Quite the opposite. Stop the Steal was to ensure that the Constitution was honored and obeyed to the letter.
And the Constitution definitely does not support or allow for FRAUDULENT election results. Therefore it was the constitutional duty of the President of the Senate (Mike Pence) to ensure that all OBJECTIONS had been delivered, and then all OBJECTIONS had been legally and constitutionally address. That did not happen, which means that Mike Pence guaranteed the theft of the presidency
Let's come at this from another angle...
Even if I agree with you that the purpose of "stop the steal" was to
ensure Pence did his job, how could he do his job when the capitol was overrun and then placed into lockdown by the people chanting the phrase?
The people chanting "
stop the steal" literally
stopped the ceremony and so for a while Pence couldn't oversee ANY objections. They stopped him from doing his job.
----
...so the people's actions seem to match
their understanding of the chant, not yours...unless your understanding of the chant is truly the correct one and they're all insane?
The Democrats and the Leftist media have been falsely claiming every day that there is no evidence of fraud. If that is true, why did the Supreme Court fail to examine the evidence that had been gathered, and then establish whether it was genuine evidence?
...The same supreme court with a
conservative majority that Trump himself appointed? Partisan? Is every disagreement with Trump grounds for betrayal?
Compare the supreme court to Trump and his supporters; which group is acting
conservatively and which is acting extremely?
Which group's actions are more aligned with the traditional ideals of
conservatism?
And if the evidence was overwhelmingly in favor of Trump and against Biden, SCOTUS had a constitutional duty to declare Trump the winner. But they played partisan politics and betrayed the American people.
Let's say I claimed you stole my car and you vehemently denied it, showing just 1 receipt of purchase and 1 package with owners manual & documentation...
Comparatively, Let's say I have sworn affidavits of 1000 people from CC also saying you stole my car. Can a judge still rule that I have insufficient evidence to prove my case over your evidence? Yes.
Every state judge who saw one of Trump's cases threw out the case, with exception to 1 case...and a lot of judges were Republicans.
Also,
not one case presented in court was for fraud. Not one. Giuliani himself, when in court, specifically said on record "this is not a case about fraud", because he knows he has no legal case for fraud and could get in serious trouble wasting the court's time.
Finally, the Texas case was thrown out by the supreme court because one state can't file a suit for the practices in
other states as such challenges a state's sovereignty.
Even thinking such a notion is possible makes the federal government more powerful than the states. Not only is the notion unconstitutional but it's BIG GOVERNMENT which is heretical to
conservative principles.
There wasn't one (1) general election had in November. There are fifty (50) separate general elections had to determine the president.
Any issues regarding a states election laws and procedures must be handled by the state.
----
So the issue Trump supporters have isn't with Democrats or leftists, it's with all of the elements that maintain a separation of powers and the rule of law and actually also traditional conservativism.
So Trump supports must ask themselves honestly, who are the true RINOs? They're not acting like traditional Republicans at all.