How can Biden be elected as president if large election fraud can be proved?
I just listened to some information on the media about this issue. It was explained about how a supreme court case would not take place if it could not be proved, that the voting fraud would change the outcome. It was explained that if there were say an 80,000 vote difference, and the fraud could only account for say 60,000 votes, then since it would not change the outcome, there would not be a hearing. But, however, there would be criminal proceeding that would take place.
So, it is obvious, that if there were 60,000 votes were found fraudulent, then, that's not a small number, that's a significantly large fraud. However, if there were 80,000 difference, then the fraud would not be considered.
But when you think about it, would not this outcome show a voting process that allows for an amount of fraud that is okay?
In that case, it is possible that Biden will a president that won according to not enough of the democrat voting fraud being found. That's how I would look at it.
My question refers to when the proof comes, and, that is why I said 'IF it could be proved'. But, it happens that the man I was listening to on the media, was some law professor who seems to think that yes, he could identify fraud that was large, but it would fall short of changing the result. So, I'm just paraphrasing what he said, and how I think that outcome would present, if indeed it occurred that way.
But I do definitely think there has been a large scale fraud that took place.
- ?Lv 52 months ago
You can cry "fraud" for the rest of your life, but that won't create any evidence that its true. Its time for you to get past your wishful thinking and acknowledge the fact that Trump lost and Biden won.
- Tmess2Lv 72 months ago
One law professor saying that he thinks that there is proof of large scale fraud does not mean anything. Unfortunately, there are some lower quality law schools that are desperate for faculty members; and, once somebody gets tenure, its hard to get rid of them even if they go off the deep-end of conspiracy theories.
In our legal system, we have a method of dealing with claims of fraud. It's called a trial. To get to a trial, however, you first have to make specific allegations. And so far, every time that Trump's attorneys have been in court, they have denied that they are claiming fraud.
Just yesterday, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected Trump's latest claim about the validity of votes. The opinions are published on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's website so you can read them for yourself. But in all of the consolidated cases, the Trump legal team did not challenge that the mail-in ballots were cast by registered voters and mailed and received before the deadline. Instead, they tried to disqualify these votes based on technical defects. That case involved around 8,000 ballots. It would not have taken much effort to have contacted a couple of 100 of those voters (you simply hire 30-40 investigators and have them contact 5-10 voters per day for two days) to see if any of the ballots were forged. Either Trump's legal team is too lazy or incompetent to do the basic work to file a case or this investigation came up with essentially nothing.
Likewise, in Wisconsin, they are challenging ballots that were cast by voters who fully complied with what election authorities were publicizing as the rules for voting absentee. In one of the great ironies of the election, one of Trump's attorneys is essentially seeking to have his own vote disqualified. If the rules are so ambiguous that even an experienced attorney who is a former judge could fail to fully comply with the proper rules, then those rules should not be used to prevent a person from casting a valid vote.
Simply put, there is always small scale fraud that takes place. It is literally impossible to design a system that prevents all fraud. And, at some level, further "cures" are worse than the disease. Each additional anti-fraud step makes the system more complex and expensive and makes it harder for people to vote. At the present time, there simply is no true evidence that has been alleged or proven in court of anything that would impact more than a handful of ballots. Contrary to what is being said by nuts like Sidney Powell or useful idiots like OAN or Newsmax or active Russian troll farms, there was no massive fraud in this year's election.
- Anonymous2 months ago
Like I tell Christians:
If you had any evidence, we would have seen it by now.
- lalaLv 72 months ago
You are late in your news
trump concede tonight
that Biden had won the elction
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- KiethLv 72 months ago
It hasn't been proven, thirty, that's 30 courts have thrown his claims out. NPR isn't the media.
- Anonymous2 months ago
the key here is PROOF. Trump can't find it, his lawyers can't find it. his toll free hot line can't find it.
- SordenhiemerLv 72 months ago
It hasn't been proven. NO proof has been presented.
- samLv 72 months ago
No proof..trump is a liar
- scott bLv 72 months ago
He can't if large scale election fraud has been proven. But there hasn't been. That's why he's President-elect.