Respectfully, I've tried to have a rational conversation with you, but it always ended with you literally saying "my opinion is my opinion, and I don't have to back it up with facts."
You've tried to make me choose between Trump and Clinton as if it would have any impact on the current situation. I don't think that is rational. When I refused, you kept being disrespectful about it. What you want from this conversation is probably different from what I want.
Whether or not evidence is demonstrable of a claim is objective, not subjective. In other words, there's no such thing as "alternative evidence" in the same way there's no such thing as "alternative facts." Does anybody else remember "alternative facts"?
You are not an authority or someone that I would personally trust to decide what is and what is not evidence, as it seems as if you have already decided the outcome of all news cycles between now and Biden's anticipated transition. There is evidence. Whether that evidence is condemning, accurate, fraudulent, misconstrued, unnoticed, unsubmitted, or enough--it is the court process deciding "the truth".
Here on Earth 1, in reality, there is zero evidence of widespread voter fraud. I'm not aware of any, the Trump legal team isn't aware of any, and you aren't aware of any.
I guess that's your opinion based on a lack of facts.
If you can't say you were on the side of the Clinton supporters in 2016 who were in denial, refused to acknowledge the results of the election, and only wanted to talk about recounts and faithless electors, then you're a hypocrite. That's what makes you come off as a Trumper.
Why would that make me a hypocrite? I wasn't on anyone's side. People thought Clinton could still win on a technicality or a recount, but she didn't. People think Trump could bring forth an earth shattering case of massive voter fraud. He still hasn't, to my knowledge. Will he? I don't know.