Why do you keep changing the focus every time I answer you? To address the new one, first I could certainly ask you the reverse, and most other posters here, who have demonstrated a steadfast compliance of thought with everything pumped out by the mainstream media. To answer your question, go and check the Congressional records. The Democrats challenged every loss in recent history and not just by legitimate means. There's also a boatload of mainstream narrative out there that takes an entirely different approach to reporting from what we see now, particularly in relation to your repeated false claims there is no proof of election fraud. Just the first couple of examples from a simple search.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/...clinton-230857
https://news.northeastern.edu/2016/1...at-comes-next/
Legal challenges are perfectly normal for every U.S. election, often down to the school board level. It's how the dishonest and biased media reports them that makes the difference and sets the perception. There's also fraud in every federal election, with Harry Reid's Arizona gang becoming so notorious it was taken for granted.
Low information posters here, including the notorious character you mentioned in a prior post, skim the headlines and first few paragraphs from their approved mainstream sources and go full parrot mode. They don't actually have a clue about the underlying details, they just mimic the prevailing narrative. My view is straightforward and hasn't changed. Every vote should be handled and qualified by the rules set down by the constitutionally mandated authority in each state. Where dispute arises this should be handled by the relevant courts. This system has worked fairly well, by American standards, prior to this election where it broke down completely.
Unauthorised bodies changed the law, courts absconded, the media pushed a unified message from day one that everything was clean and above board, despite the obvious chaos and improbable outcomes. I wouldn't be against the Democrats using any available, legal route to verify an election result. I'm very much against that option being systematically denied to the Republicans in this case.
This is before you consider the highly illegal methods the Democrats have employe these last four years to overturn the 2016 result. Again, the mainstream media has served up a steady stream of bullshit to sell the idea the elected president is an agent of a foreign power. All without proof, and we know that because the claims were examined in excruciating detail. If a fraction of the effort had been made to verify the 2020 results we'd be seeing a very different picture. The bias is extreme, it is obvious and it has been relentless.
So you probably should ask yourself your own question before you put it to me. What I have seen posted here over the last few months is a clear indication that most people are woefully ignorant of any aspect beyond the establishment message. It's the same with this damn virus, no matter how many times it is explained to people they discard key information and run back to the BBC bullshit.
Everything is tarnished by the media. It's a cancer. Big tech too. After a relatively minor outbreak of civil disobedience (contrast and compare to the burning and looting of cities during the "peaceful" BLM "protests"), the media and bog tech are purging all context, silencing all voices that stray from the messaging. We are now hearing how the occupation of a single building for a couple of hours is "terrorism", "insurrection", a "coup", etc, etc. Ludicrous, given the four years of criminal misbehaviour by the left the media twisted into "news". You would think it's easy for intelligent people to simply dismiss such obvious bias, but it seems to me many people buy it hook, line and sinker.
To reiterate, the people occupied their own building. They have a right, enshrined in the Constitution, to do it and they could have gone much further and still been within their rights and the law. Denied all other means to address their grievances, what they did was minor and, to my mind, inadequate and I hope that's just the start and not the end of it.