@MarsHomestead I have a small business, accounting is my Achilles heel. Right now I’m trying to fix my QuickBooks, going back and forth with chat gpt, uploading reports, answering questions, getting pages of instructions to go back into my books and fix. does grok bot just do it all on its own?
@AshtonForbes@ArtVandelay778 He literally just spelled it out for you and you still can’t admit when you’re wrong about something. Do you know what a narcissist is?
@JinxedRealityX@BucMan55 “The debate claim was there is more evidence that TR is patsy or guilty…” but knowing the crimes he was guilty of has nothing to do with the debate? You actually said that thinking it made reasonable sense?
@Timcast “Nothing of the substance of the case”??? Dude it’s literally what a case is lol. You’ve said some dumb shit, but this was definitely the dumbest.
@Rach4Patriarchy@RekietaLaw No the debate was (supposed to be) about each of them defending their claims. AW failed right out of the gate admitting his “overwhelming evidence” didn’t even convince him 100%… he then further failed to name even one charge that the evidence was was supposed to prove.
@IamSean90 Ummm Utah doesn’t “call it (murder)” aggravated murder, they are two different charges. You’re claiming the state doesn’t have a separate charge for murder alone without the qualifier, which is just wrong. You should probably look these things up before posting.
@___A_a_r_o_n__@paleochristcon@IanMalcolm84 And not only did he admit he was not completely convinced TR was guilty of the crimes (despite “overwhelming evidence”) he couldn’t even name ONE crime he was being charged with!!! 🤣🤣🤣🤡🤡🤡
@___A_a_r_o_n__@paleochristcon@IanMalcolm84 No that was NOT the entire focus of the debate. The debate was set on EACH defending their claims. They stated them at the beginning. After Andrew states he was defending his claim there was “overwhelming evidence” he then went on to say he wasn’t completely convinced.
@paleochristcon Btw, I think 25% would be considered “reasonable doubt” when you’re on a jury. You opened the whole debate essentially admitting you were wrong.
@paleochristcon Ummmm you literally brought nothing to the table to support your claims of “overwhelming evidence”. The evidence that was so “overwhelming” to the point where you admitted you weren’t 100% convinced. You weren’t constantly caught contradicting yourself, should I keep going?
@paleochristcon How does your case NOT hinge on feelings? You FEEL the blurry images are of TR, you FEEL the car was his, you FEEL the texts were real, you FEEL he note was written by TR, you FEEL the reciept was faked, you FEEL every piece of evidence is true when it has NEVER been proven.
@mikethree@JCPQuad No, he was at least SUPPOSED to be there to defend his claim that there was “overwhelming” evidence that TR was guilty… without knowing what TR was wven being charged with. But it became obvious his real intent was to set her up with a bunch of “gotcha” moments. Pathetic.
@AshtonForbes@kaitmgrange lol, it’s “fake” because it doesn’t fit your version of the narrative. But the text messages are legit right? Even though those haven’t been corroborated either… 🙄