I think the second statement got it correct. He really does believe it and he has all along. He's not alone in that. Can you blame him for not trusting the process, literally every bit of the administrative state has been working to undermine him his entire Presidency. This looks - from his perspective - as one more deep state effort to make sure the "right" guy wins.
No Serati. If I was a madman, or a raving lunatic, who had it stuck in my head that I was the hero in the story and that my enemies were all part of an evil conspiracy of darkness to thwart me, I would of course feel the same way. I couldn't blame him at all. Especially when it comes to the evil conspirators in the Republican party of GEORGIA, or WISCONSIN, OR ARIZONA. Oh yeah. If I was crazy I'd feel exactly the same way.
Officials with an interest in the swamp exist in both parties. I know you guys love to make a big deal out of Republicans that "break ranks" but they're really part of the system. Politicians can so much less about party than they do about power.
What should have concerned you more is that something like a third of the country believes the election was stolen too.
Oh, I am. But on the other hand I believe that this third of the country believes the bs that it is told to believe and doesn't really have the ability to think for itself. That is to say, it's not the 1/3 of the country, but the people the country that feed that 1/3 a pack of bs that reinforces their preconceptions, and the politicians who go along with it because they want that delicious proletariat vote.
I more than have the ability to think for myself. And I'm exercising it here. I see no flaw, other than a dubious tradition that's being more abused in every election, with the argument that modifications to the legislative design for an election are unConstitutional. Frankly, the correct answer for an election law that the court deems "illegal" would be to void the entire law and have the legislature correct the illegality.
For example, how could the court in PA know with certainty that the state legislature would prefer to have expanded remote voting (which was illegal previously) without the safety protocals that they carefully included, rather than to revert to the previous voting rules? They can't, but the judges in question had a political preference that they chose to implement. They are the wrong branch of government to do that.
I don't think this is what actually happened, but do go on. We're all rapt with attention on how this is all our fault. That because of us they cannot change their minds because of what they saw "with their own eyes". What exactly did they see again?
They saw fraud, they still see fraud, and they seem a media doing everything it's power to follow the following plan: (1) deny fraud, doesn't exist, never happens (been hearing that for years), and the only evidence? you can't catch it in a secret ballot system - of course people are literally convicted of voter fraud in connection with every election; (2) if it's clear it can't be denied, 'splain it with any 'splanation, doesn't have to be a good one cause we'll magnify the denial and bury the story as old news, call everyone who sees it crazy, deny every sworn attestation as false or mistaken, pretend every eye witness is buying into a conspiracy, if all else fails conduct an investigation designed to find nothing but that can be widely reported as settling the matter; and (3) if it can't be denied or 'splained - deny the scale, it's impossible that it occurred at a scale that could swing an election, cause we all know that no one can find evidence on many of these things and what they do find (after we make it difficult to find) will never total up to enough. Sure you found 10k fraudulent votes, but you lost by 11k and "clearly" that's all the fraud that occurred.
Show me now the deep dives by the media to root out fraud that are comparable to what they did in FL during Bush v. Gore to try and steal the election for Gore.
Virtually none of the "60" cases involved really addressed the issues.
Sure.
Thanks for admitting your error.
There is no remedy for systemic illegal voting, and only a remedy for systemic fraud if you can demonstrate it exactly (which is impossible).
OMG. How can they demand that you demonstrate something in a court?! That insane legal doctrine!
Yes, we have always found it to be "insane." Oh wait, that's exactly what systemic racism is, you can't prove with facts or demonstrate it with evidence or prove that it impacted you, but its definitely there.
I think you're ignoring the difference between the illegal voting and fraudulent voting issues because you don't have a real answer, but maybe I'm wrong.
There is zero question that there is an open question under the Constitution on voting, that if resolved favorably to Trump would eliminate more illegal votes than the margin of victory. The courts don't want to resolve that, maybe they would if it could also be demostrated that significant fraud occurred on a coordinated scale, but then that would provide a completely separate remedy and the illegal voting question wouldn't need to be answered.
The remedy in question is a real tough one as well. Do you potentially punish hundreds of thousands of voters for relying on an illegal process? No court wants to do that. Or do you potentially undermine an election that may have very likely turned out differently, but we can't be certain that it would have? Either way a wrong occurred.
That's why the remedy could only be to kick it to the legislatures involved. They would still be capable of endorsing the voting results, and whether you think it or not, even Republican legislatures may be inclined to do so where the alternative is losing control of their entire state.
Yup. If I believed that *censored*, I would believe the administrative state was after me too.
Doesn't anyone else notice this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!
I think you've turned off your brain honestly. What I've said about illegal voting is reasonably disputable. The Constitution is open to more than one interpretation, but it turns on a quite simple question. Are judicially and administrative modified election rules the same as what is required under the constitution when it establishes the state legislatures with
exclusive authority to establish the methods of those elections? The PA SC says yes (it has to because it engaged in the practice) and the US SC stayed out of it.
All that's certain is that we can expect thousands more law suits to modify election rules going forward.
So you can't prove anything that you say happened in a court.
I can prove everything I said about illegal voting, you could too. Fraud, you need data, data that's in the exclusive control of election and other state officials, some of which they destroyed in the process of counting the votes, and other data only collectible from the voters themselves.
How about you lay out exactly what you'd accept. How do you prove who Joe Smith voted for - Trump or Biden - and whether his mail in ballot, collected by an activist, transmitted by an activist and counted by an activist, was recorded in the manner that Joe Smith choose?
When you can explain that one in a convincing and provable manner I'll give your "outrage" that Trump can't "prove" it in court serious thought.
The Supreme Court upholds Federalism, a conservative "legal doctrine", 7 to 2. But it's all a conspiracy of the administrative state.
The SC didn't uphold federalism by denying Texas standing.
The Republican administrative states of Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin. Plus the administrative state of 3/4 of the Republicans in the US Senate. Most previous Republican government officials. The other 2/3s of the American people. AND THE *censored*ING GHOST OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN. They're all part of an administrative state conspiracy against the hero. 4 of the 6 Republican appointed Supreme Court Justices.
None of whom have to participate in any conspiracy for the points I made to be valid. Overturning an illegal election would be the single most consequential decision the SC ever made. I can't imagine any result to do so that would be accepted no matter the principals or proof offered. Well I caveat that, I think the Democrats may have been able to get away with it if Trump had won narrowly.
I don't why you persist in a strawman argument about grand conspiracies.
But that 1/3 of America that believes in the hero must be placated.
No, 1/3 of Americans (including a significant number of Democrats) believe the election was stolen. Not necessarily that Trump should be able to overturn the result.
I know that modifications to voting rules pushed by Democrats repeatedly, even before COVID, are designed to make cheating harder to catch and fraud easier to commit. I know that enough votes came through modified procedures that would have eliminated them as legitimate to overturn the election. I know that fraud occurred in a number of places, in a number of states, and in a variety of manners.
What I don't know is whether Biden might have still won if the election had been conducted legally. It's that doubt that's really holding every body up.
