Stupid shit in Medellin

[QUOTE=MrEnternational;2934458]Was this one of them?[/QUOTE][URL]https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/crime/2024/06/27/ex-chattanooga-police-chief-celest-murphy-faces-17-count-indictment/74229822007/[/URL]

[URL]https://newschannel9.com/news/local/chattanooga-police-chief-resigns-amid-tbi-investigation[/URL]

What are you talking about? That case has nothing to do with the election at all. She was indicted due to her illegally claiming homestead exemptions on her taxes by lying about her living situation (claiming to live in Tenn and Georgia at the same time to get tax breaks on both sides). Did you not read the article? I'm sorry to be mean here, but I don't understand why you even posted this since it has literally no connection and implies no correlation to the election. So either you're being bad faith, or you're illiterate.

The main point of contention appears to be centered around tax evasion and perjury in a time period after the election - "It also says Murphy concealed the fact and evidence of said crime during the period between July 1, 2022 and March 27,2024. ".

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2934491]You make this definitive statements time and again. You do not understand the facts underlining the theory of why the 2020 election was stolen.

How many votes were needed to have been changed from Biden to Trump for Trump to have won? How many ballots had only Biden listed on them and no other votes (like for Senate, Congress ETC)? Who got more votes from blacks, Obama in 2016 or Biden in 2020? The court cases were dismissed because of what reason, there was no evidence of cheating or the people bringing the suits lacked standing? Do you know what lacks standing means? In Georgia, Trump sued and by law his case was required to be heard. What happened?

Be honest. You do not know the answer to ANY of those questions.[/QUOTE]I do know the answers, because the courts (state, federal, and even the conservative Supreme Court) have opined on it. Trump and his crew submitted over 50 cases across the country and in both conservative and liberal areas. Most all cases were dismissed due to lack of standing (no evidence to even begin proceedings). The ones that went to trial were all rejected. Appeals were rejected. Those rejections were appealed to the Supreme Court and they concurred. Trump elected a 1/3 of the SC and you're telling me they are deep state now? If we are being pedantic, the only actual result (legally) of these cases was that some of Trump's own shithead lawyers getting sued, convicted, and disbarred because of gross negligence.

[QUOTE]True of False: the deep state had no role in the Russiagate and Ukrainegate impeachments? For your statement to be true, that answer in both cases would have to be no.

Are you done with your mental masturbation yet?[/QUOTE]Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Trump and his orbiters got convicted based on crimes they committed. No different than Clinton getting impeached for lying about a BJ. The problem here is that you don't understand what the "deep state" is. The deep state is not shadow group of villains who are running the country illuminati-style. They are simply entrenched political interests that peddle in influence (e. G. AIPAC for hardline pro-Israel, defense contractors for military spending, IC for American hegemony). Trump has support in most of those industries. The pro-Israel lobby, for example, has pushed massive "deep-state" influence for him. The IC community is the other way because he weakens American hegemony and makes America weak (Trump is anti-NATO, pro-Chinese dominance in Asia). You know nothing about the government but you still act like you understand even a fraction of it because the orange man whined about some things.

[QUOTE=TheDerilious;2934656]What are you talking about? That case has nothing to do with the election at all. She was indicted due to her illegally claiming homestead exemptions on her taxes by lying about her living situation (claiming to live in Tenn and Georgia at the same time to get tax breaks on both sides). Did you not read the article? I'm sorry to be mean here, but I don't understand why you even posted this since it has literally no connection and implies no correlation to the election. So either you're being bad faith, or you're illiterate.

The main point of contention appears to be centered around tax evasion and perjury in a time period after the election - "It also says Murphy concealed the fact and evidence of said crime during the period between July 1, 2022 and March 27,2024. ".[/QUOTE]Maybe you are illiterate. I merely asked if she was one of the people since she had been found to be registered to vote in two places. Or are you saying that she would not be capable of such despite the fact?

"the Hamilton County Grand Jury returned a 17-count indictment, charging Murphy with [B]one count of illegal voter registration, one count of false entries on official registration or election documents[/B], three counts of false entries in governmental records, three counts of forgery, three counts of perjury, and six counts of official misconduct. "

[QUOTE=Huacho;2934643]Have you ever even been there?[/QUOTE]To where, the White House? No. But its not necessary Huacho. These days we have TV and can watch it without going there. We can listen to the press secretary.

Thought you might like to listen to this take on US history, in the form of a rap song:

[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1hloB-kU5k[/URL]

At night, how do you sleep?

[QUOTE=JustTK;2934686]Thought you might like to listen to this take on US history, in the form of a rap song:

[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1hloB-kU5k[/URL]

At night, how do you sleep?[/QUOTE]On a mattress from mattress firm. Jajajaja.

Sorry I couldn't resist.

[B]I am a peace with myself and all others[/B]

[QUOTE=Villainy;2934653]I think you are in love with yourself. Which is a good thing, at least somebody is![/QUOTE]Ad hominem logical fallacy #1.

[QUOTE=Villainy;2934653]That is an ego boast which only leads to silly arguments. [/QUOTE]Ad hominem logical fallacy #2.

[QUOTE=Villainy;2934653]This demonstrates your inability to reason. [/QUOTE]Ad hominem logical fallacy #3.

[QUOTE=Villainy;2934653]Here is where you fall off the wagon. The Bush campaign appealed to the US Supreme Court and the case was heard there. (The majority of cases appealed to the US Supreme Court are denied certiorari). But this case, upon which a Presidential election hung in the balance, was heard and a 5-4 party line decision ended the count with Bush leading by a few hundred votes.[/QUOTE]The US Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to rule on the "disputed election" (according to the Constitution of the United States of America which I quoted to you but you chose to ignore because it represents a inconvenient fact for you to deal with). [B]The case was improperly heard[/B]. The US Supreme Court violated the separation of powers principle. By doing so and awarding the Presidency to Bush, [B]they stole the election from the voters of America[/B]. Because the US Supreme Court decided who the next leader of the Executive Branch of Government would be.

In reality, there was no reason not to wait until the STATE of Florida finished the recount. How many months after the election is the inauguration held? Change of government should be done in a week. The time frames in the Constitution were based on the current state of communication and transportation technology at the time that it was written. No reason for the delay. CEO's take over companies with WAY less notice than the President Elect has to make a transition in government.

[B]This should answer you question of my knowledge of history or if I can read a book[/B] I never challenged your education or intellectual ability. I simply presented another opinion. You disagree. Grown men can do that. Intelligent ones can do that without insulting others.

[QUOTE=Villainy;2934653]So now you can look up the distinction between a "disputed election" and a "stolen election.[/QUOTE]No need as the election was both "disputed" and "stolen".

[QUOTE=Villainy;2934653](I was a Gore voter).[/QUOTE]Completely irrelevant to our current discussion (opinion).

Can it be noted that no matter what you say, the matter has been decided and is in the history books. It cannot be reversed. What you are doing is arguing with my opinion on the matter. I have already given you a definition of the word "opinion". If you choose to define it in a way that suits you that is fine with me. If you like it then I love it. But your argument that there are better opinions than others completely goes against what the definition of an opinion is. Thus it is your opinion. LOL!

Words have meaning. In order to communicate we must agree (up to a point) to the meaning of words. If a a green traffic light means go and a red traffic light means stop. As a driver you cannot redefine the meaning of red and green to suit your personal desires. At least you can't do it without the possibility of some terrible results if you take the wheel on the road with other drivers.

[B]So much for my inability to reason.[/B] By the way my GPA in college was 3. 7. Yes, Ivy League university. But my real education occurred after I graduated. University only teaches you how to learn. If you check actual real world results, some the the biggest companies in the United States of America were started by individuals who were "see" students or dropped out of college. Holla!

The founders of the United States of America set up the court system in such away that there is a final arbiter of [I]legal opinion[/I] within. But it is based within the construct of the Constitution of the United States of America. As a young man I had to take an oath to "defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic". So before I did, I decided to read it again. I purchased a pocket copy from the United States Archives. I carried that copy of the Constitution with me for my entire time I was "under oath". You will be surprised at the lack of knowledge my fellow Americans have about this first principles document on which the government of that country is based. I pulled it out and used the direct wording from the The Constitution of the United States of America several times while I was working in order to inform others about first principles that they needed to stay aware of.

I asked you if you have ever read the Constitution of the United States of America before (not counting grade school or School House Rock). You did not give me an answer. In case you haven't I have included link to the episode about the Constitution in case you would like to brush up on it. LOL! In addition to that google is available.

[URL]https://youtu.be/RnVmIrAiQB8?si=29RVYCiTPZtW-KrG[/URL]

Lastly, I suggest that you seek the assistance of a medical health professional or if you cannot afford it some self help books to help your your self esteem issues. When my brain gets cloudy a good threesome with a couple of orgasms takes the edge off. No reason to hate on those of us who are comfortable in our own skin and have no problem expressing ourselves as grown men.

[B]Oh he took the rock straight to the hoop and dunked in his mother fucking face. Damn that shit was nasty![/B]

[QUOTE=JustTK;2934683]To where, the White House? No. But its not necessary Huacho. These days we have TV and can watch it without going there. We can listen to the press secretary.[/QUOTE]No, have you ever been to the United States of America? Because you talk a lot of shit and I don't think you've ever been there, in which case you should maybe shut the fuck up.

[QUOTE=Huacho;2934791]No, have you ever been to the United States of America? Because you talk a lot of shit and I don't think you've ever been there, in which case you should maybe shut the fuck up.[/QUOTE]Having on-the-ground experience of the USA is not necessary to form an opinion on the veracity of claims made by the USA Govt. As I said, most of the world has TV and internet these days. Or is it that your concerned that I might be listening to AI?

More interesting is why you feel you need to defend anything the USA Govt does? Its track record is second to none in terms of abhorent behaviour so why would you want to defend that Huacho?

[QUOTE=SubCmdr;2934721]

Ad hominem logical fallacy #1.

Ad hominem logical fallacy #2.

Ad hominem logical fallacy #3.

[/QUOTE]Maybe so, but are they factual?

[QUOTE=SubCmdr;2934721]The US Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to rule on the "disputed election" (according to the Constitution of the United States of America which I quoted to you but you chose to ignore because it represents a inconvenient fact for you to deal with). [B]The case was improperly heard[/B]. The US Supreme Court violated the separation of powers principle. By doing so and awarding the Presidency to Bush, [B]they stole the election from the voters of America[/B]. Because the US Supreme Court decided who the next leader of the Executive Branch of Government would be.[/QUOTE]That is your opinion and is simply not true. You can clothe your argument however you like, the constitution did indeed (and still does) allow the Court to hear state cases that have a federal nexus. It goes without saying that an election to determine the President of the United States indeed has a federal nexus. Another fact that you like to overlook is that 7 of the 9 justices agreed to hear the case.

[QUOTE=SubCmdr;2934721] In reality, there was no reason not to wait until the STATE of Florida finished the recount. How many months after the election is the inauguration held? Change of government should be done in a week. The time frames in the Constitution were based on the current state of communication and transportation technology at the time that it was written. No reason for the delay. CEO's take over companies with WAY less notice than the President Elect has to make a transition in government.[/QUOTE]Not exactly right on the history or the recitation of facts. The Florida law required a determinative result long before the inauguration. This in fact became the central issue. Whether or not the manual recount could be completed by the safe harbor date.

[QUOTE=SubCmdr;2934721]No need as the election was both "disputed" and "stolen".[/QUOTE]I don't agree. I say "disputed" is a fact, "stolen" is an opinion.

[QUOTE=SubCmdr;2934721]

The founders of the United States of America set up the court system in such away that there is a final arbiter of [I]legal opinion[/I] within. But it is based within the construct of the Constitution of the United States of America. As a young man I had to take an oath to "defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic". So before I did, I decided to read it again. I purchased a pocket copy from the United States Archives. I carried that copy of the Constitution with me for my entire time I was "under oath". You will be surprised at the lack of knowledge my fellow Americans have about this first principles document on which the government of that country is based. I pulled it out and used the direct wording from the The Constitution of the United States of America several times while I was working in order to inform others about first principles that they needed to stay aware of.

I asked you if you have ever read the Constitution of the United States of America before (not counting grade school or School House Rock). You did not give me an answer. In case you haven't I have included link to the episode about the Constitution in case you would like to brush up on it. LOL! In addition to that google is available.[/QUOTE]I attended high-school in a small town, and did not attend a highly touted prepatory school. We were required to take two years of Civics and one of those classes was devoted exclusively to the Constitution. So yes, like most people my age, our secondary school education required taking a class (or 2 at my school) in Civics and the Constitution was a central topic of study. Oddly enough, in my university classes (both bachelor's and master's) no Civics classes were required.

[QUOTE=SubCmdr;2934721]........ The US Supreme Court violated the separation of powers principle. By doing so and awarding the Presidency to Bush, [B]they stole the election from the voters of America[/B]. Because the US Supreme Court decided who the next leader of the Executive Branch of Government would be......In reality, there was no reason not to wait until the STATE of Florida finished the recount.[/QUOTE]

FYI, Subsequent to the the Supreme Court decision, a consortium of newspapers (led by the New York Times and Washington Post) examined the uncounted ballots and concluded that Bush would have won EVEN IF the Supreme Court had never intervened and the manual recount as ordered by the Florida Court (and desired by Gore supporters) had been allowed to proceed. See: [URL]https://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/us/examining-vote-overview-study-disputed-florida-ballots-finds-justices-did-not.html[/URL].

Like Villainy, I voted for Gore, while accepting that Bush squeaked out a legit victory. Save your venom for Ralph Nader.

[QUOTE=MrEnternational;2934681]Maybe you are illiterate. I merely asked if she was one of the people since she had been found to be registered to vote in two places. Or are you saying that she would not be capable of such despite the fact?

"the Hamilton County Grand Jury returned a 17-count indictment, charging Murphy with [B]one count of illegal voter registration, one count of false entries on official registration or election documents[/B], three counts of false entries in governmental records, three counts of forgery, three counts of perjury, and six counts of official misconduct. "[/QUOTE]The indictment, which I linked, says multiple times, "On or about July 1, 2022, Murphy did (crimes)". Please correct me if I'm wrong Mr. E since I must be illiterate and clearly unable to do math, but 2022 is after the election of November 2020, right? She was clearly trying out the new and super intelligent strategy of stealing an election after it happened. Mr. E, you and Mrs. Murphy here must truly be some giga-brain strategists and I bow to the combined brain cell you two have conjured up here. But to be good faith, I couldn't find out how long she was doing it for but it seems that neither the indictment nor the evidence presented point to a nefarious attempt to steal the election since nothing before 2022 is even referenced which is weird since I'm sure they would have added that in if the evidence was solid. It literally all seems to point a tax evasion scam to have two residences be counted as a primary residence and the votes were helping her "establish plausible evidence" of said residence. As a final note, the indictment doesn't even define that she voted illegally, only that she illegally registered to vote, but I am working under the assumption that she actually voted to be good faith.

Your game is pretty easy to understand, though I'm sure you'll feign ignorance (trust me, you don't have feign it). You "merely" asked a leading question with an obvious response for uneducated and lazy readers to draw a conclusion; Democrat woman votes twice so clearly the election was tainted. Otherwise, there was no reason to post it since not even the articles themselves are asserting any relationship to the election.

You've done this before (very recently) so I'll amend the statement to help you before you drill down on hyper-literal stupidity only meant to obfuscate the point (e. G. You find one case of a democrat cheating so therefore my statement on the election not being stolen is bunk) . The 2020 election was the most vetted election in history and there was no meaningful evidence found that could have meaningfully changed the election result. There has been recorded evidence of voting fraud, but the numbers are minuscule, unrelated to actually desiring to change the election result, and / or have shown no organizational backing behind them (Soros, Dominion voting, Tea Party, whatever).

Just to note, here is just one case of Republican hypocrisy where the Trump nuthuggers got caught doing the thing they claimed the other side was doing. In essence, there appears to be a much larger percent of Trump supporters that engaged in voter fraud in 2020 as opposed to liberals and some political analysts have posited that this is because of the allegations that Trump was making before the election. Essentially, he was telling them that the election was rigged and so they took it upon themselves to cheat for him. [URL]https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/georgia-republican-party-official-voted-illegally-nine-judge-rules-rcna145563[/URL].

[QUOTE=NilAdmirari;2934945]FYI, Subsequent to the the Supreme Court decision, a consortium of newspapers (led by the New York Times and Washington Post) examined the uncounted ballots and concluded that Bush would have won EVEN IF the Supreme Court had never intervened and the manual recount as ordered by the Florida Court (and desired by Gore supporters) had been allowed to proceed. See: [URL]https://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/us/examining-vote-overview-study-disputed-florida-ballots-finds-justices-did-not.html[/URL].[/QUOTE]The Supreme Court ruling was improper and lowered the respect for the United States of America around the world in Democratic Circles. Gave further proof of hypocrisy of the government of the United States of America to autocratic ones.

[QUOTE=NilAdmirari;2934945]Like Villainy, I voted for Gore, while accepting that Bush squeaked out a legit victory.[/QUOTE]I don't give a fuck who either of you voted for. It is irrelevant to the conversation. What is relevant is what is says in the Constitution of the United States of America. I have already made reference to the section in question in a previous post. [B]Read it[/B]!

[QUOTE=NilAdmirari;2934945]Save your venom for Ralph Nader.[/QUOTE]Go fuck yourself. Or better yet get a chica to fuck you. Save your bullshit for the toilet. I have no interest in reading it.

[QUOTE=JustTK;2934862]Having on-the-ground experience of the USA is not necessary to form an opinion on the veracity of claims made by the USA Govt. As I said, most of the world has TV and internet these days. Or is it that your concerned that I might be listening to AI?

More interesting is why you feel you need to defend anything the USA Govt does? Its track record is second to none in terms of abhorent behaviour so why would you want to defend that Huacho?[/QUOTE]Yeah, Venezuela, El Salvador, Russia, Hungary, Afghanistan, etc. All much worse. Sure buddy. Care to tell us where you're from so we can compare? My guess is Scandinavia somewhere.

[QUOTE=SubCmdr;2934970]........
Go fuck yourself. Or better yet get a chica to fuck you. Save your bullshit for the toilet. I have no interest in reading it.[/QUOTE]

Hombre, respira hondo y reljate. And get a good massage. I can recommend Happy Massage, a bit pricey but worth it. [URL]https://happymasajes.com/[/URL].

And hopefully one day in your travels you'll arrive in a place where guys of good will can respectfully disagree with one another.