1st: Affidavits ARE evidence, moron.
2nd: Evidence is only able to even be presented in court in an evidentiary hearing, and efforts at confirmation of early evidence are done through discovery. Again, NO COURT HAS ALLOWED THIS. Put up or shut up; show me 1 case that has allowed an evidentiary...
Put up or shut up.
Show me ONE suit that was rejected on the merits of claims.
Keep in mind, you can't do that without an evidentiary hearing and discovery, none of which has been allowed.
Scenes from a recent bench trial of a murder case.
Judge: You have no proof Joe murdered the victim...
Oh? Can you name them?
Also, "aides, donors and advisors" is a very broad list.
And how many came by way of SDNY, which is known as the most corrupt jurisdiction in the country? You don't think the various indictments and what not have anything to do with the political establishments long...
And how exactly did Obama "turn around [the] economy"?
What policies, in particular, turned the economy around?
What is the economic causation?
How do you know that the economy didn't turn around in spite of Obama and his policies?
Believe every lie they tell you.
But you think anyone here will take you seriously.
All the anti-Trump claims you keep pounding your chest about keep turning up false given just another day or two.
But you never learn and keep getting gaslit.
Why would anyone trust your judgement or view you...
There is nothing inherently "theological" about metaphysics and epistemology. Yet, without those, you cannot possibly justify your faith in empiricism and science. Admit it or not, by accepting the view you do, you necessarily make metaphysical and epistemological assumptions. I am simply asking...
We've been dancing this dance for years, hrmwrm. It isn't as if you are ignorant of this critique. Yet all you ever do is assume the issue away. You can make ANY view work if you just assume away any inconvenient truth.
There is nothing theological in any argument I have provided.
Again, you have to prove why empiricism ("evidence") is the rational standard of judgement on this matter. The matter is, first and foremost, a logical one. And you are simply trying to assume the most convenient (empirical) standard...