Republican Sen. Mike Rounds rejects Trump's claims about 2020: 'The election was fair

[Guno צְבִי]

Republican Sen. Mike Rounds rejected claims of mass voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election.
"The election was fair — as fair as we've seen," he said during an interview on ABC's "This Week."

The South Dakota Republican — who was easily reelected to a second term in the Senate in 2020 — said during an interview on ABC's "This Week" that the dozens of investigations focused on election irregularities did not yield any cases of mass fraud.

"As a part of our due diligence, we looked at over 60 different accusations made in multiple states," the senator told host George Stephanopoulos. "While there were some irregularities, there were none of the irregularities which would have risen to the point where they would have changed the vote outcome in a single state."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...s-about-2020-the-election-was-fair/ar-AASB8w9

 

[Cypress]

"The election was fair — as fair as we've seen," he said during an interview on ABC's "This Week

It's a little surprising that not one, single, solitary Republican on this message board has been able to muster the integrity to say that.

 

[Jarod]

Republican Sen. Mike Rounds rejected claims of mass voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election.
"The election was fair — as fair as we've seen," he said during an interview on ABC's "This Week."

The South Dakota Republican — who was easily reelected to a second term in the Senate in 2020 — said during an interview on ABC's "This Week" that the dozens of investigations focused on election irregularities did not yield any cases of mass fraud.

"As a part of our due diligence, we looked at over 60 different accusations made in multiple states," the senator told host George Stephanopoulos. "While there were some irregularities, there were none of the irregularities which would have risen to the point where they would have changed the vote outcome in a single state."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...s-about-2020-the-election-was-fair/ar-AASB8w9

He is not dumb, afraid or as corrupt as most.

 

[McRocket]

Ok.

Now THIS is an issue that I am ONE HUNDRED PERCENT in agreement with the left on.

Everything bad/wrong that Trump did combined while in office - IMO - PALES in comparison to what he tried to do on this.

He deliberately tried to bully/con/trick people to change the outcome of a legal election for NO REASON other than for personal gain.

And here is just one example of that:

There is NO evidence of ANY substance whatsoever that the election was thrown.
Over 60 court cases brought...ALL failed.


And Trump has called elections 'rigged/fake' on LOTS of occasions before.
It is a COMMON tactic of his.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tru...tions-rigged-doesnt-results/story?id=74126926


January 6 was fucking slimy of him.
And scary.
And was a riot.
But it was NOT an insurrection.
The FBI director said so.
And he knows a BILLION times more about this than ANYONE on here does.

You Dems want to charge Trump with 'inciting a riot'?
I will support that - 100%.

But 'inciting insurrection'?
Forget it.
That is too much of a stretch.
And Wray knows it too.



But having typed that?
This 'fake election' thing bothers me a THOUSAND times more than the Jan. 6 riots.

Because the latter NEVER had a chance to succeed.
NEVER.
The military already said it would NOT have honored a change of government by insurrection.
The Jan. 6 riots were NEVER going to accomplish anything.

But the 'fake election' crap is a direct attack on democracy.
And it has sowed the seeds of electoral distrust amongst too many people.

And THAT IS dangerous.

Sure, you have to be a 'moron'/delusional to be a sane adult and listen to the 'evidence' with an open mind and TRULY believe the 'fake election' crap.
But - sadly - there are tens of MILLIONS of stupid and/or closed minded people in this country (on both sides).
And many of them are armed to the teeth.

If the 2024 election is won by a Dem and the Rep candidate (it won't be Trump, BTW...guaranteed) starts up this 'fake election' crap again?
Then that COULD be the start of a VERY, dark time in America.
And if it coincides with a REALLY bad economic downturn?
Uh oh.



*NOTE*

Fuck...I do blather on.

Sorry....I cannot seem to help it.
I just get carried away.

I just find it SO great that I FINALLY have found a chat forum where I can say almost ANYTHING I want.

 

[Into the Night]

Republican Sen. Mike Rounds rejected claims of mass voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election.
"The election was fair — as fair as we've seen," he said during an interview on ABC's "This Week."

The South Dakota Republican — who was easily reelected to a second term in the Senate in 2020 — said during an interview on ABC's "This Week" that the dozens of investigations focused on election irregularities did not yield any cases of mass fraud.

"As a part of our due diligence, we looked at over 60 different accusations made in multiple states," the senator told host George Stephanopoulos. "While there were some irregularities, there were none of the irregularities which would have risen to the point where they would have changed the vote outcome in a single state."

Sen. Rounds does not have authority to certify any election.

 

[Into the Night]

Ok.

Now THIS is an issue that I am ONE HUNDRED PERCENT in agreement with the left on.

Everything bad/wrong that Trump did combined while in office - IMO - PALES in comparison to what he tried to do on this.

He deliberately tried to bully/con/trick people to change the outcome of a legal election for NO REASON other than for personal gain.

And here is just one example of that:

There is NO evidence of ANY substance whatsoever that the election was thrown.
Over 60 court cases brought...ALL failed.


And Trump has called elections 'rigged/fake' on LOTS of occasions before.
It is a COMMON tactic of his.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tru...tions-rigged-doesnt-results/story?id=74126926


January 6 was fucking slimy of him.
And scary.
And was a riot.
But it was NOT an insurrection.
The FBI director said so.
And he knows a BILLION times more about this than ANYONE on here does.

You Dems want to charge Trump with 'inciting a riot'?
I will support that - 100%.

But 'inciting insurrection'?
Forget it.
That is too much of a stretch.
And Wray knows it too.



But having typed that?
This 'fake election' thing bothers me a THOUSAND times more than the Jan. 6 riots.

Because the latter NEVER had a chance to succeed.
NEVER.
The military already said it would NOT have honored a change of government by insurrection.
The Jan. 6 riots were NEVER going to accomplish anything.

But the 'fake election' crap is a direct attack on democracy.
And it has sowed the seeds of electoral distrust amongst too many people.

And THAT IS dangerous.

Sure, you have to be a 'moron'/delusional to be a sane adult and listen to the 'evidence' with an open mind and TRULY believe the 'fake election' crap.
But - sadly - there are tens of MILLIONS of stupid and/or closed minded people in this country (on both sides).
And many of them are armed to the teeth.

If the 2024 election is won by a Dem and the Rep candidate (it won't be Trump, BTW...guaranteed) starts up this 'fake election' crap again?
Then that COULD be the start of a VERY, dark time in America.
And if it coincides with a REALLY bad economic downturn?
Uh oh.



*NOTE*

Fuck...I do blather on.

Sorry....I cannot seem to help it.
I just get carried away.

I just find it SO great that I FINALLY have found a chat forum where I can say almost ANYTHING I want.

There was no election in 2020. The election faulted due to election fraud by Democrats. You can't make the evidence disappear by quoting non-existent court cases.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Republican Sen. Mike Rounds rejected claims of mass voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election.
"The election was fair — as fair as we've seen," he said during an interview on ABC's "This Week."

The South Dakota Republican — who was easily reelected to a second term in the Senate in 2020 — said during an interview on ABC's "This Week" that the dozens of investigations focused on election irregularities did not yield any cases of mass fraud.

"As a part of our due diligence, we looked at over 60 different accusations made in multiple states," the senator told host George Stephanopoulos. "While there were some irregularities, there were none of the irregularities which would have risen to the point where they would have changed the vote outcome in a single state."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...s-about-2020-the-election-was-fair/ar-AASB8w9

That's an alarmingly low bar for "Nothing to see here!".

We have been betrayed by our leaders.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello guno,

Republican Sen. Mike Rounds rejected claims of mass voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election.
"The election was fair — as fair as we've seen," he said during an interview on ABC's "This Week."

The South Dakota Republican — who was easily reelected to a second term in the Senate in 2020 — said during an interview on ABC's "This Week" that the dozens of investigations focused on election irregularities did not yield any cases of mass fraud.

"As a part of our due diligence, we looked at over 60 different accusations made in multiple states," the senator told host George Stephanopoulos. "While there were some irregularities, there were none of the irregularities which would have risen to the point where they would have changed the vote outcome in a single state."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...s-about-2020-the-election-was-fair/ar-AASB8w9

But of course.

So,,, WHAT TOOK HIM SO LONG???

It's not like this is any big news.

Nothing has changed.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello McRocket,

Ok.

Now THIS is an issue that I am ONE HUNDRED PERCENT in agreement with the left on.

Everything bad/wrong that Trump did combined while in office - IMO - PALES in comparison to what he tried to do on this.

He deliberately tried to bully/con/trick people to change the outcome of a legal election for NO REASON other than for personal gain.

And here is just one example of that:

There is NO evidence of ANY substance whatsoever that the election was thrown.
Over 60 court cases brought...ALL failed.


And Trump has called elections 'rigged/fake' on LOTS of occasions before.
It is a COMMON tactic of his.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tru...tions-rigged-doesnt-results/story?id=74126926


January 6 was fucking slimy of him.
And scary.
And was a riot.
But it was NOT an insurrection.
The FBI director said so.
And he knows a BILLION times more about this than ANYONE on here does.

You Dems want to charge Trump with 'inciting a riot'?
I will support that - 100%.

But 'inciting insurrection'?
Forget it.
That is too much of a stretch.
And Wray knows it too.



But having typed that?
This 'fake election' thing bothers me a THOUSAND times more than the Jan. 6 riots.

Because the latter NEVER had a chance to succeed.
NEVER.
The military already said it would NOT have honored a change of government by insurrection.
The Jan. 6 riots were NEVER going to accomplish anything.

But the 'fake election' crap is a direct attack on democracy.
And it has sowed the seeds of electoral distrust amongst too many people.

And THAT IS dangerous.

Sure, you have to be a 'moron'/delusional to be a sane adult and listen to the 'evidence' with an open mind and TRULY believe the 'fake election' crap.
But - sadly - there are tens of MILLIONS of stupid and/or closed minded people in this country (on both sides).
And many of them are armed to the teeth.

If the 2024 election is won by a Dem and the Rep candidate (it won't be Trump, BTW...guaranteed) starts up this 'fake election' crap again?
Then that COULD be the start of a VERY, dark time in America.
And if it coincides with a REALLY bad economic downturn?
Uh oh.



*NOTE*

Fuck...I do blather on.

Sorry....I cannot seem to help it.
I just get carried away.

I just find it SO great that I FINALLY have found a chat forum where I can say almost ANYTHING I want.

Yes, it was an insurrection. It totally matches the definition. I don't buy this baloney about how it can't be an insurrection because nobody has been legally charged with that. Maybe those charges are yet to come. It doesn't matter if they do or not. Satisfying legal requirements is a completely different standard than meeting the definition of a word. There are plenty of rapes that are never charged. If you ask the women who got raped, they know what happened. They would disagree if they were told they were not really raped because charges were not brought. Rape is rape. Insurrection is insurrection. Period.

Thanks for stating the obvious on the 'stolen election' nonsense.

The dark time in America?

It's already here. Our politics is totally dysfunctional. Americans mostly can't even talk about politics.

The right has gone off the deep end with their different information stream. They are no longer in touch with reality. The right is totally gone into imaginary land now. They just make things up and declare them facts. And the lot of them go right along with it.

We on the left are frankly at a loss as to how to deal with that. We can state facts, but facts are meaningless to the right. The right CALLS facts 'fake news' and thinks it's all made up. We can't talk to people like that.

What purports to be talking is really just insult contests.

One person states what they think is real, and then just goes off on somebody else who states a different understanding. And the other does the same thing.

That's ridiculous. It's not a political discussion if the subject ends up being about the people who are doing the discussing.

 

[Into the Night]

Hello McRocket,

Yes, it was an insurrection.

No, there was no insurrection.

It totally matches the definition.

You don't get to redefine 'insurrection'. Semantics fallacy.

I don't buy this baloney about how it can't be an insurrection because nobody has been legally charged with that.

Semantics fallacy.

Maybe those charges are yet to come. It doesn't matter if they do or not. Satisfying legal requirements is a completely different standard than meeting the definition of a word.

Semantics fallacy.

There are plenty of rapes that are never charged. If you ask the women who got raped, they know what happened. They would disagree if they were told they were not really raped because charges were not brought. Rape is rape. Insurrection is insurrection. Period.

Semantics fallacy. Circular argument fallacy.

Thanks for stating the obvious on the 'stolen election' nonsense.

There was no election in 2020. The election faulted due to election fraud by Democrats.

The dark time in America?

Yes.

It's already here. Our politics is totally dysfunctional. Americans mostly can't even talk about politics.

The Oligarchy doesn't want you to.

The right has gone off the deep end with their different information stream.

You are describing Democrats.

They are no longer in touch with reality.

You are describing Democrats. You don't know what 'reality' even means.

The right is totally gone into imaginary land now.

You are describing Democrats.

They just make things up and declare them facts. And the lot of them go right along with it.

You are describing Democrats.

We on the left are frankly at a loss as to how to deal with that. We can state facts, but facts are meaningless to the right.

A fact is not a proof. It is not a Universal Truth either.

The right CALLS facts 'fake news' and thinks it's all made up. We can't talk to people like that.

It is made up. It is fiction. That's why it's called Fake News.

What purports to be talking is really just insult contests.

You are describing Democrats and yourself.

One person states what they think is real, and then just goes off on somebody else who states a different understanding. And the other does the same thing.

Define 'real'. You don't know the meaning of that word either.

That's ridiculous.

That's normal.

It's not a political discussion if the subject ends up being about the people who are doing the discussing.

It is YOU making a genetic fallacy here (a bulverism fallacy).

 

[McRocket]

Hello PoliTalker

Hello McRocket,



Yes, it was an insurrection. It totally matches the definition. I don't buy this baloney about how it can't be an insurrection because nobody has been legally charged with that. Maybe those charges are yet to come. It doesn't matter if they do or not. Satisfying legal requirements is a completely different standard than meeting the definition of a word. There are plenty of rapes that are never charged. If you ask the women who got raped, they know what happened. They would disagree if they were told they were not really raped because charges were not brought. Rape is rape. Insurrection is insurrection. Period.

Thanks for stating the obvious on the 'stolen election' nonsense.

The dark time in America?

It's already here. Our politics is totally dysfunctional. Americans mostly can't even talk about politics.

The right has gone off the deep end with their different information stream. They are no longer in touch with reality. The right is totally gone into imaginary land now. They just make things up and declare them facts. And the lot of them go right along with it.

We on the left are frankly at a loss as to how to deal with that. We can state facts, but facts are meaningless to the right. The right CALLS facts 'fake news' and thinks it's all made up. We can't talk to people like that.

What purports to be talking is really just insult contests.

One person states what they think is real, and then just goes off on somebody else who states a different understanding. And the other does the same thing.

That's ridiculous. It's not a political discussion if the subject ends up being about the people who are doing the discussing.

The civil 'definition' is IRRELEVANT.
The LEGAL DEFINITION is ALL that matters in cases of law.

'Insurrection refers to an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government. It is a violent revolt against an oppressive authority. Insurrection is different from riots and offenses connected with mob violence. In insurrection there is an organized and armed uprising against authority or operations of government whereas riots and offenses connected with mob violence are simply unlawful acts in disturbance of the peace which do not threaten the stability of the government or the existence of political society.

The following is a case law defining Insurrection:

Insurrection means “a violent uprising by a group or movement acting for the specific purpose of overthrowing the constituted government and seizing its powers. An insurrection occurs where a movement acts to overthrow the constituted government and to take possession of its inherent powers.” [Younis Bros. & Co. v. Cigna Worldwide Ins. Co., 899 F. Supp. 1385, 1392-1393 (E.D. Pa. 1995)]'

https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/insurrection/

You people can argue until you are blue in the face.
The FBI and the rule of law says that January 6 was not an insurrection.

END OF STORY.

Trump is a buffoon.
If he had committed insurrection?
I would LOVE it if they threw him in jail for it.
But he DID NOT ACCORDING TO THE FBI AND THE LAW.

Now, if you people want to start ignoring US law?
Than you people are nothing but 'thugs' on this issue.


Believe whatever you wish.
Until the FBI/courts agree with you?
You are urinating in the wind.

Good day.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello McRocket,

Hello PoliTalker

The civil 'definition' is IRRELEVANT.
The LEGAL DEFINITION is ALL that matters in cases of law.

'Insurrection refers to an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government. It is a violent revolt against an oppressive authority. Insurrection is different from riots and offenses connected with mob violence. In insurrection there is an organized and armed uprising against authority or operations of government whereas riots and offenses connected with mob violence are simply unlawful acts in disturbance of the peace which do not threaten the stability of the government or the existence of political society.

The following is a case law defining Insurrection:

Insurrection means “a violent uprising by a group or movement acting for the specific purpose of overthrowing the constituted government and seizing its powers. An insurrection occurs where a movement acts to overthrow the constituted government and to take possession of its inherent powers.” [Younis Bros. & Co. v. Cigna Worldwide Ins. Co., 899 F. Supp. 1385, 1392-1393 (E.D. Pa. 1995)]'

https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/insurrection/

You people can argue until you are blue in the face.
The FBI and the rule of law says that January 6 was not an insurrection.

END OF STORY.

Trump is a buffoon.
If he had committed insurrection?
I would LOVE it if they threw him in jail for it.
But he DID NOT ACCORDING TO THE FBI AND THE LAW.

Now, if you people want to start ignoring US law?
Than you people are nothing but 'thugs' on this issue.


Believe whatever you wish.
Until the FBI/courts agree with you?
You are urinating in the wind.

Good day.

This is not a court of law.

This is the court of public opinion.

Pretending it is a court of law for the purpose of suiting your own preference of terms is absurd.

Because, a) Not a court of law.

And b) there is no b) because a) is all which is needed.

Court of public opinion. What an individual calls it reveals their politics.

One side is accurate to the definition of the word, the other side is imposing unrealistic conditions on the use of a word of the English language which absurdly prevent using the English definition of an English word (of all things!)

 

[PoliTalker]

Not that the legal definition of the word has any controlling power of it's use in everyday language, but let's take a look at that actual wording of the law and see if what happened on January 6th matches the written words describing what is criminal action:

"18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)"

"Any rebellion against the authority of the USA" (Well, it certainly was a rebellion against authority.)

And NOTHING about the purpose of the action! Not a word!

And even IF that was a requirement of satisfying a violation of the law, the power of Congress to act was temporarily removed by the violent action of the group of people bursting in. The group took possession of the power of Congress.

They didn't hold it long. They relinquished it upon leaving. But they did do that.