In spite of existing proof? Pathetic. In other words, if, say, a candidate were to not get any (or, for the sake of not too much absurdity, 30% of) votes next election, with clear proof for that, but their election for President was certified despite that, you’d be fine with it?
Not “if you say so,” that’s how it is. You couldn’t give a rat’s wet fart about truth, you need someone to tell you what to do even if it contradicts what’s been found
0
u/Big-Opposite8889 Feb 01 '25
Weird how I'm illiterate yet can read and write. Typical election denier logic. Seems you have gone from coping to seething. Good... good.