placeholder

I guess when you've got nothing, resorting to accusations of lying is one way to go.

So why should anyone believe anything you claim in regards to numbers if you're going to invoke the excuse of hyperbole? What in your comment showed that it wasn't meant to be taken literally? The fact that it echoes what a certain failed candidate claims?

Well, what do you think epidemiologists get up to during and after a pandemic? You don't think that they parse how people in all sorts of cohorts fared whether or not they were vaccinated? You think that it wouldn't be of particular interest to examine how those most at risk fared? You really want to run with that?

Well, my exclusion from the group photo still hurts. Thanks for not caring. As for the consciousness of guilt thing, you've got nothing.

I guess in Medical School they never go to the part about epidemiology and how mortality rates are determined before you left.

And you certainly had nothing relevant to reply with on the subject of unnecessary deaths due to the refusal to be vaccinated with covid vaccines.

My fellow tag team members? I split from that crew after they didn't include me in the group photo. And the point I raised is such a basic one that not even a sudden onset of fatigue, can readily explain your bemusement.

I see you have no evidence to offer against the fact that not even 2 independent teams of forensic investigators hired by the Trump campaign could come up with any evidence of significant voter fraud. But what matter the conclusions of those 2 teams compared to the probative value of your "common sense"? It is to laugh.

Thank for not offering any evidence of why lessening the production of greenhouse gasses will have no effect on climate change.

In other words, on the issue of people dying unnecessarily because they refused to get vaccinated, you've got nothing.

You've gone curiously ignorant on this subject yet you seem to possess so much detailed information about other aspects of the law. Curious, isn't it? CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT Consciousness of Guilt is both a concept and a type of circumstantial evidence used in criminal trials by prosecutors. It refers to a powerful and highly incriminating inference that a judge or jury may draw from the statements or conduct of a defendant (accused) after a crime has been committed suggesting that the defendant knows he or she is guilty of the charged crime. In other words, the defendant's conduct after the crime is circumstantial (indirect) evidence that the defendant intended to commit the crime, or, in fact, committed the crime. https://www.lacriminaldefenseattorney.com/legal-dictionary/c/consciousness-of-guilt/ The article goes on to list telling lies as one proof of consciousness of guilt. That you think this needs explaining is odd in itself.

This is your idea of evidence. One Nobel-Prize winning scientist? Not actually a climatologist. You think this is how science gets corroborated or not?

Not even Donald Trump's campaign could come up with evidence that there was significant election fraud. They actually hired 2 separate teams of forensic evidence to try and come up with evidence that this was the case. Even they found nothing. Please provide a link to a credible source that backs up your claim: Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source. https://aseannow.com/forum/428-the-war-in-ukraine/

Isn't there is thing in law called consciousness of guilt? And wouldn't Trump's lies about the document being just newspapers and magazines go a long way towards proving that Trump believed what he did violated the law?

Doesn't the transcript also show that Trump claims it was a classified document, one that he said he couldn't declassify it then because he was no longer President?

Well, given that Jack Smith has entered it as potential evidence in a very high profile case, I'd say yes.

Actually, it's an audio, but the gist is the same.

Center for Immigration Studies is a notoriously unreliable source of immigration information. And the article you cite is about the Press Secretary's claim. Not whether or not unauthorized immigration is up or down. Illegal Immigration Gets Less Attention When It Falls Recent news coverage indicates illegal immigration gets less attention when it falls. Articles about the significant drop in illegal entry in recent months have been less noticeable than earlier stories, which often appeared on the front page when numbers on the border spiked. Some argue it’s not surprising editors may view “bad news” as more newsworthy. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2023/08/01/illegal-immigration-gets-less-attention-when-it-falls/?sh=17adc2426750

Actually, that remark was puncuated with a question mark. And Hunter Biden reported in a later text that his father met his request to join the business with an "emphatic no." But a subsequent email from Hunter says his “Chairman” gave him “an emphatic no,” and a further email clarifies that the chairman is his dad. https://www.vox.com/22992772/hunter-biden-laptop

Got any links to support your claim?

And many people died as a result of such foolishness. Not only that, but because hospitals were overloaded with vaccine refuseniks, people with other illnesses received a lower standard of care.

No, unless doctors and nurses are also epidemiologists, they're not qualified to examine and compare the results of studies. You think because doctors wear white, that makes them scientists or statisticians? Anyway, "evidence" like yours is useless. Come up with something that's independently verifiable. From the landing page of The World Forum: "Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source." https://aseannow.com/forum/158-world-news/

I guess I must have missed that article that was published in the journal of three of my doctors and couple of nurses . You got any evidence from actual epidemiological studies?

Well the reason I ask is because the article didn't support what you claimed. Did you read the follow-up paragraph?

Are you referring to the people Trump read to or to the justice department? If, to the justice department, then I suppose they can match up what Trump read to the text of the document.