jury selection works, skinsdad, or just admit that you dont know shit about that either?

We will find out when your court of appeals overturns the conviction . In fact the judge and the prosecutors are hoping they don’t get sanctioned .

 

[skinsdad62]

Chiller,, if you really believe that Trump was fairly convicted by a impartial jury and a fair and balanced judge who donates to the democrat party who then gave the jury favorable conviction instructions in the most liberal city in the United States. You may have TDS. Now if you're not talking about this particular case I then apologize. Came here late to the party.

Chiller doesn’t look at those facts .

 

[gkekoa]

Charges brought against those on January 6 range from interrupting a government proceeding to assault. Sorry but nothing there speaks of sedition.

I read the January 6 summary. Basically, it says a couple of oath keepers read too much into Trump‘s statements. Well you would say that too if it was part of a deal.

I need actual evidence that he tried to overthrow the election. Challenging the election results is a perfectly legal option. And they never proved there was no illegal activity regarding the election. And anybody who believes the US election process and government officials are not corrupt is a fool.