Now that the 2020 Election is over....

[Dan Fienen]

I am giving up, as I’m sure people will be glad to hear, any further comments in this line of discussion about the validity of the election. I shall watch carefully what the president tries to do until 20 January, but I see no point in continuing to discuss the validity of the elections.
No one has found any evidence of fraud or other misbehavior in the elections.
No one. Repeat no one. The court cases have all been turned down or laughed out of court or the lawyers presenting them were scathingly criticized by the courts.
Outside the court room, where in his mind truth doesn’t matter, Giuliani continues to sprout outrageous lies. We need to pay no attention to his madness.
Yet in this modest forum, someone today is foolish enough or deluded enough to try and lead us astray by saying: “As evident by on going legal proceedings, election results are in question.”
No. The election results are not in question. And there are no serious ongoing legal actions.
On this part of the topic, over and out.

Not quite, from what I've read there is evidence of voting irregularities,  misbehavior, and even fraud just not enough to change the outcome of any state. Still, it seems that to say that no one has found any evidence is an over statement.

[Charles Austin]

No it is not an overstatement.

[Brian Stoffregen]

People keep asking, Peter, the same questions over and over again even when they have been answered.
And certain people vocally denounce the rulings of the referees, if you want to use a sports image, which I don’t.
“Your  case is nonsense, with no evidence, get out of here.“ says the court. That doesn’t seem to end it.
“There has been no evidence, under our surveillance, of voter fraud,“ says Republicans and Democrats running the state elections, and the government’s top cyber security expert.
“I don’t believe you,“ says the president.”
“GSA Should fund the transition,” says anybody who’s ever had any dealings with it.
“No,” says the president.
So long as this man is in office, which is until 20 January, we need to be very watchful, very careful about what he might do. There is no “cruising to victory“ when you’re playing against a cheater.

Fair enough. Be watchful. But so far he hasn't cheated. Throwing the challenge flag is not cheating. Arguing the call is not cheating.

He has exceeded his limit of challenge flags; and to further your analogy, he suffers no consequences when the challenge is not upheld as coaches do. (Does the cost of the lawyers who file the challenges that are repeatedly rejected even come out of his pockets?)

[Brian Stoffregen]

I am giving up, as I’m sure people will be glad to hear, any further comments in this line of discussion about the validity of the election. I shall watch carefully what the president tries to do until 20 January, but I see no point in continuing to discuss the validity of the elections.
No one has found any evidence of fraud or other misbehavior in the elections.
No one. Repeat no one. The court cases have all been turned down or laughed out of court or the lawyers presenting them were scathingly criticized by the courts.
Outside the court room, where in his mind truth doesn’t matter, Giuliani continues to sprout outrageous lies. We need to pay no attention to his madness.
Yet in this modest forum, someone today is foolish enough or deluded enough to try and lead us astray by saying: “As evident by on going legal proceedings, election results are in question.”
No. The election results are not in question. And there are no serious ongoing legal actions.
On this part of the topic, over and out.

Not quite, from what I've read there is evidence of voting irregularities,  misbehavior, and even fraud just not enough to change the outcome of any state. Still, it seems that to say that no one has found any evidence is an over statement.

Whatever evidence they think they have found has not held up in court. Thus they have not found any legal evidence of voting irregularities.

[Julio]

No it is not an overstatement.

Respectfully, Rev. Fienen, myself and many Americans do believe fraud exists in some of the election results ... why the fear of allowing litigation to proceed?

Yes .. many respect that you believe that fraud accusations are overstatements .. please respect those who differ with you.

[James S. Rustad]

I am giving up, as I’m sure people will be glad to hear, any further comments in this line of discussion about the validity of the election. I shall watch carefully what the president tries to do until 20 January, but I see no point in continuing to discuss the validity of the elections.
No one has found any evidence of fraud or other misbehavior in the elections.
No one. Repeat no one. The court cases have all been turned down or laughed out of court or the lawyers presenting them were scathingly criticized by the courts.
Outside the court room, where in his mind truth doesn’t matter, Giuliani continues to sprout outrageous lies. We need to pay no attention to his madness.
Yet in this modest forum, someone today is foolish enough or deluded enough to try and lead us astray by saying: “As evident by on going legal proceedings, election results are in question.”
No. The election results are not in question. And there are no serious ongoing legal actions.
On this part of the topic, over and out.

Not quite, from what I've read there is evidence of voting irregularities,  misbehavior, and even fraud just not enough to change the outcome of any state. Still, it seems that to say that no one has found any evidence is an over statement.

No it is not an overstatement.

I suppose next you will call Pr. Fienen a name and storm off to your room.

[Charles Austin]

It was said:
 ... why the fear of allowing litigation to proceed?
I say one more time:
There is no fear. The litigation has proceeded. It lost. It is over. Does the questioner believe the results? The fact that some keep screaming “irregularities!” means nothing.

[RDPreus]

It's still being litigated.  It's not over until it's over.

[JEdwards]

Fair enough. Be watchful. But so far he hasn't cheated. Throwing the challenge flag is not cheating. Arguing the call is not cheating.

He has exceeded his limit of challenge flags; and to further your analogy, he suffers no consequences when the challenge is not upheld as coaches do. (Does the cost of the lawyers who file the challenges that are repeatedly rejected even come out of his pockets?)

The federal judge who dismissed Trump's lawsuit in Pennsylvania denied leave to amend the complaint and pointedly noted that he was following precedent indicating that grounds for denial of leave to amend include "undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, prejudice, and futility," suggesting that one or more of these aptly describe further legal action in the case before him.

Peace,
Jon

[Randy Bosch]

It was said:
 ... why the fear of allowing litigation to proceed?
I say one more time:
There is no fear. The litigation has proceeded. It lost. It is over. Does the questioner believe the results? The fact that some keep screaming “irregularities!” means nothing.

Litigation in the aftermath of the Bush v Gore election went on for 27 days after election day, with the lead choreographer being the man who apparently will be the Chief of Staff for Joe Biden.  Litigation continues through appeals until someone runs out of gas or the Supreme Court rules (not at all likely this time).
If you lost your case, appeals are available, as well as refilings to correct identified shortcomings of the original or to litigate around the biases of judges you may encounter along the way.

I wish that wasn't the case (in many cases), but that is your justice system in America --- so far.
What's that contemporary saying that includes "...Justice denied...", other than protest against actions with which someone disagrees?

Stop living in fear!
The outcome is unlikely to change and is likely to be known in less time than that forced on the country by the Gore legal team.

[Julio]

He has exceeded his limit of challenge flags; and to further your analogy, he suffers no consequences when the challenge is not upheld as coaches do. (Does the cost of the lawyers who file the challenges that are repeatedly rejected even come out of his pockets?)

It seems some have a habit of making baseless and falicious accusations.

If indeed President Trump’s campaign had ‘exceeded his limit’ of legal challenges, the courts would have informed him.

Perhaps the reason President Trump suffers no consequences when his court challenges fail is because, unlike the coaches who are playing a game, President Trump is fighting a real life war.

It is increasingly troubling that some steadfastly refuse to allow the legal process to proceed ... instead insisting that the legal process be circumvented to achieve their personal/political goals.

[peter_speckhard]

A little tongue-in-cheek take on the absolute greatness of Biden as a candidate.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/23/5-more-ways-joe-biden-magically-outperformed-election-norms/

[MaddogLutheran]

No. But Republican efforts to make voting difficult for certain people are known.

Ah yes, the always useful "those people".  Much like Trump unsubstantiated allegations of voter fraud, you cannot back this up with any meaningful proof.  (We're back to Biden's delayed transition will cause 150K deaths.)  Insisting on legitimate measures to prevent fraud is not voter suppression, no matter how many times the talking point is repeated.

The point of my post was not the reason to dispute an election result.  It was that prominent Democrats disputed an election result. And most news organizations reported it without context or ever blinking.  By that I mean, yeah sure, they will fact check it in the moment, but then immediately resume treating the person as legitimate or authoritative public figure.  But what Trump doing now is not unprecedented.

Telling us it's okay when your side does it, because you have legitimate reasons, is exactly the kind of BS I'm calling BS on.  What makes "your" side any different, beyond that you think you're right.

I'm calling out how the media treats politicians disputing election results differently, based on their party affiliation and grievance claim.  Of course "voter suppression" always wins out, because "everyone" knows it's white supremacists targeting minorities.  Guilty until proven innocent.  Again, some people refuse to understand the double standards that have fueled a Trump fact-indifferent "cult".   

[Julio]

No. But Republican efforts to make voting difficult for certain people are known.

Ah yes, the always useful "those people".  Much like Trump unsubstantiated allegations of voter fraud, you cannot back this up with any meaningful proof.  (We're back to Biden's delayed transition will cause 150K deaths.)  Insisting on legitimate measures to prevent fraud is not voter suppression, no matter how many times the talking point is repeated.

The point of my post was not the reason to dispute an election result.  It was that prominent Democrats disputed an election result. And most news organizations reported it without context or ever blinking.  But what Trump doing now is not unprecedented.

Telling us it's okay when your side does it, because you have legitimate reasons, is exactly the kind of BS I'm calling BS on.  What makes "your" side any different, beyond that you think you're right.

I'm calling out how the media treats politicians disputing election results differently, based on their party affiliation and grievance claim.  Of course "voter suppression" always wins out, because "everyone" knows it's white supremacists targeting minorities.  Guilty until proven innocent.  Again, some people refuse to understand the double standards that have fueled a Trump fact-indifferent "cult".   

Thank you Mr. Spatz for addressing this issue.

Voter suppression like racism is a charge very gratuitously used … Charges made of both seldom are accompanied by any shred of specificity ... just saying voter suppression and/or racism is assumed true by many.

And as you point out ... It’s always the other side guilty of these egregious activities… One is always blinded to never see that their side is equally guilty.

[MaddogLutheran]

An additional thought about the illogic of Trump loyalists, demanding absolute support from other elected Republicans...

I do not understand this argument:  Democrats, and especially Joe Biden, are so dangerous that all Republicans needed to support Donald Trump, even if you had reservations about his character and temperament.  That loyalty is required even as it becomes evident that he has lost re-election, and these MAGA types are threatening to abandon the Republican party and form a new one if that loyalty does not continue until the bitter end.  A divided Republican party, like Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose presidential run, will only guarantee future Democrat election victories, starting next month in Georgia.  But they are all about stopping socialism, or something.  Yet they are willing to drive the Republican party off the cliff to support their guy.  I guess they haven't noticed that their guy lost ground in many traditional suburban strongholds, even as those areas elected Republicans to Congress.

I detect cynicism in Carl Bernstein's secret list of Republican senators who are "done" with Trump.  Maybe it's sincere.  Or maybe it's an attempt to widen a party rift by sowing mistrust and suspicion, leveraging this loyalty demand.  Hmmmm.  It's a free country after all.  But is such reporting done in non-partisan good faith?  I have my doubts.  Of course the First Amendment does not require any such thing.  It's just curious how any time a prominent Republican does anything questionable, every other Republican office holder is asked to comment and expected to denounce it.  It's strange how similar things rarely happen to Democrats...Biden and other Democrats avoiding the court packing question, or the Georgia Senate candidate's past controversial statements being recent examples.