4 ms·
> It’s bad to question (without evidence) the legitimacy of an election you lose. With the "(without evidence)" part of this, I agree. I think "question" may b
by LyndsySimon 7y ago
> It’s bad to question (without evidence) the legitimacy of an election you lose.
With the "(without evidence)" part of this, I agree. I think "question" may be too strong a word - "challenge", perhaps. It's certainly bad to challenge election results without evidence of malfeasance.
> It’s bad to question the legitimacy when you win.
I wholeheartedly disagree here. If Trump believes that the election was unfair in some way or that there were attempts to illegally influence it, then he absolutely should question in. Since he won, it would be reasonable for him to have ordered an investigation into it.
> It’s bad to state in advance that you’ll only accept the results if you win.
I think that's certainly boorish, but the action isn't necessarily bad. The man obviously believed he would be a good and faithful President, and apparently believed that Clinton would make a poor President. Why would he challenge the result upon winning, and risk putting someone he believed to be unfit into office?
- mikeash 7y ago“It’s bad to question the legitimacy when you win” was meant to implicitly have the same “without evidence” qualifier as the previous statement. I must disagree with your last paragraph in the most strenuous possible way. The peaceful and orderly transition of power is by far the most important aspect of democracy, and public faith in elections is a crucial part of that. I don’t care how great Trump thought he was or how awful his opponent was, saying he’ll only accept the result if he wins, with no evidence of any problems with the electoral process, is extremely destructive to the foundation of the whole country. If it was Jesus versus Satan, I’d still expect Jesus to say that he’ll accept the results of the election if Satan wins.