I've sort of come to realize that up at that high level of government is not where fraud should be dealt with. The fraud was administered on the level of precincts, not at the level of the federal government. At that high level, anything one might try gets caught up in bureacracy, and just generates noise.
People here were turning to the federal government, the most unreliable part of the State, hoping that our interests would be represented. If the fraud were to have been fixed, there were 0 instances that it would be fixed at the federal level. 'Stop the Steal' was dead when the judges ruled 'no standing'. For people like Rand Paul to try and fix fraud would mean tearing the already flimsy federal government apart.
So, you believe Rand chose to vote to certify, not because he believed there was no fraud, but because there was no good outcome to voting otherwise, and it could potentially make the situation worse.
Without knowing everything he would have known in those circumstances, it becomes very difficult to judge whether I think he did the right thing there. A flaming middle finger to the establishment would have been nice, but not at any cost.
I've sort of come to realize that up at that high level of government is not where fraud should be dealt with. The fraud was administered on the level of precincts, not at the level of the federal government. At that high level, anything one might try gets caught up in bureacracy, and just generates noise.
People here were turning to the federal government, the most unreliable part of the State, hoping that our interests would be represented. If the fraud were to have been fixed, there were 0 instances that it would be fixed at the federal level. 'Stop the Steal' was dead when the judges ruled 'no standing'. For people like Rand Paul to try and fix fraud would mean tearing the already flimsy federal government apart.
They swore to uphold the constitution. Then the didn't uphold the constitution. That's all I need to know.
And what would it have cost Rand to side with Trump on election fraud? Nothing at all.
Sure, you can argue it would accomplish nothing to side with Trump but nonetheless, it would have been the right thing to do
That is a well reasoned analysis.
So, you believe Rand chose to vote to certify, not because he believed there was no fraud, but because there was no good outcome to voting otherwise, and it could potentially make the situation worse.
Without knowing everything he would have known in those circumstances, it becomes very difficult to judge whether I think he did the right thing there. A flaming middle finger to the establishment would have been nice, but not at any cost.