re: If Biden won 2020 legitimately

You finally put a few concrete questions on the table, so let’s answer them without all the fluff and scenery.

You asked what the investigations of Trump produced. Impeachments, indictments, testimony, records, judicial findings, and jury verdicts do not disappear because you believe they were politically motivated. You are free to argue that a particular case was weak, unfair, defective, or wrongly decided. But “I reject the result” is not the same as “there was never a scintilla of evidence.”

You also asked what the evidence against Trump consisted of and where it originated. That depends on the case. The proper way to address it is to identify the evidence, examine its source, and explain why it fails. You have not done that here. You declared the entire body of adverse material fabricated in advance and then asked me to prove I am not partisan.

Now, to state your election position fairly - you are not saying ordinary citizens must personally solve the case. You are saying suspicious circumstances justified a fuller investigation and that the people controlling the records prevented meaningful examination.

I understand that position. It still does not prove the election was stolen. Suspicion may justify investigation. A credible claim of obstruction may justify further scrutiny. But the claim that decisive evidence was hidden is itself a factual claim requiring support. Otherwise every failure to find proof becomes proof that the proof was concealed. That is not an investigation. It is a conclusion built so no result can ever dislodge it. You also accuse me of eagerly believing every allegation against Trump while admitting you do not follow what I write and are judging from the occasional comment you happen to see. So that charge is not based on evidence either. It is based on the partisan role you assigned me because I will not accept your conclusion without proof. And now you say you are finished unless I defend Democratic conduct over the past decade.

That was never the question. I do not need to defend Democrats to identify a hole in your argument, and evidence does not become stronger because the person questioning it has criticized the correct politicians often enough for your liking.

So I’ll accept your decision to be done, bubba. You came in demanding evidence, ended by demanding a loyalty certificate, and somewhere along the way your election argument slipped out of the saddle.

quote:

---

You finally put a few concrete questions on the table

---

Your incapacity to approach this simple situation is now beyond repair - Stay with "no evidence" = that will damage your remaining brain power less than trying to make a cogent argument of the Democrats positions - positions that declare is a loud voice " WE CHEAT - ALWAYS HAVE - ALWAYS WILL - and don't your DARE think we are going to agree to prevent ILLEGAL ALIENs vote in our national elections then you better think again.

new motto:
WE WILL TURN OURSELVES INTO DEVOTED COMMUNISTS before we will turn loose our ace in the hole for close elections.