In spite of existing proof? Pathetic. In other words, if, say, a candidate were to not get any (or, for the sake of not too much absurdity, 30% of) votes next election, with clear proof for that, but their election for President was certified despite that, you’d be fine with it?
Not “if you say so,” that’s how it is. You couldn’t give a rat’s wet fart about truth, you need someone to tell you what to do even if it contradicts what’s been found
1
u/ExplodiaNaxos Feb 01 '25
So you don’t care about proof? Excellent, that explains a lot. Everything’s hunky-dory so long as the top guys act like nothing wrong ever happened