They're thinking "nutty things" too. I don't see how pointing to other "nuttiness" is a response to this "nuttiness"?
If you want to be consistent you have to reject this type of conspiracy thinking from wherever it comes from. Is there a bias here? Is the media pushing one more than the other? Absolutely. I had a post about the "lab leak" hypothesis and how the bias of the media suppressed that question. We can add: the collusion story, the Lafayette Park protest story, the bounty story....it's not a small list. But that's a different matter.
Trump's personality leads him to deal in absolutes and often overstate conclusions. Everything is the biggest or greatest. That provides fodder for his numerous critics to claim that he lied. In the case of the 2020 election, he overstated the claim that it was "stolen." That was not the case. But the claim contains elements of truth. Nearly every state used the pandemic as an excuse to change their election laws. This despite the CDC and Fauci (i.e. the "scientists" we were told to listen to) confirming that it was perfectly safe to vote in person. These changes were advantageous to the Dems. The results of the election confirm that these changes made the difference in the outcome as they significantly benefited Biden. They resulted in an outlandish outlier. Joe Biden, an old white guy with the charisma of a door knob who hardly campaigned and was in obvious decline, received more votes than any candidate for President in history. Millions more than JFK, Reagan, Clinton, FDR, Obama etc. So although the election may not have been stolen because the rules were changed legally at the last moment, it certainly was a questionable practice. One that would have led Democrats to riot in the streets if the situation had been reversed and the rules were changed in such a way that resulted in Trump's re-election. A clear double standard. Particularly from the same folks who suggested for four years that the results of the 2016 were invalid due to Russian collusion. For which there was no evidence.
