The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
2020 Voter Fraud
|
(05-16-2021, 05:29 AM)The Real Marty Wrote:(05-15-2021, 09:18 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: I'm at a loss, man. Can anyone explain this better than me? I don't know how else to say it. When his case was dismissed, it wasn't because there was NO evidence fraud was committed. They know that some fraud happens in every election. Trump just didn't have any certifiable evidence to PROVE that he was the rightful winner. You can't sue to overturn results if you can't prove that someone else orchestrated and succeeded in robbing you of the election. He was NEVER going to win that case. You can find me saying that 3 days after the election. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THERE WASN'T EVIDENCE. Why can't you get that through your head? It just wasn't concrete. They had zero shot of winning this in the courts. You are stopping there and saying no crime was committed. It's a [BLEEP] position to take. To your bolded point, you didn't "predict" anything. This was the exact talking point that was plastered all over leftist news, social media, and late night TV. I was expecting a late run by Biden, also. I thought Trump was going to lose. Pretty sure you can find me posting on this board that I thought he would lose this election. I was ready to concede this race the morning after until I started looking at the numbers. To my bolded point, did you watch any of these cases? I watched 3 of them. Most of them lasted 30 minutes or less. Trump was unable to show that he would have won the election if not for the fraud that occurred. His team was attempting to use a preponderance of evidence to speculate the outcome of the election. That is not the same as NO evidence. What don't you get about that? Do you have any idea what standing means? The judges didn't review the evidence, because Trump couldn't FIRST show he would have won the election without fraud. Judges are not going to speculate on what might have happened, so they dismissed the cases. Again, we are having 2 different arguments at this point. Argument number 1 is whether the courts dismissing these cases on standing are proof that widespread fraud didn't occur. That's just not the case, and it's annoying that you keep wanting to try to bring it into the debate like it's sacrosanct. It's not, and I've shown why it's not. If you want to say that Trump didn't have proof that he would have won without fraud, I agree with you. HOWEVER, you can not use a single court ruling to say definitively that fraud did not occur. There's no reason you shouldn't be able to understand the distinction I am making here. It's basic logic. |
Users browsing this thread: |
1 Guest(s) |
The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.