The cases were dismissed on lack of standing and/or jurisdiction and not one piece of evidence was reviewed. The courts punted like cowards and now we have President Potato.

There becomes a point at which people are so convinced it doesn't matter how many people review things.

Like the crazy neighbor who says the CIA is hacking her brain and says she tried the police, the FBI, the court system, the hospitals, etc. and this just proves to them everyone is involved in the conspiracy against them, no one wants to look at the real evidence.

I gave the claims of fraud the benefit of the doubt, I looked into a lot of the claims made always telling myself "what if the claims are true?" and time after time I found claims that just had too many issues to be credible. After a certain point I got tired of looking into more claims. Is there possibly a claim out there that holds water? Sure, maybe, but at this point I am seeing to many people crying wolf that it makes it near impossible for any legitimate claims to be heard if they haven't been already.

I also ask myself which is more likely: A complicated conspiracy to commit widespread voter fraud OR upset Trump supporters who don't want their guy to lose and are willing to make up stories?

i don't know what is worse, the fact that they think they look good, or the fact that they thought they would fit in looking like that...

i don't know what is worse, the fact that they think they look good, or the fact that they thought they would fit in looking like that...

Stand out like a sore thumb, don’t they?

I gave the claims of fraud the benefit of the doubt, I looked into a lot of the claims made always telling myself "what if the claims are true?" and time after time I found claims that just had too many issues to be credible. After a certain point I got tired of looking into more claims. Is there possibly a claim out there that holds water? Sure, maybe, but at this point I am seeing to many people crying wolf that it makes it near impossible for any legitimate claims to be heard if they haven't been already.

It's wonderful that you investigated the claims and came to your own conclusions. That's a huge relief for the 40% of the country who are still suspicious about massive election fraud. We will all sleep much easier at night thanks to your hard work.

Seriously though, what do we need courts for anyway? EEF's got this, yall!

While I certainly agree with you on the wastefulness of purely ceremonial actions by the government to me the answer to your above question is going to be in the form of a question:

If the VP had this power, what would prevent the VP from doing this in every election? What would prevent it from being abused to prolong someone's position in power?

Also, what would happen if the results were never certified before the end of the current president's term? Would we just be a country without a president? Would the speaker of the house become president?

Perhaps Pence was afraid of this "if no new president (or vice president) has been elected by that time, the Twentieth Amendment and the Presidential Succession Act would mean that the Speaker of the House would be sworn in as acting president."
Pence could have legally challenged the certifications. Could all the dust have settled by Jan 20?,  No.
We'd have acting president Nancy, till they figured it all out.  Regardless of how we vote,  it is Congress that decides who is president.  The founders assumed that Congress would be full of morally ethical people.
In 2020 I'm afraid our Congress critters are anything but morally ethical.

Perhaps Pence was afraid of this "if no new president (or vice president) has been elected by that time, the Twentieth Amendment and the Presidential Succession Act would mean that the Speaker of the House would be sworn in as acting president."
Pence could have legally challenged the certifications. Could all the dust have settled by Jan 20?,  No.
We'd have acting president Nancy, till they figured it all out.  Regardless of how we vote,  it is Congress that decides who is president.  The founders assumed that Congress would be full of morally ethical people.
In 2020 I'm afraid our Congress critters are anything but morally ethical.

They are devoid of a lot more than ethics….brains come to mind first and foremost…..

It's wonderful that you investigated the claims and came to your own conclusions. That's a huge relief for the 40% of the country who are still suspicious about massive election fraud. We will all sleep much easier at night thanks to your hard work.

Seriously though, what do we need courts for anyway? EEF's got this, yall!

it's much more than that...

It's wonderful that you investigated the claims and came to your own conclusions. That's a huge relief for the 40% of the country who are still suspicious about massive election fraud. We will all sleep much easier at night thanks to your hard work.

Seriously though, what do we need courts for anyway? EEF's got this, yall!

You disapprove of my my reasoning process or you just don't like that I didn't come to your desired conclusion?

You disapprove of my my reasoning process or you just don't like that I didn't come to your desired conclusion?

sacrcasm is hard

You disapprove of my my reasoning process or you just don't like that I didn't come to your desired conclusion?

It's not your conclusion.  It's that you failed to show your work.

Without knowing what information, reports, witness accounts, studies and/or direct observations you based your conclusion on, taking that conclusion at face value is ridiculous.

The election was stolen.  The lack of effort on the part of the Fed and States to even try to answer the many questions raised, coupled with many of the mechanics used to bypass the laws and Constitution, tell us that they don't care.  They got the result they wanted, so it's time to burn the ballots and wipe the computers.  Leave no evidence, because there's nothing more to see other than "Biden won."

That's not how you instill confidence in the election process.

Perhaps Pence was afraid of this "if no new president (or vice president) has been elected by that time, the Twentieth Amendment and the Presidential Succession Act would mean that the Speaker of the House would be sworn in as acting president."
Pence could have legally challenged the certifications. Could all the dust have settled by Jan 20?,  No.
We'd have acting president Nancy, till they figured it all out.  Regardless of how we vote,  it is Congress that decides who is president.  The founders assumed that Congress would be full of morally ethical people.
In 2020 I'm afraid our Congress critters are anything but morally ethical.

That certainly could have been one of his considerations.

It's not your conclusion.  It's that you failed to show your work.

Without knowing what information, reports, witness accounts, studies and/or direct observations you based your conclusion on, taking that conclusion at face value is ridiculous.

The election was stolen.  The lack of effort on the part of the Fed and States to even try to answer the many questions raised, coupled with many of the mechanics used to bypass the laws and Constitution, tell us that they don't care.  They got the result they wanted, so it's time to burn the ballots and wipe the computers.  Leave no evidence, because there's nothing more to see other than "Biden won."

That's not how you instill confidence in the election process.

I am just saying what I did to try and be objective, to look deeper into the claims and thereby form a better informed position on the matter. And that position was that there is insufficient evidence to prove the election was stolen.

You can claim it was stolen but I find the evidence unconvincing, its as simple as that. I don't have to show my work that I am unconvinced and my suspicions are that it wouldn't matter if I did show my work. There are people who want to believe Trump won and that desire is stronger than their objectivity.

Does a juror have to show their work to the prosecutor on why they weren't convinced of the charges against the suspect? (I think you already know the answer to that)

I am just saying what I did to try and be objective, to look deeper into the claims and thereby form a better informed position on the matter. And that position was that there is insufficient evidence to prove the election was stolen.

You can claim it was stolen but I find the evidence unconvincing, its as simple as that. I don't have to show my work that I am unconvinced and my suspicions are that it wouldn't matter if I did show my work. There are people who want to believe Trump won and that desire is stronger than their objectivity.

Does a juror have to show their work to the prosecutor on why they weren't convinced of the charges against the suspect? (I think you already know the answer to that)

If you feel you've been provided sufficient evidence by the politicians and media who stole the 2020 election, then you're farther gone than I thought.  The politicians are being asked to grade their own papers and decide on the method for grading.  They are also being allowed to change their answers (delete data, "lose" boxes of ballots, ...) with no ramifications.  Is that how the jury is run where you live?

Batches of ballots are still being litigated as illegal, fraudulent, duplicates and/or unconstitutional.  The fact that it's taking this long is telling, but the adjudicated evidence is stacking up.  Without several whistleblowers who are now sorry they dragged Biden across the finish line coming forward, I doubt we'll see much of the really horrible tactics they used.  The whistleblowers would have to admit being a part of the election theft.  I see that as a long shot.

You seem to be the one favoring "your guy" while accusing others.  You still believe Trump is a Swamp critter even though the evidence has not been presented.  You think Trump has taken great pains to keep it all hidden from your view.  Yet, at the same time, you believe the election has not been stolen because the evidence to prove otherwise has not been presented to you.  There's no room in your "deductive reasoning" to accept that the election evidence may also be too well-hidden from you to find its way to the evening news.

Biased much?