When Bush Sr won, even though there was no thought of election fraud, Dan Quayle didn't resign. When Clinton won, the election also was not in question, but Al Gore didn't resign until January either. What is different now? You are trying to make it seem like a peculiar, suspicious choice when I am showing you facts dating back SEVERAL elections, among both parties, that her resigning sooner would actually be the anomaly, not her staying in her Senate seat. You say I'm ignoring the point about the amount of voters, but you are ignoring hard evidence that immediately discredits your claims.
This was the biggest turnout in election history because people on both sides all felt extremely strongly about it. But we can leave the question of election fraud to the courts, where it has been laughed out repeatedly. It really is all over but the crying.
And yet, never there was an actual forensic audit of the votes. It's no use adding up the tally on the boxes and telling us there is no evidence of fraud, where multiple witnesses have come forward, saying otherwise. We heard for 4 years that Russia stole the 2016 election with zero actual evidence. Well, now you'll be hearing from us that this was a sham election, because I don't see 81 million people voting for this guy who forgets his own name, and you all refused to do an audit in urban areas.
