[jtxxwl]

>Prove it in court or shut up.

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?

[triceratops]

> That doesn't mean they didn't happen, or that people should not believe they happened.

Sure. But in this case, a known liar with a lot of motivation to lie is alleging the crime. And there's no evidence, even though you'd need thousands of mostly ordinary people to coordinate the crime and subsequent coverup. If even one of them breaks ranks, everyone else is going to jail. Look at it completely objectively: taking out the names, parties, policies and so on, if you were a betting man/woman, who would your money be on?

> I know many on the political right are certain, for excellent reasons, that the Democrats were motivated to bias the election against Trump,

Here's the problem though. The only way, the only way, they'd be 100% convinced the election was fair is if had Trump won. They simply won't entertain the idea that maybe, just maybe, most voters aren't so enamored of their guy as they are. If you refuse to accept, without violence, the result of an election as fair unless your candidate won then it's not a democracy.

> Can you point out something I've said that relies on taking Trump's word for something?

This whole election fraud this is a Trump invention. He knew he was going to lose and sowed the seeds well in advance. He's sued dozens of times and lost nearly every single case.

> Is cheating in elections really a complex story from your point of view?

Across multiple states, parties, officials, and judges? With no leaks, no whistleblowers, no emails or texts? I'm not saying it's impossible in theory. But in this particular case, when it's a known liar making the allegations, color me skeptical. If Trump had a history of probity and honesty in his past conduct, I might be more inclined to listen.

[jtxxwl]

>they'd be 100% convinced the election was fair is if had Trump won.

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?

[triceratops]

> 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.

The mask isn't supposed to over the eyes, only the mouth and nose. Do you have any concrete examples of "unprecedented obstruction" and their effects? Or evidence that it didn't affect both sides equally? These are just random insinuations.

Also there's a bit of karmic justice here, because if Trump had taken the pandemic more seriously in the first place maybe there wouldn't have been all these restrictions. Or maybe he deliberately sabotaged the response so he could blame the restrictions for affecting the result later. (See? It's so easy to make up accusations).

> An election observer should be able to see everything every election worker does as closely as the election worker sees it.

Do observers generally get closer than 6ft to workers? Even under normal circumstances that's considered personal space.

Also this would require a conspiracy among hundreds if not thousands of election workers to have any effect. Without a single person blowing the whistle.

> How could anyone have known he was going to lose,

The polls had him losing WI by a far larger margin so that was a hint. The WI race being so close, and the history of the Republican party's treachery in that state is more an indicator of a failed Trump steal. I don't believe that is the case either - it's more likely that it was bad polling.

> Can you answer the actual question I asked?

You haven't presented any facts - only vague accusations. What is there to answer? You're a concern troll. I'm done responding to you.