There is nothing wrong with contesting an election. There is something wrong with McCarthyism and seeking to disbar and ostracize people who do contest elections.

What do you think "contesting" means?

Challenging the legality or validity of an election. What do you think it means?

Well I think he certainly did a lot more than "challenge" it - he looked for every opportunity to reverse the results outside of the normal process.

If my company underpaid me I could challenge my paycheck. It's a bit beyond "challenging my paycheck" if I go to the office after work hours and ask the janitor to just let me into the company safe so I can take everything I think the company owes me.

Have you seen or read any quotes from Trump or others using the phrase “overturn the election”? Has he requested, demanded, or pressured anyone to do such a thing? In my searching I’ve found nothing, so naturally I’m curious how this phrase has dropped into the political lexicon and is now repeated as if it occurred.

Has he requested, demanded, or pressured anyone to do such a thing? — NOS4A2

Yes, quite obviously so. I know you know that

In my searching I’ve found nothing — NOS4A2

There's a Wikipedia page for it

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election

Yes, quite obviously so. I know you know that

I don’t know that because I haven’t seen it. If it’s that obvious then such a quote should be easy to find.

Yes, I'm well aware that it's within your personal psychological interest to pretend like you have no idea what everyone else is talking about. WHY that's in your personal interest is anyone's guess.

If you want to know why the rest of the world thinks it's obvious he tried to overturn the election, there's an entire Wikipedia article for you to peruse, with sources cited.

He needs Trump to have literally said "I want to overturn the election". He'll be the guy when a mobster sends a chopped off horse's head that says: "It's not a threat. He's taking care of that poor family by sending them fresh meat!"

"It's obvious" is not a good enough answer, I'm afraid. I suspect you repeat the phrase because others do, because of propaganda.

I can take one example from your Wikipedia page and illustrate my point.

"In the days after the election, Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas, exchanged 29 text messages with Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows, urging him to pursue efforts to overturn the election. "

Then when I read from the source texts, she urges no such thing. So where does this idea come from if not from propaganda?

https://archive.ph/7pIGc

Why is it debatable that he tried to overturn the election? What does overturn mean to you?

There's a handful of definitions online, brittanica gives one:

to decide that (a ruling, decision, etc.) is wrong and change it

Is this not literally what he was trying to do? There's not even a negative connotation to this word, some legal rulings SHOULD be overturned.

He wasn't asking those people in Georgia to find 11,000 votes because he wanted the results of the election to stay the same, was he?

Do you have some other definition of overturn? Or do you really think he wasn't trying to have the results changed because they were rigged according to him? Don't play games, be honest.

To reverse, flip, or abolish a decision. Such a thing can only occur once the truth is established, only after an election is contested, perhaps even held again. For some reason or other you say that Trump and his team were doing one and not the other. Why not just say he was contesting the election?

You don't concoct the fake electors scheme to contest the election.

You don't ask to find 11k votes to contest the election.

You do those things to change the election.

And, of course, you would only contest the results to change them anyway. You're not contesting them if you want them to stay the same ffs.

There is nothing wrong with contesting an election. — NOS4A2

Contesting an election and attempting to overturn an election are two different things. As much as you attempt for it to be otherwise this is not a partisan issue.

After asking you three times you still have not said whether you think it is wrong to attempt to overturn an election.

There is something wrong with McCarthyism and seeking to disbar and ostracize people who do contest elections. — NOS4A2

There is a telling connection between Trump and McCarthy - Trump's mentor, Roy Cohn.

Yes you do.

You’re subject to The Big Lie, which according to Goebbels, is “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”.

Do you think there's any possibility that you've fallen for a big lie?

I’m willing to hear any argument that I have.

No argument, just looking for the general possibility that you might have fallen for a lie. Do you think it's possible at all that Donald Trump lost the election and tried to take it back? Take it back via unacceptable, unethical means, potentially illegally means?

Do you think there's any possibility that you've fallen for a big lie? — flannel jesus

We have to be careful in not jumping at such affirmations too quickly. If someone is opposed to Woke culture, he is already a liar and doesn't live in the real world. Who is the liar and the truth seeker here? Please, we have to let the judges do their job and stay away from the media and journalists more often.

I am susceptible to lies and am fully aware of my biases. All I can do is listen to both sides of the story, any information that is available, and come to my own conclusions.

Yes, I think it is possible Trump lost the election and tried to take it back by potentially illegally means.

Will him being found guilty in any of these ongoing trials increase the likelihood that he's actually, genuinely guilty, decrease the likelihood or leave them the same in your eyes?

No. I actually expect him to be found guilty. I have zero faith in the US legal system. If he is acquitted I will be pleasantly surprised.

So him being found guilty wouldn't affect the odds at all, and him being found innocent wouldn't affect the odds at all?

I hate judges and lawyers. I despise the whole profession and the system upon which it is maintained. I don’t even like the US constitution. The only thing that would affect my own beliefs would be the evidence.

"In one phone conversation, according to handwritten notes taken by Donoghue and highlighted at Thursday’s hearing, Trump directed Rosen to “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the R. Congressmen.”
https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-elections-donald-trump-campaigns-presidential-4e7e68e2ff57aadd96d09c873a43a317

You're OK with that?

I hate judges and lawyers. I despise the whole profession and the system upon which it is maintained. I don’t even like the US constitution. The only thing that would affect my own beliefs would be the evidence. — NOS4A2

I understand your scepticism, but the evidence you are looking for needs to be proven in court. It is just my own belief, but a court room should be the only place where the evidence is the object of debate and contradiction. I mean, it is not a TV show or plot. If we allow people to interpret the evidence freely, we have the risk of never knowing the truth. In this case, we need an order and that's why people go to court. Whether the system could be flawed or not. Better this than nothing, don't you think?

Yes, I think it is possible Trump lost the election and tried to take it back by potentially illegally means. — NOS4A2

Well, that is a step in the right direction, but you leave the back door open. To say that it is possible he lost is to say it is possible he did not lose. If he lost then attempts to "take it back", no matter by the means, is illegal. To act on the possibility he did not lose when the evidence points unquestionably to the fact that he did lose is to act irresponsibly and any lawyer who knowingly attempts to "take it back" demonstrates either a disregard for the law or in inability to deal with reality. In either case, they are unfit to practice law.

I can agree to that. The court is a good venue in which to argue the evidence. What I mean is I need to see the evidence and use my own judgement rather than trust the word of some judge or juror. That is why I hope these trials are broadcasted live.

I don’t even like the US constitution. — NOS4A2

May I ask, why?