You are entitled to your opinion, but I would like to suggest re-establishing a connection to reality.

I tend to follow news and politics fairly closely and this is an allegation that I was not aware of.
Do you have anything substantial to back this claim with?

Of interest? Sure. Factual? That is another matter.

There were individuals that signed legal documents claiming to be Electors for Trump in states where Biden had won.
There were lawyers who attested to many untrue things for Trump. Eastman was disbarred in California, IIRC.
Giuliani has met with calls for disbarment from Washington D.C.
Sidney Powell has pled guilty in the Georgia investigations.
I could go on, but why.

I dont buy the "swept under a rug" bit.

If it is actual news, standard news outlets will report it.
If it fits right wing agenda, "News"Max, Fox "News" et al will report it.

So, I ask again, Citation?

NewMax.

I know you wont admit it, but you and I both know that "NewsMax" has a bias.

Try this: ( it addresses several claims, so I recommend reading fully )
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fapnews.com%2Farticle%2Ffac...

"Send the observers home and we'll keep counting."

Citation?

"House and Senate elections run on different cycles than presidential...."

There were seats up for grabs during that cycle in both houses.
Democrat "control" of the Senate was super close. And Democrats were expected to do better in the Senate than they did.
Republicans outperformed expectations for that cycle, No Republican incumbent lost a challenge, 13 Democrats lost to Republicans.

If you were going to rig the system to take power, wouldn't you make sure you had better support?
You insinuate that Democrats cheated to win the Presidency. If they did, it was really stupid of them not to do a bit more cheating and get a more solid foundation.
Much of the legislation passed in the Senate had to bend to Sinema and Manchin, since the margin was so thin.

So, the Democrats are good enough at cheating to make this alleged "fiddling" happen.

Were that true, why didn't they also make sure they had positive control of both the Senate and House while they were about it?

Not to mention that Trump's AG has been heard to say that Trump lost.
And this issue was enough to make a couple Republicans with some shred of integrity to participate in investigating Trump's malfeasance.
And all the investigations by Republicans that showed no proof of widespread voter fraud.

Where is the parallel to "...referees were asked to leave the field..."?

There is a saying something like don't expect a person to understand something when their paycheck depends on them not understanding.
I'd like to introduce a corollary: Don't expect a person to understand a political position/idea when they have invested too much in their identity as a political thing.

Need? Please explain. Were tanks massing on Russia's border?

But seriously, Russia decided to invade nominally for security ( Ukraine as buffer between NATO and Russia ).
I expect the real reason was just to grab some land.

But looking onward, assuming Russia was successful in taking Ukraine...
How long until Ukraine is considered part of Russia, and there is a "need" for another buffer.
And another war.

"seriously. how does this system make sense, that allows someone to win who did not get the most votes? it's archaic and frankly embarrassing."

It made sense back in the day when communications were more archaic.
In what I believe to be a reasonable world, we would go straight vote count and get rid of the electoral college.

But the current system has placed a Republican in the Presidency a good number of times, when the popular vote would have given us a Democrat, so I don't expect Republicans to agree with changing it.

There was a time when Republicans cared about their image as logical, honorable and honest.
In the many discussions I have had here on political issues, this has been thrown up as defense of various positions.
Over the years, my doubt of logic, honor or honesty on the part of too many Republicans has grown.

I think at this point it is fairly obvious that many Republicans have abandoned even the pretense.
There are some who seem to have some kind of moral compass remaining, but far too few.
For the record and the "but the Democrats....", I'm not saying all Democrats are without fault.

In the first world war, the Germans used airships ( Zeppelins ) early in the war to bombard England.
The fighter aircraft of the day could not shoot them down until they started using explosive bullets.
A .22 round will make a small hole, it will not loose gas fast enough to bring it down in any reasonable timeframe.

All I heard was a Microsoft fan-child missing the point.

Forcing upgrades is a great way to make sure people consider their alternatives when making purchasing decisions.

In hindsight, you can make that argument.

At the time, everyone being attacked by Nazi Germany were feeling an existential crisis.
Who is to say that without American Lend-Lease support to both Russia and Great Britain, that Nazi Germany might have succeeded?

Read Paul Kennedy, "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers".

"NATO is defensive. What possible reason could Ukraine have for wanting to be in a defensive alliance?"

Defense against Russia.

"Furthermore, which terms of the NATO alliance would require or allow other countries to participate in any conflict initiated by Ukraine?"

None of them.
You seem to be assuming Ukraine is the aggressor. I see no signs of that.

The road you propose leads to assimilation.

I agree that needless provocation is bad, but if the Taiwanese dont cultivate relations with other nations, there will be no one to purchase the tools of deterrence from
Look at how many countries China has managed to pressure into dissolving their ties to Taiwan.
Short of a radical change in mainland China, Taiwan will become part of China unless they continue to distance themselves to the extent possible.

"Well, I don't know what I expected"

Yes you did. It says it right on the tin. And it delivered.

              "Bollocks".

Can I assume that you believe that the States within the United States that made it legal for one to strike someone with their vehicle if the person being stuck was engaging in protest that blocked a roadway acted in error?