4 ms·

I guess the difference between 2016 and 2020 outcomes is that democrats at least didn't create any ruckus during the power transfer from Obama to Trump . Plus,

I guess the difference between 2016 and 2020 outcomes is that democrats at least didn't create any ruckus during the power transfer from Obama to Trump . Plus, since the Democrats did it , the Republicans have a right to create a bigger ruckus is not justified. Also the Russian interference was more about social media influence rather than raising questions on election or voter integrity. A lot of Trump supporters are openly coming out with arms these days , hence propagating rigged election claims is or so more dangerous.

macspoofing 6y ago
>I guess the difference between 2016 and 2020 outcomes is that democrats at least didn't create any ruckus during the power transfer from Obama to Trump Crossfire Hurricane wasn't enough of a ruckus? It came out recently that Eric Swalwell was targeted by a Chinese spy, but cut ties after a 'defensive briefing' by the FBI. Hillary's campaign also received a 'defensive briefing' in 2015 when a foreign government tried to influence her campaign through a campaign associate. Trump's campaign never got one, instead FBI ordered an investigation on the flimsies grounds and outright lies to the FISA courts (and what turned out to be opo-research funded by the Hillary campaign and promulgating actual Russian disinformation).. And then the next four years had Hillary going around saying explicitly that Trump is not a legitimate president - a claim not challenged by media and echoed by the Democrats. The media itself kept pushing the discredit Steele dossier throughout that time. So I do roll my eyes when political activists in the Democratic party and media are now all about 'election integrity' after what they did to the trust in the system over the last 4 years. And I'm not really worried about Trump bitching on Twitter and putting out lawsuits (as is his right), as some threat to Democracy.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  He has the right to put out lawsuits. He looks like a buffoon, but he has the right. He does not have the right to ask state governors to ignore the election results and appoint electors who will vote for Trump. That is far beyond the legitimate exercise of Trump's rights.
  - esja 6y ago
    Is that true? Doesn't he have the right to ask the governors to do this, or to ask them to buy him an ice cream, or to sing him a love song? They have the right to decline - he can't compel them to do anything. Whether he should do it is a different question.
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      Well, the courts have the legitimate authority to hear the cases. The governors do not have the legitimate authority to grant Trump's request. So filing lawsuits in court is a legitimate action in a way that the requests to governors are not. Whether people have the right to request governors to perform illegitimate actions... that probably depends on your definition of "right", and I don't care very much about having that debate.
      - esja 6y ago
        Fair enough, I shouldn't have argued the semantics. I agree with your general point.
    - newacct583 6y ago
      Generally no, because trying to convince a state actor to break his own state's laws is criminal conspiracy (though the details are specific to each state). These states have laws about how elections are run, most/all of them criminalize election fraud, and none of them allow the legislature to select electors directly. The theory here is that the US Constitution, because of wording in Article II ("Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors [...]") that if interpreted hyperspecifically[1] implies that the legislature alone, and not Governor or state law, has the power to appoint electors. That has never been tested in practice. But regardless, it would still be a state crime to do it. So no, he doesn't have the right. [1] Obviously the reasonable interpretation of this line is "States decide for themselves how to choose electors", not something that makes assumptions about the structure of state government.
      - 6y ago
rayiner 6y ago
Democrats didn't try to flip the election by having Trump's electors vote for someone else due to Russian interference? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/us/politics/democrats-attempts-to-deny-trump-are-rejected-in-joint-session.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/us/politics/democrats-att...
- tptacek 6y ago
  No, they did not, which is what your link here says as well.
opinion-is-bad 6y ago
This is satire, correct?
- whateveracct 6y ago
  Obama did not obstruct or delay transition of power. It was quite peaceful. Trump clearly has not facilitated a good faith, peaceful transition of power. And this matters - the 9/11 commission noted that the rushed transition due to Bush v Gore contributed to the intelligence lapses that lead to the attack. And that wasn't even a bad actor harming the transition like we have today.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - cwkoss 6y ago
    I remember the Mueller Report being kind of a big deal... Dems didn't delay transition of power, but they did spend a huge amount of political capital trying to convince the country that Trump's victory was invalid or fraudulent.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > Dems didn't delay transition of power, but they did spend a huge amount of political capital trying to convince the country that Trump's victory was invalid or fraudulent. No, they spent a lot of political capital on the idea that Trump was corrupt and aided by foreign powers, basically no Democrats (in national office, at least) seriously advanced the case that Trump's election was either invalid or fraudulent (that his conduct, including conduct after the election, warranted impeachment and removal, yes, but that's a very different case than the election being fraudulent or invalid.) As a parallel with subordinate offices, Democrats generally think Barr is a bad attorney-general, and his appointment was a result of improper motives, and some have made calls that he should be impeached, but none have claimed his appointment is invalid. On the other hand, Chad Wolf’s appointment as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security has been described and challenged as invalid (and, in fact, found to be so by courts, invalidating official acts dependent on his appointment to that position.) There is a difference between acheiving an office by unethical means, or having bad conduct warranting removal from office, on one hand and illegitimately claiming office on the other hand. You are improperly conflating accusations of the former with accusations of the latter.

macspoofing 6y ago

>I guess the difference between 2016 and 2020 outcomes is that democrats at least didn't create any ruckus during the power transfer from Obama to Trump Crossfire Hurricane wasn't enough of a ruckus? It came out recently that Eric Swalwell was targeted by a Chinese spy, but cut ties after a 'defensive briefing' by the FBI. Hillary's campaign also received a 'defensive briefing' in 2015 when a foreign government tried to influence her campaign through a campaign associate. Trump's campaign never got one, instead FBI ordered an investigation on the flimsies grounds and outright lies to the FISA courts (and what turned out to be opo-research funded by the Hillary campaign and promulgating actual Russian disinformation).. And then the next four years had Hillary going around saying explicitly that Trump is not a legitimate president - a claim not challenged by media and echoed by the Democrats. The media itself kept pushing the discredit Steele dossier throughout that time. So I do roll my eyes when political activists in the Democratic party and media are now all about 'election integrity' after what they did to the trust in the system over the last 4 years. And I'm not really worried about Trump bitching on Twitter and putting out lawsuits (as is his right), as some threat to Democracy.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
He has the right to put out lawsuits. He looks like a buffoon, but he has the right. He does not have the right to ask state governors to ignore the election results and appoint electors who will vote for Trump. That is far beyond the legitimate exercise of Trump's rights.
- esja 6y ago
  Is that true? Doesn't he have the right to ask the governors to do this, or to ask them to buy him an ice cream, or to sing him a love song? They have the right to decline - he can't compel them to do anything. Whether he should do it is a different question.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    Well, the courts have the legitimate authority to hear the cases. The governors do not have the legitimate authority to grant Trump's request. So filing lawsuits in court is a legitimate action in a way that the requests to governors are not. Whether people have the right to request governors to perform illegitimate actions... that probably depends on your definition of "right", and I don't care very much about having that debate.
    - esja 6y ago
      Fair enough, I shouldn't have argued the semantics. I agree with your general point.
  - newacct583 6y ago
    Generally no, because trying to convince a state actor to break his own state's laws is criminal conspiracy (though the details are specific to each state). These states have laws about how elections are run, most/all of them criminalize election fraud, and none of them allow the legislature to select electors directly. The theory here is that the US Constitution, because of wording in Article II ("Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors [...]") that if interpreted hyperspecifically[1] implies that the legislature alone, and not Governor or state law, has the power to appoint electors. That has never been tested in practice. But regardless, it would still be a state crime to do it. So no, he doesn't have the right. [1] Obviously the reasonable interpretation of this line is "States decide for themselves how to choose electors", not something that makes assumptions about the structure of state government.
    - 6y ago

rayiner 6y ago

Democrats didn't try to flip the election by having Trump's electors vote for someone else due to Russian interference? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/us/politics/democrats-attempts-to-deny-trump-are-rejected-in-joint-session.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/us/politics/democrats-att...

tptacek 6y ago
No, they did not, which is what your link here says as well.

opinion-is-bad 6y ago

This is satire, correct?

whateveracct 6y ago
Obama did not obstruct or delay transition of power. It was quite peaceful. Trump clearly has not facilitated a good faith, peaceful transition of power. And this matters - the 9/11 commission noted that the rushed transition due to Bush v Gore contributed to the intelligence lapses that lead to the attack. And that wasn't even a bad actor harming the transition like we have today.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- cwkoss 6y ago
  I remember the Mueller Report being kind of a big deal... Dems didn't delay transition of power, but they did spend a huge amount of political capital trying to convince the country that Trump's victory was invalid or fraudulent.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Dems didn't delay transition of power, but they did spend a huge amount of political capital trying to convince the country that Trump's victory was invalid or fraudulent. No, they spent a lot of political capital on the idea that Trump was corrupt and aided by foreign powers, basically no Democrats (in national office, at least) seriously advanced the case that Trump's election was either invalid or fraudulent (that his conduct, including conduct after the election, warranted impeachment and removal, yes, but that's a very different case than the election being fraudulent or invalid.) As a parallel with subordinate offices, Democrats generally think Barr is a bad attorney-general, and his appointment was a result of improper motives, and some have made calls that he should be impeached, but none have claimed his appointment is invalid. On the other hand, Chad Wolf’s appointment as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security has been described and challenged as invalid (and, in fact, found to be so by courts, invalidating official acts dependent on his appointment to that position.) There is a difference between acheiving an office by unethical means, or having bad conduct warranting removal from office, on one hand and illegitimately claiming office on the other hand. You are improperly conflating accusations of the former with accusations of the latter.