I held back judgement at first claims of fraud because even though I despise Trump, I'd be one of the first locked and loaded on the barricades if there had actually been a hacked election. Not to defend Trump, but to defend the system. However it became obvious pretty quickly there was no there there. In none of the 60 court cases Trump filed did his attorney even claim voter fraud had occurred. You can claim what ever you want on the DailyStormer forums, but not even Guliani had the nerve to look a federal judge in the face and lie in court. Guliani admitted directly in several cases that he was alleging no fraud. Despite saying completely different crap on faux news.
This is going to be long. But I like discussing with you, Cap! You and I are alike in our view that the official narrative on finance is baloney. But we see other things differently. This is mostly for you and I to have fun discussing. Neither of us is likely to change the other's opinion. That's OK.
You are convinced that there was no voting fraud. I understand your reasons. They aren't crazy reasons. Most people have those reasons.
But reasoning about worldly things is rarely a math proof. It usually is based on judgement about a batch of evidence. That's where people differ.
My judgement is different about the evidence. Maybe because I grew up around Detroit and believe that The Wire is realistic and that there is way more dirty pool in politics than normal folks perceive.
Some of my thoughts.
Court cases that are dismissed don't prove anything. Because there was no trial that went through evidence and arguing the case. Court cases that go the distance still often don't produce The Full Truth. Because plaintiffs make a case considering cost, time, what evidence they personally can get within budget and timeline, what the burden is of for various lines of legal pursuit, etc. A lawyer saying "We aren't alleging X" in a suit does not mean that X is false. Also, some attorneys are dopes, do stupid things, and lose. Some judges are partisan. The system is full of humans, with imperfections and tendencies, and the result is someone's judgement.
The result of an election is important to a lot of people. There is money involved. The barrier to cheating is low. The odds of getting caught are low. What do we expect?
In the last election, there were lots of suspicious things. Each isn't proof. Each can have a legitimate reason. But the accumulation gets suspicious. Last-minute procedure changes that, in addition to anything else, make cheating easier. Denying access to other side's observers. Large statistical swings in the middle of the night, in key voting regions. Voting processes and equipment that aren't secure or auditable. Statistical outliers in number of unreadable ballots, which are then read and entered by staff, which then have large statistical swing. Quality of voter roles. Information in 2000 Mules.
It's not just this election:
-- Gore vs. Bush; democrats allege fraud; hanging chads, lots of recounts and finding more votes.
-- Sanders vs. Clinton primary; Sanders folks allege rigging by Clinton-controlled DNC.
-- Clinton vs. Trump; Clinton says election was stolen from her; democrats urge delegates to switch votes to Clinton.
-- Biden vs. Trump; Clinton urges Biden not to concede under any circumstance.
I think we need a transparent, fraud-resistant, auditable election process.
