It wasn’t my goal in this thread to do that. And I tried to make that clear. Let’s chalk it up to miscommunication. I was simply focused on a different question, which I’m merely clarifying at this point. Like I said before, I value my time. I have no desire to waste any more of it in a pissing match. That kind of discussion takes time and requires good faith from both sides.
No, I actually didn’t ever say that. You’ve made a lot assumptions here. Of course it’s a logical possibility. Just not one that I think makes much sense based on my survey of the claims and the court documents.
Then your question was answered with more added - the reason for it - evidence of massive corruption.
Your goal dismissed your obligation to examine the source details. That is what leads you into not seeing the answer to your question and the frustration of anyone trying to help you answer the question you asked - “how could all of those courts be wrong”?
It seems like a “pissing contest” because you are ignoring what is presented to you that answers the question you asked. And that causes frustration and blame upon you rather than merely a discussion of the evidence (that you seem to want to ignore). Perhaps you simply do not understand that the reasoning is in the details - not in the overall general picture. The Trumpers are looking at those details. And that is why they don’t accept what those courts have said as condemnation but rather a mix of confused reporting and corruption (the judge who demanded that there be an eyewitness to all 33.500 ballots being reversed).
And I was focused on getting you to expand your focus onto where the answer is - in the details of the cases.
Because your “survey of the claims” ignored the details of those judge’s decisions. Your time would have been much shorter if you didn’t refuse to look where the answer is - the source - the actual careful examination of the court findings. That is where you could have seen why the Trumpers don’t accept their judgements.
And actually a better analogy is - “Thinkers and Lemmings.” - being lead off a cliff - Global Communism through Fraud.
Yes, you did end up answering my question. You think the justice system is broken/corrupt, as I suspected. That’s really all I wanted to know.
My goal was narrowly scoped. I was quite clear about it. I’m not claiming the answer to my question tells anyone all they need to know about the issue. I told you in my very first reply:
Notice that I have patiently clarified my point, while you continue to sloppily paint me as having “blind faith,” “an American, so wouldn’t understand anything,” “must not have ever looked into the source,” “must not understand the details.” You made assumptions again and again, and I clarified my purpose. As I said, that kind of discussion takes time and requires good faith from both sides. What I’ve seen here from you doesn’t inspire much confidence that it would be a productive discussion, and I don’t have the time to waste.
You had one good point. You found a court case that I wasn’t aware of. I conceded to that (= being genuine). I asked for you to look at the details of that hearing so as to further explain the WHY that you asked.
You reverted back to blind faith in the system. I explained how and why the system is broken - again answering the WHY that you asked.
So it is settled.
Your question was answered. You don’t like the answer.
Yes, that was a small side point, of which I made a few, since you kept expanding the conversation. That may have given the wrong impression, but I was only interested in a brief answer to my initial question.
Yes, you answered. You claimed a bunch of things about me and my position. I clarified, and now I prefer not to engage with you.
I never asked you the question lol. I was addressing gib. Sheesh. I guess I wasn’t clear enough to save you from the trouble of posting everything you did. I did try to tell you from the get go.
I simply don’t have the time to go through each of your claims in detail nor do I believe it would be productive based on your approach to discussion here. Sorry you wasted your time. I tried to tell you. Bunch of times.
Let me amend to clarify. Of course it matters what we think, I mispoke. What I really meant was we would be lay people interpreting claims about what hundreds of poll watchers saw and how they felt they were treated. I’m not sure how fruitful that discussion would be and I’m not about to spend my day analyzing hundreds of affidavits. I was focused on this:
Hypothetically grant that Trump’s claims/affidavits are true.
Why didn’t the courts decide in his favor?
You answered. I appreciate that. We had different expectations, in frustration you took a bunch of pot shots at me, I ignored a lot of your posts because it was outside the scope of what I was asking. I tried to clarify my purpose. And now we’re here.
What if Pence says Trump won the electorate, that’s the wild time Trump is referring to in Washington DC on Jan. 6th? Trump invited his supporters there on that day, the day Pence decides who the president is.
