Trump Won Two-Thirds of Election Lawsuits Where Merits Considered

[dneal]

"It's been decided by the courts" is a conclusive argument.

"Trump prevailed in 2/3'ds of lawsuits where merits were considered" do not provide any data the researchers claim to have found.

Yeah, no double standard there.

[welch]

"It's been decided by the courts" is a conclusive argument.

"Trump prevailed in 2/3'ds of lawsuits where merits were considered" do not provide any data the researchers claim to have found.

Yeah, no double standard there.

How do you know that merits were considered in your article? What rule did they use?

[Chuck Naill]

"It's been decided by the courts" is a conclusive argument.

"Trump prevailed in 2/3'ds of lawsuits where merits were considered" do not provide any data the researchers claim to have found.

Yeah, no double standard there.

Apparently not, but it depends on who you decide to believe.
https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...-lawsuits-whe/

[kazoolaw]

"It's been decided by the courts" is a conclusive argument.

"Trump prevailed in 2/3'ds of lawsuits where merits were considered" do not provide any data the researchers claim to have found.

Yeah, no double standard there.

Apparently not, but it depends on who you decide to believe.
https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...-lawsuits-whe/

It depends on who repeats or changes the question much of the time:
"Just because a case is dismissed on procedural grounds does not mean it wasn’t duly considered."
But it does mean it wasn't considered on its merits.
Regardless of the author, consider how the issue is stated, and whether the response "reponds" to a close, but not identical, issue.
Also, you missed dneal's point: a conclusive assertion is enough for one side, yet the same type of reply is not. Goose meet gander.

[dneal]

"It's been decided by the courts" is a conclusive argument.

"Trump prevailed in 2/3'ds of lawsuits where merits were considered" do not provide any data the researchers claim to have found.

Yeah, no double standard there.

Apparently not, but it depends on who you decide to believe.
https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...-lawsuits-whe/

It depends on who repeats or changes the question much of the time:
"Just because a case is dismissed on procedural grounds does not mean it wasn’t duly considered."
But it does mean it wasn't considered on its merits.
Regardless of the author, consider how the issue is stated, and whether the response "reponds" to a close, but not identical, issue.
Also, you missed dneal's point: a conclusive assertion is enough for one side, yet the same type of reply is not. Goose meet gander.

It's pointless to try to convince someone whose depth of analysis is "this link said so".

Note how the Politifact piece (in line with their first summation) harps on the notion that there is no conclusive proof of fraud and Trump's successful cases don't mean Biden lost. It's a pseudo-argument. A red herring. Pointing out that a non-legislative entity does not constitutionally have the authority to change law, and winning that argument in court (apparently 2/3'rds of the time) isn't arguing there was fraud.

"Fact checks" are now their own category of misinformation.