Page after page after page on this site is people presenting beliefs and ideas and others questioning those beliefs and ideas. That's all I'm doing.
Nope. You are hammering away at a false narrative. Your methodology is to "put me on trial" and seemingly obligate me prove my position in this thread, knowing that my observations are not on the internet and cannot be replicated here. You then move to "convict" for the consumption of others reading the thread.
Your other angle is the typical dishonest Marxist angle of pretending that you are a neutral, dispassionate observer who truly wants to discuss the matter, when all along your slave-masters have no intention of allowing you to even research opposing evidence, much less be open to a differing view.
I don't support election theft.
Yes, you do. Consider it assumed.
In fact, the day after the election, I remember standing in my living room, watching the TV and saying, in regards to Trump's claims about the stolen election, something like "If this is true, Trump will go down in history as one of the greatest heroes in our country for exposing this."
You're asking me to believe that at some point, you were open to considering Trump a hero. Do you think I will fall for this?
I still believe that would have been true.
Since it is true, you consider Trump a hero, yes? But wait, the overriding factor is that you are required to HATE Trump. Ergo, you are required to believe that the election was not stolen. Oh, that's right, that's what I have been saying all along. Consistency is one of my many endearing qualities.
You keep saying you observed it. I'm just asking what you observed.
You keep doing this. I previously wrote out a long post explaining this. Go read that. I'm not going to duplicate it here.
No. I do not know the election was stolen.
Yes you do. You are totally aware that Trump's rallies oversold everywhere he went, foretelling an historic win, whereas Biden needed at least eight people to be bused in if he wanted to break into double digits. You know of all the reported irregularities and how they were all dismissed, not because they were ruled to not have happened but because the irregularities weren't "sufficiently widespread" ... and here you are well down the pike attempting to revise history by pretending to show that all the previously confirmed irregularities have somehow been debunked.
Yes, you know all of this, but you remain steadfast in your phony narrative, pushing your slave-masters' agenda.
I believe I've heard most every claim,
You haven't heard any of them. You aren't allowed to research any of them. You aren't allowed to consider Trump a hero. You aren't allowed to say anything positive about Trump.
Watch: Considering only the official duties of the Presidency (no tweets, campaign ads or personal affairs), how did Donald Trump somehow fall short of being the US' best President ever?
When I dug into each claim, they simply didn't hold water.
You didn't dig into any of the many valid or irrefutable claims. Those definitely hold water. ZenMode = DenyEverythingMode.
What human nature am I dismissing?
The nature of humans to execute plans made in secret. It happens all around the world every day and you know this. I gave you many entire categories of examples. However, you believe that you are effectively casting doubt on the election theft by referring to it as a "conspiracy theory." Good luck with that.
Once again, your claim requires the dismissal of human nature and is therefore a fallacy.
There are dishonest people doing, or trying to do, illegal/dishonest things every day. I've never denied that.
Then say it with me: The DNC attempts and executes illegal things that are planned in secret.
I don't dismiss anything.
You dismiss everything, out of hand, that doesn't align with your thought-masters' agenda. Let's dispense with the pretense that you ever do any independent research whatsoever.
Yes, when Sidney Powell went on TV and spun her ridiculous tale about Venezuelan satellites changing votes, I had an initial reaction of doubt.
That's not one of the valid examples for discussion. That's a distractor issue. Next.
I'm not trying to. I'm just asking you to support your belief.
You very well know that my observations and experiences are not on the internet. Nonetheless, I am supporting my position, but you will have none of it because you are not interested in really discussing the matter. You are locked into pushing your agenda.
He didn't deliver them across state lines.
You're talking about the wrong "he." The correct "he" absolutely did deliver boxes of filled ballots across State lines. You can read about it in the affidavit. I also listened to his testimony back when it should have invoked a revote but was dismissed because it was not evidence of sufficiently widespread voter fraud.
He picked them up in Lancaster and dropped them off in Lancaster at the same spot he picked them up ....that is according to his sworn testimony. You should read it.
Too funny! If your slave-masters had actually allowed you to conduct independent research, I'm sure you would have actually read
the affidavit. Let me quote the relevant parts:
Affidavitof Jesse Richard Morgan
Smith: So you said you had about 24 large boxes of mail -in ballots?
Morgan: 24 I believe.
Smith: 24 gaylords four by five, filled with mail -in ballots coming from New York into Pennsylvania, heading to Harrisburg?
...
Smith: So how did you know they where mail-in ballots being loaded into your trailer?
Morgan: I could see they where mail in ballots that were already used, you could see the names in the return corner of the envelope and there was a strange blue marking on the envelope.
Smith: Blue. What do you mean?
Morgan: It's like some kind of blue mark.
Morgan: I want to say design, but kind of like a blob or something. Like towards the middle ofthe envelope kind of thing and then there was writing.
Smith: Was it an insignia ? Was it something professional, or is there something somebody put amarker on?
Morgan: No, it was like, it looked kind of like how that they were all uniformed like that.
Smith: Were all the markings uniformed on the envelopes?
Morgan: I guess they all looked the same on all the envelopes.
Smith: Same spot on all these ballots? When you say you knew they were ballots, were thereany names on the ballots?
Morgan: The envelopes had vote printed on it and there were names written in, in the corner.
Smith: In the return address area of the envelopes? So, they've already filled out by somebody?
Morgan: Yes, already filled out.
Smith: The return address where they written in by hand.
Morgan: Yeah, they were written in by hand.
...
Smith: When you say they seal you up, they put the code of the seal on the back. They scan all the barcodes from the dock, the truck, your badge and the seals all for matching, correct?
Morgan: And I started back to Harrisburg.
Smith: What time do you think you got to Harrisburg?
Morgan: I got to Harrisburg at 9:15 in the morning.
Morgan: I sat in the yard from 9:15AM to 3PM.
Smith: Is that normal?
Morgan: No, no, no. It's not normal. That's the first time that ever happened.
I take the time to research
Debunked.
and try to piece together, as best as I can, what actually happened
Nope. You try to regurgitate with high fidelity what your slave-masters order you to believe.
I don't doubt that you were paying attention the entire time.
Of course you do. You were ordered to doubt and to deny and to regurgitate.
