6 ms·

What am I supposed to think about the intent of the other side when they're trying to get a legitimate election result overturned to support their preferred pre

by jolux 6y ago

What am I supposed to think about the intent of the other side when they're trying to get a legitimate election result overturned to support their preferred presidential candidate? Who isn't living in reality here? This is not a far left position, and it's not the left that is driving FUD about US election integrity.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
You're supposed to recognize that many of your positions look equally bizarre and scary to the other side, and conclude that to a significant degree this is a gap in understanding rather than a gap in morals.
- jolux 6y ago
  Yes, but what matters most is not how my beliefs appear to the other side, but whose beliefs are closest to the truth. I have little control over what other people believe, but I have some control over what I believe, and I strive to be rational and realistic and follow the truth.
  - dahfizz 6y ago
    That depends entirely on what you are trying to achieve. If you want to move beyond self satisfaction and actually effect change, you need to be concerned with how your message is conveyed. What are your beliefs for?
    - jolux 6y ago
      >That depends entirely on what you are trying to achieve. If you want to move beyond self satisfaction and actually effect change, you need to be concerned with how your message is conveyed. This is a conflation. Trying to be rational is valuable independent of what message you have. Messaging is secondary. When messaging becomes primary, the truth suffers, and freedom dies. I'd rather be self-satisfied and correct than highly influential and wrong. The latter is far more dangerous.
at_a_remove 6y ago
I recall a scant four years ago when many on the left were suggesting that the electors be faithless electors to get Clinton in office. After all, she won the popular vote, right? "What am I supposed to think about the intent of the other side when they're trying to get a legitimate election result overturned to support their preferred presidential candidate" indeed?
- jolux 6y ago
  "Many on the left" meaning every Democratic senator and congressperson, and the Democratic president himself too?
  - at_a_remove 6y ago
    What, you think Obama and the Clintons would have minded terribly if it turned out that way? Anyway, we're not shifting the goalposts to the leaders, we're talking about the people, which is the subject of the article. The people of the left were completely down with the faithless electorate concept, whoopie! And somehow you missed this point. Which leads me to a question: why? Perhaps you didn't hear about it. Perhaps you forgot it. Maybe you brushed it aside. Or maybe you recalled it and decided it wasn't worth mentioning. Each of these are mechanisms through which people are steered. You accuse the far right of doing something that the far left was doing just four years ago, and still you have thought yourself objective, but it doesn't work.
    - Tostino 6y ago
      You can find people of any background who will spout contradictory rhetoric. I don't think you're making this argument in good faith. 2016 was a whole lot closer than 2020, and Clinton conceded and there was no serious calculated attempt to overturn the election results by either the public at large, or people who had any power to do so. Equating that with what's going on now does not seem like an argument made in good faith.
      - at_a_remove 6y ago
colpabar 6y ago
> it's not the left that is driving FUD about US election integrity Come on now. How can you say this with a straight face after 5 years of the MSM claiming that Russia hacked our election?
OminousWeapons 6y ago
I agree they are being sore losers, but you should think that they are exercising the legal rights they are entitled to in order to challenge what they perceive to be irregularities in the process. If irregularities are found (which they probably won't be) then cases should be heard by the courts. If they are not, Trump should ultimately concede or be forced from office. Be patient and let the process play out in a legitimate way.
- jolux 6y ago
  Nobody's saying they don't have a right to challenge irregularities, but many government officials say this was the most secure election in American history and deny any evidence of systemic fraud: https://apnews.com/article/top-officials-elections-most-secure-66f9361084ccbc461e3bbf42861057a5 https://apnews.com/article/top-officials-elections-most-secu...
  - OminousWeapons 6y ago
    I agree it was a secure election. What I mean to say is that this is a perception issue. There is a belief along many on the right that elements of the civil service, the media, and the educated classes are strongly biased against Donald Trump and would like to undermine him. To be honest, they are probably right (although I would argue that the bias is warranted given Trump's abysmal job performance). They therefore think that the left would try to undermine the electoral process to remove Trump at all costs and that their intent is fundamentally malicious. The way you deal with this problem is through transparency and patience. You allow Trump unencumbered access to the largely republican courts and if any irregularities exist Trump is allowed his day in court. Once that is over, you then say we have dealt with you in good faith and you can see we weren't trying to screw you over. We now expect the same from you. This gives you the moral high ground and makes you look reasonable. If Trump refuses to cooperate you can then say he is breaking the law and remove him. There will be some on the right that will never be convinced that this election was legitimate, but this pacifies the more reasonable people on the right. Trying to kick the Republicans while they are down , chastising them them for using legal means to fight the outcome of the election, or engaging in grievance politics just further reinforces the perception that the left isn't operating in good faith. Remember once all of this is over we still have to live with these people.
wrycoder 6y ago
The country has voted. The election is still in progress. There are allegations of malfeasance and even fraud that need to be investigated and adjudicated. This has been true in many previous elections. The rule is to count every legal vote and only legal votes. Once this all plays out, and it will in the near future, then we can determine the "legitimate election result", per the Electoral College. Should Biden continue to prevail, I'm not expecting any significant unrest. Unhappiness, yes, but that is normal.
- jolux 6y ago
  >There are allegations of malfeasance and even fraud that need to be investigated and adjudicated. This has been true in many previous elections. The rule is to count every legal vote and only legal votes. There are allegations by enormously unscrupulous people which have as yet been completely debunked by the courts and labeled by government officials as misinformation attempts: https://apnews.com/article/top-officials-elections-most-secure-66f9361084ccbc461e3bbf42861057a5 https://apnews.com/article/top-officials-elections-most-secu...
  - wrycoder 6y ago
    "And if there are legitimate problems to be found, they will be, the coalition declared. Its statement said that all of the states with close results have paper records, which allow for the recounting of each ballot, if necessary, and for “the identification and correction of any mistakes or errors. ... Right now, across the country, election officials are reviewing and double checking the entire election process prior to finalizing the result.”
    - jolux 6y ago
      That's right.
dahfizz 6y ago
> What am I supposed to think about the intent of the other side when they're trying to get a legitimate election result overturned to support their preferred presidential candidate? You should think the same way about this as you do about the "russia hacked the election" cries about how the 2016 election was illegitimate.
- hahamrfunnyguy 6y ago
  I don't ever recall hearing that Russia hacked the election, not even in internet memes. Russian interference however in the 2016 election is well documented: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_201_United_States_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20.... The impeachment vote could have been easily avoided if Trump had come out and denounced Russian meddling and let the investigators do their jobs.
  - dahfizz 6y ago
    The NYT has a URL and web page dedicated to russia election hacking: https://www.nytimes.com/news-event/russian-election-hacking https://www.nytimes.com/news-event/russian-election-hacking
throwaway201103 6y ago
Let's hypothetically assume that Trump was ahead in the counts right now. Would Biden concede? Hillary Clinton is on record as having said "under no circumstances" concede the election. Would Biden's team not be looking at their legal options to challenge the result? Would Biden supporters not be losing their minds on social media, news media, and in the streets? This was a very partisian election, in which half the country was not going to be happy with the result. I don't see a smooth acceptance of the outcome regardless of how it comes out.

by jolux 6y ago

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

You're supposed to recognize that many of your positions look equally bizarre and scary to the other side, and conclude that to a significant degree this is a gap in understanding rather than a gap in morals.

jolux 6y ago
Yes, but what matters most is not how my beliefs appear to the other side, but whose beliefs are closest to the truth. I have little control over what other people believe, but I have some control over what I believe, and I strive to be rational and realistic and follow the truth.
- dahfizz 6y ago
  That depends entirely on what you are trying to achieve. If you want to move beyond self satisfaction and actually effect change, you need to be concerned with how your message is conveyed. What are your beliefs for?
  - jolux 6y ago
    >That depends entirely on what you are trying to achieve. If you want to move beyond self satisfaction and actually effect change, you need to be concerned with how your message is conveyed. This is a conflation. Trying to be rational is valuable independent of what message you have. Messaging is secondary. When messaging becomes primary, the truth suffers, and freedom dies. I'd rather be self-satisfied and correct than highly influential and wrong. The latter is far more dangerous.

at_a_remove 6y ago

I recall a scant four years ago when many on the left were suggesting that the electors be faithless electors to get Clinton in office. After all, she won the popular vote, right? "What am I supposed to think about the intent of the other side when they're trying to get a legitimate election result overturned to support their preferred presidential candidate" indeed?

jolux 6y ago
"Many on the left" meaning every Democratic senator and congressperson, and the Democratic president himself too?
- at_a_remove 6y ago
  What, you think Obama and the Clintons would have minded terribly if it turned out that way? Anyway, we're not shifting the goalposts to the leaders, we're talking about the people, which is the subject of the article. The people of the left were completely down with the faithless electorate concept, whoopie! And somehow you missed this point. Which leads me to a question: why? Perhaps you didn't hear about it. Perhaps you forgot it. Maybe you brushed it aside. Or maybe you recalled it and decided it wasn't worth mentioning. Each of these are mechanisms through which people are steered. You accuse the far right of doing something that the far left was doing just four years ago, and still you have thought yourself objective, but it doesn't work.
  - Tostino 6y ago
    You can find people of any background who will spout contradictory rhetoric. I don't think you're making this argument in good faith. 2016 was a whole lot closer than 2020, and Clinton conceded and there was no serious calculated attempt to overturn the election results by either the public at large, or people who had any power to do so. Equating that with what's going on now does not seem like an argument made in good faith.
    - at_a_remove 6y ago

colpabar 6y ago

> it's not the left that is driving FUD about US election integrity Come on now. How can you say this with a straight face after 5 years of the MSM claiming that Russia hacked our election?

OminousWeapons 6y ago

I agree they are being sore losers, but you should think that they are exercising the legal rights they are entitled to in order to challenge what they perceive to be irregularities in the process. If irregularities are found (which they probably won't be) then cases should be heard by the courts. If they are not, Trump should ultimately concede or be forced from office. Be patient and let the process play out in a legitimate way.

jolux 6y ago
Nobody's saying they don't have a right to challenge irregularities, but many government officials say this was the most secure election in American history and deny any evidence of systemic fraud: https://apnews.com/article/top-officials-elections-most-secure-66f9361084ccbc461e3bbf42861057a5 https://apnews.com/article/top-officials-elections-most-secu...
- OminousWeapons 6y ago
  I agree it was a secure election. What I mean to say is that this is a perception issue. There is a belief along many on the right that elements of the civil service, the media, and the educated classes are strongly biased against Donald Trump and would like to undermine him. To be honest, they are probably right (although I would argue that the bias is warranted given Trump's abysmal job performance). They therefore think that the left would try to undermine the electoral process to remove Trump at all costs and that their intent is fundamentally malicious. The way you deal with this problem is through transparency and patience. You allow Trump unencumbered access to the largely republican courts and if any irregularities exist Trump is allowed his day in court. Once that is over, you then say we have dealt with you in good faith and you can see we weren't trying to screw you over. We now expect the same from you. This gives you the moral high ground and makes you look reasonable. If Trump refuses to cooperate you can then say he is breaking the law and remove him. There will be some on the right that will never be convinced that this election was legitimate, but this pacifies the more reasonable people on the right. Trying to kick the Republicans while they are down , chastising them them for using legal means to fight the outcome of the election, or engaging in grievance politics just further reinforces the perception that the left isn't operating in good faith. Remember once all of this is over we still have to live with these people.

wrycoder 6y ago

The country has voted. The election is still in progress. There are allegations of malfeasance and even fraud that need to be investigated and adjudicated. This has been true in many previous elections. The rule is to count every legal vote and only legal votes. Once this all plays out, and it will in the near future, then we can determine the "legitimate election result", per the Electoral College. Should Biden continue to prevail, I'm not expecting any significant unrest. Unhappiness, yes, but that is normal.

jolux 6y ago
>There are allegations of malfeasance and even fraud that need to be investigated and adjudicated. This has been true in many previous elections. The rule is to count every legal vote and only legal votes. There are allegations by enormously unscrupulous people which have as yet been completely debunked by the courts and labeled by government officials as misinformation attempts: https://apnews.com/article/top-officials-elections-most-secure-66f9361084ccbc461e3bbf42861057a5 https://apnews.com/article/top-officials-elections-most-secu...
- wrycoder 6y ago
  "And if there are legitimate problems to be found, they will be, the coalition declared. Its statement said that all of the states with close results have paper records, which allow for the recounting of each ballot, if necessary, and for “the identification and correction of any mistakes or errors. ... Right now, across the country, election officials are reviewing and double checking the entire election process prior to finalizing the result.”
  - jolux 6y ago
    That's right.

dahfizz 6y ago

> What am I supposed to think about the intent of the other side when they're trying to get a legitimate election result overturned to support their preferred presidential candidate? You should think the same way about this as you do about the "russia hacked the election" cries about how the 2016 election was illegitimate.

hahamrfunnyguy 6y ago
I don't ever recall hearing that Russia hacked the election, not even in internet memes. Russian interference however in the 2016 election is well documented: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_201_United_States_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20.... The impeachment vote could have been easily avoided if Trump had come out and denounced Russian meddling and let the investigators do their jobs.
- dahfizz 6y ago
  The NYT has a URL and web page dedicated to russia election hacking: https://www.nytimes.com/news-event/russian-election-hacking https://www.nytimes.com/news-event/russian-election-hacking

throwaway201103 6y ago

Let's hypothetically assume that Trump was ahead in the counts right now. Would Biden concede? Hillary Clinton is on record as having said "under no circumstances" concede the election. Would Biden's team not be looking at their legal options to challenge the result? Would Biden supporters not be losing their minds on social media, news media, and in the streets? This was a very partisian election, in which half the country was not going to be happy with the result. I don't see a smooth acceptance of the outcome regardless of how it comes out.