Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
Someone remind me has there been any evidence at all of any large scale voter fraud?
No, and despite 4 dozen cases (probably more including GOP cases) launched by Trump where there would be an opportunity to present the evidence they have failed to provide anything.
It turns out when it's not facebook or fox news and a lawyer realized they could be in deep shit for lying the evidence just evaporates, presumably to the same place as hunter's laptop.
Exactly this. The pattern repeated so many times.
During a press conference or on Facebook/Twitter: "We have iron clad evidence of massive voter fraud and once we present this in court the judge will have no choice but to reverse the election results!"
In front of a judge during court: "Your honor, we have no actual evidence but we'd like you to reverse the election results because they are highly inconvenient to our goal of remaining in power."
Nitpick: At least 6 dozen.
There were 60 cases brought by Trump alone, and not a single shred of evidence was provided in a single one. In fact, if I recall correctly, several of the lawyers outright stated that they weren't trying to actually claim voter fraud, leading at least one judge to ask "then what the hell are we doing here?"
Then you have the cases that Keri Lake continues to bring in Arizona, and the cases brought around the country that I'm not even bringing up here. I think even 6 dozen is a conservative (no pun intended) estimate.
And not a single one of them even tried to actually present the evidence they claimed to have. Probably because they didn't want to be disbarred before lunch.
They have no evidence, but they've got lots of conspiracy theories. That's a kind of evidence, right? (Evidence of an inability and unwillingness to see reality.)
Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers testified before the January 6 committee on Tuesday. Bowers said former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani admitted he had no evidence of election fraud. The Arizona Republican detailed how Trump's team never presented anything to back up their claims.
Under oath, Arizona Republican House Speaker Russell "Rusty" Bowers testified on Tuesday that former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani admitted to not having any evidence of election fraud despite repeatedly claiming he did.
Bowers, who had been a Trump supporter, spoke before the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol in the afternoon, recounting his interactions with Giuliani and the Trump legal team as "a tragic parody," comparing them to the 1971 comedy "The Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight."
"My recollection, he said, 'We've got lots of theories, we just don't have the evidence,'" Bowers said.
"And I don't know if that was a gaffe, or maybe he didn't think through what he said, but both myself and others in my group — the three in my group and my counsel, both remembered that specifically — and afterwards, kind of laughed about it," Bowers continued.
Via Business Insider
Bush v. Gore but that was like 20 years ago and in favor of Republicans
If there was any actual factual evidence, both sides would want a new vote.
If Trump actually won, Dems would just take the L.
This could only really happen because the people involve have the maturity of toddlers because a lot of them were never told "No" while those who have been told "No" just ignored it and did things anyway.
They latch on to things like emails, Hunter Biden, like it's a pacifier because the thin (and made up) "evidence" of corruption is all they have. So they point to that like it's a gotcha "they did x before, so that means they did Y too!"
The only people who believe them are too full of hate to see how dumb the argument can be.
Moreover, they don't want their "sources" revealed because they might be "in danger of ...harm" but are totally okay with doxxing the man who was dropping off his kids' ballots, and lying about him committing "a crime."
And we know which side is roaming around out there with guns. And we've heard Trump incite violence. They should be required to pay for 24 hour protection for everyone they've falsely accused.