I never said was going to. I said it would be best if we did. Wouldn't junk the forum up so much. You have serious reading comprehension problems.
That is not what you said. You said this exactly: "Georgia conducted three recounts and the result was the same". I replied and said you were wrong and you reply confirming you were wrong. I didnt need your confirmation. I am already well informed. You are the one that need to be informed.
It was a specific recount of the votes and the counts were never the same. That their system could not reproduce the same numbers in any of the recounts. That, to most sane people, should be a big red flag. It means their digital system has errors and because of that, Trump asked to see the data and was refused. No. It is using the actually meaning of words correctly. Something you and the left clearly struggle with.
So you honestly think that Brian Kemp, the Republican Governor of Georgia and a Trump supporter to the hilt....that Brad Raffensberger, the Secretary of State of Georgia and a Trump supporter and all the other Republican election officials in Georgia just went out of their way to repudiate Trump? You honestly think that those people didn't want Trump to win? Your being absurd and ridiculous to even insinuate that we should believe that these are the bad guys who have screwed Trump. But it fits the pattern....everyone is all good until they cross Trump and then they are the bad guys. They are traitors. He's even done this to Pence now....the guy who has been more loyal to Trump than anyone. It just never ends and you guys go along with it like it's no big deal. Your judgement and/or your character must be flawed if you cannot see that he is a con man and a pariah to our democratic system of government.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-cries-election-fraud-in-court-his-lawyers-dont-11605271267 President Trump has claimed widespread fraud was at play in the presidential election. Several of his lawyers have told judges in courtrooms across the country that they don’t believe that to be true. Under questioning from judges handling the cases, at least two of Mr. Trump’s lawyers have backed away from suggestions that the election was stolen or fraudulent. In other instances, attorneys representing Mr. Trump or other Republicans have said under oath they have no evidence of fraud. Lawyers also have struggled to get what they say is evidence of fraud admitted into lawsuits, with judges dismissing it as inadmissible or unreliable. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/29/trump-election-fraud-lawsuit-defeats In fact, Trump’s own legal team has never formally challenged elections results in any state court through substantiated claims of fraud. https://chicago.suntimes.com/2020/11/23/21594110/rudy-giuilani-trump-election-challenge-courts n one of several Pennsylvania cases, Trump attorneys actually signed a legal document in which they stated: “Petitioners do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any fraud in connection with the challenged ballots; Petitioners do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any misconduct in connection with the challenged ballots; Petitioners do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any impropriety in connection with the challenged ballots; Petitioners do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any undue influence committed with respect to the challenged ballots.” These are just a few examples of the reality about Trump's election fraud claims. His lawyers never presented the "evidence" because it simply wasn't true. Attorney's never alleged election fraud because they knew better. But hey, believe what you want but don't be disappointed when you get let down again. Real Question: How many times has your preferred media or news source been correct lately? If your information never works out then I would start questioning those sources.
You posted it yourself "Lawyers also have struggled to get what they say is evidence of fraud admitted into lawsuits, with judges dismissing it as inadmissible.." Why would anything related to this be inadmissible? It's a convenient technicality. Not to mention, the obstructing requests tor forensic audits and access to voting machines in several counties where the biggest red flags occurred. It's funny how every single discrepancy has a 'reasonable' explanation that placates the simple minded. I'm sure they did, but at some point, when they realized the scope of what was at play, they decided it was in their best personal and political interest to fall in line. And you believe everything CNN jams down your gullet. I guess it's easier to be told what to think then to actually research and apply critical thinking.
You're right, of course, but that's just not my style. No one gets under my skin bad enough for me to ignore them and I can take a punch as well as I can dish them out.
