Election Results and just the results

Post Reply New Topic

Please, again, show the previous elections where there was a clear winner and the opposing party did not concede and tried challenging the results through suits.

Imo the Democrats were furious over the results of the last election and used whatever means they could come up with to change the outcome.

And now the Republicans are furious over the results of the last election and are using whatever means they can come up with to change the outcome.

The ability to get the courts involved isn't as simple as "the electoral college total is close", which is likely why they didn't purue it in the courts.

In order to challenege the results (which are on a per-state basis, as each election is run by the state to determine the state electors to be sent to the electoral college rather than a federal case regarding the overall result), the person initiating the lawsuit has to be able to demonstrate some potential "harm" to them (Hence why the cases about potential fraud are only raised in states where a candidate lost - There is no legal "harm" suffered in a state where they won). In addition, they need to supply evidence to support this claim of "harm" (affadavits, for example), along with suggesting a potential "remedy" to the "harm" they suffered...And it needs to be filed in an appropriate court.

In 2016, (Had the Democrat party felt they had evidence of something untoward occurring), there would have been the possibility of challenges in:
Florida (1.3% difference)
Michigan (0.3% difference)
Pennsylvania (1.2% difference)
Wisconsin (1% difference)
(There were a couple of other states, from memory, with less than 5% losing margin, but the above would have been the ones most likely to affect the results had they succeeded.)

The only likely reason for no cases in any of them would be that they were unable to find evidence to support claims of irregularities that favoured their opponent (or penalized themselves).

This year's election differs from that one in that there were a number of major changes made to the process for the vote this year (as opposed to 2016, where similar processes to past years were followed, AFAIK), with some potentially having been altered "illegally" (Judicial/Executive branch members exceeding their authority and changing things, such as return dates, which is the responsibility for the Legislative branch), as well as the haste with which the changes to the election system were made potentially having flaws in their systems. In these cases, the challenges in the court aren't solely about the result, but may also set precedent (or at the least, guidlines) on what processes need to be followed should similar changes to this (and potentially other) process be desired in the future.

I was not looking for opinion, but facts.

For an honest comparison, you would need an election where a similar number of processes\procedures were changed in a similar short amount of time leading into the election...

The cases aren't solely about the results, but are also related to the procedural changes made, and the haste (and, in some cases, the manner) with which these occurred. Had these changes not occurred, it is likely there would have been considerabley fewer cases being raised over the elections.

Really? do you seriously think these millions of morons risking spreading COVID to millions more are protesting a procedural loophole? are you suggesting they are primary concern is in the mechanics of the election process to be fair for all??

The only reason they currently spreading COVID (which will likely leak across the border internationally into places like Australia) is because Trump and QAnon inspired movements made unsubstantiated lies to prevent the inclusion of postal votes that favored Biden in key states, That is the only reason they are marching.

Yet another (failed) attempt at deflection. The request was:


It can be noted that there is no mention of protests, with the question solely related to a given party (note: no mention of supporters) not conceding, and instead raising court cases.

As a result, the reply, which was here presented in a dishonest (out of context) manner, was a direct reply to the question asked, not one imagined by another person so they could try and twist it so that it appeared unrelated to an imaginary question they wished to give the appearance of it having been a responce to.

Sorry but I'm just offerning my personal opinion. The hearings were on whether or not Trump won the election fair and square, and the goal was to try proving he hadn't. No matter how much it's dressed up, that's what it boils down to.

There's zero evidence of Trump having been cheated out of victory, but there is evidence that his inner circle had met with Russian intelligence to get their assistance back in 2016.

Protest turning violent
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... brawl.html

And to think...It would have been peaceful without:

If there's really zero evidence then why are some people acting so nervous? And what charges were filed against said inner circle?

Here's some examples of the violence involved:
1)

2)
https://twitter.com/i/status/1327737656369840128
3)

https://twitter.com/i/status/1327765440001503232

I can't imagine how any of those instances is remotely justifiable...

There. Is. Zero. Evidence. Even Fox admits Biden won. The courts agree there was nothing below board with vote counting. This "steal the vote from Trump" hysteria started even before the election, carried on by convicted liar and political confidence man, Roger Stone and his acolytes.
Nervous? Who's nervous on the Biden side? There's fear that Trump's cult is so malleable to believe anything that this might be the beginning of an attempted coup, but it's hardly a matter of nervousness due to Biden having allegedly cheated.
Mueller revealed how Kushner, Stone, Donny Jr, Manafort, and others had been in secret talks with Russian intelligence. Manafort, Stone, and others certainly had been convicted and sent to prison.

There's always the relevant question over who instigates the violence when Pro-Trump and anti-Trump supporters meet. Second who does the police target?

Trump's language sounds decidely like he is egging on the MAGAs
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/violen ... protesters

Not becoming a world leader but then we all know he was improvising for the last 4 years

And then of course there's the cops
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ty-protest

How do you expect them to be impartial when journalists are among those whom they target.

Trump's ruse is gone mate, you are looking for signs that aren't there...