Oh, and if there is any evidence of massive fraud how come the Courts have given 60 judgements that there has been no such evidence put before them? Is it really feasible that all those judges have subscribed to some plot? There might be a few bad apples amongst them but surely these are people with the highest integrity in the land.
Jon,
You're continually focussing on the wrong thing: you can’t see the wood for the trees. So, I’ll make one last attempt to explain the problem using an analogy which everyone - in the U.K. at least - will be able to relate to very easily.
As you know, the leave vote won the 2016 referendum by a slim margin of 52% to 48%. The subsequent furore that erupted and has raged on for four years was unprecedented. All sorts of accusations were made and it took a further two elections to finally settle the matter: the EU elections in May 2019 in which the Brexit Party triumphed and the December 2019 general election in which the Tories won with a landslide victory. Now, imagine if you will, the following scenario. . .
Let’s suppose that within weeks of the June 2016 vote, expert witnesses were interviewed, dozens upon dozens of affidavits were signed alleging wrongdoing and a fair amount of YouTube footage was gathered that appeared to show clear breaches of election protocols at polling stations and counting centres. Additional evidence indicated . . .
Thousands of underage voters
Thousands of votes from people not registered to vote
Thousands of votes from foreign nationals not eligible to vote
Thousands of people who voted more than once
Thousands of dead people voting
Etc., etc.
Now, let’s further assume that all the above massively favoured the leave campain at the expense of the remain campaign. If the allegations of fraud were proved, the numbers involved would be more than sufficient to overturn the referendum result. Given the fuss remainers made about an advert on the side of a bus, don’t you think they’d have something to say about all the above? Fear not, it’s a rhetorical question - we both know the answer. Now, your riposte over and over again is that there’s no evidence of fraud in the U.S. election and the courts have rejected the allegations made. Returning to the analogy, what do you think the remain camp would say about that? Would they accept it, or would they be demanding a full and transparent investigation into all the allegations made? Again, a rhetorical question; we both know they’d be spitting feathers and protesting in every street in every town in every county the length and breadth of the land demanding just such an investigation. Telling them to move on, the vote was fair and no evidence of wrongdoing was found would not appease them - it would anger them. We know this with absolute certainty because they spent four years trying - and very nearly succeeding - to overturn the result based on far flimsier ‘evidence’ of malfeasance than the list above.
Now, here’s a question that’s not rhetorical that you can answer. In light of the analogy, do you at least understand what the problem in the U.S. is and why it isn’t likely to just blow over in the way that Biden and the democrats hope that it will? Furthermore, if the expert witnesses (computer scientists and data analysts etc.) are all wrong, why aren’t explanations provided that debunk their statements? And if the people who signed the numerous affidavits are all lying - why not prosecute them for purjory? And if the YouTube footage is all fake, doctored or whatever - why don’t they show that? This would all be easy to do if - as you claim - there’s no basis to any of the allegations of fraud. Just repeating ad nauseum that the courts have looked at it and found nothing untoward simply isn’t acceptable. It wouldn’t have been acceptable in the referendum analogy and it’s equally unacceptable in the U.S. election. Surely you understand that?
Tim.
