You are also using that annoying tactic of reframing the discussion into a question for which the answer suits your own opinion.
That is why you choose to ask “is there _organized_ and electoral fraud?”. What about the question of whether there was enough non-organized fraud to swing the results? Seems just as important to me.
Let’s be patient until that there is an answer to these questions. From the courts please, not from YouTube, or CNN, or FOX, or John Oliver, or Tucker Carlson.
I can’t tell you which court because I’m not prescient and don’t know in what areas of the country there was substantial election irregularities (if there are any) until it is done being investigated. Guess what, the media isn’t either, so I don’t know how they can keep claiming this election is accurate before everything is investigated and audited.
Not to mention the really weird things happening like states deciding it’s not important to verify signatures. Sure they might have passed laws before the election that makes it legal to not check signatures, but does it make it right? I don’t think so.
I did say. The problem is you phrased your question in such a way that implies the only acceptable answer would be in a stupidly restricted set of answers (“which specific court?”). Very tricky! Good rhetoric. Except it’s self-defeating and hinders you from understanding viewpoints that aren’t yours. You might be too smart for your own good.
That is why you choose to ask “is there _organized_ and electoral fraud?”. What about the question of whether there was enough non-organized fraud to swing the results? Seems just as important to me.
Let’s be patient until that there is an answer to these questions. From the courts please, not from YouTube, or CNN, or FOX, or John Oliver, or Tucker Carlson.