Trump supporters: Two clear and direct questions

[Mac1958]

What goes through your mind when you see the Attorney General say that the "evidence" you're so sure of isn't real?

What goes through your mind when you see Trump-appointed judges say that the "evidence" you're so sure of isn't real?

Both have analyzed the "evidence" and said there was a lack of evidence. That's a pretty clear indication of what this "evidence" is.

Thanks in advance.

Every ballot has to be hand AND scanner counted.

It was in Georgia after three counts of the vote, but still Trumpers insist there was fraud. Nothing will satisfy them.

Exactly, not as long as they're being told otherwise by those who have conned them.

Let them (continue to) make fools of themselves.

You want a President who is going to cause thousands of small businesses to close.

You'll believe anything.

 

[dblack]

So far, wow.

Did you expect anything different?

 

[Mac1958]

So far, wow.

Did you expect anything different?

I have to admit that when I ask questions like this, I hold out a bit of hope that one or two folks may actually answer them honestly.

But in general, I know what I'm dealing with. They're very helpful in illustrating and reinforcing my opinions.

 

[Orangecat]

I'm not the one who believes in conspiracy theories and worships a man who's been nothing but a cancer to this country.

Russian collusion and Barack's DNA on you bib tells a truer story.

 

[Indeependent]

What goes through your mind when you see the Attorney General say that the "evidence" you're so sure of isn't real?

What goes through your mind when you see Trump-appointed judges say that the "evidence" you're so sure of isn't real?

Both have analyzed the "evidence" and said there was a lack of evidence. That's a pretty clear indication of what this "evidence" is.

Thanks in advance.

Every ballot has to be hand AND scanner counted.

It was in Georgia after three counts of the vote, but still Trumpers insist there was fraud. Nothing will satisfy them.

Exactly, not as long as they're being told otherwise by those who have conned them.

Let them (continue to) make fools of themselves.

You want a President who is going to cause thousands of small businesses to close.

You'll believe anything.

Quite the opposite; I believe what I observe.

 

[BrokeLoser]

What goes through your mind when you see the Attorney General say that the "evidence" you're so sure of isn't real?

What goes through your mind when you see Trump-appointed judges say that the "evidence" you're so sure of isn't real?

Both have analyzed the "evidence" and said there was a lack of evidence. That's a pretty clear indication of what this "evidence" is.

Thanks in advance.

To date the CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE has not been accepted by the courts....My guess is, given the magnitude of potential repercussions the courts want this one sent to SCOTUS on a fast track.
A better, more logical question might be...Why would any American want to ignore the mountains of circumstantial evidence of voting shenanigans?
You won’t answer that question but someone with a sack might.

 

[Mac1958]

I believe what I observe.

Okay, let's run with that.

You have observed any number of "blockbuster" stories about clear and obvious fraud in the elections.

You have also observed the Attorney General, Republican state leaders, and Trump-appointed judges say that the "evidence" provided actually wasn't evidence.

What do your observations tell you in that specific context?

 

[Mac1958]

What goes through your mind when you see the Attorney General say that the "evidence" you're so sure of isn't real?

What goes through your mind when you see Trump-appointed judges say that the "evidence" you're so sure of isn't real?

Both have analyzed the "evidence" and said there was a lack of evidence. That's a pretty clear indication of what this "evidence" is.

Thanks in advance.

To date the CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE has not been accepted by the courts....My guess is, given the magnitude of potential repercussions the courts want this one sent to SCOTUS on a fast track.
A better, more logical question might be...Why would any American want to ignore the mountains of circumstantial evidence of voting shenanigans?
You won’t answer that question but someone with a sack might.

Well, you're much more informed that I am, so I'll ask you too:

You have observed any number of "blockbuster" stories about clear and obvious fraud in the elections.

You have also observed the Attorney General, Republican state leaders, and Trump-appointed judges say that the "evidence" provided actually wasn't evidence.

What do your observations tell you in that specific context?

 

[dblack]

What goes through your mind when you see the Attorney General say that the "evidence" you're so sure of isn't real?

What goes through your mind when you see Trump-appointed judges say that the "evidence" you're so sure of isn't real?

Both have analyzed the "evidence" and said there was a lack of evidence. That's a pretty clear indication of what this "evidence" is.

Thanks in advance.

Every ballot has to be hand AND scanner counted.

It was in Georgia after three counts of the vote, but still Trumpers insist there was fraud. Nothing will satisfy them.

Exactly, not as long as they're being told otherwise by those who have conned them.

Let them (continue to) make fools of themselves.

You want a President who is going to cause thousands of small businesses to close.

You'll believe anything.

Quite the opposite; I believe what I observe.

 

[Mac1958]

What goes through your mind when you see the Attorney General say that the "evidence" you're so sure of isn't real?

What goes through your mind when you see Trump-appointed judges say that the "evidence" you're so sure of isn't real?

Both have analyzed the "evidence" and said there was a lack of evidence. That's a pretty clear indication of what this "evidence" is.

Thanks in advance.

Every ballot has to be hand AND scanner counted.

It was in Georgia after three counts of the vote, but still Trumpers insist there was fraud. Nothing will satisfy them.

Exactly, not as long as they're being told otherwise by those who have conned them.

Let them (continue to) make fools of themselves.

You want a President who is going to cause thousands of small businesses to close.

You'll believe anything.

Quite the opposite; I believe what I observe.

Funny, I'm having one HECK of a time getting straight answers here!

 

[Dana7360]

What goes through your mind when you see the Attorney General say that the "evidence" you're so sure of isn't real?

What goes through your mind when you see Trump-appointed judges say that the "evidence" you're so sure of isn't real?

Both have analyzed the "evidence" and said there was a lack of evidence. That's a pretty clear indication of what this "evidence" is.

Thanks in advance.

The replies will be to deny what you post is true.

 

[Dana7360]

Where did either say it “isn’t real”?

Thank you for proving my point and that I was spot on correct.

 

[Indeependent]

I believe what I observe.

Okay, let's run with that.

You have observed any number of "blockbuster" stories about clear and obvious fraud in the elections.

You have also observed the Attorney General, Republican state leaders, and Trump-appointed judges say that the "evidence" provided actually wasn't evidence.

What do your observations tell you in that specific context?

I stayed up election night and “observed” hundreds of thousands of ballots supposedly being fed through machines that can’t process that many.
Which is, of course, why the governors were saying for weeks before hand that the winner in each state wouldn’t be known first least 4 days.

I presume you don’t follow what politicians say.

 

[Dana7360]

So far, wow.

Did you expect anything different?

Exactly.

When you are dealing with people who believe Barak Obama was born in Kenya and Michelle Obama is a man, there really is no point in trying to engage any of them. On any level.

It's a total waste of time.

 

[BrokeLoser]

What goes through your mind when you see the Attorney General say that the "evidence" you're so sure of isn't real?

What goes through your mind when you see Trump-appointed judges say that the "evidence" you're so sure of isn't real?

Both have analyzed the "evidence" and said there was a lack of evidence. That's a pretty clear indication of what this "evidence" is.

Thanks in advance.

To date the CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE has not been accepted by the courts....My guess is, given the magnitude of potential repercussions the courts want this one sent to SCOTUS on a fast track.
A better, more logical question might be...Why would any American want to ignore the mountains of circumstantial evidence of voting shenanigans?
You won’t answer that question but someone with a sack might.

Well, you're much more informed that I am, so I'll ask you too:

You have observed any number of "blockbuster" stories about clear and obvious fraud in the elections.

You have also observed the Attorney General, Republican state leaders, and Trump-appointed judges say that the "evidence" provided actually wasn't evidence.

What do your observations tell you in that specific context?

I’m sorry, I thought I just answered that repackaged question...Here, I’ll do it again.
Those in law have made the decision not to except the CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE as evidence in this matter.
NOBODY in law wants to touch a case of this magnitude as it will be backed by circumstantial evidence alone.
People are scared shitless of ruling on this for obvious reasons. SCOTUS won’t have an option.
Does the circumstantial evidence have you concerned at all?

 

[Mac1958]

I believe what I observe.

Okay, let's run with that.

You have observed any number of "blockbuster" stories about clear and obvious fraud in the elections.

You have also observed the Attorney General, Republican state leaders, and Trump-appointed judges say that the "evidence" provided actually wasn't evidence.

What do your observations tell you in that specific context?

I stayed up election night and “observed” hundreds of thousands of ballots supposedly being fed through machines that can’t process that many.
Which is, of course, why the governors were saying for weeks before hand that the winner in each state wouldn’t be known first least 4 days.

I presume you don’t follow what politicians say.

Good thing I wasn't expecting a straight answer.

I never do.

 

[Mac1958]

What goes through your mind when you see the Attorney General say that the "evidence" you're so sure of isn't real?

What goes through your mind when you see Trump-appointed judges say that the "evidence" you're so sure of isn't real?

Both have analyzed the "evidence" and said there was a lack of evidence. That's a pretty clear indication of what this "evidence" is.

Thanks in advance.

To date the CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE has not been accepted by the courts....My guess is, given the magnitude of potential repercussions the courts want this one sent to SCOTUS on a fast track.
A better, more logical question might be...Why would any American want to ignore the mountains of circumstantial evidence of voting shenanigans?
You won’t answer that question but someone with a sack might.

Well, you're much more informed that I am, so I'll ask you too:

You have observed any number of "blockbuster" stories about clear and obvious fraud in the elections.

You have also observed the Attorney General, Republican state leaders, and Trump-appointed judges say that the "evidence" provided actually wasn't evidence.

What do your observations tell you in that specific context?

I’m sorry, I thought I just answered that repackaged question...Here, I’ll do it again.
Those in law have made the decision not to except the CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE as evidence in this matter.
NOBODY in law wants to touch a case of this magnitude as it will be backed by circumstantial evidence alone.
People are scared shitless of ruling on this for obvious reasons. SCOTUS won’t have an option.
Does the circumstantial evidence have you concerned at all?

I hadn't read that post. The only time I read your posts is if they are to me, and only about half of those.

So they're just scared. Okay.

 

[Indeependent]

I believe what I observe.

Okay, let's run with that.

You have observed any number of "blockbuster" stories about clear and obvious fraud in the elections.

You have also observed the Attorney General, Republican state leaders, and Trump-appointed judges say that the "evidence" provided actually wasn't evidence.

What do your observations tell you in that specific context?

I stayed up election night and “observed” hundreds of thousands of ballots supposedly being fed through machines that can’t process that many.
Which is, of course, why the governors were saying for weeks before hand that the winner in each state wouldn’t be known first least 4 days.

I presume you don’t follow what politicians say.

Good thing I wasn't expecting a straight answer.

I never do.

I work in data processing.
I have worked the polls.
The only answer YOU want is for me to say I’m a TrumpBot because YOU are mentally ill.

 

[Canon Shooter]

I laugh when I see libs talk about "evidence" after their whole "Russian collusion" thing...

 

[BrokeLoser]

What goes through your mind when you see the Attorney General say that the "evidence" you're so sure of isn't real?

What goes through your mind when you see Trump-appointed judges say that the "evidence" you're so sure of isn't real?

Both have analyzed the "evidence" and said there was a lack of evidence. That's a pretty clear indication of what this "evidence" is.

Thanks in advance.

To date the CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE has not been accepted by the courts....My guess is, given the magnitude of potential repercussions the courts want this one sent to SCOTUS on a fast track.
A better, more logical question might be...Why would any American want to ignore the mountains of circumstantial evidence of voting shenanigans?
You won’t answer that question but someone with a sack might.

Well, you're much more informed that I am, so I'll ask you too:

You have observed any number of "blockbuster" stories about clear and obvious fraud in the elections.

You have also observed the Attorney General, Republican state leaders, and Trump-appointed judges say that the "evidence" provided actually wasn't evidence.

What do your observations tell you in that specific context?

I’m sorry, I thought I just answered that repackaged question...Here, I’ll do it again.
Those in law have made the decision not to except the CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE as evidence in this matter.
NOBODY in law wants to touch a case of this magnitude as it will be backed by circumstantial evidence alone.
People are scared shitless of ruling on this for obvious reasons. SCOTUS won’t have an option.
Does the circumstantial evidence have you concerned at all?

I hadn't read that post. The only time I read your posts is if they are to me, and only about half of those.

So they're just scared. Okay.

I believe you...I always avoid reading the posts of users that have opinions that don’t align with my own as well...That’s what us hate the 1st fascists do...right?