In other words, never mind that those four states broke the law, counted illegal votes, illegally extended deadlines, illegally ignored legal procedural requirements, counted thousands of ballots multiple times, etc., etc. Nay, who needs honest elections, as long as your guy "wins," right?
No, never mind that the losing side makes those claims without backing it up with persuasive evidence.
What utter hogwash. Sheesh, have you read a single page of the evidence of voter fraud? "Procedural matters"!!! Yeah, like not scanning thousands of ballot multiple times, like not accepting mail-in ballots with no postmark, like not accepting mail-in ballots that were mailed after the lawfully established deadline, like not doing legally required signature verification on mail-in ballots, etc., etc. And this is not to mention the documented tabulation irregularities in the Dominion voting machines' tabulations.
Utter hogwash? Is that some sort of legal term I have not yet heard of?
What is it going to take for you to understand that the right has already lost 46 court cases and one SCOTUS petition because their so far unproven claims of fraud have no merit. And in case you haven't noticed, "legal eagle", Texas is not alleging fraud, because that would be a criminal offence, but is instead saying that the four states did not follow proper procedure resulting in things happening that Texas doesn't like.
Then that would make those people idiots and/or crooks. No one has a "right" to have their ballot counted 10 times. No one has a "right" to have their mail-in ballot counted if they couldn't manage to mail it in the legally established four-week period. No one has a "right" to have their mail-in ballot counted if the signatures on the envelope and the ballot clearly do not match or if there's no signature at all on the envelope.
There you go again. There is not a shred of evidence that ballots were counted 10 times, nor is there any evidence for the other allegations. That's all they are; allegations made by the sore loser who lost the election.
In other words, you can't explain it, so you fall back on the summary, superficial rulings of corrupt or spineless judges, none of which made any effort to explain the suspiciously low mail-in ballot rejection rates.
There is no "in other words". I don't explain it because there is no need to explain it. The mere fact that you accuse "corrupt and spineless" judges to be in on the fraud says enough about what your true position really is. For you Trump won the election and anybody who says otherwise and disagrees is either stupid, corrupt, spineless and in on the fraud. It's an argument a 5 year would make. It's truly pathetic.
What idiocy. No, we did not have a "fair" election, and so far you have punted every time I've asked you to explain the clear evidence of voter fraud. Just because Democratic judges have summarily dismissed valid, fact-based lawsuits does not mean the voter-fraud evidence can be wished away.
Talk about dishonesty. Trump's claims have been denied by Democratic and Republican judges, some of them even appointed by Trump. Just because Trump and his ilk, which includes you, claim there was voter fraud doesn't mean there actually was fraud. And there is no "clear evidence" for voter fraud because if there was, Guiliani would have passed it on to the DOJ for investigation and would have presented it in court. He hasn't done either. It's one thing to make absurd claims in the public domain, it's quite another to repeat those baseless claims in court if - as in this instance - you can't prove them.
Let me try to explain something to you. It will probably be a waste of time, but I'll try anyway. First of all, under the present system there is no national election for President. If there was, the popular vote would prevail, but it doesn't because each individual state holds an election, under their own rules and guidelines, to elect Electors to represent the State in the election of the President in the Electoral College. Those Electors are chosen by popular vote. He who gets the most votes wins.
Texas has no business telling another state how they should conduct their election of Electors nor does it have any say in which Electors are chosen by cerfication in that state. Texas has it's own Electors and they can vote the way they want in the Electoral College, but it has no right to tell another state how their Electors should vote. That's why the case brought by Texas to the SCOTUS has no merit and standing.
The intervention by Trump, which is not yet (and probably won't be) granted, has even less standing because he, as a candidate for the Presidency, has no standing in the election of the Electors. In other words, despite being a candidate he has no part in the process of chosing and certifying the Electors. His interests only come into play in the Electoral College. In 2016 Trump took advantage of this system by getting the most Electoral College votes, whilst losing the election on the popular vote. This time he lost the popular vote again, but now he's trying to get the states to send Electors that will vote for him, despite his loss in the popular vote. It is pathetic and it will not happen.