[jtxxwl]

Where the onus lies is dependent on who you are and what your goals are. If you occupy an elected office, and you want people to believe that you were elected legitimately, then the onus is on you to convince the people of that, if they are skeptical. The burden of proof is not on them to convince themselves that you were elected legitimately.

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.

[arolihas]

What will make you think this election was fair? To me it seems like the only way Trump supporters and Trump will be convinced of the results is if they say he won.

[jtxxwl]

If the local election officials wanted to convince me they ran the election fairly, they would have had to have allowed observers to do their job without imposing any restrictions on them that would impair their ability to observe. If that means equipping every worker and observer with personal safety equipment suitable for use in a lab that researches ebola, so be it. Outside observers are absolutely critical.

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.

[arolihas]

So literally nothing can change your mind at this point unless the results happened to show trump won, got it.

[jtxxwl]

If we agree to flip a coin for $20, and you obstruct my view while you're tossing the coin, you can be sure you're not going to get my $20 no matter what you say afterward, unless you have earned quite a lot of my trust beforehand. Of course if it comes up the right way for me, I will be happy to take your money. Do you think that's unreasonable?

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.

[arolihas]

So you think hundreds of thousands of ballots were out of view and somehow swapped with fake ballots giving Biden the win during the counting process. And that this coordinated fraud got past everybody because an election official was watching from too far away, say 20 feet instead of 6 feet. And no hard evidence of this conspiracy anywhere exists, but it totally happened. Is this your position?

[jtxxwl]

>So you think hundreds of thousands of ballots were out of view and somehow swapped with fake ballots

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)