Search results

Well, unlike you I don't reduce people to who they vote for as a bit more nuanced than that thanks and 'attack on this forum'? What are you on about now?

Just because I haven't personally witnessed a case being proven beyond doubt doesn't equate to it not having happened. If that was your 'point' then it wasn't much of one. I've already given two cases where convicted people were proven innocent down the line. So it's not an 'impossible standard'...

No, that could also apply to cases I've even witnessed. What's your point?

It is where it comes to taking someone's life.

Which is why I don't.

If '2,000 Mules' is your yardstick for "fact" then says it all...

Too easy...

Not in all convictions, no. If there's value in it then why would I want to do away with it?

You don't give answers on point either. You do realize that there are cases where absolute proof has been ascertained, right? That particular goal is certainly possible if absolute guilt is established before taking someone's life.

No she didn't, she lost by 17,000 votes fair and square.

Who would those be exactly?

Why on earth would I want to waste my time doing that?

How do you know? It is isn't it?

Who would those be exactly?

Of course I haven't. Strange...

You don't "speak" to people anyway TPP. You just go on long winded, silly, unsubstantiated rants. No wonder you like Trump so much...

Most Americans aren't conspiratorial wingnuts who accept the results of the 2020 election as certified. The MAGA nutjobs who stormed the capitol deserved to be jailed.

So do you if you think that remotely resembles anything I believe.

Then what's wrong with the yardstick being 100%? That way no innocent blood would be shed. Well, where it comes to what a few on here advocate as swift then execution pretty much immediately happens upon conviction.

Can hardly go back to a position I never held to start with and you just really aren't that bright are ya?