I believe I've been clear in my comments on the election: The MO of the theft was mail-in voting and there will never be fraud proved. So, nothing rises to the level of importance of the stolen mail-in vote.
Indeed, you have been clear. And frequent. We have all heard them. I don't what more there is to say. I do understand that you want to talk about what you want to talk about. But talking about it in response to my question about something else without a turn signal is rude.
I believe I've been clear in my comments on the election
You have. We have all heard them. I don't what more there is to say either for you to say or for anyone else to say in response.
As to what he's won, are you wanting an itemization, or just commenting on the overall picture that he won some cases but still isn't president?
You posted a point supported by a link that Trump had, indeed, won court cases. That was news to me. The article seemed to be a "nya, nya, so there," like bragging or one-up. Since the article didn't say, I inquired just what it was that he had won, what had been proven, what had been accomplished in the winning of those cases. Was he vindicated somehow? Or were the wins just some incidentals or technical things of no import? Inquiring minds want to know. So I asked. If you didn't consider the link you posted substantive and didn't want to talk about that piece, then it was pointless to bring it up.
Yes, it's the job of the states to work it out.
the rest of you are firing questions at us. We have to decide as best we can what to respond to.
Since your responses to me have not addresses the questions I raised to you in the post to which you responded but rather my posts were just a vehicle for you to get on some unrelated soapbox, your explanation does not hold up. Perhaps you should direct those unresponsive comments elsewhere rather than feign responsiveness to me. |
