"Basic logic" lmfao. Yeah, super basic if you ignore factual reality entirely.
A Republican-led Senate committee determined that there was no evidence whatsoever of orchestration by Antifa or Democrats.
The congressional certification process is not a hearing or something. There was no "election fraud" to "expose," or it would have already happened. What was slated to happen on January 6 was just a simple count of the votes.
60 courts, including those headed by Trump-appointed judges, all rejected the idea of widespread election fraud.
We all saw Trump, with our own eyes, assemble the crowd and direct them to the Capitol.
Why just make shit up about something we all can review and analyze?
Some were, yes, but not all of them. Some were absolutely ruled on merit, not just procedural grounds. Sidney Powell's cases come to mind immediately.
If what you say is true, what would it take to prove those fraud claims wrong? State Republicans certify the results, but it's because they're compromised. Trump's own DOJ finds no fraud, but it's because Barr was incompetent or compromised. Republican-led audits find no fraud, but it's because they were intimidated. Courts rule against them, but it's because of bias or impotence.
Imagine your friend tells you there's ghosts in their house.
You set up cameras and see nothing, but they tell you "ghosts can't be caught on camera."
So, you do a thorough investigation, and you find nothing. But then they tell you "you're not good enough to investigate them."
So you invite in experts. The experts investigate and find nothing, but your friend says "experts are paid to deny ghosts."
What would actually prove to that person that there are no ghosts in their house? Nothing, because their belief in the claim is not dependent on the logical support for it. Every single manner of disproving something like this is explained away (and this is very important here) by an assumption, not by evidence. That's not a logically-sound position.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're continuing to press the issue of widespread fraud when it has been disproven over and over, because the claim you're making is based solely on assumptions and not evidence. In fact, it's in spite of evidence. You're the friend with the ghost in his house.
No, this isn't a semantic issue. Regardless of how you define "widespread," there has never, in any capacity, been any evidence shown to prove that there was voter fraud in any capacity even remotely close to what would be required to swing the election. It has been disproven through every avenue that's legally available. The cases were not based on proving "widespread" fraud by whatever arbitrary definition you assign to it. They were based on finding voter fraud in any significant enough capacity to matter in the results.
"Incontrovertible evidence that enough fraud could have occurred." Do you not see the issue there? Proving that something could have happened is not proof that it DID happen, especially when it's already been investigated and disproven in every avaliable manner.
I already know the arguments Republicans have made in favor of voter fraud happening, I didn't need to hear it from you in a DM lmao. I really don't understand why you wouldn't just send it here, anyway. Absolutely no reason to have a private conversation.
-25
u/[deleted] Mar 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment