9 ms·

> What's next, protesting the government at all is also undermining the systems of government and is totalitarian? You'll need an industrial grade lube to get

> What's next, protesting the government at all is also undermining the systems of government and is totalitarian? You'll need an industrial grade lube to get a slope that slippery. > And aside from that - pretending fraud isn't real or is an impossibility in an American election is incredibly naive. That's like saying Chicago can't have gun violence. Nice and a strawman too. > Elections should absolutely be questioned and audited regularly. Ballot counting is watched by representatives of both parties. Neutral third parties agree that systemic voter fraud is unlikely to be happening at scale, and we do try to catch the dumbasses that try to cheat on an individual scale fairly easily. We can also add a false equivalence to your rapid fire fallacies. "Questioning" an election is not the same thing as decrying fraud and trying to convince courts to overturn the results when you have no evidence of fraud.

seanw444 4y ago
I'm pretty sure that's the whole point of courts. For accusations to be worked out.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  It's one thing to go to a court because you have evidence of fraud, and you want them to overturn the election on the basis of that evidence. That would be legal and well within the rights of litigants. It's quite another to go to a court, not because you have evidence, but because you want to avail yourself of their power to overturn the election by making some convincing argument. Or, short of that, to use the context of a court battle to give a patina of legitimacy to otherwise baseless accusations and FUD (lawyers are great at making bullshit sound convincing in a lawsuit). That's what the Trump team did, and those are not the kind of people we should be letting near power (those who show an eager willingness to use institutions corruptly).
- spywaregorilla 4y ago
  That is indeed a purpose of courts. Hence why it is wrong to skip the courts and denounce everything as fraud to millions of people and encourage them to reject the democratic process before you have gone through a judicial process.

seanw444 4y ago

I'm pretty sure that's the whole point of courts. For accusations to be worked out.

ModernMech 4y ago
It's one thing to go to a court because you have evidence of fraud, and you want them to overturn the election on the basis of that evidence. That would be legal and well within the rights of litigants. It's quite another to go to a court, not because you have evidence, but because you want to avail yourself of their power to overturn the election by making some convincing argument. Or, short of that, to use the context of a court battle to give a patina of legitimacy to otherwise baseless accusations and FUD (lawyers are great at making bullshit sound convincing in a lawsuit). That's what the Trump team did, and those are not the kind of people we should be letting near power (those who show an eager willingness to use institutions corruptly).
spywaregorilla 4y ago
That is indeed a purpose of courts. Hence why it is wrong to skip the courts and denounce everything as fraud to millions of people and encourage them to reject the democratic process before you have gone through a judicial process.