@Dee > Starting with calls for censorship and repression of opinions you don’t agree with. I did no such thing. I simply asked for evidence of standing. Without that, nobody knows if you're an American voter sincerely interested free and fair elections, or a foreign controlled/influenced troll seeking to sow seeds of discord. I link to my own site because I stand behind what I say here. I put very little weight in the opinions of people who don't do that, whether they agree with me or not. > Selectively answering the points you think you can, while conveniently ignoring the others, like since when is an affidavit not legal evidence ? Since pretty much forever. Testimony is not evidence. It has its place in a legal proceeding or scientific process, but it is *worthless* when held up against actual objective evidence. I mean, by your logic, Trump swore the 2016 election was rigged, and he won that election, ergo he's admitted to election fraud and should have been summarily convicted of that felony. Is that *really* the point you want to make? But, no, the onus is *not* on you or me to address every wild accusation that someone else levels in a discussion. They must at a minimum make a credible claim. That involves a base level of evidence more than someone saying they heard that someone saw something fishy. Again, this has been [settled](https://xkcd.com/1235/). > Claimn “critical thinking” while doing nothing else than unquestioningly parrotting the party line. You have that backwards. It is my critical questioning that *leads* me to the party of reason. Do you not realize that experts actually do a *ton* of work to reach consensus? It is the wingnuts of the world who simply follow their leader. To that point, trying not to get overly political on the subject, I *do* support Trump's legitimate right to challenge the outcome of the election. But he has not been picking his battles wisely. He could *easily* have approached this in a way that is respectful of the democratic process. Instead, by not giving us any solid evidence of fraud, he went at it in a manner that reeks of desperation. It taints not only this election, not only future elections, but past elections including his very own. @jones > If somebody values belief above reason, you can’t sway them with arguments. Sometimes it's not about feeding the trolls themselves, but about feeding all the other readers who *are* reasonable and would just like to see the counterpoint to consider. On the topic of election security, simply asking for objective evidence of election *insecurity* should not be seen as a high bar to clear. @Winter > Does such a thing exist? An intellectualy honest conspiracy theorist? Well, that's part of the joke! :-) For all their anomaly hunting, they seem unable to spot the *huge* inconsistencies in their own arguments. Motivated reasoning is a hell of a drug. faadee2ad45a390973a1b147b9223abcf1cf3dbba65d7a38ca7ece6a50a6718a