One disenfranchised voter is too much?

I disagree, but if we want to move on you will need answer that question. I am open to hearing your evidence.

The burden isn’t on me @Corndog

One thing I never understood, was that why the case was named Bush V Gore, but wasn't Al Gore the plaintiff?

@Adam135, you just advanced to level 17!

470 votes in the county of millions? Is that Mass?

You are welcome to answer the question at any time. We can establish who has what burden but I am interested in the truth either way.

Maybe its just alphabetical lol

I can only speak from what is presented as evidence and if it holds up to scrutiny otherwise default to the neutral position @Corndog

Which is we don’t know.

My response was based on your assertion that taking into consideration the likelihood of one thing versus another is not relevant. We make those types of determinations every day. We use countless factors to determine the best course of action or to ascertain what may have happened in a given circumstance. I am singularly focused on finding the truth and after 33 days of watching both sides of the divide, if Trump attempts to subvert the election to stay in power without actual, factual proof of fraud and not the conspiracy theories and discredited circumstantial evidence - as adjudicated in many cases by judges that he himself appointed. - all hell will break loose. And I am afraid that if he doesn't without acknowledging to his supporters that proof does not exist and accepting the outcome, all hell will break loose. That's why I think these types of discussions are important.

As long as you acknowledge the validity of the contrary at this point I have no quarrel with what you said there! Well said. Ultimately whatever happens must be within the constitutional mechanisms of resolving these grievances I will support whoever comes out on top within that. Otherwise you are right, all hell will break loose.

@Corndog, you just advanced to level 6!

In terms of polarizing the country and widening the fracture, I believe it's unavoidable regardless of who will be sworn in on the 20th.

Ooph Mellissa Carone got arrested in 2019 she seems nice 🤣

Most people nowadays refer to political opposition as enemies, not opponents.

@Corndog in that case of not knowing ,which would be true for all elections you default to the neutral position. As I said this dichotomy existed in all elections. We don’t know if trump won legitimately. Doesn’t mean he doesn’t get elected

if Trump attempts to subvert the election to stay in power without actual, factual proof... **What does this mean? **

The ship hasn't sailed on that? Just saying.

convincing the state legislatures, or imposing martial law and military tribunes

@Adam135 that is process is it not?

@busillis, you just advanced to level 27!

Seems like state legis are out but u forgot scotus

imposing martial law? It's kinda extreme

Currently that is the most reasonable stance. Past elections have different circumstances and with the passage of time they become more finalized. In a few weeks I will have moved my position. I think its not the right time to assert either way today.

He did this?

Not yet a few advisors want it

I think Lincoln was the last one to do it to subvert the press that favored southern sympathies but 🤷

No, but who's to say he won't if he gets desperate enough, Michael Flynn has already requested him to do so, and many of his staunchest supporters as well

Bush sued to stop the recount under the Equal Protection clause, I think. The lower courts had ruled that they could recount the counties that Gore requested using a standard to account for the hanging/dimpled chads in an effort to better represent the will of the people in those counties. Bush's team successfully argued that it was not fair to only recount the counties that Gore wanted using the new standards, because there was no way to know if the new rules would have changed the results in the rest of the state. At that point, it was too late for Gore to ask them to recount the entire state.

Are you aware of this? https://www.baltimoresun.com/features/retro-baltimore/bs-fe-retro-ballots-20200903-45bwp36t2bfvvmiy3pmpca7zku-story.html

I just said Lincoln was the last president I could think of to have exercised that power....

Tried and true methods of ballot harvesting. haha

I think he meant the mailin ballot fraud part haha

So it turned out to be so in this case? Fraud that is.

@Corndog this isn’t about circumstances it’s about the dichotomy you presented. Proving a election not fraudulent or fraudulent. We have never proven a election not fraudulent as a barrier to becoming president. That’s why using your criteria trump can’t be president because it was never proven he won without fraud.

The only thing I've yet to see is fraud or impropriety that happened to extent to change the outcome in these states.

In the Lincoln case

How did Trump win fraudulently in 2016?

Massive fraud.

@Adam135 I’m using his criteria of having to prove a election non fraudulent