3 ms·

I don't believe any of the electoral fraud claims were actually judged... it's all been rejected for a lack of standing. People saying courts rejected the fraud

I don't believe any of the electoral fraud claims were actually judged... it's all been rejected for a lack of standing. People saying courts rejected the fraud claims are generally mistaken, because the evidence never got presented.

mewse 6y ago
Were there actually any fraud claims in court? I seem to recall that when actually in court, the attorneys were all very careful to explain that they weren't making any claims of fraud.
cmurf 6y ago
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... Not all for lack of standing. The evidence that has been presented for fraud is ordinary and could not have affected the outcome of the election. That's consistent with what every one of the ~3000 county clerks in the U.S. will tell you about every election. A much bigger issue is election fraud including voter suppression. What has pissed off Republicans this time around, is expansive mail-in balloting as a result of COVID mitigation. It managed to expand the voting pool against their wishes by making it generally easier for people to vote. It's difficult for judges to look at this and go, "ok so your legislative intent is to make it hard for some people to vote, but these are still legally cast votes per the legislature's own legislation, and you just don't like the outcome so you want me to disenfranchise them?" That's a no. A judge isn't going to do that.
- no-s 6y ago
  >> The evidence that has been presented for fraud is ordinary and could not have affected the outcome of the election. I feel this is a dangerous cop-out. Some people feel this should be examined[1]. The evidence of actual problems in the election is suppressed by refusal to allow court proceedings and audit. This in turn renders remarks like yours more anecdotal than quantifiable. I'm not saying this is Venezuela, but there does indeed appear there are trout in the milk. [1]https://hereistheevidence.com https://hereistheevidence.com
  - cmurf 6y ago
    All of what you wrote is bullshit. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You are using language to evoke an emotional response to manipulate the reader into feeling that there is a problem, rather than identifying a specific problem in order to mitigate that specific problem. The language you are using is indistinguishable from anti-democratic propaganda. This is reliable material about the voter fraud myth. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/debunking-voter-fraud-myth https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/debu... As for your URL, more bullshit. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/here-is-the-evidence/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/here-is-the-evidence/
    - no-s 6y ago
      >>All of what you wrote is bullshit. >>Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Technically, mediabiasfactcheck used no actual evidence to dispute the veracity of "here is the evidence", only an assertion of "bias" against the sources. The Brennan Center report only asserts that other claims of evidence are false, not the ones in link I posted. Also it's rife with other tedious rhetorical fallacy. I can't see how you can make the leap without support. In fact, your arguments and the way you present your arguments seem to impeach the honesty of your claim. (edit, since OP is apparently assuming I am a concern troll because my point was not clear to OP) Perhaps you have a polite and actually specific refutation to "here is the evidence"? Your comments seem deliberately demeaning and do not appear to have any actual substance.
      - cmurf 6y ago
        >Perhaps you have a polite and actually specific refutation? No I don't. And, you have not provided a specific allegation to refute. You have expressed vague concern that is dire. You are a concern troll. Bye.

mewse 6y ago

Were there actually any fraud claims in court? I seem to recall that when actually in court, the attorneys were all very careful to explain that they weren't making any claims of fraud.

cmurf 6y ago

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... Not all for lack of standing. The evidence that has been presented for fraud is ordinary and could not have affected the outcome of the election. That's consistent with what every one of the ~3000 county clerks in the U.S. will tell you about every election. A much bigger issue is election fraud including voter suppression. What has pissed off Republicans this time around, is expansive mail-in balloting as a result of COVID mitigation. It managed to expand the voting pool against their wishes by making it generally easier for people to vote. It's difficult for judges to look at this and go, "ok so your legislative intent is to make it hard for some people to vote, but these are still legally cast votes per the legislature's own legislation, and you just don't like the outcome so you want me to disenfranchise them?" That's a no. A judge isn't going to do that.

no-s 6y ago
>> The evidence that has been presented for fraud is ordinary and could not have affected the outcome of the election. I feel this is a dangerous cop-out. Some people feel this should be examined[1]. The evidence of actual problems in the election is suppressed by refusal to allow court proceedings and audit. This in turn renders remarks like yours more anecdotal than quantifiable. I'm not saying this is Venezuela, but there does indeed appear there are trout in the milk. [1]https://hereistheevidence.com https://hereistheevidence.com
- cmurf 6y ago
  All of what you wrote is bullshit. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You are using language to evoke an emotional response to manipulate the reader into feeling that there is a problem, rather than identifying a specific problem in order to mitigate that specific problem. The language you are using is indistinguishable from anti-democratic propaganda. This is reliable material about the voter fraud myth. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/debunking-voter-fraud-myth https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/debu... As for your URL, more bullshit. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/here-is-the-evidence/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/here-is-the-evidence/
  - no-s 6y ago
    >>All of what you wrote is bullshit. >>Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Technically, mediabiasfactcheck used no actual evidence to dispute the veracity of "here is the evidence", only an assertion of "bias" against the sources. The Brennan Center report only asserts that other claims of evidence are false, not the ones in link I posted. Also it's rife with other tedious rhetorical fallacy. I can't see how you can make the leap without support. In fact, your arguments and the way you present your arguments seem to impeach the honesty of your claim. (edit, since OP is apparently assuming I am a concern troll because my point was not clear to OP) Perhaps you have a polite and actually specific refutation to "here is the evidence"? Your comments seem deliberately demeaning and do not appear to have any actual substance.
    - cmurf 6y ago
      >Perhaps you have a polite and actually specific refutation? No I don't. And, you have not provided a specific allegation to refute. You have expressed vague concern that is dire. You are a concern troll. Bye.