4 ms·
> He said he’d accept the election if he won. He ended up repeatedly questioning its legitimacy despite winning. My question then is, why is it worse to you th
by microcolonel 7y ago
> He said he’d accept the election if he won. He ended up repeatedly questioning its legitimacy despite winning.
My question then is, why is it worse to you that he chose to say it was rigged after he was elected? It seems you're saying he should have done the politically expedient thing, and stopped saying it after winning.
Wouldn't you criticize him for that as well?
- mikeash 7y agoWhere am I saying it’s worse? He did a bunch of bad stuff related to questioning the legitimacy of the 2016 election and I’m not attempting to rank them.
- microcolonel 7y agoBut it seems like you're criticizing something which, if he didn't do it, you'd criticize him for not having done it.
- mikeash 7y agoSo what? It’s not like the only two possibilities were “delegitimize the election he won after saying he would accept the results” or “accept the results of the election he won after saying he wouldn’t accept the results if he lost.” He could have, for example, said he’d accept the results, period. Or reserved the right to challenge the results if there was evidence of irregularities. You don’t get to build your very own custom Kobayashi Maru and then complain that it’s a no-win scenario. Keep in mind that my original comment was a reply to someone who seemed to be implying that Democrats made up accusations that Trump wouldn’t accept the results. I was pointing out that not only did Trump say he wouldn’t accept the results if he lost, he really didn’t accept them even the way it happened. This being bad is a secondary point (although it certainly is bad); the main point is that this was a real thing, not something made up by Democrats.