I don't recall any court allowing evidence in.
There were few (maybe only one) that actually held an evidentiary hearing. The reason for this, the plaintiff must provide enough probable cause for the court to rule that there is cause of an evidentiary hearing. This is how poor Trump's lawsuits were; the lawyers went into court without being able to show enough actual cause to get a judge to rule an evidentiary hearing was necessary. And while you can complain "liberal judges," the fact is that Trump's lawyers didn't fair any better in courtrooms they appeared before judges that had been appointed by Pres. Trump.
At the same time, the evidence submitted by the Trump lawyers, the evidence submitted as part of the lawsuit to convince judges to actually hold a trial, were discussed and ruled on by judges. I went through the ruling of a Michigan judge back about December, where he went through the affidavits presented by the Trump campaign to "prove irregularities." The issue was, they didn't prove anything was wrong. I can't recall all of the things the judge ruled on but, for example, one affidavit complained about ballots coming in through a back door -- which was the designated door that all ballots were to be brought in through. Another complained about a truck with "boxes" that were taken into the building, that they thought were ballots. In fact, it was a local TV cameraman, the "boxes" containing his camera equipment for broadcasting on the news.
And, again, there were numerous times judges asked the Trump campaign if they were alleging fraud, in every case the Trump lawyers said they were not. As such, there was no reason for the courts to rule to "overturn" the results of the election, regardless of what evidence the Trump campaign might have shown.
But one thing we never had was a forensic audit. So how can you be so sure if you go by standards less than forensic?
Tell me, what exactly is a "forensic audit?" How does it differ from the recounts and audits that states like Georgia did?
Let's see what happens in AZ. If there is nothing there its over. We can all go home.
We've largely seen what has happened in Arizona, based on the preliminary results presented before the Arizona Congressional committee chairman. The answer, they have found no actual evidence. The most they did was to repeat claims made by the person in the Antrim Co, Michigan case, which was shown to be flawed in court.
This is where we are really going to disagree. But think with me for a moment. Are you able to suppose that government perhaps got too big?
Too big for what? And since most "federal employees" (roughly 1.4 million, with another 1 million in the Reserves/National Guard) being in the Armed Forces, do you recommend a drastic reduction in the size of our military? And that number doesn't even include the civilian employees (over 700,000), much less the military contractors.
Are you able to suppose that the reason so many cities burned over the summer without governor intervention might imply how high level it all has become?
What "many cities?" I know Minneapolis had some issues, initially, after George Floyd. I know Portland has had issues for years. There were a few others that had "minor violence/burning," but less than we've seen from some sports celebrations (city's team winning the Super Bowl).
In most cases, action was taken to quell the violence (just as it would in any other case), and I agree the violence/burning was wrong. No cities "burned," though Portland does have riots/vandalism issues but those extend much further back than last summer. I won't try to defend Portland or Oregon, again, this has been going on for a few years in certain areas of downtown (from what I understand from people who live their), just that the cause changes from time to time.
I live in a large city and it never burned, as most cities didn't. There was some protesting, as Blacks make up a large percentage of the city's population, but it remained peaceful. But some media sources likes to play up the "cities burned," trying to make it seem like all cities "burned," despite it being quite rare, and very limited where it did occur.
Are you able to think for a moment, "Ok lets suppose it is that bad, what might that look like?" Because if you, you might see that one way to address would be to reverse their policies to force them to change it back.
Reverse what policies, specifically? And what cities actually have those policies in place?
Be out of office as a much harder target, and let that which you learned and put into place for four years begin to take place in the social order. Because it if is big, and opening the border unchecked while at the same time prophecy the variant fits right in line with gullible. I think it is that big. If it were that big Simply...what might that look like?
Again, what specific policies or things are you trying to address here? The Border has not been "opened" -- in fact, a major complaint of some Democrats is how slow Pres. Biden has been at reversing some of the Trump immigration policies (such as children "in cages").