Originally Posted by
Arikan
The issue to me is all the questions that pop up trying to look at the scenario Trump is outlining objectively.
Well before the election, he was stating widespread voter fraud would occur. He was stating this with certainty as a fact. To do so requires (normally, at least) evidence of some kind. Yet Trump did nothing to tackle the issue, cite evidence that it would happen so steps could be taken to correct it, or any other action before the election other than stating it at campaign rallies. So why was he willing to take part in what was sure to be a close election that he knew would be rigged, thus subverting American Democracy!, without doing anything about it?
You can argue that as a mere candidate, and a political outsider, he didn't have the ability to do anything, but at the very least he could have presented the 'evidence' he had which let him know this was certain to occur. That would have sent the Republicans into a fury. After all, if there appears to be credible evidence that your opponents are attempting to permit election rigging, that would be a MASSIVE story and would have gutted the Democratic party top to bottom. So why didn't this happen, unless no such evidence exists?
Also, most of the allegations I've seen is this occurring in solidly blue states, like California and New York where the Democratic voter margin is larger anyway. Clinton won California by over 3 million votes. Trump alleges that there were 3-5 million illegal votes. But, if you're trying to orchestrate election rigging, what the fuck is the point of carrying a state that would likely tip blue anyway by a 3 million vote surplus? Why not focus resources in swing states that were close; Ohio, North Carolina, Wisconsin etc etc. All these illegal votes are largely useless in CA and NY but a far smaller number would have made a massive difference in other states. Orchestrating/permitting widespread voter fraud to the tune of millions is a massive ordeal, having the end result be the same as having not had it happen at all is nonsensical.
You can take 4 million Democrat votes from CA and NY and have them still go to Clinton. You can split 500,000 Democrat votes between NC, WI, MI, and FL and tip all those states to Clinton, thus she carries the election by a comfortable margin and its close enough not to really raise any red flags. And so on. The scenario makes no sense.