Their basic argument doesn't even make sense, "Can't happen because thousands would have to be involved and that many people can't keep a secret." Well they didn't keep it a secret, in fact they were caught, thousands of times. Or are they now asserting that thousands of people couldn't conspire to cheat, but thousands of people could conspire to pretend they did? You already pointed out the veritas stuff, where they didn't have to trick anyone to find election fraud, the criminals were openly posting what they were doing to social media.
Basically, you won't win because this is emotional for them. Evidence causes them mental anguish, and makes them upset with you for causing them this pain. The only way out is for them to convince themselves, I haven't found a way to confront them about reality that ends well.
I know. It's rough. It was sad. I'm not in the business of convincing people of things, I learned long ago that's a pointless path... But I wanted them to at least see how their argument was not a real argument. I did mention the 1000s of affidavits, bit they kept saying how all of Trump's cases were thrown out. I responded with , " well I thought those were other people's suits in court" and that " honestly, I haven't been fond of guiliani since 2001". I was seriously trying to just ask why they thought their argument was valid when it's clearly not. I explained the video of Coomer showing how to change a vote with the software... And they went back to, " well, see... He would have had to have 1000s of people take part" I explained how that's a false logic as well. He showed how one person could. Then the argument shifted to the actually physical ballots and how of they faked numbers in the software, how come the physical added up. I said, well they said pa issued 1.4 million mail I'ma but received 2 million. They told me because that hearing wasn't a real court hearing that it's not valid evidence.
It really is too emotional for them.
I told them to buy futures in laughter, cause my God is it coming
Their basic argument doesn't even make sense, "Can't happen because thousands would have to be involved and that many people can't keep a secret." Well they didn't keep it a secret, in fact they were caught, thousands of times. Or are they now asserting that thousands of people couldn't conspire to cheat, but thousands of people could conspire to pretend they did? You already pointed out the veritas stuff, where they didn't have to trick anyone to find election fraud, the criminals were openly posting what they were doing to social media.
Basically, you won't win because this is emotional for them. Evidence causes them mental anguish, and makes them upset with you for causing them this pain. The only way out is for them to convince themselves, I haven't found a way to confront them about reality that ends well.
I know. It's rough. It was sad. I'm not in the business of convincing people of things, I learned long ago that's a pointless path... But I wanted them to at least see how their argument was not a real argument. I did mention the 1000s of affidavits, bit they kept saying how all of Trump's cases were thrown out. I responded with , " well I thought those were other people's suits in court" and that " honestly, I haven't been fond of guiliani since 2001". I was seriously trying to just ask why they thought their argument was valid when it's clearly not. I explained the video of Coomer showing how to change a vote with the software... And they went back to, " well, see... He would have had to have 1000s of people take part" I explained how that's a false logic as well. He showed how one person could. Then the argument shifted to the actually physical ballots and how of they faked numbers in the software, how come the physical added up. I said, well they said pa issued 1.4 million mail I'ma but received 2 million. They told me because that hearing wasn't a real court hearing that it's not valid evidence.
It really is too emotional for them.
I told them to buy futures in laughter, cause my God is it coming