Section 1. Equal protection under the law.
It’s not. As long as everyone has to follow the same rules in a state, there is no violation.
The rules must be legislated.
There’s always details that are left to the election boards and administration to sort out. No legislature makes a law for everything.
Obviously.
The constitution stipulates that any election rules changes must go through the state legislature.
PA didn’t do this. Left wing judges and non-left wing judges refused to consider any cases. The non-left wing judges due to fear of attack by democrat fascists who destroyed cities all year.
It doesn’t say that. It says the manner of the election is determined by the legislature. That’s not the same thing.
But it
is the same thing. Read what you wrote.
No honest person would accept the numbers of this election. An audit was warranted but not granted due to bias and/or fear of reprisal.
Ox-Bow election.
It’s not. Method and means are not quite the same.
The numbers are legitimate. The people who don’t want to accept them merely can’t come to terms with losing.
The numbers are suspicious to say the least. Only dishonest people believe otherwise.
When you decided before the election that Trump won, then any number that doesn’t result in that outcome would seem suspicious.
That doesn’t mean it is.
My interpretation is rooted in results and figures.
Anyone who doesn’t question the veracity of the 2020 election is dishonest.
So the only reason a person could come to the conclusion that the 2020 election was fair is dishonesty?
You don't think the fact that it was monitored by members of both parties could make you draw that conclusion?
Or the fact that widespread voter fraud wasn't even alleged in court besides that is by Powell. Something she now claims was done in jest.
Or the fact that the lawsuits that were actually filed by Trump were shot down almost across the board.
A few weeks ago I had a discussion with my brother about believing something to be true because it sounds logical. It took me giving an example of giving a logical but different explanation for something he believes, before he realised that theirs a difference between believing something to be true and it actually being true.
No dishonesty is required to believe something different than what you believe.