Why so many Americans believe there was an election fraud?

Why so many Americans believe there was an election fraud?
I spoke about with it my European friend.

For me the question if there was or wasn’t the election fraud is simple:
SCOTUS didn’t find the election fraud.
Over 50 US courts didn’t find the election fraud.
US General Attorney William Barr didn’t find the election fraud.
Georgia Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan, a Republican didn’t find the election fraud.
Election Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council (GCC) didn’t find the election fraud.
Christopher Krebs, director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency find the election fraud.

So I trust the above people/institutions conclusion.

So why so many Americans insist there was the election fraud?
My European friend have a simple answer:
Poorly educated people never trusted educated people. This is the reason many American don’t trust the above people/institutions conclusion.

Is my friend right?

 

They believe The Liar In Chief Dirty Donald who could claim a black cat was white, and they would all swear by it.

 

This answers your question ...

 

Election fraud was as clear as the nose on one's face with prima facie evidence galore. However criminal fraud requires infinitely more evidence to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a court of law. I can be an eye witness to a bank heist, but proving it in court is a very steep hill to climb. In civil court it would be much easier but no court that I know of wants to come within a million miles of their obligatory duty. Secondly the non judicial and justice commentators you cite are spouting their personal preferences and reading activities as they want to see them.

 

But they never supplied one scrap of proof in well over 50 different court rooms across the country.

 

All this denial of the facts that Dirty Donald got his BUTT KICKED in the election has done is destroy the peoples confidence in our DEMOCRACY and show we need to scrap the outdated electoral college and elect the president directly by popular vote of the citizen voters of the USA.

 

To "find" something kinda requires one to actually "look" for it, rather than turning ones back on the Dayglo elephant in the room and dismissing it. And oh yes, we less educated dolts must always defer to our more "educated" betters in every matter. SKA-ROO Europeans, like THEY'VE got room to preach about politics?

 

NO!!! Scrap the BS "states rights" to conduct elections 50 different ways (subjected to changes on the fly) and make PRESIDENTIAL election balloting and counts UNIFORM across the nation. That's the only thing that'll restore my "confidence".

 

There is no such thing in a court of law as a "scrap of proof."

 

You just pointed to the difference between democracy and dictatorship.
In democracy a person is innocent until proven guilty, in dictatorship a person is guilty if a dictator wants it.
In democracy if a criminal fraud cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, nothing can be done, we need to accept court ruling.
In dictatorship you don’t need a court, the dictator will decide if there was a crime or not.
So if you see a fraud as clear as the nose on one's face with prima facie evidence galore, but you cannot convince the court "beyond a reasonable doubt” – you can still argue about it, but you need to accept the court ruling…or to try to establish dictatorship.

 

Did any of the courts ever hear the case or did they all dismiss the suits for whatever procedural reason

 

Lots of convenient anomalies, if nothing else. By the way I am not a judge so if you want a legal opinion, I can't give it to you.

 

All pretty much true. I was reacting to the inane "there is no evidence" crowd.

 

The stage was set well prior to the election when Trump declared that there would be massive fraud. Barr also joined in with the message. So the minds of supporters were already prepared for it, should he lose the election. And, on cue, the outrage began.

 

Dictators use courts to establish legitimacy, courts are run by humans and humans are coruptible

 

You trust agencies and institutions and people who have deceived us all in the past. Is that a sensible approach?

As one who did not vote for Trump in either election, I feel I'm neutral. I voted LP, so I have no dog in the fight.

That said, enough mathematicians and statisticians have come forward to point out mathematical and statistical irregularities that it seems quite obvious that shenanigans took place in several states. I am a disinterested observer, and it seems the irregularities are very obvious.

Even more obvious and meaningful is that our illustrious Ministry of Truth Mainstream Media has chosen to ignore the comments of mathematicians and statisticians. They seem to fear a close analysis of the irregularities.

 

Criminal -in-Chief Donnie reacting to the inane "there is evidence" of massive evidence of voter fraud crowd:

 

Eleuthera, this is how democracy works - you trust country's institutions. If you have doubts - you go to court and you fight for your truth. If you cannot convince the court - nothing can be done, unless you'll show me a better solution.
I read some mathematicians and statisticians complains about statistical irregularities - and some mathematicians and statisticians explanations who wrote that these were not at "irregularities".
Is it possible that Democrats committed a perfect election fraud? Yes, it is possible, but someone has to convince US courts it happened.
Is it possible that President Trump is a Putin puppet? Yes, it is possible, but someone has to convince US courts that Trump is Putin's puppet.

If you watched "The lion king" you should remember what Scar said - "life is not far".

 

Better get busy passing your constitutional amendment then.

 

There is a small difference between courts in dictatorship countries and courts in democratic countries. Judges in dictatorship countries risk their life if they cannot guess what dictator wants, judges in democratic countries must follow the law.
President Reagan gave the best explanation about the difference between dictatorship and democracy:

 

Most dismissed due to lack of evidence. You should actually read the rulings. They are quite comical and quite scathing in their rebuke of the plaintiffs claims.

 

I love some Reagan but the Soviets, Chinese Communists and even the Nazis had/have courts. I would like to believe our courts are not like that, that they are not corrupted and follow the law but they are not incorruptible or infallible. Even the SCOTUS Justices are predictable.

 

This

 

Wouldn't we also have to read the actual complaints for some context?

 

Probably not.