jtxxwl
Maybe some would. But I'll tell you, if the democrats wanted it to look like they were running a fair election despite their vitriolic hatred of Trump, they could have done quite a few things differently. For one, the measures they put in place to reduce the spread of the coronavirus were an absolutely unprecedented obstruction of the ability of observers to watch the process. An election observer should be able to see everything every election worker does as closely as the election worker sees it. If they wanted the other party to believe the results, they would have found some other way.
>This whole election fraud this is a Trump invention.
How does your assertion that Trump said election fraud first mean my statements of fact rely on his word for their validity? Can you answer the actual question I asked? (You can't)
>He knew he was going to lose
According to the official tallies, he lost by a combined total of 42,976 votes across three states (if AZ, GA, and WI went Trump, it would have resulted in a 269-269 tie). How could anyone have known he was going to lose, unless they were part of a coordinated effort to fix the election against him?
They seem pretty reasonable to me, having looked at the numbers.
The Cuban community is the only community of fairly recent immigrants of which I'm aware that doesn't reliably vote for democrats, on the whole. Outside of Florida, their votes do not make Hispanic votes in general swing toward republicans.
Hispanic votes for republicans may have increased this year, but they are still absolutely nowhere near 50/50.
My understanding of the Epoch Times is that it's run by anti-CCP Chinese, and not very representative of Asians in general.
Listing single individuals is not relevant when the topic is how a community votes.
I think probably several different kinds of election fraud took place because observers were too far away. If election observers are 6 feet away, they can't read the letters written on a piece of paper, so can't tell if an election worker is, for instance, allowing someone to vote multiple times and crossing off some other name instead, or accepting a ballot with a signature that doesn't match the voter's records. If election observers are 20 feet away, they can't even tell if there's any writing on a piece of paper, so election workers can let through blank mail in envelopes, or switch papers around, or put papers in the wrong box, or pull papers from a box into the wrong stack.
>coordinated fraud
Do you think it's implausible that a group of people that have all been selected at some level by democrat politicians, who have a deep seated hatred of Trump, would have some difficulty coordinating to engage in illegal activity?
>because an election official was watching from too far away
No, election observers were too far away. I do not trust election officials in these controversial areas, because they are, at some level, there because democrat politicians want them to be.
>And no hard evidence of this conspiracy anywhere exists, but it totally happened.
I don't know if it exists at this point. Some forms of election fraud would be very easy to get away with carrying out without any evidence remaining. How would you ever know if an election worker got two mail in envelopes, one obviously fake and the other real but from a part of town that goes heavily republican, took the inner contents of the fake one and put it in the good pile, and took the inner contents of the real one and put it in the bad pile? If an observer couldn't tell it was happening, how could anyone find out after the fact? How hard would it be for a box of invalid election materials to never be found again? Do you think the FBI is rummaging through the garbage of all of these facilities?
>Is this your position?
Allow me to turn it around on you. Is it your position that it would be unjustified for the democrat election officials and workers to cheat to make sure Trump lost, given the list of things they (I assume sincerely) believe about him that I posted above? (Owned by Putin, elected due to russian interference, climate change, women's rights, racial hatred, border separations, voter suppression, undermining democracy, etc etc)
There is far too much opportunity for the election workers to cheat for me to trust them if they aren't closely observed, no matter what they say afterward. That's why observers were put there in the first place.
If the elections workers are not good at cheating, they may leave behind evidence, but a lack of evidence would not be convincing to me, because not all forms of election fraud will necessarily leave behind evidence, and there is too much opportunity for them to get rid of it.
I don't have any reason to believe it would be possible to prove in a court that election fraud took place at this point, outside of confessions. That doesn't mean it didn't take place, or that it isn't reasonable to believe it took place.
I don't think you read my comment. My point is not to prove anything in court, or to argue that anything related to the election can be proved in court. It is to argue that it's completely reasonable for right-leaning people to doubt the integrity of the election. Probably you are aware that a lot of crimes are very difficult to prove in court. That doesn't mean they didn't happen, or that people should not believe they happened.
>Don't spam us with links and tell us to "look at the evidence".
I did neither of those things.
>That's what the courts are for.
I have no standing in court to sue anyone over this.
>If Trump is so certain that he's right, he should say all he's saying under oath. Surely he's brave enough to do that right?
I don't know or care how certain Trump is of anything. I know many on the political right are certain, for excellent reasons, that the Democrats were motivated to bias the election against Trump, and had the ability to do so, and so many on the right are not going to trust the results.
>But compared to that complex story
Is cheating in elections really a complex story from your point of view? It happens all of the time across the globe.
>"liar continues lying" is far more likely.
Can you point out something I've said that relies on taking Trump's word for something?
That is not the only thing, but that is the big one for me.
Of course if Trump had won, I would have trusted that the election was not rigged in his favor by Democrats even given the restrictions on observers, because I don't know of any plausible reason why they might have done so.
If you're arguing in a court case that the election was conducted illegitimately and should be overturned, then yes of course you are correct that the onus is on you to make your case, and there will be a somewhat high standard of evidence required.
If you're trying to convince some random person one way or another, then of course the onus is on you to provide arguments, and the standard of evidence is basically whatever can be convincing to your audience.