> made it possible to cheat in ways that slide beneath the high evidentiary standards of the courts
But the issue isn't that the evidence didn't meet high standards -- it was that there wasn't any evidence at all. In many cases, the plaintiffs who filed these lawsuits dismissed them voluntarily, not even trying to put forth evidence.
> Or 2) Joe Biden was by far the most popular presidential candidate in history
I think we can all agree that's not the case. But have you considered that voters often turn out to vote against the other party rather than for their own candidate? At the end of 2020, a lot of people were feeling very unhappy with the incumbent administration. In fact, that was true globally -- incumbents fared terribly after the pandemic.
> But the issue isn't that the evidence didn't meet high standards -- it was that there wasn't any evidence at all. In many cases, the plaintiffs who filed these lawsuits dismissed them voluntarily, not even trying to put forth evidence.
Similarly, there is no evidence of shoplifting in San Francisco. Prosecutors don't even bring cases, let alone bring them and then dismiss them voluntarily. Therefore we can clearly conclude there is no shoplifting at all there, let alone shoplifting at a scale that would affect commerce.
So you’re suggesting that Donald Trump and his allies had the same level of disinterest in winning the 2020 election as San Francisco has in prosecuting theft? Huh.
Well because it's obvious and I figured that you're smart enough to see that.
To spell it out for you: the set of evidence that is admissible in court is a tiny fraction of the set of all evidence that exists. Furthermore, the set of evidence that is not only admissible in court, but is actually presented to a court is an even yet tinier proper subset of the admissible evidence.
When you exclude the vast majority of evidence that a thing may be happening, you don't actually have grounds to say that the thing isn't happening.
And you still avoid my question: WHY. Why didn't those litigants even try to proffer evidence? Why does it just so happen that the only evidence available to support these claims is so weak that it's not even worth trying?
I think the reason you keep avoiding my question is that you don't have an answer for it. All I see are repeated trips around a loop of self-reinforcing beliefs that are rooted in nothing. (Or do you even believe this stuff? Here I am trying to understand what's going on in your head, and perhaps you're just going through the motions...)
Anyway, you're wrong about evidence. Most evidence is admissible, especially if it's going before a bench. What the legal process doesn't allow is "evidence" lacking any indicia of trustworthiness. And as to your claim that the evidence "actually presented to a court is an even yet tinier proper subset of the admissible evidence", well, uh, that's entirely up to the litigants themselves. As I've said, if you won't even bother trying to put up your evidence, one has to wonder why.
But the issue isn't that the evidence didn't meet high standards -- it was that there wasn't any evidence at all. In many cases, the plaintiffs who filed these lawsuits dismissed them voluntarily, not even trying to put forth evidence.
> Or 2) Joe Biden was by far the most popular presidential candidate in history
I think we can all agree that's not the case. But have you considered that voters often turn out to vote against the other party rather than for their own candidate? At the end of 2020, a lot of people were feeling very unhappy with the incumbent administration. In fact, that was true globally -- incumbents fared terribly after the pandemic.