For those who think the election doubters have no grounds-

In a perfectly managed election without any fraud Biden would have been buried. I won't say a nation could not possibly elect a person of his character, but I refuse to believe the majority of American voters have become that naive and ignorant yet.

You may not be familiar with Arthur Conan Doyle. He was the author of the Sherlock Holmes stories- He was also a physician, with substantial education and knowledge in neuropathy, and a great interest in how the mind works. He was analytical, and very astute at reading situations. He paid attention to the signs most would miss, and the vectors of conduct that indicated the paths of the individual's thinking. His skills played a substantial role in his writing as well as his practice of medicine. One of his most famous quotes is this- “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

While there are fallacies in that, such as how we classify the impossible, the concept is still a fundamental tool of analysis in a variety of fields including learning to read people; being able to know what their character is, what they are and are not capable of doing, even be able to predict what they will do in hypothetical situations. Another factor is also mentioned by Doyle, in the statement that "You see- but you do not observe." That means while the indications of things are right in front of you, you fail to recognize them, or you reject them as irrelevant.

If Trump had been elected and conducted himself as Biden has, I'd have been calling for his impeachment by the end of his first year. Bidens incompetence in office was clear and easy to predict before he got in; the only surprise to me is that it is substantially worse than I expected. He isn't the person choosing the course, he's the puppet parroting what he's fed. That was evident in the campaign and none of the people who realized it would vote for it. Impossible to get elected that way- honestly.

Neither the person or the party controls my choices- it is the performance, the character, the loyalty to the people and the nation that matters. Nobody's perfect, but Trump is an 8+, Biden a 1 or 2. It was visible.
Even Obama warned us to "never underestimate Joe's ability to fu#k things up", and the writing was on the wall in a variety of languages. Politics is a kind of game, and the efforts to control it pivot on many things, including huge amounts of money. With the stakes involved, corruption will always exist. It's just a matter of how extreme it will become, how low and unscrupulous the effort to win will be.

The first huge indicator that the left was abandoning all moral restraints was resorting to outright fraud was the Dossier created to label Trump as conspiring with the Russians. That's not Bidens work- it's the work of the people who would be selecting him as their puppet in the next election. This was one of the "vectors" telling a prudent observer what to expect of them. Joe was chosen for that role because he fit the outline for it, could be trained to follow, wouldn't question, and not even be savvy enough to know it.

The person fooling you, IS you. Only you control that. Can't solve the problem of perception for you.

 

This was the essence of my post. The rest was just very suspicious observations; you know like reasonable suspicion for arrest but short of proof. The Democrats efforts in 2019 was more than just election chicanery or dirty tricks or political propaganda that play in every election (and in forums) by all politicos. This was a concerted and focused effort to get states, legally or not (legislatures alone have the constitutional authority to establish.elections), to significantly alter their election procedures and rules, which would have greatly enhanced the opportunity for direct election manipulation, by Democrats or any other interested groups. They pushed for election practices that virtually every country that tried them found them to be fraught with significant misuse if not out right fraud. It was not campaign related as it began before the 2020 campaigns really began. But it was trying to set the stage for a certain Democrat victory in 2020. Legal or illegal they did not care though they did not profess the latter. In any case, though the Democrats fell short of their goals, it seemingly worked out fine.

 

Very cogently stated.

 

If there are one or two dogs barking in the night, it probably does not mean anything. But if there are 100 dogs barking in the night over a two or three square mile area, it, with a very high probability, means something. But, alas, there is no proof.

 

And you accuse me of not having an open mind. We're done here.

 

Do you have any facts to back that assertion up? On what basis are you saying this was significantly greater in practice (note, being more widely reported isn't the same thing)?

And if there are one or two dogs barking but you're just saying a 100 dogs barked and assert that is proof that someone released a wolf from the city zoo, I'd expect a lot more information and evidence around those claims.

You're doing the same thing as the OP, and just repeating the same old generic accusations without any detail and jumping to the same pre-determined conclusion without any meaningful hypothesis. I'm still open to the possibility of some kind of targeted conspiracy to fix the result of the 2020 presidential election, but you're all a long way from presenting a meaningful case here, so unless you're willing and able to present something new, we'll be done here too.

 

There is nothing unique about a sore loser.

In our democratic elections, the loser has recounts, audits, investigations, and court challenges to try to make his case.

If he exhausts all those (as well as goon attacks on Congress, fake elector schemes, demands that governors and secretaries-of-state falsify the vote in the loser's favor, etc.) he establishes himself as an unquestionable sore loser

 

Good choice, because you won't make any points for yourself this way.

 

I don't have to convince myself of anything. It was a Grand Jury that was convinced. I am going to trust that they made the judgement based on the evidence that was presented. At the trial Trump gets to provide evidence to the trial jury that the Grand Jury was wrong in their judgement. That is how our system works.

 

There are no facts here to address. You have a picture that shows nothing. There is a circle on the picture implying that there is something there. There is not. I have very similar boxes in MY garage. You going to accuse me of possessing government documents I'm not supposed to have?

 

Almost right. There are of course sore losers, people who refuse to accept honest results and judgments. But if that loser has grounds, regardless of how little tangible evidence is revealed-
He's still right. And that is not a "sore loser". That's a crooked game, and everyone loses except the crooks by tolerating it.

The democrats created a fake "Dossier" attempting to show Trump as collaborating with the Russians in the 2016 election. Totally fake, proven. Planned by Hillary, the dem candidate. Financed by the DNC. People at the top of that party behind the plot, proving themselves to be willing to rig the election. They had plans to impeach Trump even before the election, just in case. Then there was Strozok, a high intelligence agent in the FBI, planning to sabotage the election and having an "insurance plan" to back that up in case Trump got elected anyway. Lot's more of the same, and you know it.

We may not have concrete evidence of how they did what they did in 2020, but we damn sure know they had moral values so low they would not have taken the chance Trump would win again in 2020 in a legitimate election.

I've had people in my classes years ago, who had a history of doubling down on denial or a belief to avoid reality. I would ask them- "How many times does the dog have to bite you before you understand they bite?
The right answer- is once. A character value of that magnitude is never a mistake, and it never goes away. And it is never demonstrated unless the person has it. From then on, unless you are a fool- you know it's who they are. I don't place all democrats there. Being easy to fool is not the same as intentionally fooling people. Until- you are the one that gets bit. Then, you either learn or get bit again until you do. At that point you are fooling yourself until then.

 

I've been an expert witness at a number of trials. Trials aren't about justice, they are about what you can convince the judge or jury of- which is severely limited by the rules of evidence, the latitude of the judge and several other things. I have, sadly, seen things that as a young man I'd have never believed could have happened. Lying under oath is common-place; lawyers manipulating what can be admitted to twist truth into lies is commonplace. What the system is supposed to be, and the image it tries to portray- is not real, and it doesn't work that way. Money, power personal connections, and such things have a major influence.
We don't have anything better, but what we have is deeply flawed and that's not by accident.

 

The Loser lost by every legal and legislative criteria, and his illegal attempts to sabotage the legitimate result failed as well.

Democracy and the rule of law won.

The Cry Baby Loser's incessant whining is futile - and very annoying.

 

Being an expert witness in no way qualifies you to be an expert on what goes on behind the scenes of a trial.

 

Trump has no grounds. He's just a sore loser.

Conspiracy Theory garbage. And you know it.

So we have no evidence but they are obviously guilty anyway because you've decided they have no moral values.
Who are you to decide on the moral values of anyone? You are arguing in favor of a man who has cheated on all his wives. Cheated in his business dealings. Cheated on the 2020 election and you're going to tell us that the Democrats have "low moral values"?

I didn't even have to get bit. I've seen where Trump has bitten people over and over and over. I know who Trump is but you are among those who "double down on denial or a belief to avoid reality"

 

No where near as annoying as the hell the people behind the scheme to destroy America have brought upon us.

I refuse to believe you aren't smart enough to examine things intelligently.
I refuse to accept that an intelligent person can't see the obvious.
That leaves me with the question of why an intelligent person seeing the obvious chooses to hold a belief that denies it.

I ask myself what state of mind and values I would have to have to do that. And Hell would freeze over before I would allow it.

 

A question I ask myself every time I see someone supporting Trump.

 

Are you really so naive to think that those who have played the game many times don't know how the game is played?

One of my best friends, now deceased, was a district court judge for 20 years. We often discussed his courtroom experiences, lawyers and their tactics, other judges, and the various schemes they encounter.
He could have written a book.

In one lawsuit where the opposing side lost everything, the opposing attorney spoke with me later. He said, "You are an excellent witness. I wish you had been ours."
I was able to block his every effort to skew the facts- because I knew the game, at least well enough to prevent him refuting my testimony, which was the critical evidence.
There's a saying common to lawyers- "The man who chooses to be his own lawyer has a fool for a client".
Anyone who thinks you can go into a courtroom, tell the truth and it will be heard and respected- is such a fool.
Lawyers are mercenaries, not champions fighting for justice. It's a game. The rules often allow truth to be totally buried or denied. The goal is to win. Period.
That's not what it is supposed to be- but that is what it is.

 

I do not share your paranoid delusion.

You cannot cite any objective criteria by which the Loser won "in a landslide!" as he persists in claiming with no credible evidence to sustain his fantasy - no explanation how his "landslide!" was stolen, not a single suspect named in his vast conspiracy, even his senior associates assuring him that he had lost the election, despite all his legal and illegal attempts to negate the will of the People.

If you need to share the Loser's fantasy, that is unfortunate.

If you refuse to accept the certified electoral votes of all 50 states, what superior authority do you cite for doing so?

 

It is not the number of registered voters that is the concern since not all registered voters actually vote. We usually get 50% to 60% on average of those registered to vote to vote in Presidential election cycles every four years. Less with mid term elections, and even far less with local and special elections. This is not an issue when deciding who won and who did not win the vote for that state.

The number sounds large, but my guess is that these states may have duplicate registered voters, voters who have moved, but still have their voter registration listed in that county, and a few other reasons, but nothing nefarious that Judicial Watch tries to make.

It is a non sequitur argument you are making

 

Thank YOU for demonstrating my point that so many Americans are as credulous as they come, believing the falsehoods promoted by known liars.

 

The question you should be asking is- What do they see that I don't see?
If you really want to understand the causes of this rift between sides, you have to see the same things the other side is looking at, and they have to see what you are looking at.
Then- YOU have to decide how much of that is valid. And you have to apply the same unbiased standards of ethics to both sides.
Failing to do that is where most people deceive themselves. Once bias is entrenched, the views of most people will be distorted by it. They measure events- with a rubber ruler that accommodates it.

And perhaps most important- you have to know what your own objectives are. Do you want an honest government more than you want your own party to win, and validate your bias?
Will you trade self-respect for the feeling of victory or power? Will you vote for people without honor- for any reason? Will you suppress the rights of other people to gain rights for yourself, and disenfranchise those you disagree with because they disagree? Will you support people who do that?

If you side with those lacking honor- you surrender your own. If you bend the truth to enable that and tell yourself it's OK- your surrender your own.
People who support Trump are not blind to his faults. They don't discuss them because they know the left will only try to make them into another reason to hate. The real issue isn't Trump anyway. Trump is the messenger and the left hates the message- and lacking the ability to refute the message, they seek to kill the messenger. If that were not true, the efforts to destroy him would not have been well underway before he even announced he would run. Trump is temporary. The message can change the future of the nation, restore the stability and quality of life it is capable of. That is what the left is opposed to- an honorable government instead of a corrupt one sucking the life out of a herd of sheep that used to be independent people.

If you support your own country, care about it's future and the future of your own yet unborn descendants- you can't support that.

 

Yes, you describe bias, and of course there are many variations of bias. Related to cognitive dissonance in seeking only a preconceived conclusion.

 

You keep trying to restrain the discussion, limit it to the evidence you can use and eliminating that which trashes your argument. Hardly what qualifies as an open mind.

These are limitations. Not just to discussion- but to reasoning, logic, and your own capacity to see beyond your bias.
You are watching the most erratic conditions that America has ever seen in your lifetime, and can't see the dangers.
You are the only person who can correct that.

 

If you are not amenable to reason, I cannot help you.

What credible evidence has the Loser presented to you that causes you to believe in his vast, clandestine conspiracy as opposed to the consensus of all fifty states that verified and certified their popular vote totals and the resulting disposition of their electoral votes?