> this is a contradiction. > If every election has some shady things happen then it's not possible for every bit of shadiness to be explained as anything other

> this is a contradiction. > If every election has some shady things happen then it's not possible for every bit of shadiness to be explained as anything other than shadiness. > So was there shadiness or wasn't there? I didn't say that there was absolutely no shadiness, but I haven't seen evidence that there was more shadiness than in any other election. The "evidence" brought forth for Trumps position that I've seen hasn't held up to scrutiny. > A lot of it can be explained away, which is why I said the hanging chad issue was a bigger problem. but ALL of it? I don't think so, even at the time there were a few things that gave me pause. You're free to share them if you'd like. All I'm saying is that I'm not aware of evidence brought forward that holds up to scrutiny, which leads me to believe that there was no significant deviation from the norm - the simpler explanation is that being primed for months by somebody with a lot of sway, combined with the strong distrust in non-partisan media, has led to these heaps of non-evidence (again, as far as I've seen, I'm happy to be proven wrong).