I picked that one out first because it was the best evidence in the whole thing. It seemed pretty juicy, and also concrete, so amenable to checking. I stopped after that because it didn't pan out and I don't know what you were going for, and I certainly don't want to waste a lot of time chasing things down if they're not even relevant to your point. I didn't even know whether that one was relevant--hence my introduction of, "Note, incidentally,". The reason it's incidental is because you have made various claims and I can't tell which one, if any, you're trying to support here.

Was there "obvious foul play" documented there, as you claim now, with the left "us[ing] the law as a weapon to get the result they wanted"? Not that you've documented--what you linked was arguments that there could have been some foul play. That doesn't establish that there actually was to any significant extent, just that it may have been possible, and it also doesn't establish that if foul play had occurred that it was large enough to get "the result they wanted". I agree that when there are any avenues for possible abuse, they should be closed as tightly and quickly as possible. I do not agree that the existence of an avenue is proof of abuse, because there are a lot of non-abusive reasons to do things (e.g. you don't want your citizens to risk death in order to vote, and you're short on time to do anything about it). And certainly I do not agree that the existence of an avenue is proof that it was used and used to an extent adequate to change the outcome, again, because the avenue is fit for other purposes, like, for example, letting people vote honestly and in safety (albeit with a higher risk of a messup invalidating their vote).

Again, you seem unable to meet the basic requirements of an evidence-backed argument: (1) say what your claim is, (2) provide evidence for it that is (a) relevant to the claim, (b) sufficient to document the claim without extensive extrapolation, and (c) factually correct.

Every single time you fail by an immense margin.

Last time there was no claim, just a link. How am I supposed to guess what you were thinking of when you posted it?

You've also missed every other fundamental for making an argument, at various times, including:

Links that aren't relevant to the apparent claim.

Links with evidence that is insufficient to document the claim.

Links with claims that turn out not to be true as stated.

Do you honestly not know how to support an argument with evidence? I mean, if you actually don't know, that's okay--there are plenty of resources to learn (I can provide some).

But if you actually do know, why are you subjecting me, and anyone else who has the fortitude to read this, to such incredibly low-quality stuff? It's not that you don't have time. You seem perfectly content to write multiple paragraphs fantasizing about a lack of intellectual integrity on my part.

Meanwhile, you can't manage to bring yourself to write a sentence or two saying, "I claim this: <statement>. Here is my evidence: <link>." And then have the evidence actually fully support the statement.