[AmericanChopper]

The facts of this case are quite clearly in dispute, so to make a judgement about which of those facts are accurate and which aren’t is rather clearly taking a partisan political position.

This whole fact obsession has gotten completely out of hand. Presiding over disputed matters of fact is pretty much the core purpose of our entire court system. You can’t just call something a fact and be done with it. What you’ve actually described is a collection of opinions, and then declared them settled facts by referencing some of the people that hold them.

I know people get terribly riled up by politics, but they’re just losing sight of any form of reasonableness. Having an unaccountable central authority decide what’s true and what’s not is literally one of the most canonical forms of dystopia that exists.

[monsieurbanana]

I thought many (most?) US courts had already ruled against widespread voting fraud, and that so far there was no evidence presented.

How is it still "quite clearly in dispute"?

> Having an unaccountable central authority decide what’s true and what’s not

This part of your comment is highly ironic.

[AmericanChopper]

For reasons such as "should have filed before the election". There is a significant volume of claims pending action before the supreme court, including one rather large case filed by the Texas AG, and joined by a number of other state AGs. This rule prohibits the discussion of unapproved narratives about the merits of any of those cases. In any case, anybody who believes they have no merits can happily wait for the supreme court to confirm that. No need for mass partisan political censorship.

I'm not at all sure why you think my comment is so ironic either, so please feel free to explain.

[monsieurbanana]

I googled "court ruling against voting fraud" and read through articles Nevada, Pensylvannia and Michigan. None of those fit your "should have filed before the election" narrative. The closest thing I found was:

> Pennsylvania’s top court on Nov. 28 dismissed the challenge, saying that the lawsuit was not filed in a timely manner when the mail-in voting law was first enacted. It threw out a lower court ruling that had ordered the state not to certify the election pending a hearing.

But this is not about widespread fraud, this is about mail-in voting laws.

I don't know what's a reputable website for USA political news, feel free to tell me if I'm reading overly biased junk:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2020/12/09/nevada-...

https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election-court-pennsylva...

https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/...

> I'm not at all sure why you think my comment is so ironic either, so please feel free to explain.

Trump calling it a win the night of the election is, no matter how you spin it, very close to your "unaccountable central authority" deciding what’s true and what’s not. So your final point seems correct, just pointed in the wrong direction.

[AmericanChopper]

Minnesota and Pennsylvania both dismissed cases saying they should have been filed before the election. Essentially kicking them to the Supreme Court to rule on constitutionality, should the plaintiffs choose to pursue it that far. I’d also like to remind everybody that Bush’s election was potentially decided by the Supreme Court over ruling the Florida Supreme Court, so trying to claim that matters like these are settled in lower courts is really just ignorant of how our justice system works. It’s probably also worth mentioning that many people claimed at the time (and still do) that Gore was the true winner of that election. I’ve never heard anybody claim people with those opinions were spreading misinformation, nor that they needed large tech companies to censor the debates they were having about the topic.

> Trump calling it a win the night of the election is, no matter how you spin it, very close to your "unaccountable central authority" deciding what’s true and what’s not.

Your mistake to presume that I am defending Trump really backs my point here. I have made no comments defending him or any of his court action, or public statements, or any action or statements from his allies. I have only made comments in defence of reasonableness and common sense, and against mega-corps like google using their influence to control the internet in a way that suits their political agendas. The merits of his claims will be decided by our justice system, not by Google. But if you’re ok with Google dictating to the internet which sides of a political debate are allowed to exist on the internet, then I guess you and I just have very different values. It's also a bit of a false equivalence, as the president is accountable to both the law and the electorate, opposed to Google, which is accountable to what exactly? Shareholders (theoretically)?

[monsieurbanana]

Your comment being ironic does not depend on whether you support Trump or not. You're arguing against Trump opponent's with a phrase that describes Trump's actions to a tee. You might abhor him with all your heart, it's still ironic.

You're the one misrepresenting what I've said. I'm not ok with a corporation "dictating to the internet which sides of a political debate are allowed to exist" and whatever else you're accusing me of. I'm telling you, widespread fraud is not "quite clearly in dispute".

[AmericanChopper]

So 17 state AGs filing a dispute in the Supreme Court doesn't constitute a dispute to you? Neither does any of the other ongoing legal action? Even if you think those cases have no merit, to deny that these facts are disputed is simply to deny reality.

Also, criticizing somebody for something that you think other people are also guilty of isn't Irony. Even if both parties in this matter were equally despicable, that doesn't make either of them right. Your comments highlight a lot of issues we currently have with political tribalism. You're just proving that facts and misdeeds don't matter as long as they have the correct political context.

[dbbk]

The people disputing the facts are doing it in bad faith because they want to steal the election. There is not a genuine argument to be made for widespread voter fraud.