Read your comment again, but consider a hypothesis that you are entirely wrong about most things - how would you know? Everyone seems to lack a consideration that there is even a possibility they could be wrong.
If they are exposed two sides, and you one, how do you know you are right? You probably are. But… it’s the absolutism that is starting to become obvious to me.
Maybe you will see it, but many people get their news from social media. Seeing how Facebook is now censoring the CDC website (or at least a certain page) many people will not.
While there is disinformation out there, it is rare to see completely fabricated primary sources. For example, when a bunch of news sources are saying things like the election was rigged, you can go to the published court cases and the handwritten affidavits. You can then see that 87 judges of all types totally rejected the ridiculous arguments. You can then read through about 250 pages of affidavits and see that they are nothing but vaguely racist, speculative garbage.
Regarding things like the covid vaccine, you can look at the 96% vaccination rate of doctors or you can listen to basically every single immunology or virology expert. It is quite telling that pretty much the only doctors making the media rounds fear mongering about the vaccine are gastroenterologists, opthalmologists, or other unrelated fields.
So no, nothing is certain, but some things are pretty close to certain.
>You can then see that 87 judges of all types totally rejected the ridiculous arguments.
Not one election fraud case was rejected on merit and claims. None were heard. All were denied via process. This isn't a surprise. All lower courts are going to boot them, they aren't the place to hear this, I watched the hearings where the judges rejected and immediately facilitate getting the time sensitive paperwork ready for appeals. The higher courts rejected even the idea of hearing them for various reasons including the establishment right wanted Trump to remain in office as much as the establishment left.
Including the Supreme Court that ruled that potential federal election fraud or process violations in states wouldn't effect another state. So in this case despite Texas correctly pointing out that other states unquestionably and admittedly violated Article2 by approving election protocols without the consent of their legislatures, that Texas had no standing to sue.
This doesn't mean there was fraud. Doesn't mean there wasn't. But in terms of the scotus case, that was bullshit of the century and if you don't understand what happened (McConnell picked "Trump's" judges and McConnell wanted Trump gone as fast as possible) then you will never understand what really happened.
But to just wave your hands and say "They didn't win trial, all fake!" without admitting none were ever heard, is a willfully ignorant view of what happened. Even the courts sympathetic to Trump weren't going to rock the boat like that. It was always going to go to scotus and they signaled bright and early they weren't going to do it.
>Not one election fraud case was rejected on merit and claims
That's not true and you obviously have not read through the cases if you think that. Quite a few of the cases were rejected because the judge found the merits so lacking that it didn't even warrant a trial. That's a HUGE indicator that your cases have ZERO merit. Especially when we are talking about sympathetic judges. They didn't just reject the cases for lack of merit, the excoriated many of the attornies that were pushing such garbage into the court system.
In addition, many of the lawyers who brought those cases forward are seeing disbarment and serious sanctions for such frivolous cases. You don't get disbarred or sanctioned for filing a meritorious case with the wrong court. You get them for serious malpractice and bad faith.
> Not one election fraud case was rejected on merit and claims. None were heard. All were denied via process.
Do you mind expanding on what you mean by "[not] rejected on merit and claims", "none were heard", and "all were denied via process"? There are multiple arguments that these are incorrect:
- In the US court systems, dismissal due to failure to state a claim is a decision on the merits (Federated Dep't Stores v. Moitie)
- At least one court did hear claims (barring you and me using different definitions of "hear claims"), and specifically addressed them in their decisions (e.g., Law v. Whitmer included depositions and explicitly ruled on the merits)
- Multiple decisions included an analysis of the claims in addition to analysis of the procedural failings (e.g., the decision in King v. Whitmer addresses 11th Amendment immunity, mootness, laches, abstention, and standing, and also goes on to describe why even if the complaint did not suffer from the previous issues the plaintiffs would not be granted their requested relief).
> The higher courts rejected even the idea of hearing them for various reasons including the establishment right wanted Trump to remain in office as much as the establishment left.
Can you cite anything that would support the latter half of that sentence being a reason appeals courts tended to rule the way they did?
> Including the Supreme Court that ruled that potential federal election fraud or process violations in states wouldn't effect another state.
This is an incorrect reading of the Supreme Court's decision. They said Texas lacked Article III standing, which is not the same thing as what you said. For example, the Supreme Court could agree that potential election fraud or process violations could affect another state, while still ruling that Texas lacks Article III standing due to failing the injury-in-fact requirement (injury is not a) concrete and particularized and b) actual or imminent).
> So in this case despite Texas correctly pointing out that other states unquestionably and admittedly violated Article2 by approving election protocols without the consent of their legislatures
This is almost certainly not as unquestionable as you make it sound; for example, Texas claimed that Pennsylvania's Secretary of State "unilaterally abrogated several Pennsylvania statutes requiring signature verification for absentee or mail-in ballots" without the approval of the legislature, but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court pointed out that the Pennsylvania Election Code does not permit the rejection of mail-in ballots based on signature, so if anything the SoS's guidance is aligning with state law more than before.
>They
>us
How do you know “your side” is right?
Read your comment again, but consider a hypothesis that you are entirely wrong about most things - how would you know? Everyone seems to lack a consideration that there is even a possibility they could be wrong.
If they are exposed two sides, and you one, how do you know you are right? You probably are. But… it’s the absolutism that is starting to become obvious to me.