Post-2020-General-Election Trump, Trump campaign, GOP ally lawsuits: the results are....

Once again, you are living in fantasy land.

The reason why these bullshit cases that are going to go nowhere are being filed is because Trump and his Nazi-minions are screaming "FRAUD, FRAUD, FRAUD! STOLEN ELECTION!" to the base all the way until the minute they enter the courtroom and then when the judge asks them if they are claiming voter or electoral fraud, they are as quiet as church mice, precisely because they know the kind of fraud they are trumpeting

a.) did not happen
b.) they have no proof of anything
c.) should they claim otherwise, they are setting themselves up to be disbarred.

No, "liberal lies" are not "spew"ing that nonsense. The Kraken-Nazis are.

Better luck to you next time.

 

An incumbent president getting his clock cleaned at the polls during a re-election attempt is about as humiliating as it can get.

 

Not really, it's happened often enough.

A seasoned politician losing to a TV reality star......now thats embarrassing.

 

Not sure why these judges ask them that when they are not filed as a fraud case.

Someone should investigate that.

 

Was there massive fraud?

There in more evidence of it then there was Russian Collusion.

 

Hardly. It's interesting to me that Trump supporters so frequently echo Trump's distorted message. There's an abundance of evidence the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to get him elected. Collusion isn't a crime. There wasn't sufficient evidence fo indict for criminal conspiracy.

Now your turn: what evidence is there of massive fraud?

 

You couldn't find any even with a 2 year investigation.

 

The question I asked was: what evidence is there of massive fraud? I already addressed the "collusion" issue.

 

The many affidavits that are summarily being outright dismissed instead of investigated.

The answer is there is no proof yet because people refuse to look into it.

This is why we investigate, to find proof.

If we had proof we wouldn't need to investigate.

 

Affidavits that express hearsay, suspicions, speculations, and process complaints don't constitute evidence of fraud. Remove all those problematic affidavits from the group, and tell me what's left.

The problem is that you're buying into Trump's flimsy narrative: assume there's fraud, and treat every speculative allegation as proof. That is conspiracy theory reasoning.

 

Statistically and factually very, very false.

Taft 1908
Hoover 1932
Carter 1980
Bush 1992
Trump 2020

Only five elected presidents in 124 years to get turned out of office. So, no, it's not "happened often enough". That statement of yours is an untruth.

 

They all were seasoned politicians except for Trump and all of them lost to seasoned professionals and Taft didn't actually lose but Roosevelt entered and split the republican vote.

Same reason Bush Sr. lost.

And Hoover failed to address the depression, at all.

If you think Trump screwed up the virus it doesn't even compare to what Hoover screwed up.

 

Agreed. It doesn't compare. Trump's screw-ups have been far, far worse than Hoover's, also because evil, inhumane malignancy can be seen behind Trump's hair-brained decisions.


And but of course Taft lost. He received all of just 8 electoral votes. My goodness, in what reality do you live? Are you trying to say that via the use of magic fairy dust, if it's a 3-man race, then the Republican who just got beat like a drum really didn't lose???

Also, election night polling in 1992 showed that Bill Clinton would have beat Bush 41 even more badly in the case of a 2-man race, so that horse just won't trot. You are going to need to find better GOP wet-dream material than this.

And what does seasoned vs not-seasoned have to do with all of this? Didn't the trumkins get that tingly feeling up their legs and vote for teh Donald SPECIFICALLY because he was not "seasoned"?

I always get a chuckle out of apologists who behave in such a cultish way. But then again, it's sad, too. Very, very sad.

 

Well you are incorrect on a number of points as usual. Bush lost by less votes then Perot received and since Perot only pulled from republicans it's not difficult to figure out.

Clinton got lucky or he planned it.

 

The bolded: this is untrue. Perot pulled from both Bush and Clinton voters.

Better luck to you next time.

Pro-tip: it's better to rely on facts instead of fiction.

 

If GOP supporters stuck to that they would virutally stop posting.

 

No he didn't as his policies were very conservative.

lol, why do you think democrats would vote for him?

 

Your gut feel about this is disputed by this 1999 study by political scientists (which was published in the American Journal of Political Science), which concluded: "In 1992 Ross Perot reduced rather than increased Bill Clinton's margin of victory over George Bush."

The study also estimates that 20% of the people who voted for Perot wouldn't have voted at all had he not entered the race.

 

That is a very flawed study which has been debunked.

 

Show me where it's been debunked.

 

Correct. End polling showing a theoretical 2-man race alongside the reality of the 3-man race showed Clinton cleaning Bush 41's clock.

 

No. This is an untruth. It has not been debunked. And if you are so sure it has been debunken, then feel free to pony-up the link, nööööö

 

the same type of populist Democrats who switched from Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016.

Thank you for destroying your own argument.

 

And that massive one victory allowed the observers to stand so close you could feel the heat of their breathe on yer back...

 

Wasn't the case they "won" reversed later by the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court? I seem to remember that it was.