@TaLoN132 I disagree with the tactic

As we have seen how well his election integrity efforts played out

Nonexistent, by his own professed assessment.

we live in an age when basic decency and fair play cannot be assumed, the election system needs to be reinforced to reflect that

concerted fraud efforts are totally a possibility, the incentives are very strong

No doubt.

If this is a tactic and lawsuits are knowingly false, that is an awful thing to do and should lose Trump the respect of the entire nation. I personally think that there are irregularities where fraud could be an explanation but there could be other answers as well. It needs to be investigated to the fullest extent. There will be big issues with our country if they are not.

In Canada, you have to show ID and proof of address to vote in Federal elections
https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&document=index&lang=e

That's racist here.

if States are to run their elections independently, the federal gov should run pen testing on each of them, trying to sneak in fake votes to test each State's system

I think people are misrepresenting what constitutes “proof” and that has confused the whole debate. People act like nothing shy of a video of someone filling out 100,000 Biden votes and then adding them to the count is enough.

The problem is a the legal burden of proof. You can have strong evidence that something bad happened but not strong enough to convince a judge or jury.

sadly the courts will be under huge pressure so yea, I expect them to err on the side of not upsetting the election

you need very strong stuff

This is a civil case so they only need a preponderance of evidence no?

@liftandstudy Yet, something of that magnitude will be necessary to throw out hundreds of thousands of American voters' votes with the bathwater.

we've all seen video of Philly boarding up windows and blocking observers from entry, but PA's court just dismissed all that

I do understand the human element, the judges will be hesitant to do anything without a smoking gun. But I’m saying if we ignore that and look only at the legal rules

In theory yes. I would imagine that it is probably closer to beyond a reasonable doubt in reality. There is too much risk for judges to rule otherwise without having a good defense of undeniable evidence.

regarding preponderance of evidence: a lot of the allegations are about things that Dems scored BEFORE the election, this has a huge weight. Waiting until after the election is tacitly having accepted all the rigging done in the open before.

I agree, that was my concern from the beginning. Imagine we had the exact same circumstances, but this was an off year race for a House seat or something, I do not believe this would even be controversial.

What wouldn't be controversial?

someone linked me this

Saw that earlier. That is concerning.

@Zuluzeit that fraud took place in this election

yep this was posted before but the channel is spammed with 2-way chats

I see what you are saying. I have no doubt that Trump believes the only way he could lose is if the other side cheated - he said as much repeatedly. Lawyers know whether a case has merit or not - or at least they should. I imagine his previous lawyers may have seen the writing on the wall.

It should be concerning, no widespread voter fraud has taken place.

republicans allowed all the voting machines, also allowed the extension of mail-in voting and the removal of checks in several states

@nachik, you just advanced to level 3!

where were they?

somehow AdamS sounded bald and had a CNN ticker going over his text 😛 (jk)

@nachik the evidence I’m talking about specifically is the poll watchers being excluded, the statistical anomalies, the affidavits of eye witnesses, etc. These elements did not occur before the election took place.

@liftandstudy, you just advanced to level 1!

I’m British and have independent looked at the claims...

I understand some rules were changed way ahead of time

@AdamS I was jokingly saying you sound like Stelter

There is no way you could possible know that based on the evidence we all have access to. You are just as ignorant to fact of that claim as anyone else.

lol was just saying...many get offended when a Brit voices opinion...

@nachik Are you sure that Phiily boarding up the windows video was to block out observers? I thought that was disproven in court. There were still representatives of both campaigns in the room. Those were non-campaign onlookers that were being disruptive, if I recall. It's been a while, so I may be misremembering.