(11-06-2020, 12:22 PM)NeptuneBeachBum Wrote: Of course they would.  But where is the evidence?  Trump has been setting this up for years and the Supreme Court is not stupid or partisan; they can see Trump's historical false claims with no evidence (e.g. the ridiculous assertion that 6 million illegal votes last election is why he lost the popular vote in 2016).  They won't give any credibility to hearing a case that is just whining with no evidence.  It won't get to a hearing without evidence.  And there has been nothing produced that would justify a hearing... just Trump's incoherent babbling and whining.  Same song and dance we've heard for 4 years.

The court doesn't consider things Trump has said in the past as reason not to consider a lawsuit brought before them. It would be irrelevant to the issue, and it isn't considered evidence for or against the issue. It would exclusively be on the evidence presented 

(11-06-2020, 12:46 PM)NeptuneBeachBum Wrote: And???  What is unusual about that?  Trump has been the least popular president in our lifetime; that has obviously inspired Blue voters in swing states to have record turn outs to remove him from office.  Pretty easy to understand that motivation to vote.  It makes sense voter turnout rates would be even higher in swing states because the electorate there understands the importance of their vote.  Someone in a decisively Red state like Alabama, or a decisively Blue state like New York, would not have the same incentive; they are already confident of the outcome, with or without their vote.  It doesn't matter as much there.  This is pretty simple  to realize, and it logically adds up.

Trump did better in a lot of really blue and red states. The ONLY states he did worse in are swing states. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence indicative of fraud. These swing states have 20-25% increase in voter turnout with some states (Wisconsin) having an historically high voter turnout at 90%. The only reason you're not hearing about the voter turnout is because it's only abnormally high in contested states and advertising that to most people would raise some eyebrows. 

Why were there huge drops in Democrat turnout in the most liberal states like California, Illinois, and New York? Also, you don't think it's odd that swing states are showing huge difference in the Presidential candidate totals versus other ticket candidates? You'll see that, almost exclusively in swing states, the total number of votes cast for the Presidential candidate far outweigh the total votes cast for other same-party candidates. In other states, there may only be a couple hundred or thousand difference. 

You may not think fraud is happening, but you can't ignore that there are so many suspicious circumstances happening all at the same time.

---