I'm saying that if you actually believe that elections won in compliance with the legal rules at the time of the election are, in fact, stolen elections, you ho

I'm saying that if you actually believe that elections won in compliance with the legal rules at the time of the election are, in fact, stolen elections, you hold an incredibly radical opinion. The terms of the election in the US are to win the electoral college. Campaigns, money, candidates, all of the efforts involved are done with the shared understanding that that is the goal. If the goal was to win the popular vote, or any other metric, then the entire arc of polticians who have presidential aspirations would be different, and many who would have won the electoral college and lost the popular vote would in fact win the popular vote instead or whatever metric you have in mind. You don't have to agree with the electoral college's system to understand that if someone wins an election based on the rules defined up front, they have won the election, and that those that achieved other measures of electoral support in that election have lost, since those measures were not the goal of the candidate to achieve. To think that not only is this not the case, but that the election was "stolen", goes even beyond being radical, it's entirely irrational, as it would be if you said a baseball game was "stolen" by the team with the most runs but failed to secure the most hits. It's very likely that if that winning team knew that hits was the goal, and not runs, that they'd have won under those rules as well.