user
Accomplished Advocate
For the past couple of years, the thing I keep hearing is that "there has been no evidence of widespread voter fraud", right? But whether or not there was evidence of widespread voter fraud is the wrong question.
First off, no one ever said there was "widespread" fraud - it was local to five or six states, if I recall correctly, and three in pretty bad shape: Arizona, Wisconsin and Georgia. So the issue isn't whether there was widespread fraud, but whether there was just enough in those few states to affect the election.
Secondly, there was no talk of "voter fraud". It wasn't the voters who were defrauding the electoral process, it was Democratic Party operatives.
But most importantly, if the election was carried off legitimately, or with mininal deviations from protocol at worst, there would be evidence of that. The Democratic Party is the proponent of the proposition that Joe Biden was legitimately elected, so it is incumbent upon them to prove that proposition with evidence. It's a matter of who had the most legitimate votes, and that's a positive thing - we should be able to see evidence, a paper trail, and ballots cast in order to justify a result. When someone says he thinks things didn't go right, that's when it's necessary to go through it and prove that it was ok after all. When someone says to produce evidence of "widespread voter fraud", they're asking to prove a negative - i.e., the proposition that ballots were not properly cast. And everyone knows that it is not possible to prove a negative proposition. Moreover, they keep saying that no such evidence to prove the negative was ever presented and approved by a court. Well, duh! That could be because no case ever got to the evidentiary phase, they were all dismissed on technicalities of civil procedure.
And, to follow up on that thought, I have to think that Trump's lawyers missed the boat. Because once the challenge be made, that's all that's required to call the election into question - it is then incumbent upon the proponents thereof to justify the results with evidence of sufficient tabulation of legitimate votes. Thus, the real problem is that there has never been satisfactory evidence that Joe Biden was ever actually elected to be President of the U.S.
Similar thing with Obama - there was a question about his having been born in the U.S. They floated around a tiny picture of a Hawaiian birth certificate from long ago, and said it was his. I enlarged and sharpened the image and found it was for some woman completely unrelated to anything at issue. So neither has there ever been any evidence that Obama was eligible to become President.
Bottom line: There has never been any evidence presented that would prove that Joe Biden was elected to the office of President.
First off, no one ever said there was "widespread" fraud - it was local to five or six states, if I recall correctly, and three in pretty bad shape: Arizona, Wisconsin and Georgia. So the issue isn't whether there was widespread fraud, but whether there was just enough in those few states to affect the election.
Secondly, there was no talk of "voter fraud". It wasn't the voters who were defrauding the electoral process, it was Democratic Party operatives.
But most importantly, if the election was carried off legitimately, or with mininal deviations from protocol at worst, there would be evidence of that. The Democratic Party is the proponent of the proposition that Joe Biden was legitimately elected, so it is incumbent upon them to prove that proposition with evidence. It's a matter of who had the most legitimate votes, and that's a positive thing - we should be able to see evidence, a paper trail, and ballots cast in order to justify a result. When someone says he thinks things didn't go right, that's when it's necessary to go through it and prove that it was ok after all. When someone says to produce evidence of "widespread voter fraud", they're asking to prove a negative - i.e., the proposition that ballots were not properly cast. And everyone knows that it is not possible to prove a negative proposition. Moreover, they keep saying that no such evidence to prove the negative was ever presented and approved by a court. Well, duh! That could be because no case ever got to the evidentiary phase, they were all dismissed on technicalities of civil procedure.
And, to follow up on that thought, I have to think that Trump's lawyers missed the boat. Because once the challenge be made, that's all that's required to call the election into question - it is then incumbent upon the proponents thereof to justify the results with evidence of sufficient tabulation of legitimate votes. Thus, the real problem is that there has never been satisfactory evidence that Joe Biden was ever actually elected to be President of the U.S.
Similar thing with Obama - there was a question about his having been born in the U.S. They floated around a tiny picture of a Hawaiian birth certificate from long ago, and said it was his. I enlarged and sharpened the image and found it was for some woman completely unrelated to anything at issue. So neither has there ever been any evidence that Obama was eligible to become President.
Bottom line: There has never been any evidence presented that would prove that Joe Biden was elected to the office of President.
