Why are Republicans so willing to accept the big lie without evidence?

[bongsaway]

And yet...you make no effort to look for evidence. You simply take the word of the criminals and their propagandists who do nothing but say "There is no evidence". The fact is, there are mountains of evidence of election fraud.

So...apply that "rational process" you speak of and take your useless psychobabble and shove it.

And yet not a soul has been able to prove your mountain of evidence exists, although it's not for lack of trying. 0-65 in court cases proves your mountain of evidence, dare I say, is solid as a rock.

 

[Mycroft]

I have looked at the 2020 election audits done in Arizona. I have reviewed what has been made available to the public. I have read Logan's (Cyber Ninjas) report and supporting reports. I have also read audits done before Logan's. I have also read the report on the routers.

My conclusion is Trump lost Arizona.
There was no significant fraud in the Arizona election.

RudyG says he has proof, but won't release it yet.
Lindel says he has proof, but won't release it yet

Easy for someone to say there is "mountains of evidence". You have yet to provide links to sources of that evidence.

Then you know about the shoddy work done by Maricopa County in regard to signature verification. To what do you attribute that to? Incompetence? I don't think that's it. It think it was deliberate.

You know about the thousands of ballots that were sent to addresses that don't exist, were filled out, returned and counted. To what do you attribute that to? Incompetence? I don't think that's it. I think it was deliberate.

I could go on with various findings from the AZ Senate Audit.

But hey...the evidence is there. You obviously judge it differently than I do. Perhaps your bias has something to do with that.

 

[EdwinWillers]

I have looked at the 2020 election audits done in Arizona. I have reviewed what has been made available to the public. I have read Logan's (Cyber Ninjas) report and supporting reports. I have also read audits done before Logan's. I have also read the report on the routers.

My conclusion is Trump lost Arizona.
There was no significant fraud in the Arizona election.

RudyG says he has proof, but won't release it yet.
Lindel says he has proof, but won't release it yet

Easy for someone to say there is "mountains of evidence". You have yet to provide links to sources of that evidence.

His post was directed at the OP. And frankly, I agree with what he said.

The sole value (if you will) in the nonsensical psychobabble the OP routinely spews is its utterly painful verbosity. But some are smitten with that, believing the wanton splurge of pointless words and distended ideas somehow profound.

 

[beefheart]

Then you know about the shoddy work done by Maricopa County in regard to signature verification. To what do you attribute that to? Incompetence? I don't think that's it. It think it was deliberate.

You know about the thousands of ballots that were sent to addresses that don't exist, were filled out, returned and counted. To what do you attribute that to? Incompetence? I don't think that's it. I think it was deliberate.

I could go on with various findings from the AZ Senate Audit.

But hey...the evidence is there. You obviously judge it differently than I do. Perhaps your bias has something to do with that.

Stop lying. Maricopa had a fair election. Get over it.

 

[Lursa]

Democrats claimed that Russia interfered in the 2016 election by releasing disinformation on Facebook and social media.
Democrats further claim that THAT interference swayed voters and gave Trump the election.

Democrats claim they DID NOT interfere in the 2020 election by releasing disinformation on Facebook and social media.
Democrats further claim that media's "Russian Disinfo" stories about Hunter's laptop DID NOT influence the election.

Stupid voters that believe shit from the wrong sources are stupid voters. The reason The Donald won in 2016 is this, in a nutshell: no one believed he could win (including him and his campaign team) and so Democrat voter turnout was low. Stupid mistake.

America and other countries have been interfering in other countries elections for ever. (See: Vietnam war.)

We're discussing imaginary and unsupported fraud in 2020. That's different than misinformation.

Voter Polls have shown repeatedly that voters would NOT have voted for Biden had they known the Hunter story was true.
Democrats refuse to acknowledge that they interfered with the 2020 election using disinformation.

Source this. I call BS. And they still havent proven anything about Hunter Biden so maybe we're back to stupid voters accepting bullshit social media sources that voted...stupidly. Thank God they didnt prevail in 2020.

When caught they claim, "It was worth it getting rid of the Orange Monster".

"I'd support interference again to get my way" - The Left

Sources?

 

[Bullseye]

It's a normal rational process for people to have some skepticism, to look for evidence, to consider the possibility someone is lying.

When a person is making a claim that is hugely self-serving, that should set off sirens of suspicion. When that person has made a practice of constant lying...

So, I see most Republicans accept trump's claim the election was stolen.

My question is, why are they so broken on the basic rational issue? Why aren't they even considering, even asking questions about evidence, even saying anything about the possibility if he's lying?

It reminds me a little of Bush's claim of WMD in Iraq - when Democrats confronted Republicans with skepticism of the claim, Republicans almost universally accepted the claim but most were at least willing to say things like 'if it turns out to be a lie, I'll stop trusting Republicans'. They didn't rule out the possibility.

But with trump, I never hear any recognition of even that he might be lying. Why is the response so blind?

I think this is an important question in understanding who a third of Americans are. One theory is that they are such authoritarian-followers that they want a 'great leader' authoritarian figure to support blindly - one who claims to hit several holes in one in a round of gold like Kim Jong-Un, or to outplay the national hockey team like Putin, or to have phony Time covers and gold championships like trump. They don't care that it's lies.

What are other explanations? Is trump a talented con man? Is the propaganda well done? I'd say no. The propaganda is below The Onion level, with absurd claims of mountains of evidence without any, of 'the pillow guy', and 'cyber ninjas' who even say they found no fraud. This isn't some unimportant issues like a lie about the inauguration crowd size, but one which threatens our democracy, you'd think a little concern about the truth is worthwhile.

One more theory: that these people have been made dysfunctional and irrational through repetition. Hitler famously argued that "big lies" and repetition were effective at fooling people. Was he THIS right? It seems plausible, and dangerous. What happens when a Republican who accepts the big lie is asked, "what if trump is lying?" There's a reasonable response - but that's not what we seem to hear.

Another idea is that these people are 'weak' in that they don't like the election results and will happily accept being told that the results weren't what the media say. It's a little like a spouse who might decide to deny their partner cheated on them despite clear evidence because they don't want to deal with the unpleasant issue.

Whatever the answer, it's a big problem not only that they fall for such an obvious lie, not only that they don't consider that the lie is obvious and from a pathological liar, but how they seem they don't even recognize that he might be lying, the blind response. I think this question about WHY they are so blindly accepting of the lie hasn't been answered and the answer is important.

The only lie is that Biden didn't win a fair and honest election. The above brain sludge is pathetic and uninformed LW propaganda.

 

[EdwinWillers]

The only lie is that Biden didn't win a fair and honest election. The above brain sludge is pathetic and uninformed LW propaganda.

"Brain sludge" - LOL

 

[Bullseye]

"Brain sludge" - LOL

I should have called it a tsunami of brain sludge.

 

[reflechissez]

His post was directed at the OP. And frankly, I agree with what he said.

The sole value (if you will) in the nonsensical psychobabble the OP routinely spews is its utterly painful verbosity. But some are smitten with that, believing the wanton splurge of pointless words and distended ideas somehow profound.

 

[What if...?]

It's a normal rational process for people to have some skepticism, to look for evidence, to consider the possibility someone is lying.

When a person is making a claim that is hugely self-serving, that should set off sirens of suspicion. When that person has made a practice of constant lying...

So, I see most Republicans accept trump's claim the election was stolen.

My question is, why are they so broken on the basic rational issue? Why aren't they even considering, even asking questions about evidence, even saying anything about the possibility if he's lying?

It reminds me a little of Bush's claim of WMD in Iraq - when Democrats confronted Republicans with skepticism of the claim, Republicans almost universally accepted the claim but most were at least willing to say things like 'if it turns out to be a lie, I'll stop trusting Republicans'. They didn't rule out the possibility.

But with trump, I never hear any recognition of even that he might be lying. Why is the response so blind?

I think this is an important question in understanding who a third of Americans are. One theory is that they are such authoritarian-followers that they want a 'great leader' authoritarian figure to support blindly - one who claims to hit several holes in one in a round of gold like Kim Jong-Un, or to outplay the national hockey team like Putin, or to have phony Time covers and gold championships like trump. They don't care that it's lies.

What are other explanations? Is trump a talented con man? Is the propaganda well done? I'd say no. The propaganda is below The Onion level, with absurd claims of mountains of evidence without any, of 'the pillow guy', and 'cyber ninjas' who even say they found no fraud. This isn't some unimportant issues like a lie about the inauguration crowd size, but one which threatens our democracy, you'd think a little concern about the truth is worthwhile.

One more theory: that these people have been made dysfunctional and irrational through repetition. Hitler famously argued that "big lies" and repetition were effective at fooling people. Was he THIS right? It seems plausible, and dangerous. What happens when a Republican who accepts the big lie is asked, "what if trump is lying?" There's a reasonable response - but that's not what we seem to hear.

Another idea is that these people are 'weak' in that they don't like the election results and will happily accept being told that the results weren't what the media say. It's a little like a spouse who might decide to deny their partner cheated on them despite clear evidence because they don't want to deal with the unpleasant issue.

Whatever the answer, it's a big problem not only that they fall for such an obvious lie, not only that they don't consider that the lie is obvious and from a pathological liar, but how they seem they don't even recognize that he might be lying, the blind response. I think this question about WHY they are so blindly accepting of the lie hasn't been answered and the answer is important.

Propagandists studies widely while developing their techniques. They studied stage magicians to learn how they manipulate attention. Religions for the obvious.

And con men. One of the things they learned was that humans resist admitting to themselves so stubbornly that they can be hit two or more times before they let themselves see the truth. Admtting it to themselves causes an existential crisis. Who else is fooling them? Who do they believe? What is wrong with themselves that let them be fooled so badly.

You get the idea.

This is a major factor in their refusal to entertain any contrary information to what they have been told. Add to that fear of being cast out of their peer group if they buck. As well as dealing with those outside of their group they have been super nasty to while repeating what turned out to be a lie they fell for.

Propagandists know these things. They study them while earning their degrees.

 

[What if...?]

I have looked at the 2020 election audits done in Arizona. I have reviewed what has been made available to the public. I have read Logan's (Cyber Ninjas) report and supporting reports. I have also read audits done before Logan's. I have also read the report on the routers.

My conclusion is Trump lost Arizona.
There was no significant fraud in the Arizona election.

RudyG says he has proof, but won't release it yet.
Lindel says he has proof, but won't release it yet

Easy for someone to say there is "mountains of evidence". You have yet to provide links to sources of that evidence.

I was unaware that “evidence” and “bullshit” we’re synonyms.

 

[multivita-man]

If Republicans' views were informed by evidence/data they wouldn't be Republicans.

The only pieces of evidence they'll accept is cherry-picked data that helps them confirm their already preconceived notions about the world.

Absolutely.

But I sometimes ask myself, why can't they just admit that facts don't support their beliefs?

I think it's because they don't want to acknowledge the fact that a majority of this country has different views than they do about a wide range of topics. To be more specific, they realize that a majority of people in this country don't support that their candidate or their party. A majority of people in this country are willing to vote for a non-white president or other type of political leader and don't feel threatened by that. A majority of people in this country are willing to vote for a woman or accept female leadership and don't feel threatened by that. I remember back in 1984 when Jesse Jackson and Geraldine Ferraro were considered almost 'fringe' candidates. In 1984, Reagan won by a landslide.

It's no mystery why Trump campaigned hard and succeeded in places that once produced 'Reagan Democrats.' Many of those who supported Trump in the Rust Belt either were, or would have been, Reagan Democrats. Trump won with these voters in 2016, but he won only because of the quirky electoral college. He lost the popular vote - to a woman. And an unpopular one at that.

What can be seen, thus, is that the Reagan voters still exist, but they are outnumbered by those with different views. Those conservatives that still believe in data and numbers almost certainly had to know this going into the 2020 campaign, which is why the messaging came out way early in Trump Land to create the narrative that Trump would be winning but that Democrats would find a way to magically pull ahead in supposedly bogus mail-in returns in the days following election day. OTOH, there are those that simply don't believe that a Democrats could possibly be more popular than a conservative candidate and who probably are just content to live in a world of conspiracy theories.

When it all gets distilled, I think the MAGA conservatives either believe that Biden somehow officially won, but that he shouldn't have. They believe that he only won because Democrats spent years bringing tens of millions of immigrants into the country to dilute the white vote, that they corrupt Black and Brown voters with promises of welfare expansion, and that the "MSM" is a propaganda ministry for the DNC. In other words, yes, they get that the vote totals say that their guy lost, but Democrats "cheated", and the results shouldn't stand. Their country was "stolen" from them. Similarly, among those who just flatly refuse to believe that Trump could have lost, "reality" is whatever their social media feed says it is.

Either way, it's easy to concoct a justification for believing in the big lie. One doesn't even have to sincerely believe in it; they just have to believe that they, as voters, were somehow deprived of something (in this case, political power). When people believe that they belong at the top of the social hierarchy because America's supposedly a country that was founded by white Christian straight men, the realization that other people don't see it that way is going to be difficult to reconcile. In biology and in nature, there is scarcity - lack of territory, lack of access to water and food - lack of reproductive prospects. In modern, complex civilizations, lack of power is another very real kind of scarcity. It can be dangerous when people of one group believe they've been somehow encroached up or deprived by "others".

 

[mike2810]

Then you know about the shoddy work done by Maricopa County in regard to signature verification. To what do you attribute that to? Incompetence? I don't think that's it. It think it was deliberate.

You know about the thousands of ballots that were sent to addresses that don't exist, were filled out, returned and counted. To what do you attribute that to? Incompetence? I don't think that's it. I think it was deliberate.

I could go on with various findings from the AZ Senate Audit.

But hey...the evidence is there. You obviously judge it differently than I do. Perhaps your bias has something to do with that.

sigh.
I reject your premise of "shoddy work" in signature verification
Provide a link or source you used to come to that conclusion.

in fact. Provide sources you used to come to your conclusions.
You provide nothing to back up what you post.

I at least have provided some of the sources to the audits. You on the other hand make statements and do not back them up.

There you go again. "The evidence is there". Provide a source and link or you have nothing.

What bias do you believe I have..

 

[Gateman_Wen]

It's a normal rational process for people to have some skepticism, to look for evidence, to consider the possibility someone is lying.

When a person is making a claim that is hugely self-serving, that should set off sirens of suspicion. When that person has made a practice of constant lying...

So, I see most Republicans accept trump's claim the election was stolen.

My question is, why are they so broken on the basic rational issue? Why aren't they even considering, even asking questions about evidence, even saying anything about the possibility if he's lying?

It reminds me a little of Bush's claim of WMD in Iraq - when Democrats confronted Republicans with skepticism of the claim, Republicans almost universally accepted the claim but most were at least willing to say things like 'if it turns out to be a lie, I'll stop trusting Republicans'. They didn't rule out the possibility.

But with trump, I never hear any recognition of even that he might be lying. Why is the response so blind?

I think this is an important question in understanding who a third of Americans are. One theory is that they are such authoritarian-followers that they want a 'great leader' authoritarian figure to support blindly - one who claims to hit several holes in one in a round of gold like Kim Jong-Un, or to outplay the national hockey team like Putin, or to have phony Time covers and gold championships like trump. They don't care that it's lies.

What are other explanations? Is trump a talented con man? Is the propaganda well done? I'd say no. The propaganda is below The Onion level, with absurd claims of mountains of evidence without any, of 'the pillow guy', and 'cyber ninjas' who even say they found no fraud. This isn't some unimportant issues like a lie about the inauguration crowd size, but one which threatens our democracy, you'd think a little concern about the truth is worthwhile.

One more theory: that these people have been made dysfunctional and irrational through repetition. Hitler famously argued that "big lies" and repetition were effective at fooling people. Was he THIS right? It seems plausible, and dangerous. What happens when a Republican who accepts the big lie is asked, "what if trump is lying?" There's a reasonable response - but that's not what we seem to hear.

Another idea is that these people are 'weak' in that they don't like the election results and will happily accept being told that the results weren't what the media say. It's a little like a spouse who might decide to deny their partner cheated on them despite clear evidence because they don't want to deal with the unpleasant issue.

Whatever the answer, it's a big problem not only that they fall for such an obvious lie, not only that they don't consider that the lie is obvious and from a pathological liar, but how they seem they don't even recognize that he might be lying, the blind response. I think this question about WHY they are so blindly accepting of the lie hasn't been answered and the answer is important.

They are continually improving their brainwashing techniques.

Makes you wonder what the next stage is, doesn't it?

 

[mike2810]

His post was directed at the OP. And frankly, I agree with what he said.

The sole value (if you will) in the nonsensical psychobabble the OP routinely spews is its utterly painful verbosity. But some are smitten with that, believing the wanton splurge of pointless words and distended ideas somehow profound.

Then you would have no problem providing a link to the "evidence" that shows the election was rigged/stolen.
The OP statements are no worse than some of the other posters supporting the "big lie".

 

[Gateman_Wen]

And yet...you make no effort to look for evidence.

Is this supposed to be a joke? This election has been counted, recounted, audited, investigated, probed, and examined in every way shape or form possible!!

Why would you tell a lie like that?

 

[Grim17]

It's a normal rational process for people to have some skepticism, to look for evidence, to consider the possibility someone is lying.

When a person is making a claim that is hugely self-serving, that should set off sirens of suspicion. When that person has made a practice of constant lying...

So, I see most Republicans accept trump's claim the election was stolen.

My question is, why are they so broken on the basic rational issue? Why aren't they even considering, even asking questions about evidence, even saying anything about the possibility if he's lying?

It reminds me a little of Bush's claim of WMD in Iraq - when Democrats confronted Republicans with skepticism of the claim, Republicans almost universally accepted the claim but most were at least willing to say things like 'if it turns out to be a lie, I'll stop trusting Republicans'. They didn't rule out the possibility.

But with trump, I never hear any recognition of even that he might be lying. Why is the response so blind?

I wish I had a better, less prickly way to say this, but I've run out of options, so here goes...

I don't give a rat's ass what Donald Trump has to say about the 2020 election of anything else.

Donald Trump talks shit 24/7 which is the reason I have not watched one of his rallies, or listened to one of his speeches since the day he lost the election. You are a fool if you think that conservatives hang on his every word, or take their marching orders from him. He is a blow hard just as he has been all his public life, but as president you can't ignore the positive results from his 4 years in office. For that reason I voted for him in 2020, but just like the overwhelming majority of conservatives, I let the facts dictate my actions and beliefs when it comes to things like the integrity of the election, the Hunter Biden laptop, Russia-gate, etc...

When it comes to Donald Trump, those on the left like yourself are the ones with a problem... You people are totally obsessed with the man more than a year and a half after he lost the election. I put him out of my head the first week of November 2020, but he has taken up permanent residence in the heads of millions and millions of leftists like yourself.

Jesus Christ people, let him go and come back to the real world.

.

 

[Mycroft]

sigh.
I reject your premise of "shoddy work" in signature verification
Provide a link or source you used to come to that conclusion.

in fact. Provide sources you used to come to your conclusions.
You provide nothing to back up what you post.

I at least have provided some of the sources to the audits. You on the other hand make statements and do not back them up.

There you go again. "The evidence is there". Provide a source and link or you have nothing.

What bias do you believe I have..

You are the one who said "I have looked at the 2020 election audits done in Arizona. I have reviewed what has been made available to the public. I have read Logan's (Cyber Ninjas) report and supporting reports." What I mentioned came directly from one of those supporting reports.

Maybe you should go back and re-review what you've supposedly already reviewed. (Or maybe you haven't really reviewed anything?)

I'll give you a hint, though, because I'm feeling generous today: Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai

 

[mike2810]

You are the one who said "I have looked at the 2020 election audits done in Arizona. I have reviewed what has been made available to the public. I have read Logan's (Cyber Ninjas) report and supporting reports." What I mentioned came directly from one of those supporting reports.

Maybe you should go back and re-review what you've supposedly already reviewed. (Or maybe you haven't really reviewed anything?)

I'll give you a hint, though, because I'm feeling generous today: Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai

and I have asked for your sources and links to "the evidence" you claim exists.

Ah yes. Dr Shiva. The expert just like Logan in doing "forensic audits.
The one who didn't know how the county image data is stored.

You utilizing Dr. Shiva says all I need to know.

I am feeling generous today.

Review of Ballot Image Analysis Report - February 16, 2022.pdf

Nextcloud - a safe home for all your data

docs.real-audits.org

 

[Perotista]

It's a normal rational process for people to have some skepticism, to look for evidence, to consider the possibility someone is lying.

When a person is making a claim that is hugely self-serving, that should set off sirens of suspicion. When that person has made a practice of constant lying...

So, I see most Republicans accept trump's claim the election was stolen.

My question is, why are they so broken on the basic rational issue? Why aren't they even considering, even asking questions about evidence, even saying anything about the possibility if he's lying?

It reminds me a little of Bush's claim of WMD in Iraq - when Democrats confronted Republicans with skepticism of the claim, Republicans almost universally accepted the claim but most were at least willing to say things like 'if it turns out to be a lie, I'll stop trusting Republicans'. They didn't rule out the possibility.

But with trump, I never hear any recognition of even that he might be lying. Why is the response so blind?

I think this is an important question in understanding who a third of Americans are. One theory is that they are such authoritarian-followers that they want a 'great leader' authoritarian figure to support blindly - one who claims to hit several holes in one in a round of gold like Kim Jong-Un, or to outplay the national hockey team like Putin, or to have phony Time covers and gold championships like trump. They don't care that it's lies.

What are other explanations? Is trump a talented con man? Is the propaganda well done? I'd say no. The propaganda is below The Onion level, with absurd claims of mountains of evidence without any, of 'the pillow guy', and 'cyber ninjas' who even say they found no fraud. This isn't some unimportant issues like a lie about the inauguration crowd size, but one which threatens our democracy, you'd think a little concern about the truth is worthwhile.

One more theory: that these people have been made dysfunctional and irrational through repetition. Hitler famously argued that "big lies" and repetition were effective at fooling people. Was he THIS right? It seems plausible, and dangerous. What happens when a Republican who accepts the big lie is asked, "what if trump is lying?" There's a reasonable response - but that's not what we seem to hear.

Another idea is that these people are 'weak' in that they don't like the election results and will happily accept being told that the results weren't what the media say. It's a little like a spouse who might decide to deny their partner cheated on them despite clear evidence because they don't want to deal with the unpleasant issue.

Whatever the answer, it's a big problem not only that they fall for such an obvious lie, not only that they don't consider that the lie is obvious and from a pathological liar, but how they seem they don't even recognize that he might be lying, the blind response. I think this question about WHY they are so blindly accepting of the lie hasn't been answered and the answer is important.

I would say most people will believe what they want to hear. Trump lost, but to many Republicans they don’t want to believe that. They believe that the only way Trump could lose is if the election was stolen due to massive fraud.

You have the Steele dossier on the other side. Democrats wanted to believe massive Russian involvement and due to that involvement, Clinton lost. Even with most of that dossier debunked, many democrats still want to believe she lost only because of the Russians.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/18/politics/steele-dossier-reckoning/index.html

Just call it human nature due to ultra-partisanship. That anything one hears that is bad about the other side, must be true because the other side is evil. Very easy for these folks to believe.

 

[Mycroft]

and I have asked for your sources and links to "the evidence" you claim exists.

Ah yes. Dr Shiva. The expert just like Logan in doing "forensic audits.
The one who didn't know how the county image data is stored.

You utilizing Dr. Shiva says all I need to know.

I am feeling generous today.

Review of Ballot Image Analysis Report - February 16, 2022.pdf

Nextcloud - a safe home for all your data

docs.real-audits.org

Your link is irrelevant. It does not address the issue of ballot signatures.

 

[Mycroft]

I would say most people will believe what they want to hear. Trump lost, but to many Republicans they don’t want to believe that. They believe that the only way Trump could lose is if the election was stolen due to massive fraud.

You have the Steele dossier on the other side. Democrats wanted to believe massive Russian involvement and due to that involvement, Clinton lost. Even with most of that dossier debunked, many democrats still want to believe she lost only because of the Russians.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/18/politics/steele-dossier-reckoning/index.html

Just call it human nature due to ultra-partisanship. That anything one hears that is bad about the other side, must be true because the other side is evil. Very easy for these folks to believe.

What you are ignoring is...

The massive amount of evidence of election fraud in the 2020 election.

The use of the Steele Dossier as an attempt to damage Trump both before the election and after the election.

This isn't about "what people want to here". It's about reality and attempts to cover up that reality.

 

[mike2810]

Your link is irrelevant. It does not address the issue of ballot signatures.

and you have yet to provide anything but a name.
So many Republicans in charge in Arizona and yet to findings of massive election fraud.

'Audit' expert Shiva Ayyadurai didn't understand election procedures. He made a number of false signature claims.

The audience in the Senate gallery oohed and aahed as Shiva Ayyadurai drew its attention to a “verified and approved” stamp that appeared behind a triangle on the image of an early ballot envelope, unsubtly suggesting that it might have been pre-printed that way.

www.azmirror.com

 

[RaleBulgarian]

The fact is, there are mountains of evidence of election fraud.

You’ve made this claim numerous times yet, not one time have you provided any evidence.

Surely, if there really were “mountains of evidence of election fraud” you ought to be able to post at least one or two verifiable/proven examples.

Why is that?

 

[Hamish Howl]

And yet...you make no effort to look for evidence. You simply take the word of the criminals and their propagandists who do nothing but say "There is no evidence". The fact is, there are mountains of evidence of election fraud.

So...apply that "rational process" you speak of and take your useless psychobabble and shove it.

You keep saying that, but you never have any to show.