There is no significant fraud, and Trump has no evidence that there is. It's not "truthful hyperbole" to make *censored* up whenever you feel like it.
Just for clarity, when you say, "There is no significant fraud [this is an opinion of yours that can't be proven], and Trump has no evidence that there is [this is a fact]."
Election fraud is not a matter of "truthful hyperbole," at all. But the idea that election fraud could occur is not a made up "what ever word you used" either. The fact is, the capability to commit and get away with election fraud exists, and in many cases it is obvious on how to accomplish it, and there is no credible way to catch it in secret ballot elections.
Can you prove that your secret ballot, without your name on it, caused the votes to be recorded in the way you selected? Can you prove that the secret ballots in a district accurately reflect the votes of the investors in that district? How can you prove that, without actually breaking that secrecy? Even with the mechanical machines you couldn't be sure, but with the electronic there is absolutely no way to be sure.
Now when we know for a
fact that the machines are hackable, what assurances can there be that they haven't been hacked? What assurances can there be that they weren't delivered pre-hacked by the manufacturers (as several people
on this board speculated in prior election cycles - when they thought that would be pro-Republican).
Does it really make sense to put such an important right into such a high risk state, or even into a state where you can't be sure?
All we really have evidence of, is that catching election fraud doesn't happen too often. You don't have any more reasonable basis to believe that this is true because it doesn't occur than others do to believe it's because it's almost impossible to catch in our current system.