Reply #125: so disappointing [View All]

[m berst]

I got the impression that the op was saying that given that we have a feeling that it was stolen, let's imagine and speculate as to how they may have done it. If you don't want to accept the given for the sake of this exercise, then you have disqualified yourself from this discussion.

It didn't seem like an invitation to argue about proof, or about whether the election was or wasn't stolen blah, blah.

This whole business of "prove it to me before I will consider it" is asinine in any case IMHO. You can never prove anything that is already outside of your willingness for consideration at the outset.

So, given that it was stolen, and given what we know, how might they have done it? Not did they do it. How might they have?