Also given the fact that Trump's rallies were attended to in extremely larger numbers compared to that of Biden's, and the new White House videos being downvoted heavily in YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/WhiteHouse/videos
*edit: Responding to a comment below,
> I very much doubt he even won the election
We have to be extremely careful when alleging election fraud. I think that may be perceived to be divisive. It would be more fruitful to directly link to the individual allegations instead:
I'd argue you could have said this in a more constructive way.
If this were a sports game there would be yellow and red flags all over this incident.
-No talking politics
-No overuse of anonymous accounts
-Be Kind,
-Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive
I really like that last one.
As I'm not a moderator please just consider this a friendly reminder that there is always a human on the other side of the keyboard, even the anonymous ones.
And SCOTUS has planned to look at the cases in two days:
> The United States Supreme Court will be looking into election fraud lawsuits during its Feb. 19 conference. These lawsuits include two cases filed by the Trump campaign and one case, each filed by Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, and Republican Representative Mike Kelly.
It's always hilarious and absurd to me how people use Trump's rally size -- in 2020, during a pandemic -- as some sort of proxy objective measurement for popularity. I mean, Trump held rallies to the shock and horror of local and national and international government health departments because he's an entertainer and he knew it would be good for business, and in many cases even shamed people for wearing masks so as to attract _more_ people to his rallies. ("Everything's perfectly fine here you beautiful people!") Biden followed protocol to a T, because it was necessary to protect public health.
I don't think some random letter signed on some random day by a bunch of random healthcare professionals upset about police brutality is in any way evidence that so-called "science" is a political tool used by democrats in order to advance particular aims.
And I don't think I need to state the obvious, but maybe I do: an open letter signed by 1200 healthcare professionals does not speak for the entire medical profession, in any way whatsoever. Healthcare is one of the largest employers in the US. And it certainly doesn't speak for scientific objectivity.
Little bit of column A, little bit of column B. More people packed the streets for BLM than either candidate. But does anyone really believe that Joe Biden would have had popular rallies even without a pandemic to hide behind? I very much doubt he even won the election but we’ll probably never know!
> But does anyone really believe that Joe Biden would have had popular rallies even without a pandemic to hide behind
There's a two party system in the US. Like every presidential election literally ever, both parties attract a lot of popular attention because.... there's only two parties.
Except for the 1992 presidential election, in which 18.9% of the votes went to 3rd party candidate Ross Perot. He didn't win any Electoral votes, but he did throw the election to Bill Clinton by denying George H.W. Bush an electoral vote majority in certain key states.
