My brother texted me this morning saying "if you don't agree that Trump is a traitor to this country, then don't talk to me." I had no intention of shunning my kid brother, and I know he's not completely libtarded, so I engaged.
The way I phrased it was in terms of facts:
The numbers on election night did not make sense on the surface. Cite bellweather counties, the stopping and restarting, etc. Hence, the 75MM of us who voted Trump wanted to dispute the media's conclusion that Biden won.
Many people delivered sworn testimony that they witnessed things on election night that did not make sense.
In the vast majority of cases, sworn witness testimony is sufficient to grant the plaintiff rights to discovery. Discovery is where we would do things like engage a forensic computer analyst to look at the voting machine hardware and software. We would also be able to inspect the physical ballots, and all security recordings from election night, ultimately determining if there was a preponderance of evidence to indicate that fuckery went down.
This didn't happen, the courts prevented us from doing any sort of discovery, and any evidence we may have been able to see has long since been destroyed. Hence we're extraordinarily pissed off because the "checks and balances" designed to safeguard our rights are being used instead to trample over them. It's no longer an issue of whether Trump won or lost, but rather that dozens of millions of WE THE PEOPLE were summarily dismissed by a government that seemingly pretends to compete with each other, but the minute anything remotely controversial grips a large chunk of the population, they fall into lockstep with each other against us.
In the face of the above, all my brother could do was fall back to arguing philosophy, because his assertion that Trump somehow betrayed his oath of office was false on its face.
My brother texted me this morning saying "if you don't agree that Trump is a traitor to this country, then don't talk to me." I had no intention of shunning my kid brother, and I know he's not completely libtarded, so I engaged.
The way I phrased it was in terms of facts:
The numbers on election night did not make sense on the surface. Cite bellweather counties, the stopping and restarting, etc. Hence, the 75MM of us who voted Trump wanted to dispute the media's conclusion that Biden won.
Many people delivered sworn testimony that they witnessed things on election night that did not make sense.
In the vast majority of cases, sworn witness testimony is sufficient to grant the plaintiff rights to discovery. Discovery is where we would do things like engage a forensic computer analyst to look at the voting machine hardware and software. We would also be able to inspect the physical ballots, and all security recordings from election night, ultimately determining if there was a preponderance of evidence to indicate that fuckery went down.
This didn't happen, the courts prevented us from doing any sort of discovery, and any evidence we may have been able to see has long since been destroyed. Hence we're extraordinarily pissed off because the "checks and balances" designed to safeguard our rights are being used instead to trample over them. It's no longer an issue of whether Trump won or lost, but rather that dozens of millions of WE THE PEOPLE were summarily dismissed by a government that seemingly pretends to compete with each other, but the minute anything remotely controversial grips a large chunk of the population, they fall into lockstep with each other against us.
In the face of the above, all my brother could do was fall back to arguing philosophy, because his assertion that Trump somehow betrayed his oath of office was false on its face.