Of course we have, but they just throw it in the trash quickly

More to the point, the judges say that you never brought evidence to the court.

70 judges. Many of them appointed by the exact president you were trying to defend.

Not listening to evidence isn't the same thing as not having evidence.

mhm

Sure. But the court documents don't say "la la la we're not listening", they say "the plaintiffs had no evidence, just a bunch of inadmissible nonsense".

Which is what we've all been telling you this entire time.

This falls into the category of repeating a story until it becomes fact. If any leftist actually believed there was no cheating in the election they would be screaming the loudest for the cases to be heard.
The sheer pants popoping terror all the judges had at getting involved is more than enough proof that something is up. There's exactly one reason why everyone would hide their heads in the sand.
Trump got investigated for 5 years cause Hillary Clinton bought a bullspit dossier from a former KGB operative. The left doesn't mind investing things with no evidence.
Lack of evidence doesn't keep stuff outta court. Lack of evidence woulda got the cases INTO courts. Terror at evidence possible entering the official record is the only reason to bury your head in the sand...

You are allowed to use the reply link to my most recent comment, by the way.

The courts DID hear your cases. They were all thrown out for being garbage. I've read the rulings, if anyone's to blame here it's the lack of professionalism in the lawyers representing your side of the story BUT THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO PUSH NONSENSE THROUGH THE COURTS - NO GOOD LAWYER WILL TOUCH IT WITH A SIXTY FOOT BARGEPOLL.

If any of that was true: the courts woulda jumped at the chance to try the cases. We'd still be hearing about long, drawn out, BS court cases. The left loves investing nothing for years on end if it'll make Trumpy look bad. Which would be easy... if there was no evidence...

Not if your case wasn't up to basic legal standards, they wouldna.

I've already established the illegality of the Pennsylvania election. The mere use of executive orders to change the election immediately before the election is all I need.
What the changes were is immaterial. Its automatically illegal.
The left wing argument for not hearing the case:
"You have a body and a confession, but the confession wasn't properly notarized." Is itself evidence of malfeasance.

NO YOU HAVEN'T! THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT OF ALL THIS!!!!

Rather than explain the complexity of judicial misconduct to you I'll use a specific case to make my point.
In Pennsylvania, the hard left governor used illegal executive orders to change election law immediately before the election. The Pennsylvania constitution explicitly states that only a constitutional amendment can change election law. So the changes were automatically and unquestionably illegal.
The courts that refused to hear these cases didn't argue that illegal executive orders were legal. Thet said they didn't wanna throw out illegal votes for fear of upsetting voters.

State supreme courts AND federal appeals courts decided that the election law changes were legal and they noted that nobody filed the complaint about the changes until after they already lost. There was no fear to it, read the court rulings and it's really very clear that their decision was based on clear legalism.

Election law even in Pennsylvania is a patchwork of municipal, county, and state law, so I don't know where you got the idea that only a state constitutional amendment is valid. Probably the same person who told you that this was an executive order from the governor.

Again your sheer terror is the only thing I need to know. If you believed Illegal executive orders were constitutional you'd be screaming the loudest for the cases to be heard.
But of course, by definition, changing election law immediately before the election is illegal. And the only way to cover up "something."

70 court cases and y'all couldn't even get one vote ruled as illegal. Not. One.

Never mind hundreds of thousands - if you had clear evidence of fraud, where's the case that got even one vote stricken down?

Again refusing to hear a case because of fear that evidence will enter the public records is evidence of "something" being up.
You guys would be screaming the loudest for trials if you actually believed any of your nonsense.

They DID hear the case. Then they threw it out because it wasn't good enough. It IS in the public record - I've read it!

Throwing it outta court isn't hearing it. But that's ok. You can't be expected to understand US law.

Yes it is!

"Ok, let's hear it: what's your case."

"Executive orders at the last minute..."

"Which one?"

"The one that said to count ballots as they come in."

"That's fine. Ok, next docket, let's move along."

What's not heard about that?

Saying you have evidence is not the same as actually haveing it.

There seems to be some confusion about this these days.

Wubzy is a Lil kid, trying to cut his political teeth, utilizing his parents talking points.

I like that he is kind of using what he's learning at school to apply it to these discussions. I think that's a good thing for a student to do in parallel with what they're learning, so that it keeps perspective on how it all fits together in the big picture.

I think it's also good to remind students that there's still a lot to learn, that nothing is ever that simple, especially if you're ever just repeating what the older folk tell you to repeat - I would like to see Wubbzy continue to challenge himself in that regard.

But I respect that he's trying! I like that he puts in the work of trying to understand. You get a lot of folk on here who think it doesn't even matter who's right and who's wrong as long as you are pushier when you say it - I respect Wubbzy for being, underneath it all, someone who does want to know more.

Agreed, but it is tough to make points when one doesnt understand the whole "big picture" of things.

Yes and no. I think politics loses a lot when we say that only a certain calibre of training or experience must be applied before you're allowed to at least take part in the conversation. That said, there's always more to learn about the big picture, and that's as true for the most senior of us as it is for the debutants.