BLAST FROM THE PAST: THE 2016 ELECTION: "INFLUENCING" AN ELECTION, AND "RIGGING" AN ELECTION ARE TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES. PART 1.

SOMETIMES IT IS AGGRAVATING TO POINT OUT THE SAME THING, OVER AND OVER AGAIN. HOWEVER, WHEN YOU HAVE SO MANY INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS DESPERATELY TRYING TO IGNORE THE OBVIOUS, IT BECOMES EVEN MORE NECESSARY TO FIND THE TRUTH, OR WE MAY BE ALLOWING THE CULPABLE, IRRESPONSIBLE, OR INCOMPETENT A VICTORY IN DECEIT.  THAT IS A PRECEDENT MORE DANGEROUS THAN ANY FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC ENEMY COULD EVER BE.

FOR THOSE WHO MAY BE UNAWARE OF WHAT I AM REFERRING TO, PLEASE GO TO
MY ARTICLES AND POSTS THAT ADDRESS THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. THE ARGUMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS I HAVE MADE ABOUT THE VALIDITY, ACCURACY, AND LEGALITY OF THE "OFFICIAL" RESULTS ARE LAID OUT, SO IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO DO THAT HERE.

THIS POST IS TO POINT OUT A MAJOR DIFFERENCE IN HOW THE ELECTION IS BEING ANALYZED AND REPORTED, ESPECIALLY WHEN REFERRING TO POSSIBLE ILLEGAL ACTIONS TAKEN BY INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS TO GET A DESIRED OUTCOME.  THE OUTCOME BEING THE ELECTION OF THEIR PREFERRED CANDIDATE. 

BASICALLY IT COMES DOWN TO THE FOLLOWING:

OBTAINING INFORMATION ILLEGALLY, AND PROVIDING IT TO ONE SIDE IN AN ELECTION, TO HARM THE OTHER BY ATTEMPTING TO INFLUENCE VOTERS...

AND

PHYSICALLY ALTERING VOTING COUNTS THROUGH THE BALLOT BOX, OR COMPUTER, SO THAT ONE CANDIDATE EMERGES VICTORIOUS...

...ARE SEPERATE AND DISTINCT ACTIONS. THE TRUTH OF ONE IS NOT DEPENDENT ON THE OTHER. THEY MAY BOTH BE TRUE, OR BOTH FALSE. ONE MAY BE TRUE, AND THE OTHER FALSE. WE MUST NOT ALLOW EVIDENCE, OR LACK OF, IN ONE CASE TO BE USED IN JUDGING THE OTHER.

SEE PART 2.