So, by "some say he's playing 4-D chess", you mean some random people on a gaming forum maybe said that? Ok then. It's also been said in this thread that Trump's probably too stupid to play Go Fish (I know because I said it). Not sure why we would report what random people on a gaming forum might be saying as if that's somehow significant.

The "mainstream media" has nothing to do with this, and I really wish people stop trying to deflect to that. Trump has a platform, and he's able to use it to show evidence. He's had several press conferences, and several of his subordinates have, where he had the opportunity to present evidence and failed. His lawyers have had the opportunity to prove it in courts, and they too have failed. It's not the media's fault that he's been unable to demonstrate his case. 

Not sure what you're trying to say about comparisons. 

You didn't state your personal opinion. What the reaction to Biden's statement is a matter of fact. By no means can the reaction be accurately described as "crickets". Your claim is demonstrably false.

As for the possibilities, yes, they are crazy. It is crazy to think the courts would overturn election results based on what Trump and his legal team have put forth. Which is why his lawsuits have all been getting dismissed.

Again, we can entertain all sorts of absurd scenarios, but I'm not sure what the point of that is. If reality was different than it was, then indeed Trump would come off looking like a genius. But, reality is what it is.

You simply asked who. I sure hope you're not suggesting that anything that anyone says on this forum is insignificant.

The media and Dems had years to prove Russian ties, months to prove quid pro quo, etc, and never did, yet that was all significant enough to run 24/7 and still get brought up at times going forward.

The cheering and honking happened, quietly, by a few. If you compare that to the thunderous roar of the crowd the rest of the time, seeing conservatives as people who also need to be taken into account is clearly at the bottom of the priority list, which is the reason Trump got elected in the first place. Making the case again this early already is a terrible idea. Reflect, don't project was Biden's point.

Crickets by comparison. Do some people say PS4 is quiet? It sure is compared to the OG 360, but not to some other PS4's.

Well if you just look at what's been going on with the courts and Flynn, the courts can be a circus as well. Yes and no, back and forth. The legal process is like molasses, and the courts are anything but non partisan in today's age. The SCOTUS and how it's been viewed, especially more recently, makes that quite clear.

People are acting like what's happening is unprecedented. Trump not immediately conceding like Bush in 2000. Did Bush's lawyers go over their case with the media in it's entirety, with every last detail? A good lawyer wouldn't ever do that. General basic's maybe but that's it.

Trumps a reality star, who became Prez, yet he's still and always has been an idiot? That doesn't seem realistic if you ask me.

One thing I am really interested in knowing about the turnout is the age breakdown. I doubt turnout for senior citizens (65+) will be that much higher than usual.. It may probably be around the same or just a bit higher. But the younger demographics (18-49) had to have really come out much higher than usual. Record-shattering numbers.

You claimed "some people" said that. Naturally, one would assume you meant someone significant. The opinion of people on this forum is indeed not significant, unless backed by evidence. If you just meant that some random person has said that... then okay, maybe you're right... but I still don't see why that's worth bringing up.

I dunno why you're still on about the media. Literally has nothing to do with this. Enough of the whataboutism. 

Crickets=/= cheering and honking by a few. Describing it as "crickets" is objectively false, and the backpedaling is silly.

Measure the reactions in decibels if you'd like, but it was comparable to most of the rest of the speech in my estimation. Concluding that the democrats at Biden's victory speech not cheering as loudly as you've deemed necessary "makes the case again this early already is a terrible idea", is scraping the bottom of the argument barrel.  People who game to Joe Biden's victory speech are probably going to be most excited about the Joe Biden winning part. Expecting democrats to cheer for their opponents as loudly as for their victory is an unreasonable standard.

Not sure what you're saying with the courts. I've read a lot of court cases over the past year and a half. None of them come even remotely come close to simply overturning the results of an election with no evidence. A court ruling that there is voter fraud, "because Trump said so" would be unprecedented. Which is why, as a matter of fact, virtually all of the judges that have decided on these lawsuits have ruled against the Trump campaign.

Trump is not conceding immediately like Bush, because Bush was ahead. Gore actually conceded to Bush, then retracted it later. And yes, Bush's lawyers presented their case to the media. Not every last detail, but at least enough to make their claim as to why the results should not be overturned. Trump has done nothing of the sort. Bush's head lawyer actually has been vocal in his criticism of these lawsuits.

A good lawyer would ABSOLUTELY lay out their case, because that's how the legal system works. You have to submit your brief to the court and to the opposing teams. You have to let them know what your claim is, what legal precedents you are appealing to, and so on so forth. If you do not raise an issue in your brief, then you have waived the right to raise the issue at trial. 

In the movies you can keep secrets, but in real court, you do not get to spring traps on your opponent. There is no benefit to keeping your evidence or legal strategy a secret. And again, the courts are chucking these lawsuits away. So they're not saving good arguments for court, they just don't seem to have them.

I didn't say Trump has always been an idiot. Please don't put words in my mouth. Not saying I disagree, but I'm not going to get sidetracked into an entirely different discussion.

Just answer these simple yes or no questions.

1. Has Trump presented any evidence to support his allegations that voter fraud has cost him the election?

2. Should we take allegations seriously when there is no evidence to support them?

We really shouldn't be surprised by Republicans and their rocky relationship with their need for evidence. They're mostly religious, so they never need evidence to believe the things they want to believe in. They only need evidence to disprove their believes. And when they get it they throw it away.

Everyone of them should be laughed straight into their face whenever they have the audacity to even use the word "evidence", or the word "truth" for that matter. They don't deserve truth because they obviously cannot appreciate it.

When a toddler demands a toy and then always immediately throws it away when you give it to him you should just stop giving him that toy.

Unless they say they feel like the opposite sex once, then we need to take them seriously like adults and start the process of transformation immediately, right?      

So being mysterious is more believable than being direct?

It's an example, I shouldn't have given any apparently.

Crickets = don't have a cow man = break a leg.

'Their' Prez elect is the Prez of the American people. You are one country and one people are you not? Who said anything about cheering at the exact same level the entire time? The point was about the cheering as to one specific point. I simply think wanting to work with the other side should be more of a priority than the lack of applause led me to believe. That doesn't mean it necessarily has to be the top priority.

No decisions have been made yet. That's not how the system works. It's a process before it becomes final. Heck, heaven forbid Trump get's Covid again, along with Biden for a first time, and both don't make it. Then what? The 'decisions' won't be what they once were apparently, called or not.

Then why is the SCOTUS so important when it comes to the possibility of overturning past decisions? That's been talked about a lot since the most recent nomination, but why if it doesn't matter and won't happen?

The news called it, then retracted it, so Gore retracted as well. Seems odd, especially the news retracting something. After multiple automatic recounts and lawsuits, Florida courts decide to recount everything, but Bush uses the SCOTUS to call the recount unconstitutional and then to stop any further counts, with a 5-4 Rep majority. Doesn't sound all that legit, but sure sounds like Trump could use the courts to do the same potentially.

Does the Bush family have ties to the Trump family? How about the Clinton's? Can Both sides only be friendly with their 'own kind'? So Bush's lawyers are good and Trumps lawyers are bad when it comes to the media and courts? Good thing we have the full context as to what happens in the courts and news right?

Not simple. Depends on what you perceive as evidence and depends on how much you're privy to. I don't have to show any to know the response just like some don't need evidence from the msm to believe their reporting or not.

You mean like the Ford-Kav hearings? Yes, they should be heard and taken seriously, not turned into a circus by the politicians and media. Let the lawyers and courts do their thing now, however long it takes, within reason. Report on it objectively if you're going to, especially due to it's extreme importance.

Regarding quid pro quo, even the senate Republicans admitted that he did exactly what the Democrats accused and eventually impeached Trump on, but they used their majority to rule it as an "unimpeachable offense".  Just because Trump won a purely political battle, doesn't mean he didn't do the act, or that it wasn't wrong.

Further, the Mueller investigation could not exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice in regards to the Russia investigation... ya know, the very act by which a sitting president could abuse their power to hinder an investigation.  Further, Mueller later clarified that he did not indict the president because of Department of Justice guidelines that said a sitting president could not be indicted.  Which is about as close as we'll ever get to hearing Mueller say "the president would have otherwise been indicted".

The official two impeachment offenses were abuse of power and obstruction of congress, but both of these were narrowly defined to his acts regarding Ukraine.  The House of Representatives should have been more broad, considering how frequently Trump was willing to obstruct legitimate investigations.  I doubt we'll ever know the full story of what was going on with Trump and Russia, but as the old adage goes "where there's smoke, there's fire".  Maybe Biden's administration will uncover something, but I'm not optimistic at this point.  The damage is done.

So I'll put this politely as I can:  Why make statements like this when there is so much evidence to the contrary?  Best case scenario, you are just ignorant.  Worst case scenario, you are blatantly spouting off misinformation to sow doubt.  Stop.

The difference between 2000 and now is that 2000 depended on one state Florida under 600 votes difference while 2020 is multiple states over thousands of votes in each state.   You can't compare the two elections. 

Trump is a failed casino operator, ran scams like Trump university and trump charity which was shutdown due to buying personal things like a painting of trump with charity money.  He was a b list tv "star" and ran a shit show which you probably loved.   He lies out his ass and is incapable of telling the truth which you probably find as redeeming qualities.  

He lost plain and simple and his loser ass can only cry fraud like he did in 2016 when he was upset he lost the popular vote.   Guess what his stupid commission that was supposed to find fraud in 2016 was disbanded due to not being able to find shit.   There was no wide spread fraud this election either.  

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pennsylvania-postal-worker-ballot-tampering-claims-questioned

He's recanting the recant now I guess?

Quid pro quo requires the other party to agree and give you what you asked for, then for you to give them what they were promised originally. That never happened, so it couldn't have happened. It did happen with Biden and Ukraine though and that wasn't a problem apparently. It can be said it was done for the country, but because it also had ties to his son and the company he worked for, it's not that simple either. Not like potentially finding out someone in Gov is using the system to enrich themselves in some way is for the good of the country either. If that individual is found innocent, since the intelligence personnel will be completely unbiased, it'll look pretty bad on the accuser, so why not investigate?

That, or he didn't want his life or portions of cities destroyed by being clear it was a lot of BS. I'm sure the politicians and media backing it would just let him off the hook. It's not like he wouldn't have any beef with Trump either. Are we really assuming the intelligence personnel aren't biased in general, let alone with some of the things that went on during this period? Based on the team Mueller put together, they sure seemed diverse enough to get the best job done, no?

Trump saying he wants to fire Mueller and that not taking place isn't obstructing squat. Going after Trump for something he either didn't do, or something you weren't going to punish him for anyway if you could prove it, then claiming he obstructed you, is supposed to be seen as legit? Yes, smoke almost always means fire. The question is, is that fire due to Trump burning down the Gov or perhaps "mostly peaceful protests"?

Your options aren't very diverse. You lose, or, you lose, isn't a legit scale, but if that's how you measure, good luck with the bridge.