...I give you a lot of credit for that. And, by the way, I respect your posting on this board generally, which is why I engage at length with you.

Couple of responses. First, that Time magazine doesn't allege -- or even consider -- any crimes is the problem, not the exoneration. To see all this take place and yet call it "fortifying" the election tells you all you need to know about the establishment media/propaganda effort that went into exploring election questions -- i.e., none, other than to gaslight the incurious and shout down the curious. I only referred you to Time in case you hadn't seen it because 1) it's a news source you'd trust, and 2) it at least touches on what went down (while excusing it). I'd note that you didn't comment on the TX brief.

Second, neither you nor any source you quoted knows -- or could possibly know -- what happened despite what they might claim. The gist of your argument is that, "Okay, so, yes, laws safeguarding election integrity were tossed out the window by one party in every key state. And, yes, the lawbreaking facilitated that same party's ability to commit fraud had they been so inclined. And, yes, that party believed it was running against Literally Hitler, thus it was, in fact, so inclined. Still, since no one has yet conclusively proven that enough invalid ballots were counted to change the outcome, it has instead been proven that no fraud occurred. QED. We'll just skip over the fact that no one has been able to audit the ballots, envelopes and voting machines. We'll also skip over the fact that the lawbreaking itself means there's now no way for anyone to audit the election even if they wanted to (which they don't). And we'll skip over the fact that the statistical probability of the outcome I claim to believe is almost nil."

That argument defies logic. Once those safeguards were tossed, there's no way to know what happened. No one knows -- no one can know -- how many bogus ballots were counted. So, all you're left with is (primarily) Dem officials' word that the election was legit on the one hand and motive, means, opportunity, overwhelming statistical analysis and hundreds of eyewitnesses stating otherwise on the other.

Believe whatever you want, but keep in mind that the blame for questions arising about the election lies entirely at the feet of your side, not mine or Trump's.

Your side did everything in its power to remove election protections despite dire warnings from my side that doing so would erode trust and lead to disputes. If you wanted an uncontested election, then you should have followed the laws on the books.

One final aside, your comment about "nonpartisan factcheckers" is nonsense. No such thing exists. Regardless, no one needs a fact-checker to explain how laws being broken left and right is somehow okay and could never lead to any problems around election integrity.




[Post edited by Los Angeles Hoo at 02/21/2021 7:33PM]