only if you are a proglib trying deflect from the fraud and using Alinsky’s rule…
RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
Huh?
There were accusations of fraud.
The people making the accusations went to court.
They did not provide any evidence of fraud.
Therefore it has been concluded that there was no fraud.
2 Likes
Don’t forget. Loyalty is one way with Donald, and everything is for Donald. Send money 
!
3 Likes
Playing with words there. Must be afraid.
So let’s just say that there was evidence of behavior and processes that led to illegitimate ballots. You can pretend it was all just innocent , unintentional mistakes with no intent to defraud the legitimate voters. Sure. Your MSM demands that yo do that.
only if you are a proglib trying deflect from the fraud and using Alinsky’s rule…
All those court cases, and no one thought to bring any evidence, or even to allege fraud. Odd, that.
So Biden won the election, despite there being concerns of dishonesty in the election on behalf of the state and polling places. Witnesses observed, and data of the voting machines was gathered. When brought before state, federal and Supreme Court judges, they refused to even review the case because there was “no evidence, and thus, no standing under Article III of the Constitution.” People have been saying that none of the evidence presented holds any water.
So now this begs the question, “what makes evidence faulty?” What makes the difference between valid and invalid evidence in your eyes?
Note to mods- please move this to the Election Fraud thread if necessary. I put it in general Politics forum as while it was about election fraud, it is more specific in nature.
And not just in the election, but with any judicial case. What defines “good, solid” evidence? I imagine this question cannot be answered objectively.
Link to where anyone said that?
It was in the bench ruling in the Texas lawsuit.
They did, but it was dismissed. It’s not like there wasn’t anything there, but what was being proposed was dismissed as flawed.
Court rulings addressed this point. I believe I posted links to each court ruling as they happened. None of the rulings are very long and they are not written in legalese.
2 Likes
The Texas ruling had nothing at all to do with evidence.
It was dismissed due to standing.
1 Like
Can you please explain to me why it was dismissed due to standing?
No it wasn’t. That ruling was like 3 sentences long, and that’s not there.
The issue of standing is entirely separate from whether the case has merit based on the facts (evidence).
Standing is a threshold question - if you don’t have standing to bring a case, it doesn’t matter how much “evidence” you have - the case will be dismissed.
A state does not have the standing to enforce the laws of another state. That is why Texas’ lawsuit was thrown out.
3 Likes
So Biden won the election, despite there being concerns of dishonesty in the election on behalf of the state and polling places. Witnesses observed, and data of the voting machines was gathered. When brought before state, federal and Supreme Court judges, they refused to even review the case because there was “no evidence, and thus, no standing under Article III of the Constitution.” People have been saying that none of the evidence presented holds any water.
So now this begs the question, “what makes evidence faulty?” What makes the difference between valid and invalid evidence in your eyes?
Note to mods- please move this to the Election Fraud thread if necessary. I put it in general Politics forum as while it was about election fraud, it is more specific in nature.
Evidence has to be proven, verified if you will. People saying I saw someone vote twice, without anyway to substantiate that is called circumstantial evidence and while some circumstantial evidence may be allowed, it often is not. It is important that we do not allow evidence that has no basis to be proved. Hearsay evidence is often thrown out.
For most courts, legal opinions and judge rulings, evidence needs to be something that can be verified by means other than that’s what I saw. It doesn’t mean it didn’t happen…but the drunk who says he was out in the back 40, drinking whiskey, who also claims space men beamed him up into their flying saucer is not likely to be believed if there is not some sort of corroborating evidence. Someone across the road saw it happen, there are physical marks in the corn field, things like that. Much of the evidence we saw, was claims made by one side (Trump Team) and plausibly refuted by the other side (election officials).
1 Like
I assume it needs to be collaborated with reliable sources.
YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED 
