3 ms·

You can dispute whatever you want, but by every legal process, your "dispute" has been settled. When does it end? That's of course ignoring the fact that Repu

You can dispute whatever you want, but by every legal process, your "dispute" has been settled. When does it end? That's of course ignoring the fact that Republicans actually gained seats in the house, that Trump would have to overturn the results in multiple states, that said states have Republican leadership overseeing the election. But here we are. Fact is, at some point (now) your claims of "dispute" are no longer worth entertaining. Literally have not had a single victory in court (but over 60 losses). These cases are being thrown out by Republican judges, judges appointed by Trump even. What is your standard of evidence?

disgrunt 6y ago
> You can dispute whatever you want, but by every legal process, your "dispute" has been settled. When does it end? The Constitution sets no statute of limitation under the First Amendment to petition the government for a redress of grievances. > That's of course ignoring the fact that Republicans actually gained seats in the house,... How often do you think this happens? That a president will gain seats in Congress and still lose re-election? > Fact is, at some point (now) your claims of "dispute" are no longer worth entertaining. Are you not entertained? > Literally have not had a single victory in court (but over 60 losses). These cases are being thrown out by Republican judges, judges appointed by Trump even. What is your standard of evidence? Almost all of these court cases were dismissed for procedure, jurisdiction or standing reasons and not for the merits of the case. Is that your evidence? [0] But since you asked, here's an exhaustive compilation. [1] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related... [1]: https://hereistheevidence.com https://hereistheevidence.com
- jonnycomputer 6y ago
  >> That's of course ignoring the fact that Republicans actually gained seats in the house,... >How often do you think this happens? That a president will gain seats in Congress and still lose re-election? Given the non-linearity of the Electoral College, Trump's historically low approval numbers, the difference in geographic and institutional levels between Presidential and House elections, and over-the-top gerrymandering, I don't think that its so unlikely to be suspicious. In the last 100 years, only four or five incumbents lost re-election, so empirically there just isn't enough data to establish a frequency (and even then, lots has changed, in the last 100 years, so who knows, right?). So what you really have is a mental model that says if a party wins in Congress they should win in the Presidential too. Well, in 1960, John Kennedy won, but the Democrats lost 21 House seats, and in 1992 Bill Clinton won the White House and the Dems lost 9 seats in the house, and in in 2000 George Bush won the White House and the Republican Party lost 2 seats in the House, in 2016 Donald Trump won, and the Republican Party lost six seats. I might also mention all those Republican governors in blue states... I know what you are going to say. That doesn't match the exact scenario where an incumbent lost but their party gained seat. But you need to justify why that particular scenario is relevantly different than ones that have already been known to have occurred.
  - SidneyFalco 6y ago
    Seesh, tilt at windmills much? The time for debating is clearly over, it's time to tool up. It's what they want, and what this will come down to, sooner or later; I prefer sooner to get it out of the way. If they didn't want it to come to this, they could have postponed eating their cake long enough to actually investigate the fraud. They didn't. It's just the straw that broke this camel's back, and I hope you realize they don't listen to anything other than the droning hum of the 'group'.
  - jonnycomputer 6y ago
    I'm sure the above was downvoted because it was not a substantive contribution to the discussion /s
    - disgrunt 6y ago
      I get downvoted for expressing these unpopular views, too. For the record, you make good points and I don't think you should havebeen downvoted.
- jonnycomputer 6y ago
  In almost none of those cases did the Plaintiffs actually present evidence of fraud. In fact, in many cases, when asked, the lawyers explicitly denied that they were fraud cases. So if the evidence was so strong, why wasn't it presented to the court? Your 2cd best bet is to blame incompetent lawyers, but my money is on the crappy quality of the so-called evidence. Like where they said Michigan counties over-counted but they counties were actually in Minnesota.

disgrunt 6y ago

> You can dispute whatever you want, but by every legal process, your "dispute" has been settled. When does it end? The Constitution sets no statute of limitation under the First Amendment to petition the government for a redress of grievances. > That's of course ignoring the fact that Republicans actually gained seats in the house,... How often do you think this happens? That a president will gain seats in Congress and still lose re-election? > Fact is, at some point (now) your claims of "dispute" are no longer worth entertaining. Are you not entertained? > Literally have not had a single victory in court (but over 60 losses). These cases are being thrown out by Republican judges, judges appointed by Trump even. What is your standard of evidence? Almost all of these court cases were dismissed for procedure, jurisdiction or standing reasons and not for the merits of the case. Is that your evidence? [0] But since you asked, here's an exhaustive compilation. [1] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related... [1]: https://hereistheevidence.com https://hereistheevidence.com

jonnycomputer 6y ago
>> That's of course ignoring the fact that Republicans actually gained seats in the house,... >How often do you think this happens? That a president will gain seats in Congress and still lose re-election? Given the non-linearity of the Electoral College, Trump's historically low approval numbers, the difference in geographic and institutional levels between Presidential and House elections, and over-the-top gerrymandering, I don't think that its so unlikely to be suspicious. In the last 100 years, only four or five incumbents lost re-election, so empirically there just isn't enough data to establish a frequency (and even then, lots has changed, in the last 100 years, so who knows, right?). So what you really have is a mental model that says if a party wins in Congress they should win in the Presidential too. Well, in 1960, John Kennedy won, but the Democrats lost 21 House seats, and in 1992 Bill Clinton won the White House and the Dems lost 9 seats in the house, and in in 2000 George Bush won the White House and the Republican Party lost 2 seats in the House, in 2016 Donald Trump won, and the Republican Party lost six seats. I might also mention all those Republican governors in blue states... I know what you are going to say. That doesn't match the exact scenario where an incumbent lost but their party gained seat. But you need to justify why that particular scenario is relevantly different than ones that have already been known to have occurred.
- SidneyFalco 6y ago
  Seesh, tilt at windmills much? The time for debating is clearly over, it's time to tool up. It's what they want, and what this will come down to, sooner or later; I prefer sooner to get it out of the way. If they didn't want it to come to this, they could have postponed eating their cake long enough to actually investigate the fraud. They didn't. It's just the straw that broke this camel's back, and I hope you realize they don't listen to anything other than the droning hum of the 'group'.
- jonnycomputer 6y ago
  I'm sure the above was downvoted because it was not a substantive contribution to the discussion /s
  - disgrunt 6y ago
    I get downvoted for expressing these unpopular views, too. For the record, you make good points and I don't think you should havebeen downvoted.
jonnycomputer 6y ago
In almost none of those cases did the Plaintiffs actually present evidence of fraud. In fact, in many cases, when asked, the lawyers explicitly denied that they were fraud cases. So if the evidence was so strong, why wasn't it presented to the court? Your 2cd best bet is to blame incompetent lawyers, but my money is on the crappy quality of the so-called evidence. Like where they said Michigan counties over-counted but they counties were actually in Minnesota.