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