Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentElections · 2 months ago

What would you say if the shoe was on the other foot about the questionable fraud?

So if possibly illegal votes go to the Republican Party, Democrats are saying it should never be questioned or taken to court.  Thats what I’m hearing.  Regardless of what any Democrat poll watcher says, their words are worthless just like the Republican poll watchers now, right? I’m not saying fraud was or wasn’t, I’m just saying this situation could be reversed in future elections.  

8 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    2 months ago

    You don't get to overturn an election on a possibility.  You have to have evidence, and present it in court.  If democrats claimed they had evidence of  fraud they would have shown it to a judge.    That's the way it works, that's the way it's always worked.

  • ?
    Lv 7
    2 months ago

    Republicans have cheated  for decades

    Most of the fraudulent ballots found this year were for Trump. 

  • Anonymous
    2 months ago

    The problem is with you phrase "possibly illegal votes".  That makes a presumption of plausibility, ie that there is reason to believe that there may have been fraud.  But there isn't.  The entirety of the idea of fraud in this election is an invention of Trump and his fragile ego.  He doesn't want to admit that he lost, particularly to a candidate who he reportedly felt was particularly unworthy.  So he has to claim fraud. 

    So what if the shoe was on the other foot?  What if Trump had won by millions of votes and Biden, without even one tiny shred of evidence, claimed fraud?  Would you expect people to take that seriously? 

  • Jeff D
    Lv 7
    2 months ago

    There's no need to speculate because the shoe WAS on the other foot after the 2016 election.  The Democrats couldn't get enough of those recounts back then.  When that didn't pan out they wanted the electoral college to save their bacon.  Finally they had to settle for the Russian collusion myth.

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • Tmess2
    Lv 7
    2 months ago

    If the shoe was on the other foot, the same rules would apply.

    There are established procedures which the executive branch agencies that run the election have to follow which includes a deadline for those agencies to report the final "official" result.

    After the certification of the official result, the losing side can go to court to ask a court to review the election.  In every state, there are specific elements that have to be pled in an election contest before a party can get a hearing.  If those elements are lacking, and that appear to be the case this year, you do not get a hearing and the case is dismissed.  

    Anybody who has been involved in politics knows that sometimes you lose an election.  You don't make unsupported allegations of fraud just because you lost. In most states, you have both Democratic election judges and Republican election judges.  For any significant fraud to occur, both parties would have to conspire together and in the type of large scale number that make it difficult to keep the conspiracy secret.  

    Fraud on the level necessary to swing an election by 10,000 or more votes really isn't possible.  If Trump were really concerned about fraud in this election, he would switch his attention from his own race to Iowa's Second District (decided by 6 votes) and New York's Twenty-Second (currently 13 votes with a court hearing over disputed ballots taking place next week).

  • 2 months ago

    So those that are saying witnesses are not trustworthy that signed the affidavits.  So if you are ever accused of a crime, say murder then those that can provide you with an alibi we should just toss that out, correct?  I mean, just give you the lethal injection.  Same thing.  Thats what you are saying 

  • Mark
    Lv 5
    2 months ago

    There is no questionable fraud.  They are lame accusations at best which is why the courts keep throwing them out.  If there was a hint of legitimacy, then more people would support his quest, but there is nothing and everybody knows it.

    @Ann - An affidavit is not admissible in court, a live witness is so that the person can be cross examined as to what they saw and what they think that they saw.  Often times those are two different things.  A affidavit is one sided and does not allow the witness to be scrutinized or verified.

  • Jeff S
    Lv 7
    2 months ago

    FYI- The ONLY reason it's questionable is because the accusers haven't offered any actual evidence!

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.