4 ms·

How is over throwing an election "defending democracy"? Biden got over 6 million more votes.

disgrunt 6y ago
1. U.S. elections aren't decided by popular vote. 2. Biden won narrowly in swing states. 3. The dispute is whether or not the votes cast were legitimate.
- chillwaves 6y ago
  You can dispute whatever you want, but by every legal process, your "dispute" has been settled. When does it end? That's of course ignoring the fact that Republicans actually gained seats in the house, that Trump would have to overturn the results in multiple states, that said states have Republican leadership overseeing the election. But here we are. Fact is, at some point (now) your claims of "dispute" are no longer worth entertaining. Literally have not had a single victory in court (but over 60 losses). These cases are being thrown out by Republican judges, judges appointed by Trump even. What is your standard of evidence?
  - disgrunt 6y ago
    > You can dispute whatever you want, but by every legal process, your "dispute" has been settled. When does it end? The Constitution sets no statute of limitation under the First Amendment to petition the government for a redress of grievances. > That's of course ignoring the fact that Republicans actually gained seats in the house,... How often do you think this happens? That a president will gain seats in Congress and still lose re-election? > Fact is, at some point (now) your claims of "dispute" are no longer worth entertaining. Are you not entertained? > Literally have not had a single victory in court (but over 60 losses). These cases are being thrown out by Republican judges, judges appointed by Trump even. What is your standard of evidence? Almost all of these court cases were dismissed for procedure, jurisdiction or standing reasons and not for the merits of the case. Is that your evidence? [0] But since you asked, here's an exhaustive compilation. [1] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related... [1]: https://hereistheevidence.com https://hereistheevidence.com
    - jonnycomputer 6y ago
      >> That's of course ignoring the fact that Republicans actually gained seats in the house,... >How often do you think this happens? That a president will gain seats in Congress and still lose re-election? Given the non-linearity of the Electoral College, Trump's historically low approval numbers, the difference in geographic and institutional levels between Presidential and House elections, and over-the-top gerrymandering, I don't think that its so unlikely to be suspicious. In the last 100 years, only four or five incumbents lost re-election, so empirically there just isn't enough data to establish a frequency (and even then, lots has changed, in the last 100 years, so who knows, right?). So what you really have is a mental model that says if a party wins in Congress they should win in the Presidential too. Well, in 1960, John Kennedy won, but the Democrats lost 21 House seats, and in 1992 Bill Clinton won the White House and the Dems lost 9 seats in the house, and in in 2000 George Bush won the White House and the Republican Party lost 2 seats in the House, in 2016 Donald Trump won, and the Republican Party lost six seats. I might also mention all those Republican governors in blue states... I know what you are going to say. That doesn't match the exact scenario where an incumbent lost but their party gained seat. But you need to justify why that particular scenario is relevantly different than ones that have already been known to have occurred.
      - SidneyFalco 6y ago
        Seesh, tilt at windmills much? The time for debating is clearly over, it's time to tool up. It's what they want, and what this will come down to, sooner or later; I prefer sooner to get it out of the way. If they didn't want it to come to this, they could have postponed eating their cake long enough to actually investigate the fraud. They didn't. It's just the straw that broke this camel's back, and I hope you realize they don't listen to anything other than the droning hum of the 'group'.
      - jonnycomputer 6y ago
        I'm sure the above was downvoted because it was not a substantive contribution to the discussion /s
        6y ago
jonnycomputer 6y ago
To understand why people do the things that they do, it is necessary to consider things from their point of view. It seems that you think I am disputing the outcome of the election. I am not. I am merely pointing out that different people see things differently, that differences in belief can be sincere, that acting on those beliefs can be honorable, even if those beliefs are mistaken. And finally, I made the point that Trump, his enablers in Congress and in his administration and in the media, perpetrated this lie and must be held accountable. For they turned what is a noble impulse--to defend democracy--into a threat to our democracy. (I also wanted to distinguish these people from the organized extremists who appear to have been carrying out a planned operation with the probable intent to carry out violence)

1. U.S. elections aren't decided by popular vote. 2. Biden won narrowly in swing states. 3. The dispute is whether or not the votes cast were legitimate.

chillwaves 6y ago
You can dispute whatever you want, but by every legal process, your "dispute" has been settled. When does it end? That's of course ignoring the fact that Republicans actually gained seats in the house, that Trump would have to overturn the results in multiple states, that said states have Republican leadership overseeing the election. But here we are. Fact is, at some point (now) your claims of "dispute" are no longer worth entertaining. Literally have not had a single victory in court (but over 60 losses). These cases are being thrown out by Republican judges, judges appointed by Trump even. What is your standard of evidence?
- disgrunt 6y ago
  > You can dispute whatever you want, but by every legal process, your "dispute" has been settled. When does it end? The Constitution sets no statute of limitation under the First Amendment to petition the government for a redress of grievances. > That's of course ignoring the fact that Republicans actually gained seats in the house,... How often do you think this happens? That a president will gain seats in Congress and still lose re-election? > Fact is, at some point (now) your claims of "dispute" are no longer worth entertaining. Are you not entertained? > Literally have not had a single victory in court (but over 60 losses). These cases are being thrown out by Republican judges, judges appointed by Trump even. What is your standard of evidence? Almost all of these court cases were dismissed for procedure, jurisdiction or standing reasons and not for the merits of the case. Is that your evidence? [0] But since you asked, here's an exhaustive compilation. [1] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related... [1]: https://hereistheevidence.com https://hereistheevidence.com
  - jonnycomputer 6y ago
    >> That's of course ignoring the fact that Republicans actually gained seats in the house,... >How often do you think this happens? That a president will gain seats in Congress and still lose re-election? Given the non-linearity of the Electoral College, Trump's historically low approval numbers, the difference in geographic and institutional levels between Presidential and House elections, and over-the-top gerrymandering, I don't think that its so unlikely to be suspicious. In the last 100 years, only four or five incumbents lost re-election, so empirically there just isn't enough data to establish a frequency (and even then, lots has changed, in the last 100 years, so who knows, right?). So what you really have is a mental model that says if a party wins in Congress they should win in the Presidential too. Well, in 1960, John Kennedy won, but the Democrats lost 21 House seats, and in 1992 Bill Clinton won the White House and the Dems lost 9 seats in the house, and in in 2000 George Bush won the White House and the Republican Party lost 2 seats in the House, in 2016 Donald Trump won, and the Republican Party lost six seats. I might also mention all those Republican governors in blue states... I know what you are going to say. That doesn't match the exact scenario where an incumbent lost but their party gained seat. But you need to justify why that particular scenario is relevantly different than ones that have already been known to have occurred.
    - SidneyFalco 6y ago
      Seesh, tilt at windmills much? The time for debating is clearly over, it's time to tool up. It's what they want, and what this will come down to, sooner or later; I prefer sooner to get it out of the way. If they didn't want it to come to this, they could have postponed eating their cake long enough to actually investigate the fraud. They didn't. It's just the straw that broke this camel's back, and I hope you realize they don't listen to anything other than the droning hum of the 'group'.
    - jonnycomputer 6y ago
      I'm sure the above was downvoted because it was not a substantive contribution to the discussion /s
      - 6y ago

jonnycomputer 6y ago

To understand why people do the things that they do, it is necessary to consider things from their point of view. It seems that you think I am disputing the outcome of the election. I am not. I am merely pointing out that different people see things differently, that differences in belief can be sincere, that acting on those beliefs can be honorable, even if those beliefs are mistaken. And finally, I made the point that Trump, his enablers in Congress and in his administration and in the media, perpetrated this lie and must be held accountable. For they turned what is a noble impulse--to defend democracy--into a threat to our democracy. (I also wanted to distinguish these people from the organized extremists who appear to have been carrying out a planned operation with the probable intent to carry out violence)