Easy Truth

The question seems meaningful because the answer is "Yes". But it's meaningless because: Do you think the Republicans are maneuvering themselves, or would if they could, to a one party state? YES Do you think the Greens are maneuvering themselves, or would if they could, to a one party state? YES Do you think the Socialists are maneuvering themselves, or would if they could, to a one party state? YES Do you think the Evangelicals are maneuvering themselves, or would if they could, to a one party state? YES Do you think the Libertarians are maneuvering themselves,

He also accepted that Biden is the legitimate president. That is the difference he has with you. He was not duped.

Fake news again Dude. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election

So more than 50 courts the United States are like the OJ court. If they were, I would have stormed the Capitol too. There is no Justice in the United States. We can't count on anything. I can get murdered at any time and the guy will get away with it. Careful with this thought process. If we continue on this trajectory, there will be no country left.

One cannot over turn an election by simply shouting "MASSIVE fraud" either. Show us links to the rulings and we can go through them. Can questioning be unlimited? One has to examine: What should stop that process. Why not question ALL previous presidential elections? Why not revisit Gore vs. Bush? I will argue that the questioning happened and ended properly in the courts. As I said before, if you are arguing that it did not work, you are arguing against the efficacy of judicial system (maybe fraud or corruption or a problem in the judicial system). That courts can't do it right

That would mean you are right, there was massive fraud. Massive fraud implying a coordinated, directed effort to commit fraud (steal the vote). The case would have to make that there was "enough" defrauding to change the election. Not the amount that happens typically in all elections. If you can get around the issue that Arizona and Georgia with Republican governors ALSO were part of the fraud, then you would have a credible case. Otherwise, Arizona and Georgia win the presidency for Biden. In other words, if the assumed fraud in Pa was "similar" in Michigan etc. , it still would not cha

It would be massive fraud in Pa and in that case Pa should go to Trump. But ... Biden would still be president because he would still have the electoral votes to make him president. Pa does not matter. If you think it does or did, you were duped.

I've made the case that No massive fraud, especially in the legal sense occurred. She was duped. She simply was on the losing side of an election. There was no need for her to risk her life and to die.

Based on your request, you are not arguing fraud anymore. You simply want a procedural change. This is a major shift. Not an allegation of fraud If so, the question is why was this not fought in court before the election? The possibility of advantage was known. Why is it called fraud when everyone knew about it? That is the fraud that has been perpetrated. "Calling it fraud" That is what got that woman killed The truth is, it was incompetence, mistakes, lack of coordination which causes a loss

Would you agree that you want a change in the "rules of evidence" that courts use in the United States? If so, what is that change? How should courts deal with "non credible" evidence? How should they deal with "lack of standing"? Should next time when Democrats object, a special privilege be given to them in an election? Should Texas have a right to interfere with internal issues within Pennsylvania? "When someone says, I never saw it happen, but it must have happened" should we investigate it?

Out of all the battleground states, if you can convince me that Arizona and Georgia, who have Republican governors at the helm, had massive coordinated fraud to prevent Trump from winning, you will convince me. (They are used because their Governors would have every reason to push the results in Trump's favor) Keep in mind, these two states (Arizona and Georgia) alone (ignoring ALL other battle ground states, as in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin etc.) gave Biden the Presidency (above 270 electoral votes). Pennsylvania for instance is a moot point if Arizona and Georgia went to Biden

That is a valid concern. The basic push back on it is that fact that Trump or the Republican party had opportunity to address those issues, in court, far before the election. That was their responsibility. In fact, the California republican party did do that successfully and the gained republican seats in communist California. So ultimately, there may perhaps be unfair advantage due to mail in ballots for Democrats, but there was no (massive coordinated) LEGAL fraud. Whatever happened for the most part has been legal. Now moving forward, a discussion about mail in ballots and "who should vote"

You forgot C. Relieved Trump lost and not looking forward to Biden

Too much word salad there. Just sum it up. He was incompetent.

It is easier because there is more than ample evidence. There is no attempt on his part to even hide it.

And maybe Stalin believed in laissez fair capitalism. He saw the folly in respecting individual rights so he just acted like communist. We can both play at arbitrary statements.

You're either lying or you somehow believe Trump's lie. If he believed there was fraud, he would have spent some of that money he raised on making his cases stick. Instead, he kept the money. Trump appointed Judges threw out these cases. That's the smoking gun that you lie about. No error here.

You want us to descend to "Might is Right". And men are Brutes. Fake news. Without knowing about it the liability would be far to great with all that bacteria flying all over the place. Is this the thinking pattern used to determine that there was massive fraud in the election?

Vilifying the truth teller, Classic.

A national mask mandate on federal property. I believe that it would be unconstitutional for him to mandate it nationally but time will tell.

I agree. I condemn them regardless of what they advocated for. Okay, that makes a big difference.

Then Trump did not push the idea that there was massive fraud. And he promoted trust in the judicial system to sort it out. And peace reigned in the Capitol Building on January 6 2021. And then I woke up.

Yes and that is the key issue, THE ENTIRE SYSTEM is corrupt is what they believe. It's not just the election system, it ALL OF IT. This is what's hard to understand. When did it start? Why? The obvious fact, just looking around us, we should be able see for the most part, we have a system that works. So there's some sort of evasion that's going on (caused by some intense blind anger). This kind of (angry) thinking (or lack of thinking) is dangerous, I mean deadly dangerous.

Keep in mind the Arizona and Wyoming GOP has censured their leadership for going against Trump. That means people arguing for Trump are the vast majority in the GOP. They don't hear the arguments. And they make the same ones over and over. 1. There is actual evidence of fraud on a massive (coordinated scale) (a landslide) and the courts did not allow the truth to come out 2. Tu Quoque (repeatedly) 3. His speech did not incite violence 4. And few, "law makers deserved it" (This is what our representatives deserve. Screw 'em, and screw Biden.) But ... 4 is the one

I didn't mention it, but wouldn't insurance costs have pressure downwards in a market where: 1. The cost of medical services and pharmaceuticals are lower As in Doctor Visits cost less and less Your pills cost less Hospital stay cost less etc. Nursing costs less 2. Insurance companies would compete or be allowed to be more effective by operating interstate, intercountry even. As in you could buy your health insurance in London because they gave a great deal with their huge customer base all over the world. The way it is, this would be highly unlikely.