It's not so much that I don't trust the election results ...

Ah. yes. If I put "MuH" in front of something, I MUST be correct!

lol

Exactly
lmao

You mean the fraud that was proven by independent investigators in 4 states?

Not enough fraud was ever proven to determine Trump would’ve won.

The range of claims go deeper than simply no fraud at all to some fraud to an organized attempt to overturn the election, to enough to overturn the election.

It’s never been proven there was ever enough yo overturn, let alone an organized attempt beyond isolated hacking incidents or last minute election law changes due a pandemic.

Yes it was proven multiple times in multiple states, but judges refuse to see the evidence. The evidence in 2000 mules itself is the easiest proof to verify. Shouldn't they have investigated it immediately?

You really ought to see a doctor about your hallucinations.

First, judges don’t investigate crimes; law enforcement does.

Second, there WAS an investigation that culminated in 2000 mules film. Investigative journalism is still a form of investigation. The evidence from the film, while popular among stolen election claimers, was still not conclusive nor substantial enough to press charges nor open an actual case.

The so-called evidence was that there were multiple people who worked around or near voting areas, including government officials, police offers, and volunteers passed by the same public thoroughway multiple times a day, which is where most voting locations are. Public libraries, police stations, and other government buildings.

There was nothing abnormal about that.

The same people from 1000 mules could have easily tracked that cellphone data on any other day, before or after the elections concluded, and gotten mostly the same results.

Sorry, but visiting and dropping off multiple votes at multiple drop boxes on video is definitely enough evidence to start an investigation. It may have been a legitimate legal thing to do, but it was enough to start an investigation. They have thousands of those videos which they turned over to law enforcement which did nothing. Corrupt DA can stop the whole process.

If it was legitimate and legal, then it wouldn’t be viewed as suspicious enough to make an investigation.

There needs to be a suspicion.

Statistics and your preferred candidate losing is not enough evidence.

That was pretty much what the courts concluded. Enough time has passed for an inquiry from local governments. There have been such inquiries. All investigations have concluded no such widespread fraud.

What HAS been concluded is that enough mail-in ballots DID significantly influence the election. Most state election laws have changed to prevent that.

You mean the lie you made up just now?

Nope. Facts. You should try them sometime.

LMAO you haven't tried them in years 😂

MMMMMM

the "fraud" that was "proven"

Yes proven by everyone except the corrupt judges.

Is the fraud with us in the room right now?

2000 mules. Mountains of evidence, signed affidavits. Please keep up.

As has been stated, 2000 mules proved nothing.

If it did, Trump would be President right now.

There are hundreds of legislators that believe the election was stolen.

… and they’ve done nothing but parrot this as if it was fact. If it were a fact, there would be thousands of people in jail at the very least. Not the scraping of a dozens across a handful of states.

Con artists with literally zero evidence (and in the case of 2000 Gullible Magats, a map of Moscow falsely presented as Atlanta).

Judges don’t prove fraud. Law enforcement and lawyers do. Law enforcement found no evidence and lawyers submitted either flimsy evidence or pages of signed witnesses who had claimed to witness something but had no real understanding of what it was they witnessed and wrongfully concluded what was witnessed was criminal.

No, law enforcement didn't look for fraud and the lawyers (DA) chose not to pursue it, despite direct evidence and signed affidavits that carry a prison sentence if found to be false. Normally this would be enough to get a court to start a case, but the DA (a democrat or anti-Trump republican) decided not to. Even if there wasn't any fraud, there was enough evidence to start a case, which didn't happen.
So justice is dead.

Proven to everyone besides people who wanted Trump out of office so badly that they didn't care how it was done or if he actually lost. "What we decide is the greater good overrides everyone else."

I’m sorry but the people who don’t care how it was done or if they actually lost are the people who claimed that if Trump lost, it must’ve been due to massive fraud and nothing else.

I agree at least that there are a large number of people who want to believe one way or another that Trump could only lose due to corruption and another who don’t really care about any evidence provided.

But it seems to me that the evidence is against Trump considering what little has been provided to prove his claim could easily be explained or at the very least debunked.

Especially in court.

Fraud is a crime. Let me know when a court of law determines the election was stolen.

Facts... Not feelings.

A court of law that throws out cases before hearing them? That's where your faith in facts lies?

Hey if y'all don't trust the court of law anymore, cool.... I will remember that.

Well its kinda hard to trust people when nobody in America can see past two political parties anymore and everyone has a personal bias. But I actually provided a reason why their conclusion was BS and your retort was to bring up their status. Is it fair for me to assume you wouldn't use the same logic to defend the Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade?

"you ever heard of Liz Cheney? Not all right-wingers believe election fraud is possible."

Sure. She is one of the few who doesn't seem to constantly have trump's d*ck in her mouth. Unfortunately Republicans are now the party of trump so she got cancelled. But anywho... did she actually say that she doesn't believe election fraud is possible? Or did she just say she doesn't think it happened in this case?

"when a court makes a decision you don’t like, it’s a meticulously maliciously and painstakingly planned evil act"

You have either not been paying attention or you are not interested in having an honest conversation anymore.. or both.

1. I never said anything about "evil"...so you seem to just be throwing words in my mouth.

2. Installing judges for this definitely been a plan for quite a while. Mitch McConnell, who has helped accomplish this plan over the years, said that after trump got elected in 2016 the first thing that came to his mind: "the supreme court". A week later the head of the conservative Federalist Society sat down with trump to discuss a list of 6 potential right-wing nominees. Before trump even got elected, he had campaigned on installing a list of specific judges picked by the Federalist society. The list included all kinds of justices... all of them anti abortion. For example William Pryor from Alabama, who had written that Roe v Wade “created out of thin air – a constitutional right to murder an unborn child”. And William's views aren't any different from the rest of 'em. Anywho after Ginsburg died retrumplicans chanted "Fill.. that... seat". Trump did of course .. and almost immediately after he installed them, they overturned it. Coincidence no doubt!

Also while we're on topic ....mark my words... This sh*t has nothing to do with "states rights". That's a flat out lie. Republicans want a nationwide ban and always have. I understand Lindsey Graham has already tried to make a step in that direction.

I'm not blind to the idea that judges just like anyone else can be biased. However considering those judges were installed by the right, their personal bias regarding his presidency would theoretically tip it in his FAVOR.... not against him.

And Roe V Wade... you serious..? The entire reason the supreme court judges were installed in the first place was specifically to overturn Roe V Wade. Republicans have been blatantly working for decades toward packing the supreme court with their judges (and blocking democrat picks) specifically for that purpose.

Beyond that, abortion is more of a morality question..... whereas the "stolen" election is more of a question of facts... (it either happened or it did not).

you ever heard of Liz Cheney? Not all right-wingers believe election fraud is possible.

Hmm, so basically when a court makes a decision you don’t like, it’s a meticulously maliciously and painstakingly planned evil act.

Well that I can agree with. Which is why you should be MORE hesitant to have a pre-conclusion on a question of facts. Morality questions are for people to sort out in their heads over time and either learn more about why they support what they support or change their mind.

You actually didn’t provide any reason their conclusion was BS.

Courts throw out cases all the time when there is a significant lack of evidence.

Most of the cases you were referring to pleased for judges to suspend the election so that a more thorough investigation to lead to more conclusive evidence that the election was rigged.

That’s just not how things are done.

The election officials who were in charge of election security who are the ones who have such power claimed there were not enough irregularities to conduct a more thorough investigation nor challenge the result of the individual state elections.

Roe v Wade was an individual mistake but I suspect dark_yolo, like myself, do not claim the whole system is corrupt simply because a bad ruling was made by 5 judges, two of them that shouldn’t even be on that panel in the first place.

The difference is I understand judges make bad rulings all the time but I don’t think every bad ruling, even the RvW one was due to corruption nor even the judges being poor arbiters of Justice as a whole. I’d say they had poor conclusions that were certainly politically motivated that will have monumental ramifications in the next decade on our legislation on Abortion but that’s not entirely a bad thing. What will be terrible is the loss of access to certain medications and procedures that have nothing to do with aborting a pregnancy to some women who might need them in order to avoid pain and suffering, even if the intent is to not abort at all!; or that decision that should be made by the doctor, patient, or both has now been declined by bureaucratic law from ignorant legislators who care about one thing but nothing else.

They didn’t have a conclusion. That was my point. They had a prejudice before they even read the cases. They legit said that they should’ve read the cases before throwing them out just to curb the public criticism, but that they would’ve thrown them out anyway. They literally admitted they didn’t even care what the case was, they were going to throw it out even if they saw it but they didn’t even need to.

Hmm, but delaying elections because some people want to change the system to give extra votes to Democrats is how things are done? That’s what they tried on Trump in 2016. The man wasn’t officially the president until December 19 because they had people trying to change the system. They weren’t even saying voter fraud was a problem, they just didn’t like the election result and wanted it changed. Both times Bush was elected he had to settle that he actually won to court and couldn’t have a victory party. But when Obama or Biden win (especially this Biden “win), the media tries to move on from the topic of elections altogether.

But the court that threw out the cases was done by a few people. Also, who shouldn’t be on the panel?

i think i’ve made my stance on abortion pretty clear, any healthcare is fine as long as it doesn’t murder any babies. though there are some sneaky terms they have for medications that are just really another form of abortion. i do support that decision as it isn’t as radical as the media is making it out to be.

Same court that supposedly finally got you that abortion win?

You’d think if the courts were on Democrats side that wouldn’t happen.

except, like darko_yolo said, abortion is more of a morality question than a “did it or did it not happen” question.

And people like Liz Cheney exist

Or you just don’t know how courts work.

Judging by your comments, stances, etc; that appears to be the case.

Occam’s razor.

Facts are not on your side.

As the philosophy generally goes, if you've done nothing wrong and got nothing to hide, it shouldn't matter to you if people go looking.

Did you not see the meme of me happily eating the popcorn?

Every time they lose another recount, audit, lawsuit, etc it's like Biden winning again. For months and months some clown here (I forget who) would keep telling me "oh after X happens, Fraud will be proven... Trump will be reinstated!". Lol

I would've made that clown makeup meme about it, except that meme only has what... 4 slides(?). I would've needed 10+ to portray what happened. By now that clown would be absolutely buried in makeup.

The only way for trump to get in office again is to run and win in 2024.