> Isn’t it weak, two point out that no one can find evidence after the fact, versus the proper alternative that no one can prove that they’re actually-secure before the fact?
Isn't it weaker, to claim fraud so vast it changed a presidential election, while presenting no evidence?
Then, to ask for billion-dollar changes to voting, which also suppress voting, and when asked why, to shrug and then repeat the same debunked claims? I mean, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I don't get it: the people mad at voting advocates and 2020 brush off proof that their claims are unfounded, yet they just repeat the same claims. At some point, it's malice, not ignorance.
Isn't it weaker, to claim fraud so vast it changed a presidential election, while presenting no evidence?
Then, to ask for billion-dollar changes to voting, which also suppress voting, and when asked why, to shrug and then repeat the same debunked claims? I mean, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I don't get it: the people mad at voting advocates and 2020 brush off proof that their claims are unfounded, yet they just repeat the same claims. At some point, it's malice, not ignorance.