I did not say any such thing. I simply gave a quote: "A total of 3,779 observers, including 650 from the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe, were dispatched to monitor the election." So do I understand correctly that you deny the truth of the facts within my quote?
Now, you argue that the 2010 election lacked legitimacy. Fine. How was this claim litigated? In the courts? In a new election? What is the correct remedy if a voter believes the election was not legitimate?
You may find me speaking in terms of the legitimacy of an election, if a Court is called upon to examine evidence and renders a judgment that the election was not free and fair. You also might find me speaking in terms of election legitimacy, if a new election is held and the results mathematically deviate significantly from the previous result. Otherwise, claims of election illegitimacy are ipse dixit and within the realm of propagandists and sore losers, who seem to love applying the wholly ambiguous legally insignificant term "meddling," (see. e.g. Hilary Clinton. )
You seem to argue that bringing in Victoria Nuland is a good thing, because the belief of the voters that voted opposite the election result about legitimacy are true. This is Frankfurt School induced Dunning-Kreuger thinking that is the same as Stalinism. Once you invite that vampire into your house, you have no choice but to become part of the coven. After that happens, anything and everything becomes foreseeable, viz the Donbas.
Finally, your appeals to how I view other election results are diversions. How about, if you are going to debate with me, that you attribute to me things I have actually written? Musk and Trump made comments about Nuland, which is the topic that I am addressing here, not the straw men you are trying to bring in.
You can’t debate deep State department lackeys. Nuland herself probably has a pseudonym presence on FR. Not mentioned in the thread yet is that she has skin in the game visca vis Ukraine. Her old man’s parents were from Ukraine. NNuland is the quintessential globalist apparatchick. Famous for her preference for wanting the U.N to oversee Ukrainian elections in 2014. Her memorable ‘@uck the EU’ from a leaked phone call ruffled the euroweenie feathers. She seems to get off on sending Americans to wars. She hates isolationism wirh a passion. A chronic meddler in ‘sovereign’ countries internal affairs. Musk should start remotely controlling her war vibrator and she can screw herself to death
“You seem to argue that bringing in Victoria Nuland is a good thing”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I never brought up anything about V. Nuland, you did.
To me she is irrelevant when it comes to the Ukrainian people choosing to free themselves from the Russian oppression.
The Ukrainian motto is : Live free or die.
They are fighting with their blood against relentless hordes of cannon fodder (Russian convicts) pouring in into their country. Who can anyone support this?
Ukrainians are protecting their BORDERS and FAMILIES against the Russian invaders and their Iranian accomplices.
By the way...”Border” and “family”: that’s two STRONG conservative words of high value in my book. These two words are fueling the Ukrainians will to fight on.
Anyone on FR who isn’t supporting families and the respect for borders here in the USA or in Ukraine are not normal people, they should go to the Democrat party.