prominent figures in the RW sphere are at each other's throats about their favorite candidate.
but why? isn't it exceedingly obvious now that voter fraud is way past the point of no return? what the fuck does it matter which of these is "more likely" to win when an arbitrary number of Democrat votes will materialize at 3AM? just gotta vote harder?
focusing on the candidates is 100% a distraction.
You really thought you could fling a random accusation? Shows how many good arguments you have, none.
My refusal to agree with Mr. Crazy Person is a textbook example of getting BTFO. By that standard, I've been getting BTFO'ed my entire life.
I provided a laundry list of events that proved you wrong in that other thread. All you've replied with is "ur crazy american", to someone actually talking about american politics, euro.
So how about you remove the foot from your mouth and take a break from the internet for a while because I've seen you post intelligently before but this is you making yourself look like an ignorant clown on a primarily american website.
Or so you thought. I thought you didn't address the point at all, which was in any case irrelevant to what I had said: namely that it is not up to the Vice President to decide if an 'election' was fraudulent.
Which is not a "NO U", which you claimed it was.
I mean, clearly you are not able to be objective about it because you live there. I also fly into blind rage when I'm talking about European politics.
I explained this clearly - it was not a decision by the vice president to call the election fraudulent, but to honor the states' LAWFUL DEMANDS that their slate of electoral votes be returned pending an investigation, and to use executive power to intercede when the judicial branch was ignoring it's constitutional duty to the state governments. The federal serves at the behest of the states, not the other way around. You didn't reply because you are wrong, and this days later attempt at brushing it off because you can't accept being wrong is beneath the standards you've claimed in the past.
The vice president had the duty to refuse to ratify because of the states having the right to demand their grievances be addressed.
There was no such demand. Neither the governor, nor the state legislature made such a demand. It is therefore definitely not 'lawful'.
But people here will approve of any comment that screams "FRAUD!!!!" no matter how illogical.
Yeah, that's completely arbitrary - if that is a valid ground, why didn't Nixon in 1960, Gore in 2000 or Biden in 2016 do it?
That's what it was designed to be, but the federal Leviathan definitely has made all the other governments its handmaiden.
Well, now you're receiving a reply, because I'm in the right and you're in the wrong. You're not just wrong, but you're badly wrong.
I'd love for nothing more than to be able to PROVE massive electoral fraud in the US. But while I have seen many shenanigans, no smoking gun, nor any indication that whatever fraud there was, was widespread.
I do find it very persuasive that there was a lot of legal shenanigans. I focus on that, rather than wild claims that cannot be substantiated, let alone proven.
Where does this 'duty' originate"
Already addressed - no state made any such demand.