The Senate held hearings on the 2020 election with the underlying premise whether all the fraud and problems could have affected the outcome of the election?
Or to rephrase my question, how much fraud is too much?
The thrust of this is: only if the apparent fraud would have made a difference in the outcome is it a real problem. If not, it does not matter. So Democrats assert it was not too much fraud for their tolerance. Have some confidence in that? I don’t think so.
To make matters worse, you have two different sides saying two completely different things. On one side you have people claiming this was the most fair and secure election in history. On the other, people are saying it is the most fraud-plagued election with serious Constitutional issues ever. Of course both cannot be right.
The former assumption is so far off, no one could reasonably believe that.
Actually, to deny fraud took place is conspicuous enough. But to claim the election was fraud-free and perfect is so far from any rational logic and wreaks with deception.
Why do Democrats have to recoil back to the position that no fraud existed at all? Chuck Schumer now even dubs it our wonderful democracy. Schumer on the Senate Floor:
“When is this nonsense, so detrimental to our democracy, going to end? When? It’s already deeply irresponsible for my Republican colleagues, many of them, to stay silent about President Trump’s deliberate attempts to poison Americans’ faith in our elections.” /… [faith in elections??]
“So in conclusion, Chairman Johnson should call off this ridiculous charade of a Senate hearing, immediately. And if he won’t, Leader McConnell should intervene to ensure that the Committee does not indulge such quackery and conspiracy theories. And he should acknowledge the results of the elections and make clear it’s time to move on, just as he was happy to do so when the shoe was on the other foot. Doing otherwise will add fuel to the fire that is undermining faith in our wonderful democracy.“
For four years they were not calling it wonderful or anything except at risk, insecure and in jeopardy. Now it is a paragon of legitimacy — not a shred of suspicion or criminality.
“Our wonderful democracy“….after four years of attacking it at the core.
It is so disingenuous to deny the problems and fraud. So then Dems fall back on their other excuse that nothing shows the outcome would be different. Yet that is all around us.
Why should the qualifier of fraud be whether it was enough or not enough to change their results? The problems abound. Shouldn’t chronic fraud and problems be enough?
But how much fraud is enough is absolutely the wrong basis for election integrity, or our confidence in it. I’m not confident that America has a tolerance for election fraud.
Right Ring | Bullright | © 2020