Define "fairness", Mr Cardillo. I wonder if fairness to you is what you said with the words "America loving right" instead of "America hating left" in situ.
Not sure what you are saying here. Confusing, misplaced punctuation, or something else...
I agree with OP. Enough of this "fairness" BS. If lefties believed in fairness, they wouldn't have to lie cheat and steal about every damned thing. No, they believe in power and control, and lying cheating and stealing are pathways to it.
They lefties never thought she'd lose, and further, they never thought we'd call their bluff on this election.
It's so clear: they thought they'd adjusted correctly to make sure DJT didn't get re-elected, because he means it when he says drain the swamp and power should go back to the people. They can't have that. All they were was desperate and sloppy, and now they will pay for it with their political lives, and possibly their real lives.
My comment is directed more to the tweet than the OP.
To me, "fairness" in an election is defined by the legal definition of permissible for that election, e.g. "what votes and processes that are agreed upon as valid under the law". Only votes that are legal should count. Only processes that are valid under the law should be performed. We know both were not the case in 2020 in the US all over the map, and it will be dragged into the light for all the world to see.
"Fairness" to Mr. Cardillo, however, appears to be aligned to "anyone on earth aligned to a progressive collectivist world view should influence the US vote to assure my side wins", and projects that belief onto his opposition (the common or garden patriot, i.e.: you or me). Hence that tone deaf tweet, and this is why I would ask him to define "fairness", if i had a twitter account (which i do not and never have and never will).
I'll give an example - i am an american expat, but im only an american citizen, despite having the opportunity to be dual (which is an anathema to me). I consider it "fair" that i can vote for 🇺🇸 issues, and not for my resident nation's. I will guarantee Mr Cardillo considers such a situation as "unfair" but it was my choice to have only one nationality and my choice to move abroad (for love) and i must accept the consequences of this. The nation i live in can do as it's people will decide via it's own politicians (aka sophisticated idiots), and if it goes in a direction we dislike, i can move back to my homeland with my wife.
You and I are effectively aligned here, fren, in that fairness conceptually is a useless measure. It is highly subjective to the individual. "That which is legal" is objective to a society, but "fair" is ephemeral and varies from person to person.
"that which is agreed in law" defines what is objectively permitted in the 🇺🇸 for an election, and that defines fairness in one as well for the patriot. Nothing more, nothing less. For the collectivist, like Mr Cardillo, it is some commie pipedream, one which has no place in reality but has taken permanent residence in his head.
Pity the man, point and laugh, and force his mental break by questioning his terminology, particularly things like "what is fairness?". It will cause him to question his beliefs and, dare i hope for the impossible, awaken fools like him to the existence of an objective reality. This maybe but a dream for the die hard commie, but for the misinformed sheeple and fence sitter, it does work.
Define "fairness", Mr Cardillo. I wonder if fairness to you is what you said with the words "America loving right" instead of "America hating left" in situ.
Not sure what you are saying here. Confusing, misplaced punctuation, or something else...
I agree with OP. Enough of this "fairness" BS. If lefties believed in fairness, they wouldn't have to lie cheat and steal about every damned thing. No, they believe in power and control, and lying cheating and stealing are pathways to it.
They lefties never thought she'd lose, and further, they never thought we'd call their bluff on this election.
It's so clear: they thought they'd adjusted correctly to make sure DJT didn't get re-elected, because he means it when he says drain the swamp and power should go back to the people. They can't have that. All they were was desperate and sloppy, and now they will pay for it with their political lives, and possibly their real lives.
Lefties should be shaking in fear.
My comment is directed more to the tweet than the OP.
To me, "fairness" in an election is defined by the legal definition of permissible for that election, e.g. "what votes and processes that are agreed upon as valid under the law". Only votes that are legal should count. Only processes that are valid under the law should be performed. We know both were not the case in 2020 in the US all over the map, and it will be dragged into the light for all the world to see.
"Fairness" to Mr. Cardillo, however, appears to be aligned to "anyone on earth aligned to a progressive collectivist world view should influence the US vote to assure my side wins", and projects that belief onto his opposition (the common or garden patriot, i.e.: you or me). Hence that tone deaf tweet, and this is why I would ask him to define "fairness", if i had a twitter account (which i do not and never have and never will).
I'll give an example - i am an american expat, but im only an american citizen, despite having the opportunity to be dual (which is an anathema to me). I consider it "fair" that i can vote for 🇺🇸 issues, and not for my resident nation's. I will guarantee Mr Cardillo considers such a situation as "unfair" but it was my choice to have only one nationality and my choice to move abroad (for love) and i must accept the consequences of this. The nation i live in can do as it's people will decide via it's own politicians (aka sophisticated idiots), and if it goes in a direction we dislike, i can move back to my homeland with my wife.
You and I are effectively aligned here, fren, in that fairness conceptually is a useless measure. It is highly subjective to the individual. "That which is legal" is objective to a society, but "fair" is ephemeral and varies from person to person.
"that which is agreed in law" defines what is objectively permitted in the 🇺🇸 for an election, and that defines fairness in one as well for the patriot. Nothing more, nothing less. For the collectivist, like Mr Cardillo, it is some commie pipedream, one which has no place in reality but has taken permanent residence in his head.
Pity the man, point and laugh, and force his mental break by questioning his terminology, particularly things like "what is fairness?". It will cause him to question his beliefs and, dare i hope for the impossible, awaken fools like him to the existence of an objective reality. This maybe but a dream for the die hard commie, but for the misinformed sheeple and fence sitter, it does work.