Biden: master of the implausible

[BartenderElite]

Nope. Whole lot of serious liars lining up against you though. They simply do not care. There could be video evidence of 20 million mail in ballots from CHINA and they still wouldnt give a shit. Sadly its just the way it is with them.

How about a single piece of evidence to start with? You know...instead of over 30 cases that have been laughed out of court?

How about we start there?

[Darth Omar]

__________________

I found most of those points rather weak. For example:

"First, no incumbent who has received 75 percent of the total primary vote has lost re-election. Second, President Trump received 94 percent of the primary vote,..."

Since Trump had no real primary opponent, it is not unusual he won such a large share of the vote.

He beat The Obama’s primary numbers. Did Obama have a primary opponent in 2012?

[BartenderElite]

Ok, where is the opinion piece that says something like “Biden wins, in spite of X Y and Z?”

It’s truly remarkable how all the chips fell into place for him; and ‘cuz Trump’ seems a little inadequate as an explanation to people who don’t even like Trump.

That's what you're left with?

So, the media is in on it too? Did you catch my "logic" question earlier in the thread?

[SuperStringTheory]

The beatdown Biden delivered to Trump was historic but not at all implausible. Many expected it to be more severe.

[Darth Omar]

That's what you're left with?

So, the media is in on it too? Did you catch my "logic" question earlier in the thread?

They’re not ‘in on it’ they’re biased—to the point of activism, and they wouldn’t dare say anything that would give any credence to skepticism over the results.

[Darth Omar]

The beatdown Biden delivered to Trump was historic but not at all implausible. Many expected it to be more severe.

You don’t find it even mildly interesting that a man who barely campaigned beat Obama’s numbers?

Cuz Trump?

[AProudLefty]

"Reporters are not curious."

[Darth Omar]

"Reporters are not curious."

Many aren’t lol.

[BartenderElite]

They’re not ‘in on it’ they’re biased—to the point of activism, and they wouldn’t dare say anything that would give any credence to skepticism over the results.

So, you're upset w/ the media for not "giving credence" to a baseless effort to undermine the integrity of American elections? An effort that 3 weeks in has produced no evidence whatsoever, and has been a legal trainwreck?

I'm so happy the media has NOT done that. Why would or should they? That's a credibility nosedive for any reputable news gathering organization.

[ExpressLane]

Surely the journalist class should be intrigued by the historic implausibility of Joe Biden’s victory. That they are not is curious, to say the least.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/23...lection-norms/
__________________

Good article from The Federalist on Biden’s electoral magic.

It lists at least four implausible aspects to Biden’s win. Not going to bother listing them since they’re in the link. But it illustrates why myself and tens of millions of other Americans [I suspect, secretly, even many democrats] will always be skeptical of the outcome of this election.

Any time you’re dealing with ‘stacked implausible’ events it’s time to check and see if the dice are loaded. And it sure appears that Joe was rolling loaded dice on the night of the election.

Regardless of whether or not major fraud is discovered the implausibility of Biden’s win is *a legitimate story* in of itself. But only the media outlier The Federalist does a story on it.

The other ‘journalists’ aren’t stupid—they can see with their own eyes but they wouldn’t dare report on that angle.

And every one of us know why that is.

Excellent article.

[ExpressLane]

"Reporters are not curious."

You got that right!

[Darth Omar]

Excellent article.

That’s why you won’t find it in the ‘approved media’.

[domer76]

The leftist shit stain answer for everything.

The truth hurts, doesn’t it, punk?

[AProudLefty]

Many aren’t lol.

One of the greatest stories in history and reporters aren't even mildly curious?

[BartenderElite]

An appeal to logic for anyone "skeptical" of the results:

In order to coordinate national, widespread fraud - involving at least 6 states, dozens of counties, over 100 precincts (minimum), voting machines, ice cream trucks, and everyone from campaign managers to vote counters....how many people would need to be directly involved? Roughly?

No one wanted to give this a guess, eh?

Maybe this is why the media isn't "giving credence" to baseless skepticism. Maybe those alleging wild "implausibility" are asking the wrong questions.