“Just”? Tit for tat is not “just”, revenge is not “just”. Truth and consequences are just. If he actually didn’t win the election and it was truly fraud and cheating that got him the win, then yes, it would be just to bring that truth to light and execute the consequences of that truth. If he won fair and square, pretending like he didn’t is not just simply because he did it before.
Perhaps, but with all of the voter suppression and election rigging that has been done by the Republicans, can you really say he won “fair and square” at this point?
“Just”? Tit for tat is not “just”, revenge is not “just”. Truth and consequences are just. If he actually didn’t win the election and it was truly fraud and cheating that got him the win, then yes, it would be just to bring that truth to light and execute the consequences of that truth. If he won fair and square, pretending like he didn’t is not just simply because he did it before.
Perhaps, but with all of the voter suppression and election rigging that has been done by the Republicans, can you really say he won “fair and square” at this point?
If it’s by a hairs breadth, no. Depends on the specifics
So if a cheater wins hard enough, it can be called “fair and square”? Not sure what specifics could get me on board with that.