What's ingrained?  $ Billions spent on the active control of the flow of information before an election? The changes to the law before an election?  Collusion on a grand scale to undermine an election?  

Gimme a break..The breadth and scale of what occurred is unprecedented.

What's garbage is your dismissal of what is hitting you right between the eyes but you refuse to see because it doesn't fit your narrative.

People didn't just "spend money".  They spent $billions to control the *flow* of information-what people could and could not know,-they changed laws, they mis-represented real events ie BLM riots, anything that was not favourable to their preferred outcome on a grand scale.

The election was not stolen.  It was paid for.  That is clear.  And they got there. Just.  That should concern the regressives.

Man, the weirdest thing to come out of the last 4 or 5 years is that a man like Trump managed to position himself as a "man of the people" when he has always been part of a rich elite. He himself has always been working behind the scenes and using money and influence for tax cuts and benefits.

Playing into people's fears, anger and insecurities made poor rural people believe believe he was their champion when he was only ever his own champion.

When someone actually says they deserve more they are labelled a commie and dangerous liberal elite

In what American election was shedloads of money NOT used behind the scenes to influence the outcome?
That's their whole freaking system!

Republicans have outspent Democrats with superpacs/dark money in basically every election in modern history.

If somehow they managed to do it better this one time fucking suck it up, you invented the shit dirty game.

But that's not why people believe the election was stolen.

Maybe SOME people but that's certainly not what trump said, it's not what his base is still saying, it's not what half the politicians are still saying.

The argument was and still is that "shenanigans" took place like suitcases and dead people and more voters than registrations etc etc etc etc

You can't make your own borderline reasonable argument and try to tie it in with the "big lie" bullshit and say that's all anyone ever meant coz it's just not, sorry.

It doesn't matter what Trump was.  It what he did   The fact is under Trump the poor and the minorities experienced the biggest increase in economic benefits than they had probably ever, and in fact more than any other class.  This is fact.

Its not about the money alone.  Its the extraordinary depth and breadth of the conspiracy to control the outcome of the election that the  money bought.  What they did was not lobbying in the usual sense, but a complete corruption of the democratic process.

I never said that there was evidence of election voter fraud on a scale that would affect the election.  There is certainly the potential for it, but I suppose it is possible that whilst there are people who will commit tax fraud, mail fraud, and all other fraudulent actions, everyone just draws the line when it comes to voter fraud and behaves like law abiding citizens.

Oh there is nothing "borderline reasonable" in the argument.  Its been admitted that there was a corruption of democracy on a grand scale never witnessed before.  In fact, the perps are bragging about it.

The fact that a clown that literally shits on a gold toilet and managed to convince people he was, as you say 'a man of the people' is nothing short of extraordinary.  Never has there been a dumber, more corrupt, narcissistic, self interested, tax dodging, lying, bankrupted piece of shit in the history of the US elected president. 

Unless of course you count  bankupting multiple casinos as some sort of bizarro achievement.  In which case he's done well.

DP.

But my point is Trump and everyone that follows him HAVE been talking about voter fraud on a massive scale. 

That argument was at the heart of all the shit we have seen in the last two months.

I am saying what you are talking about is a separate and valid talking point but it is not the one that is being yelled about by Trump and his base.

That the Democrats finally learned how to play the game and even rich people hated the Republican candidate for once is a separate point and an interesting one to discuss if the hyperbole is stripped away. You can't just use the same words as Trump but really mean dark money as opposed to suitcases of votes found on dead people in a river planted by Chavez,

It must be painful waking up in the morning and thinking like Enzo.

-PB

You would think so, but there are millions of people like Enzo .

Are you suggesting that groups or companies who support Republicans haven't "chipped in" similar amounts during election campaigns to their preferred candidate?

From that notable Trump propaganda site Snopes:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trumps-golden-toilet/

When it comes to justice, two things must exist: Justice must be done and Justice must be *seen* to be done.  The capitol riots happened because the second is not happening.

At the heart of it is the Democrats insistence that having a valid ID is in fact "voter suppression" (amongst about 50 other things they claim is also "voter suppression").  The democrats falsely present this as a race issue which causes blacks-specifically blacks- to vote proportionately less than...white (its always white).  In reality the voting rates for blacks and whites are similar and in the Obama years black voting rates were actually higher than whites. Asians and hispanics vote about half as much as blacks, or whites, but the Dems don't talk about them.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1096113/voter-turnout-presidential-elections-by-ethnicity-historical/

Sp all this "voter suppression" of the black vote results in..not much.

Germany, France, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland to name a few progressive democracies have photo ID to vote.  The US is in fact an outlier that it doesn't. 

https://www.nccivitas.org/civitas-review/fact-check-international-voter-id-laws/

Three in four Americans want it:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/15/how-americans-view-some-of-the-voting-policies-approved-at-the-ballot-box/

The Democrats don't-not a good look for democracy.

Another issue is early voting-  In the US, no reason is needed to vote early.  In Australia voters must be outside their electorate where they are enrolled to vote, at work, seriously ill, in prison or have religious beliefs that prevent them going to a polling station, if they wish to vote early.

Bring in voter ID and restrictions on early voting that will go some way towards seeing Democracy is being done.

Thankfully there are moves in place do exactly to fix that:

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/24/republicans-voter-id-laws-461707

Are you suggesting that individuals or companies spent $300 million (each) to Republicans?

it doesn't matter what he shits on as long as he's shitting on a Democrat as well.

The Koch brothers would be the biggest donors, I would have thought.

For those interested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhPF5Yl9mAg
Also worth going to the Wisconsin Supremem Court website.

The basic thrust of the Supreme Court decisions are that although there are numerous illegally counted ballots, Trump's legal team should have acted sooner and because they didn't, Trump is not entitled to relief and the votes are counted.

https://law.justia.com/cases/wisconsin/supreme-court/2020/

1 challenge was thrown out
2 were thrown out because the processes they had been complaining about have been used for 5 and 10 years respectively, had been used for a number of state and federal elections (including ones that Trump won) and they had plenty of time to challenge this before the election.
The final challenge might have gotten up but it was for 17,000 votes (Trump lost by over 200,000) and again, it was well publicised and if they had challenged it before the election it would have been easier to correct.

You make it sound way more sinister than it was. The challenges were all along the lines of "the procedures weren't fair or were open to being misused". That doesn't mean they were and they agreed to the procedures and were happy to use them several times before this election. No court is going to throw out a result because maybe it might have been with no evidence

From the judgement document linked:

Even on the merits, however, the Campaign is either incorrect on the law, or does not provide sufficient proof to identify particular ballots that were improperly cast.

 

This is the link to the Trump v Biden case - https://law.justia.com/cases/wisconsin/supreme-court/2020/2020ap002038.html. I extract the case summary from the Court website which says something else (emphasis added): 

Justia Opinion SummaryThe Supreme Court rejected Donald Trump's effort to invalidate more than 220,000 votes from Dane and Milwaukee Counties in the 2020 presidential election, holding that the challenge to indefinitely confined voter ballots was without merit and that laches barred relief on the remaining three categories of challenged ballots.
Petitioners brought this action seeking to invalidated a sufficient number of Wisconsin ballots to change Wisconsin's certified election results, focusing its objections on four different categories of ballots applying only to voters in Dane and Milwaukee County. Among those challenged ballots were ballots cast by voters who claimed indefinitely confined status since March 25, 2020. The Supreme Court concluded that the Petitioners were not entitled to the requested relief, holding (1) the challenge to the indefinitely confined voter ballots was meritless on its face; and (2) the other three categories of challenged ballots failed under the doctrine of laches.

I would say that meritless on its face means that the Trump team had no evidence at all.

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden will be the first candidate in history to raise $1 billion from donors. His campaign brought in a record-breaking $938 million through Oct. 14, riding Democrats’ enthusiasm to defeat Trump. President Donald Trump raised $596 million, which would be a strong fundraising effort if not for Biden’s immense haul.....

Much of Biden’s campaign cash came in late as he broke single-month fundraising records for September and October. The same can be said for Democratic candidates running for Senate in South Carolina, Maine and Arizona who now hold the top three spots for best fundraising quarters ever. 

Spending by deep-pocketed national groups also is driving the total cost of election higher. In the month of October alone, outside spending by super PACs and other big-money groups totaled nearly $1.2 billion. These groups are spending far more to boost Biden than help Trump, further aiding the Democrats cash-flush campaign. 

https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?cycle=2020&disp=C&type=R

NOTE:  The above is based on information as of 7 January 2021.  It may or may not include the spending on the Democrat campaign as detailed in the article in Time.

The spending differential on the 2020 US election confirms- as in Australia- the parties have flipped as to who they represent.

The Democrats, as with Australia's Labor, is now the party for the wealthy, inner-city pseudo-intellectual virtue-signallers shouting about selected minority "inequality" issues , but with no real desire to tackle the one and only inequality that is real: socio-economic.  The working class with dirty hands, and sweaty shirts are repugnant to them

As soon as Biden won, BLM and Antifa were irrelevant.  Biden didn't even bother to acknowledge BLM's leadership demand "for a seat at the table because they helped him win the election" (at the same time confirming what everyone knew: BLM was all about getting rid of Trump, and nothing to do with police shootings. This was the party that backed slavery, you know..

Useful idiots I guess.

At least the Greens have always remain true to their inner-city, avo-smashing, latte sipping SUV-driving, overseas airplane traveling, school run driving climate hypocrits

And....another Democrat show trial impeachment fails.

It was ok for Maxine Waters, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Kamal Harris, Eliizabeth Warren, John Tester, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi to incite confrontation and violence, apparently.  But no-one else.

MarkFromCroydon is highlighting (and misrepresenting) the part you're not emphasising i.e. the doctrine of latches. As I highlighted in my post, the judges also say there was no evidence for those challenged ballots either.

Gold pated bathroom fixtures.  Po-tay-toes, po-tah-toes.

Only president EVER to be impeached twice.  What a CV.

USA USA.

 Everyone knew what this was-another pointless political show trial by an incompetent, vengeful Democrat party of hypocrites.  They're already thinking "Oh shit how man MORE Billions than what we already spent to buy the next election?"

Thanks.