I heavily disagree. If a rule is changed just so one side benefits, that’s inherently unfair.
It depends how much they benefit. If you have armed, hostile soldiers looking over your ballot, then every ballot will be affected, and it will be completely unfair. If it's a dispute over counting mail-in ballots that arrive after election day, then very few ballots will be affected. Unless there's reason to believe that those ballots would change the result, then it's still mostly fair.
Just because you don’t hear about it, doesn’t mean they aren’t there.
Where?
How would you analyze the impact of the rule change? You really can’t
because you can’t compare it to the baseline. It’s basic method.
Everyone knew about this.
It depends on the nature of the rule change. If it affects every ballot, then it can be difficult and imprecise. If it only affects some ballots, then it can be easier.
If you have Democratic executives in places like WI and PA changing
the law singlehandedly, without any consultation or law change of the
state legislatures, how unfair and contradictory to the concept of
separation of powers is that?
To the separation of powers, quite unfair. To the election? Unfair, but not to a huge degree. Again, there would have to be evidence that it would be enough to change the results. However, regarding the national election, not unfair at all. Flipping PA and WI isn't enough to make Trump win.
I never said Trump is the best speaker. He’s notorious for his hyperbolic speech.
"This was the most unfair election ever" is hyperbole. "Venezuela hacked voting machines" is an insane conspiracy theory.
You can ask for evidence all day. You can ask for hard numbers all day,
And I will. If Trump claims the election was rigged, then he better have evidence proving it. The bar for evidence does not get lower due to an inability to meet it.
Theirs is no statute that doesn’t allow the VP power.
That is the exact opposite of how governmental powers are granted. If it doesn't say they can, they can't. If it doesn't say they can't, but also doesn't say they can, then they still can't.
And
Democratic operatives violating the founding concept of separation of
powers is just left to be and not talked about. Really sad.
Would you mind arguing against my positions and not the positions of the stereotypical NeverTrumper that you imagine me to be? I don't think it should be left as it is and ignored. My position isn't "The election was perfect and should never be questioned!" If there are questions, then they need to be answered. If the questioners find problems, the problems should be solved. However, if someone questions an election, they need to have evidence to back up their claims. It's grossly irresponsible to spout off rubbish about bamboo in ballots and the like.
But ultimately, quibbling about the imperfections of the election rather misses my point about Trump. If an election has problems, then those problems should be dealt with legally using the courts and the state legislatures, not by propagating insane conspiracy theories and attempting to illegally overturn the election. None of the problems in the election justify what Trump did. Not even close.
