Virginia gerrymandering vote

[Dos Equis]

I'm starting to think Necrosis might be a tad dishonest.

[Dos Equis]

A true FAFO moment.  Incoming rage tweets are going to be hilarious.

Virginia Supreme Court tosses out congressional map that favored Democrats
By Kathryn Watson
Updated on: May 8, 2026
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/virginia-supreme-court-redistricting-congressional-map-democrats/

[Necrosis]

It would be much easier if you would just admit you didn't know what "preponderance of evidence" meant and move on.  It's ok to admit mistakes.

But for anyone who wants cliff's notes, here a summary:

GA: Trial was bullshit, no evidence

Nec: The Judge had access to more evidence than we did, look at this link in paragraph three, it says it right there.

GA: I read you link, didn't see it, asked AI to confirm and it didn't either

Nec: I don't use AI

GA: Ok, where does it say it

Nec:  Here, let me use AI, but never show you where it was said in my link


Take the L. Move on.

He was found liable lolol.

What are you talking about? you used AI first and I used it after to show you how silly it was to do so. Your prompt got you the information you wanted.

It's like living in a bizzaro world- guys is found liable, then liable for defamation, his appeal rejected and you are saying its all bullshit on the grounds of some weak circumstantial evidence like you tried the case or something. You then lock on to something I said which is completely reasonable, aka you didn't try the case and clearly the jury and judge heard way more evidenced and arguments than you.

You clearly took the L. You are arguing for things that never happened in clear contradistinction to reality.

You seem to be having trouble deciphering the multiple arguments I made and are lumping them all into one run on topic.


I am not even sure what we are arguing? he was found liable by the jury and the judge.

[Necrosis]

It didn't give me what I was looking for.  I asked it objectively to verify what you said, and provided the paragraph stated.

So, in my own words:

You said the judge said in paragraph three there was evidence we aren't privy to.

I read paragraph three and did not see that.

Where did you read that in paragraph three from your wiki link?  Here it is to save you time:

You need to go read my paragraph again lol.

The claim was not related to the quote. I am making a general statement about lay people making claims like the case was bullshit (you) based on internet sleuthing, while a judge who sat on the case would clearly be privy to more information (in all cases, not simply this one). I am not saying there is some clandestine information per se but that you claiming bullshit is silly and clearly related to your partisan hackery.

You are latching onto it because you have no leg to stand on here.