Nice straw man. As far as I am concerned I have not defined the word "fit". And you haven't presented any clear objection to what whatever you think I've defined it as. But if we are debating what the word fit means in the context of survival of the fittest. What I mean when I'm talking about it is how it is used in the terms of natural selection. That's it. I can only refer you the theory after that.
Again, I don't understand what you're talking about. Whose interpretation are we talking about here? Sounds like the intrepretation of your straw man.
158 pages
You used the phrase,"survival of the fittest" to describe your approach (and anticipated survival), while PREACHING of jumbo13's anticipated (and hopeful) demise.
Let me be frank.Do you think it is fit to run away from a virus, or do you think it is fit to confront/survive a virus? Can it be possible that both are correct?
Why does jumbo have to fail, and you succeed, for survival of the fittest to be even be inserted into the conversation?
How you decide to apply your understanding of science doesn't make what you do "science". Science is study, not proselytization. There is no, "I respect science, so therefore I am superior". No. You are just an asshole.
You say nobody is more hate filed than an atheist. Yet most wars in the world have been over religion.
Yeah, it's probably not applicable in the context and I'll concede that. If that was your whole point, then you need to work on how to make your points more clear.
Yeah... I'm the asshole, good one.
58 pages ago I said they'd need 200 more to get out all the tears. They're well on their way.158 pages
What happen with all those lawsuit? Pennsylvania's secretary of state on Tuesday certified the results of its presidential election, confirming that President-elect Joe Biden defeated President Donald Trump ..
Failing up to the supreme court is not a viable strategy- appelate courts, which the Supreme Court is one of, do not allow the introduction of new facts or evidence into a case. They merely reexamine cases that have been appealed.They've said they want the lawsuits thrown out so they can appeal them up to the supreme court.
I'm not convinced this isn't just a tactic to enrage their base for Trump 2024. If he isn't in prison by then
And they won't hear a case that's already been refused a hearing by a lower court. They'll never reach as high as the Supreme Court.Failing up to the supreme court is not a viable strategy- appelate courts, which the Supreme Court is one of, do not allow the introduction of new facts or evidence into a case. They merely reexamine cases that have been appealed.
pretty cringeI tried to watch that but as soon as I saw it was Vaush-oline, I quickly had to stop it and erase my watch history. Thanks for trying to have my Youtube recommended videos fill up with racist left-wing mush brained shit.
Okay, so you don't have a line and are just looking for concessions. That's an answer.Biden's not getting a mandate we are going full civil unrest till compromise or suit for peace occurs.
I mean, that's good. You've grasped the fact that fraud has not been proven through evidence. That's a step in the right direction.I approached the issue with an open mind by stating "maybe he won, maybe he lost, let's see what the court cases turn up" and so far the court cases haven't turned up any wide spread voter fraud.
This... Man, this part breaks my heart. I'm sure you're gonna take this as an insult, but I genuinely feel bad that someone holding another view than you causes you to have to limit your exposure to them. You seem like a cult member who can't have friends outside the "family"... You even said the intent was fine, but you still had to get rid of it.I didn't want to watch 18 minutes because the main in the video starts off claiming he's a socialist and socialism would ruin the USA, but the intent of the video is fine by me ....
This... Man, this part breaks my heart. I'm sure you're gonna take this as an insult, but I genuinely feel bad that someone holding another view than you causes you to have to limit your exposure to them. You seem like a cult member who can't have friends outside the "family"... You even said the intent was fine, but you still had to get rid of it.
Fuck, I dunno. Best of luck, dude.
Failing up to the supreme court is not a viable strategy- appelate courts, which the Supreme Court is one of, do not allow the introduction of new facts or evidence into a case. They merely reexamine cases that have been appealed.
History has proven time and time again what happens.
Overturning the vote was a long shot BEFORE it was certified. Afterward, there's zero chance of that happening. No judge is going to risk their seat by ruling that elections don't matter.
It would have been discovered during the recount for any given state at the latest. Once the vote is certified, that's that. Trump's legal team has presented exactly zero evidence of fraud. Just a lot of meaningless talk.What would happen if there was actually fraud & not Trump's imagined fraud?
It would have been discovered during the recount for any given state at the latest.
If there's no evidence now, there's not suddenly going to be any new evidence a year after the vote is certified. Every ballot is checked against voter registration data, both parties have people in the room who do that during the count, as well as managers/overseers.How? I am not saying that there was any fraud, but if illegal ballots were present in the first count then they will be present in the second. If evidence turned up next year, what would happen?
If there's no evidence now, there's not suddenly going to be any new evidence a year after the vote is certified.