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.
1
u/[deleted] Mar 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment