This or that state is not the one that puts President Trump over the edge.
Hardcore proof of intentional fraud in one single county is sufficient to DISQUALIFY the one who perpetrated the fraud and award the election to the competitor who got the most votes without cheating.
Multiple counties in a state is even better.
Multiple states is just icing on the cake.
There is not some contest running to see if Trump can somehow "GET TO 270" by uncovering "ENOUGH" fraud. He doesn't NEED to get to 270, because the other side committed calculated, deliberate, methodical, widespread, systemic, organized fraud on an international scale, in a FAILED attempt to steal a national election. FAILED, because they got CAUGHT.
I know we love "fraud vitiates everything", but like Q has said, we must do things by the book as well.
Picture this: It's 2028, DeSantis is running against Mr Democrat for the presidency. DeSantis wins in a landslide, but some overzealous fans who watched too much biased news didn't think he'd win, so they shredded some of the ballots of people who voted for Mr D.
Should DeSantis be disqualified, despite winning in a landslide? Fraud vitiates everything, right? Or should the total merits of the nationwide election be considered first? If fraud vitiates everything, wouldn't that introduce a new cheating method? Cheat FOR your enemy in order to disqualify them? In my opinion, things should be done transparently and comprehensively, without being too eager to pull the trigger on fraud rulings just because someone cheated.
We want the nation to know that Trump won by a landslide. We need to SHOW the brainwashed ones that he won, and the nation rejects their ideals. Can't do that if you reinstate him on a technicality(fraud vitiates everything). You must hurl overwhelming proof of foul play at them and show he won more than enough to win legitimately.
"Fraud vitiates everything" to my understanding of that precedent wouldn't mean that DeSantis would be removed/forced to step down in that situation.
What that precedent is concluding is that there must be evidence of intentional fraud or knowledge of fraud happening by the person running. So in the example you gave DeSantis would've had to have orchestrated the fraud, or known about it but chose not to report it in order to be disqualified.
He doesn't NEED to get to 270, because the other side committed calculated, deliberate, methodical, widespread, systemic, organized fraud on an international scale...Fraud vitiates everything.
You:
some overzealous fans who watched too much biased news didn't think he'd win, so they shredded some of the ballots of people who voted for Mr D. Should DeSantis be disqualified, despite winning in a landslide? Fraud vitiates everything, right?
As if any rational person reading that would equate those two scenarios.
You hallucinated a laughably distorted caricature of what I said, and then spent half a wall of text virtue signaling, by mocking your own hallucination.
Dang, no need to be so aggressive and rude about it. I don't think it's irrational to compare those scenarios for the sake of debate. I think it's important to reach 270, because that's how you legally win elections. The point I was making is that we need to prove that we won legitimately too.
What if, for the sake of argument, Trump didn't get to 270 even without fraud, but Biden cheated in one state? In this situation, Biden is the nation's choice of President, and would win anyway without fraud. Should the fraud disqualify him entirely and subvert the will of the people, or should he be disqualified on a technicality?
It's a tough choice, and I won't pretend to know the answer. But personally, I don't think fraud should automatically vitiate everything. Optics are important; both sides of the political aisle should be convinced that the person We The People voted for is instated as President.
No.
This or that state is not the one that puts President Trump over the edge.
Hardcore proof of intentional fraud in one single county is sufficient to DISQUALIFY the one who perpetrated the fraud and award the election to the competitor who got the most votes without cheating.
Multiple counties in a state is even better.
Multiple states is just icing on the cake.
There is not some contest running to see if Trump can somehow "GET TO 270" by uncovering "ENOUGH" fraud. He doesn't NEED to get to 270, because the other side committed calculated, deliberate, methodical, widespread, systemic, organized fraud on an international scale, in a FAILED attempt to steal a national election. FAILED, because they got CAUGHT.
Fraud vitiates everything.
I know we love "fraud vitiates everything", but like Q has said, we must do things by the book as well.
Picture this: It's 2028, DeSantis is running against Mr Democrat for the presidency. DeSantis wins in a landslide, but some overzealous fans who watched too much biased news didn't think he'd win, so they shredded some of the ballots of people who voted for Mr D.
Should DeSantis be disqualified, despite winning in a landslide? Fraud vitiates everything, right? Or should the total merits of the nationwide election be considered first? If fraud vitiates everything, wouldn't that introduce a new cheating method? Cheat FOR your enemy in order to disqualify them? In my opinion, things should be done transparently and comprehensively, without being too eager to pull the trigger on fraud rulings just because someone cheated.
We want the nation to know that Trump won by a landslide. We need to SHOW the brainwashed ones that he won, and the nation rejects their ideals. Can't do that if you reinstate him on a technicality(fraud vitiates everything). You must hurl overwhelming proof of foul play at them and show he won more than enough to win legitimately.
"Fraud vitiates everything" to my understanding of that precedent wouldn't mean that DeSantis would be removed/forced to step down in that situation.
What that precedent is concluding is that there must be evidence of intentional fraud or knowledge of fraud happening by the person running. So in the example you gave DeSantis would've had to have orchestrated the fraud, or known about it but chose not to report it in order to be disqualified.
You mean like say on livestreamed video that you and someone else had orchestrated the biggest voter fraud organisation ever?
Yeah, lol! That would qualify.
They would chalk that up as a gaffe and say, "obviously he meant anti-fraud"
That makes sense, I didn't know it had the condition of the person running being involved. Thank you for the correction!
Me:
He doesn't NEED to get to 270, because the other side committed calculated, deliberate, methodical, widespread, systemic, organized fraud on an international scale...Fraud vitiates everything.
You:
some overzealous fans who watched too much biased news didn't think he'd win, so they shredded some of the ballots of people who voted for Mr D. Should DeSantis be disqualified, despite winning in a landslide? Fraud vitiates everything, right?
As if any rational person reading that would equate those two scenarios.
You hallucinated a laughably distorted caricature of what I said, and then spent half a wall of text virtue signaling, by mocking your own hallucination.
Dang, no need to be so aggressive and rude about it. I don't think it's irrational to compare those scenarios for the sake of debate. I think it's important to reach 270, because that's how you legally win elections. The point I was making is that we need to prove that we won legitimately too.
What if, for the sake of argument, Trump didn't get to 270 even without fraud, but Biden cheated in one state? In this situation, Biden is the nation's choice of President, and would win anyway without fraud. Should the fraud disqualify him entirely and subvert the will of the people, or should he be disqualified on a technicality?
It's a tough choice, and I won't pretend to know the answer. But personally, I don't think fraud should automatically vitiate everything. Optics are important; both sides of the political aisle should be convinced that the person We The People voted for is instated as President.