4 ms·

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 se

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.

jolux 6y ago
> 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. You're getting this backwards. The legal means are not there to fight the outcome of the election, they are there to make sure every vote is counted properly. This is a subtle but important difference: nobody denies that there may be minor and insignificant improprieties in this election, as there are whenever a country of 300 million people votes. What is being denied is that there was whole-scale interference with the election system. I'm fairly confident that they will not be able to convince a court that there was, but that doesn't make it ok that they are filing lawsuits on no evidence. People being upset about an election outcome is no reason to ignore the reality of this situation.
- OminousWeapons 6y ago
  > I'm fairly confident that they will not be able to convince a court that there was, but that doesn't make it ok that they are filing lawsuits on no evidence. I agree and so do the courts which is why this problem will likely solve itself if you just let it play out.
  - jolux 6y ago
    I'm not arguing doing anything more than letting it play out and reporting accurately on what's going on. You seem to think we shouldn't be discussing it as such. I think it's important to talk about what they're doing, because it's poisonous to our democracy.
watwut 6y ago
Trump was not prevented access to court. He and his prior are however not allowed to make public claims about fraud unopposed. The patience you suggest would lead to public that hears what he says, but does not hear about claims being bogus. The kind of pacification you call about is not something Trump or republican party awarded to anyone last 4 years. They enjoyed to trigger libtards. There was no patience I could detect. What you suggest does not work, because it demands one side to follow norms that other side does not have to follow.

jolux 6y ago

> 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. You're getting this backwards. The legal means are not there to fight the outcome of the election, they are there to make sure every vote is counted properly. This is a subtle but important difference: nobody denies that there may be minor and insignificant improprieties in this election, as there are whenever a country of 300 million people votes. What is being denied is that there was whole-scale interference with the election system. I'm fairly confident that they will not be able to convince a court that there was, but that doesn't make it ok that they are filing lawsuits on no evidence. People being upset about an election outcome is no reason to ignore the reality of this situation.

OminousWeapons 6y ago
> I'm fairly confident that they will not be able to convince a court that there was, but that doesn't make it ok that they are filing lawsuits on no evidence. I agree and so do the courts which is why this problem will likely solve itself if you just let it play out.
- jolux 6y ago
  I'm not arguing doing anything more than letting it play out and reporting accurately on what's going on. You seem to think we shouldn't be discussing it as such. I think it's important to talk about what they're doing, because it's poisonous to our democracy.

watwut 6y ago

Trump was not prevented access to court. He and his prior are however not allowed to make public claims about fraud unopposed. The patience you suggest would lead to public that hears what he says, but does not hear about claims being bogus. The kind of pacification you call about is not something Trump or republican party awarded to anyone last 4 years. They enjoyed to trigger libtards. There was no patience I could detect. What you suggest does not work, because it demands one side to follow norms that other side does not have to follow.