Republicans: continued

[Sean Hayden]

If you have evidence of election fraud on the scale claimed by Trump then share it already.

[Scot Dutchy]

You are hopeful.

[Cunt]

Why would you ask ME for such?

I just mentioned what Senator Paul referenced. If you want to comment on that, you can. If you want to continue to insist that there is no evidence, because the courts declined to hear it, that's ok too.

For me though, he sounds a lot more reasonable than most of the 'certainty' gang. (certain in either direction I mean)

[Tero]

Newsweek has gone right winger:
https://www.newsweek.com/mitch-mcconnel ... 4352?amp=1

Mitch refused to budge and Schumer threatened the nuclear option. Mitch caved. Committees will have Democrats for heads.

[Sean Hayden]

Why would you ask ME for such?

I just mentioned what Senator Paul referenced. If you want to comment on that, you can. If you want to continue to insist that there is no evidence, because the courts declined to hear it, that's ok too.

For me though, he sounds a lot more reasonable than most of the 'certainty' gang. (certain in either direction I mean)

If there is evidence then we might better understand their motivations. You're commenting on their motivations, ergo it's reasonable to expect you to know something. If all you know is that the media is biased, okay, that's all you know. It doesn't help much though when trying to determine if Joe is right or not.

But, if you can show the evidence then Joe is likely wrong. So, you want to show Joe is wrong, one way would be to show the evidence.

[Cunt]

duped myself

[Cunt]

Why would you ask ME for such?

I just mentioned what Senator Paul referenced. If you want to comment on that, you can. If you want to continue to insist that there is no evidence, because the courts declined to hear it, that's ok too.

For me though, he sounds a lot more reasonable than most of the 'certainty' gang. (certain in either direction I mean)

If there is evidence then we might better understand their motivations. You're commenting on their motivations, ergo it's reasonable to expect you to know something. If all you know is that the media is biased, okay, that's all you know. It doesn't help much though when trying to determine if Joe is right or not.

But, if you can show the evidence then Joe is likely wrong. So, you want to show Joe is wrong, one way would be to show the evidence.

If he is wrong about what? He didn't really claim anything that needs checking.

Paul's comment was about examining the evidence. He could be honest or dishonest, with or without 'playing the outrage card'.

Paul said courts haven't evaluated the evidence sufficiently.

Media insists, quite hotly, that it HAS been. By EVERYONE.

Would you like to read several media stories on how good the election was, or try to understand a dissenting opinion?

"The debate over whether or not there was fraud should occur, we never had any presentation in court where we actually looked at the evidence. Most of the cases were thrown out for lack of standing, which is a procedural way of not actually hearing the question," Paul said

That's clipped from an MSN article. They are as partisan as Paul, but less honest about it.

It's the main thing not refuted by the chorus of 'courts have looked at the evidence'. I mean, unless you simply pretend to know something about Paul's inner workings, and secret motivations.

If you take him at his word, and assume he is being honest, does that change anything for you? What if he is playing the outrage card, AND he is correct about rampant fraud?

[Cunt]

https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/ ... 4528660481

Sen. Rand Paul:

"No Democrat will honestly ask whether Bernie Sanders incited the shooter that nearly killed Steve Scalise."

"No Democrat will ask whether Maxine Waters incited violence when she literally told her supporters" to confront Trump officials in public.

Sounds like a good speaker. Sounds a LOT smarter than most of your politicians down there. Is he going to be the Rep's offering in 2024?

[Sean Hayden]

Why would you ask ME for such?

I just mentioned what Senator Paul referenced. If you want to comment on that, you can. If you want to continue to insist that there is no evidence, because the courts declined to hear it, that's ok too.

For me though, he sounds a lot more reasonable than most of the 'certainty' gang. (certain in either direction I mean)

If there is evidence then we might better understand their motivations. You're commenting on their motivations, ergo it's reasonable to expect you to know something. If all you know is that the media is biased, okay, that's all you know. It doesn't help much though when trying to determine if Joe is right or not.

But, if you can show the evidence then Joe is likely wrong. So, you want to show Joe is wrong, one way would be to show the evidence.

If he is wrong about what? He didn't really claim anything that needs checking.

Paul's comment was about examining the evidence. He could be honest or dishonest, with or without 'playing the outrage card'.

Paul said courts haven't evaluated the evidence sufficiently.

Media insists, quite hotly, that it HAS been. By EVERYONE.

Would you like to read several media stories on how good the election was, or try to understand a dissenting opinion?

"The debate over whether or not there was fraud should occur, we never had any presentation in court where we actually looked at the evidence. Most of the cases were thrown out for lack of standing, which is a procedural way of not actually hearing the question," Paul said

That's clipped from an MSN article. They are as partisan as Paul, but less honest about it.

It's the main thing not refuted by the chorus of 'courts have looked at the evidence'. I mean, unless you simply pretend to know something about Paul's inner workings, and secret motivations.

If you take him at his word, and assume he is being honest, does that change anything for you? What if he is playing the outrage card, AND he is correct about rampant fraud?

If he didn't claim something that needs checking, then why'd you check him? Don't be silly. He is either right or wrong about their motivations. You either know something about those motivations, or you don't.

Providing evidence is just a sure way to cast doubt on Joe's opinion.

Yes, it's possible that no evidence exist and for Joe to be wrong. But there will still be something they consider evidence. So, what's the evidence?

Let's see it here.

[Cunt]

Evidence of what? Be clear, or it won't be worth it.

[Sean Hayden]

That seems incredibly disingenuous.

Evidence of fraud on the scale claimed by Trump.

[Cunt]

That seems incredibly disingenuous.

Evidence of fraud on the scale claimed by Trump.

I didn't claim that was true.

What I'm asking you to consider were Paul's words.

Also, consider that this exchange (hotly reported as Paul spreading disinformation) started with a reporter asking him to 'say the words'.

Paul said very reasonable things in response, including the comment about courts not evaluating the evidence to his satisfaction.

[Sean Hayden]

So, what's the evidence?

[Cunt]

So, what's the evidence?

I'm not sure you understood me.

Evidence of Senator Paul's claims was in that tweet, with included video appearing to show Paul speaking officially.

As to evidence of voter or election fraud, lots of examples available from video to sworn statements.

Evidence of 'enough voter or election fraud' is a tricky one, that would need weighing by experts. Like a court. If they would review it the way Sen. Paul wishes.

Which evidence are you asking me about?

[Sean Hayden]

The evidence which would justify Paul's desire to hold a hearing. The evidence which makes sense of his insistence that we take action. Please tell me it's more than Trump's insistence that he was cheated!

What's the evidence?