[DiogenesLamp]

This is a losing proposition; it amounts to "the Constitution wasn't followed, so it doesn't need to be followed" — and in that case you are arguing for unrestrained government.

Non sequitur. The one thing does not follow from the other.

I am arguing that since they broke the rules, and show every inclination to do so again, the rules should not constrain us either. As the French say " À bon chat, bon rat."

[MamaTexan]

I am arguing that since they broke the rules, and show every inclination to do so again, the rules should not constrain us either.

I wouldn't mind so much if breaking the 'rules' didn't mean I would be bearing false witness. By voting for someone I know for a fact isn't eligible, that's exactly what I'd be doing...and that's not something I'm willing to do no matter how much I like someone or agree with them politically.