3 ms·

I think the truth will eventually come out. I HOPE that those claiming sufficient fraud to effect the election are dead wrong. The alternative would be a nightm

I think the truth will eventually come out. I HOPE that those claiming sufficient fraud to effect the election are dead wrong. The alternative would be a nightmare. That's why the media and big tech shouldn't have buried their head in the sand. "Every single case got struck down by judges" is not a new argument to my ears. Do you think most of those judges heard actual evidence, or were throwing cases out on procedural grounds? Have you considered that question? Has Matt Braynard's work been heard and responded to? What are the responses to these? https://spectator.us/reasons-why-the-2020-presidential-election-is-deeply-puzzling/ https://spectator.us/reasons-why-the-2020-presidential-elect... https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/23/5-more-ways-joe-biden-magically-outperformed-election-norms/ https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/23/5-more-ways-joe-biden-m... Look at this "fact check", does it seem reasonable to you? https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2020/12/fact-check-video-from-ga-does-not-show-suitcases-filled-with-ballots-pulled-from-under-a-table-after-poll-workers-dismissed.html https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2020/12/fact-check-video-... Here's a response to it: https://gellerreport.com/2020/12/no-the-georgia-vote-counting-video-was-not-debunked-not-even-close.html/ https://gellerreport.com/2020/12/no-the-georgia-vote-countin... I think 90% of all these concerns are likely to be dismisable. But they haven't even been examined, and I have a deep and abiding fear of the remaining 10% actually having merit.

efdee 6y ago
Sure, let's throw out rule of law, it's not like we can trust those judges, right?
lovecg 6y ago
Can you point to a single lawsuit that alleged actual fraud?
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
Courts have very specific rules about what constitutes legally admissible evidence. The plaintiff may cry "We have evidence!", but that doesn't mean they have legally admissible evidence. Before the judge will bother to hear the evidence, it has to clear that bar. IIRC, there was an election case in Pennsylvania that made it up to the Federal appeals court. There it was dismissed for lack of evidence. (The opinion was written by a judge appointed by Trump.) You can think of that as "procedural grounds" and "not hearing the evidence", I suppose, but to me it looks like examining the evidence and finding it lacking at the most basic level.
nobody9999 6y ago
>"Every single case got struck down by judges" is not a new argument to my ears. Do you think most of those judges heard actual evidence, or were throwing cases out on procedural grounds? Have you considered that question? Yes. And I even read complaints filed, responses to those complaints, arguments and rulings. And you can too (here's a summary of many of the cases, with links and citations to the actual court documents)[0]. I could tell you what conclusions I drew, but I won't. Don't believe me or anyone else. Read the court documents yourself. They are matters of public record. [0] https://electioncases.osu.edu/2021/01/summary-of-post-election-cases/ https://electioncases.osu.edu/2021/01/summary-of-post-electi...

efdee 6y ago

Sure, let's throw out rule of law, it's not like we can trust those judges, right?

lovecg 6y ago

Can you point to a single lawsuit that alleged actual fraud?

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

Courts have very specific rules about what constitutes legally admissible evidence. The plaintiff may cry "We have evidence!", but that doesn't mean they have legally admissible evidence. Before the judge will bother to hear the evidence, it has to clear that bar. IIRC, there was an election case in Pennsylvania that made it up to the Federal appeals court. There it was dismissed for lack of evidence. (The opinion was written by a judge appointed by Trump.) You can think of that as "procedural grounds" and "not hearing the evidence", I suppose, but to me it looks like examining the evidence and finding it lacking at the most basic level.

nobody9999 6y ago

>"Every single case got struck down by judges" is not a new argument to my ears. Do you think most of those judges heard actual evidence, or were throwing cases out on procedural grounds? Have you considered that question? Yes. And I even read complaints filed, responses to those complaints, arguments and rulings. And you can too (here's a summary of many of the cases, with links and citations to the actual court documents)[0]. I could tell you what conclusions I drew, but I won't. Don't believe me or anyone else. Read the court documents yourself. They are matters of public record. [0] https://electioncases.osu.edu/2021/01/summary-of-post-election-cases/ https://electioncases.osu.edu/2021/01/summary-of-post-electi...