How would you be? As you said, it's a "distractor". It doesn't fit into your confirmation bias world.
I do, but why provide it? You clearly don't seek out, or have interest in, any information that runs contrary to what you want to believe and have no standards for the people you believe.
You find credible every single affidavit that fits your narrative.
I never said he wasn't the single authority on his perspective. Perspective and truth aren't synonyms.
I've never denied that humans conspire. I've denied each of the affidavits you've presented for reasons that should be obvious. Among them, I don't tend to believe mentally unstable, drug addicted, ghost chasing felons who sleep in the woods behind their mom's house and try to kill their wife.
I have never disparaged anyone for "observing what they observed". What I have said is that what they think they observed may not be what they actually observed. People observe things that make them believe the earth is flat, the moon landing was staged, the collapse of the twin towers in NY was due to planted explosives, etc.
I'm glad we got that cleared up.
So, you don't. I'm glad we got that cleared up.
It was cleared up long before now. You have no interest in anything that doesn't tell you what you want to hear.
Which part of "I do" was confusing for you? Was it the "I" or the "do"?
In this case, he is explaining to you why you have not convinced him otherwise, and gfm7175 is absolutely the authority on that matter.
You have maintained your denial of human conspiracy ever since you first labeled all human conspiracy as "conspiracy theories" to be dismissed.
You have denied each of the affidavits, not on any rational basis but by juvenile name-calling and by casting general dispersions, i.e. nothing persuasive.
You insult all people who make inconvenient observations that debunk your claims ... as simply having deluded themselves to fit some "contrarian" agenda. You disparage people in this way routinely.
Nope. Replace the words "may not be" with "is not". That is what you assert.
False. I don't, and I'm a member of the set of people.
I don't believe for a second that the moon landing was staged, but I have to accept the possibility that it might have been since I cannot verify it.
Same thing. I suppose that you can travel back in time and verify your assertions?
Nope.
That's your position. You deny science, remember? You can't be bothered to accept math that debunks your political agenda, much less any person's eyewitness testimony. You will engage in petty name-calling of people you don't even know if they observe something that debunks your stupid claims.
That is reality. You have proven, repeatedly, that you only seek information that supports what you want to believe. You put the utmost priority on what people believe they saw or believe they've heard and put no effort into verifying or understanding the other side. Affidavit after affidavit has been proven wrong. Melissa Carone probably ruined her life with her ridiculous claims and performance in front of the Michigan senate. Postal workers who believe they witness or heard things have retracted those claims. True the Vote/2000 Mules has retracted their baseless claims, yet here you are digging in your heals on the claims of a drug addicted, woods sleeping, homicidal, ghost chasing felon and you see NO problem with it.
All self-deluded people proclaim their delusions as "reality." That isn't very convincing either.
Learn what a proof is.
This is where you support your argument by showing where I cherry-picked only the affidavits I wanted instead of taking all of them as a package deal.
Thank you for posting this link/affidavit. It is one of the smoking guns of the election theft. This affidavit alone is sifficient to warrant voiding the election results.
Why?
I can tell that you haven't read it. Read it.
I have read it. Why would voiding election results be justified?
You obviously haven't read it. Given the affidavit and resulting investigations and affidavits, why would election results stand?
Why wouldn't they stand?
You have no intention of reading the affidavit, do you? You hadn't read it before you posted it and now you won't read it for fear that it will totally ruin your day.
Why would voiding election results be justified?
We're not conversing. You posted an affidavit that you hadn't read thinking that it somehow rebutted some argument unrelated to the content of the affidavit that you hadn't read. Now you are begging me to be your Wiki for the affidavit that you haven't read.
What point are you trying to make about the affidavit you posted?
You never began.
I'm ignoring your prosecutorial pivots. If you aren't going to make any point about the affidavit that you posted but never read, we're done.