politics

"If there’s no massive cheating" is such a meaningless phrase that they could use it to mean anything afterward. "Oh no, I heard someone say that their cousin was a cashier at a store where their coworker overheard a customer talking on the phone about a letter that their post office received from Russia on election day, so obviously there's massive cheating and Trump should just be in office."

That said, I don't know that this rises to the level of "outrageous" in modern political discourse, sadly. A "foolish" position, definitely. "Corrupt," perhaps. "Morally bankrupt." "Anti-democratic." But the position is much more reasonable than most Republicans are willing to grant these days, and that's what's truly outrageous.

"If there is no massive cheating, then AdamEatsAss will easily win the nomination." More truer words were never not spoken.

Lindsay Graham needs to report to her Democracy Officer at once. These statements sound extremely antidemocratic, as if they're coming right from the speakers of a socialist bot.

In all seriousness, this is traitor to democracy behavior. These clowns should be exiled, or at least barred from public office and have their rights to participate in democracy revoked. If you push agendas to install anything less democratic than a republic or democracy, you are fucken out.

This is the politically correct tactic and why it was so hilarious to watch Tim Scott fall on his fucking face. If you're a politician and potentially want to deny an election you don't respond to "Will you accept the election?" with "No"... that's fucking dumb - you say "Yes, unless it's not a true election."

I was hoping the idiots would continue to repeat the dumbass non-committal response because it's obviously dumb... this line is harder to rhetorically attack since obviously nobody wants to accept a rigged election - in theory you don't even want to be seen doing that if you won... you always want to accept a fair election you won.

So, TL;DR this is the logical argument I expected them to reach much earlier - it is the stance that political operatives on the dem side should be preparing to refute and hopefully they can pick this bullshit apart by tying Graham's hands on what he considers cheating... it's a weak argument though and, honestly, we've just got to be prepared for one of our two major parties being a bad actor in this election.

There were no negative repercussions last time they tried. Why wouldnt they do it again?

The follow-up question should have been: "Does that mean you'll reject the results if there was massive cheating from your own side?"