4 ms·

These people that are heavily contesting the election results are actually mad at mainstream conservative news outlets, because most conservative news outlets a

These people that are heavily contesting the election results are actually mad at mainstream conservative news outlets, because most conservative news outlets are actually being much more reasonable than I expected. From places like Fox, Sky News Australia, Ben Shapiro, the message has essentially been: evidence of voter fraud isn't sufficient to change the election, there needs to be evidence of voter fraud at sufficient scale to actually change the results, which is highly unlikely. Trump's team is well with their rights to pursue an investigation within the legal system, and it's actually a good thing for democracy that as many doubts are settled as possible, but it is not okay for him to be declaring himself the winner in the absence of evidence. As others have said, after hearing about Russian collusion for 3 years, as long as Trump keeps his mouth shut about having won the election, I'm perfectly fine with them making their case within the legal system. As I said, I think it's good for democracy if people feel as though their claims were addressed. Especially with a judicial system theoretically predisposed towards favoring Trump, them shutting down the allegations of fraud so far can avoid having been done so we a bias for Biden. The odds of the election results changing are astronomically low, so even if you don't want Trump to win, by allowing this process to play out, you are simply bolstering the evidence of a Biden win.

jfengel 6y ago
it's actually a good thing for democracy that as many doubts are settled as possible Under what circumstances do you believe that the doubts actually get settled? A court can direct the government to accept one outcome or another, but it can't direct that people stop expressing their doubts. And as long as the doubts are prominently expressed, I don't expect any investigation to settle it. Doubts are free, both libre and gratis, and you can expect them to be indulged in accordingly. We should, by all means, pursue the investigations, because it's legally required. But I don't expect it to provide anything except more evidence of a conspiracy, because that's how conspiracy theories work.
- ralusek 6y ago
  So you're under the impression that, among the people who expressed concern at the widespread accusations of voter fraud, literally none of them will be satisfied by having had those allegations pursued and resolved under scrutiny?
  - jfengel 6y ago
    None? No, of course not. When you're talking about millions of people, there will always be somebody fitting any description. There will surely be some individual who is convinced. Probably thousands of them. But I don't think it will convince a majority of them. Remember, a majority of this same group still doesn't believe that the previous President was born in the United States: https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/xj7rpmvws8/econTabReport.pdf#page=139 https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/xj7rpmvws8/econTabReport.pdf#pag... Perhaps an official court ruling will be more persuasive. So there's no need to make a strawman out of this: if a large majority are convinced, then my skepticism will have been wrong.

jfengel 6y ago

it's actually a good thing for democracy that as many doubts are settled as possible Under what circumstances do you believe that the doubts actually get settled? A court can direct the government to accept one outcome or another, but it can't direct that people stop expressing their doubts. And as long as the doubts are prominently expressed, I don't expect any investigation to settle it. Doubts are free, both libre and gratis, and you can expect them to be indulged in accordingly. We should, by all means, pursue the investigations, because it's legally required. But I don't expect it to provide anything except more evidence of a conspiracy, because that's how conspiracy theories work.

ralusek 6y ago
So you're under the impression that, among the people who expressed concern at the widespread accusations of voter fraud, literally none of them will be satisfied by having had those allegations pursued and resolved under scrutiny?
- jfengel 6y ago
  None? No, of course not. When you're talking about millions of people, there will always be somebody fitting any description. There will surely be some individual who is convinced. Probably thousands of them. But I don't think it will convince a majority of them. Remember, a majority of this same group still doesn't believe that the previous President was born in the United States: https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/xj7rpmvws8/econTabReport.pdf#page=139 https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/xj7rpmvws8/econTabReport.pdf#pag... Perhaps an official court ruling will be more persuasive. So there's no need to make a strawman out of this: if a large majority are convinced, then my skepticism will have been wrong.