Not true.

The levers of power in PA, WI, MI, AZ were not controlled by the GOP, and in PA they couldn’t control the PA Supreme Court which made a lot of the decisions. There were many attempts prior to the 2020 election to stop the rule changes that led to the ability to have fraudulent results, and they were thwarted in a number of ways. See this for a discussion, and also see this.

One can say they were surrounded by Never-Trumpet RINOs. But as far as I can tell no visible efforts were made before elections. But many afterwards.

Sort of fits in with Trump surrounding himself with people no good for him. A tangent case in point — Dr. Birx and Fauci — with a gay-killing record. Who the hell recommended these clowns. Trump did wake up in August with Atlas — but too late.

In truth, the stats show the likelihood of fraud is probably a million times stronger, but I wrote thousands in order to foreclose claims of hyperbole by those who can’t do math.

What should be considered sufficient proof? We can show hundreds of affidavits of serious election wrongdoing. We can show vote changes that defy any explanation or historical precedent. We can show vote totals in key cities that defy everything pollsters know to be true. If the election was honest, then polling is impossible. Seriously. But if quality pollsters can consistently get it right (see Rich Baris), then the election was stolen. You can only believe one or the other situation.

So what is the burden of proof? Since we can’t get an actual court review, I would argue that one only needs to believe (based on the evidence) that a steal is more likely than not.

And who should bear the burden of proof? Those who claim legitimacy. Biden bears that burden.

Because in a just world, the burden should be on the loser initially to produce sufficient evidence (fraudulent acts and/or statistical improbability) to raise a serious claim. At that point, the winner — having been shown to commit fraudulent acts and evidence showing an honest result statistical unlikely (in this case impossible) — should bear the burden of convincing the public that the result was clean.

The only court left is public opinion. The standard of proof is not a criminal one. That would not be intellectually honest. Silly really.

The appropriate standard for any fair and honest citizen — is there enough evidence to justify a claim that the election was likely fraudulent?. If so, the cheaters should be punished at the ballot box.

I don’t see any possible way that an honest observer, fully apprised of the evidence and the stats, can possibly conclude that the election wasn’t stolen. There are Trump haters on the right who insist on ignoring the evidence and who choose to employ a standard of proof that is impossible to meet and intellectually dishonest. But no one has any reason to take them seriously. Because they aren’t making any effort to be serious.

First a problem must be recognized, then one goes about attempting to resolve it.

Recognition is not solving. It is a step along the way. And years and years might be needed.

The Trump folks were on the path to solving the problem of the swamp.
Similarly, the Trump folks were on the way to bringing about Middle East peace–see the Abraham Accords.

Trump, even if he is not the designer model “vessel” some might prefer, was the right person for the job, and is “a” right person to continue the job.

I hope Trump moves to Texas and that we have a Trump-DeSantis ticket in 2024.

We probably disagree, to some extent, about why. A lot of folks here argue that what was done to Trump would have been done to any Republican. I agree, but only to an extent. We saw how the left treated W. Bush, Romney and, to a lesser extent, McCain. Trump was more willing than any of those Republicans to take on the left. (I have consistently given him credit for that.) That has something to do with why the reaction to him was so fierce.

Even given that, however, Trump’s bull-in-a-china-shop persona, flagrant lying, and other less-desirable character traits were a huge reason that the “resistance” was as blatant and successful as it was. I believe that there are a lot of bureaucrats who would have disliked any Republican who took on the left, but nonetheless would have dutifully done their jobs, at least as they had during previous Republican administrations. Trump’s negative personality traits, however, allowed these folks to be convinced that Trump was a threat to the republic itself and definately contributed to the more extreme behavior.

Turning to voters, Democrats have been trying to make Republicans out to be Hitler 2.0 for as long as I can remember. (I remember “Bushitler” and when Romney was going to “put y’all back in chains.”) But, I don’t think that many voters outside of the progressive fever swamp really believed any of that, until Trump. Trump’s bombastic persona and crudity played right into Democrats narrative. I have no doubt that there was monkey business in the 2020 vote, and a lot of it. That’s not why Trump lost, though. Trump lost because a lot of normies in the suburbs bought into the Democrats’ narrative that Trump was a unique threat to the Republic (or just got sick of his act).

As I said here and have said before, I give Trump credit for fighting. Mitt Romney would never have stuck with Kavanaugh or put Barrett on the Court as Trump did. Pence wouldn’t have either. (Pence folded like a cheap suit on a state level RFRA when he was governor of Indiana in 2015.) I also give Trump credit for unveiling the nature of the left.

The fight is upon us. Thanks to Trump, we know what we’re up against and, again thanks to Trump, there are many more Republicans who are actually wililng to fight rather than just manage the surrender.

But the question now is where do we go from here? Is Trump the best candidate to for the next stage? Clearly, and emphatically, no, he is not! He has serious electability issues and we know from experience that he doesn’t know how to tame the bureaucracy.

That’s where I am. Give Trump the recognition and credit he deserves for changing the culture of the right to a fighting orientation and revealing the nature of the modern left, and then throw him a nice retirement party. I do not want to lose another winnable election in 2024 by nominating Trump. I do not want to waste an administration if Trump wins and populates the government with incompetant hacks like those who were advising him over January 6th. I certainly do not want to deal with the backlash that will occur in 2029 after a second Trump administration.

At least we have fuzzy pictures of Bigfoot and Nessie.