This is doomer mentality. We've had people challenging elections results since the 1800s. We've had governors lock themselves in their office and refuse to leave. We've had presidents that went on war to push their ratings up. We've endured a lot. We'll endure more.
I think doomer mentality more accurately describes normalizing what is happening right now under "we've endured a lot". Yeah the US has endured a civil war too, my guess is most people aren't to keen to living through another one and booking it under "we'll endure more".
This is not normal, and dysfunction does not deserve to be glorified.
Yes, but all that stuff was bad. This is bad too. The fact that the active president and governing party are FAILING to successfully use extra-legal means to stay in power following a failed election is still a bad thing.
And dismissing this as "doomer mentality" is just inviting a more competent maladministration to try this again.
That's why I like this article: the author's certainty that the worst will happen is wrong, but no more wrong than the certainty that things can only get so bad.
Seriously HN, why is this on the front-page? This article is pretty much raw FUD. Our system does not require that he concede the election, and his inability to bring himself to admit he's lost will not stop him from losing and will not stop power from changing hands.
What court cases he has filed (and that I've followed) have been dealt with sincerely by the legal system, giving that party their right to exercise what legal recourse are available to them — and then summarily dismissing the cases for the vacuous nothing they are.
It was flagged rapidly, so it's not. But in general my experience is that there are a lot of reactionary conservatives on HN who really, really want to discuss political content. Flagging seems to be the immune response to keep the unsavory stuff from getting an audience. But it can get a little scary in the cases where that doesn't happen.
As far as whether the coup works: you're right, it's not going to work. But they're absolutely trying it, and you're actually behind on the strategy. The current thinking and pressure is aimed at getting republican election administrators and legislatures to "reject" the results of the election and select Trump electors directly. And while it's not working (yet) they've absolutely had some success with persuading a few. If they get more, then it's a coup.
The Wayne county election commissioners didn't "summarily dismiss" the conspiracy theory, they're on board (though after "accidentally" certifying the result, I guess). The Michigan GOP leaders didn't "summarily dismiss" the idea of selecting electors, they literally flew to Washington yesterday to meet directly with Trump (though afterwards they issued a statement saying that they "saw no need" to take that action).
That's not a coup being summarily dismissed. It's a bunch of republicans dancing on the edge to make sure they don't end up on the wrong side. If the whole party buys in, then democracy dies. And we need to be screaming about it, not whining about whether it belongs on the front page.
For a much more credible analysis about a potential coup in the US, please visit: https://choosedemocracy.us/
This article, however, is one of the worst Medium articles I've read. It starts fine, but then devolves to cursing and unsubstantiated opinions. I stopped reading the article and flagged it.
The article could be improved by focusing more on the coup in Sri Lanka. Draw closer parallels to what's happening there and in the US. Maybe throw in some links for curious readers. The links I found all talk about the US, not Sri Lanka.
Instead, the article focuses too much on interpreting events in the US for the reader. That's not going to change anyone's mind at this point.
For example:
> What else do you call Donald Trump refusing to leave, consolidating control of the military, and spreading lies across the media? That, my friends, is just a coup. ...
> refusing to leave
He has not done that. He's not required to concede. He's not required to do so. Al Gore didn't concede until December 13th (after having withdrawn a previous concession). The concession custom has been observed for about a century, so he is breaking with convention but not the law.
> consolidating control of the military
There has been a shakeup, but the Constitution gives him the title Commander in Chief. He took office office in control of the military. Previous presidents have demonstrated time and again how ineffective congressional oversight on military deployment is.
> and spreading lies across the media
This has been going on for a long time now, across many administrations - D and R.
I'm not trying to draw an equivalence here. What I'm saying is that the author could do a better job of illustrating the true nature of coups. Of how they start off like clown shows and end up in shambles. There is no big aha moment. Everybody just gets boiled alive as the temperature rises.
The article starts out promising to reveal a new perspective on coups, and then veers off course.
Sadly, this article is just one long exercise in hysteria and invective. I won't address it because the author doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. Vague appears to having lived during a coup don't make him an authority.
I will say, however, that, if you bother to read outside of the mainstream corporate media and sensationalist press, you get a different picture (sadly, many do not, and many allow their irrational biases and hatred for the Orange Man to eradicate any vestige of calm, measured, honest, rationally defensible thought and consideration). Specifically, not that Trump has necessarily won (though some do indeed claim that he won in a landslide), but that there are very alarming reports of voter fraud, significant enough that they could have swayed the election. If they are indeed true, then we are indeed experience a kind of coup, but one carried out by Democrats.
Those who dismiss the possibility of voter fraud out of hand show their ignorance of history. It has been a serious concern in American politics since the republic was founded. Recent noteworthy examples include Bush v. Gore, and before that Lyndon Johnson (in Texas) and JFK. Anyone who isn't consumed with blinding hatred of the Orange Man knows how unprecedented the media's hatred of and obsession with Trump has been these last four years. He upset the establishment, shocked their smug complacency, and made them realize that their control of the country isn't as total as they assumed it is.
This is neither an endorsement of Trump nor a condemnation, just a description of what's happened. When a powerful caste sees its power threatened, its plans frustrated, they begin to freak out. As Chomsky wrote, the press is to democratic republics what the police baton is in a dictatorship. Too many Americans, and Western Europeans, still live in a kind of fantasyland when it comes to how their governments function. They have a kind of romanticized view of government, of the state (certainly, some do have anarchistic views on the opposite extreme, but these are a small minority). Either that, or they hate the Orange Man so much that they essentially don't care if voter fraud has taken place as long as Trump is kept out of office. This is a terrible fanaticism no less fanatical than what they accuse Trump supporters of being.
The presumptuous, officious way in which the Biden campaign has been carrying itself since the election, the media's arrogation of the role of declaring the victor, the categorical ridicule of even the mere asking of questions, that DESPITE there being evidence, means, motive, and opportunity of and for fraud, simply makes matter that much more suspicious. If the Biden camp were truly confident in their victory, they would cooperate and encourage investigations into these reports of voter fraud. Such acts would demonstrate to voters in the middle as well as those on the other side that they are a party of good will. It would win them major points, more than any cheap platitudes about unity and Biden being a president to all Americans. Those may feel nice, and I sympathize with a certain exhaustion with the last four years of constant media virulence, but those aren't reasons to acquiesce. By refusing to examine these reports, by dismissing them out of hand, the Democrats are doing damage by communicating to the people that the integrity of elections isn't really all that important. That we don't need to examine fraud because at the end of the day, who cares.
It seems like Trump is a guy who makes people's imagination go wild. Conservatives see him as their savior (he's not). Liberals see him as a fascist (also not). At the end of the day, there's not much special about him. If people wanted an authoritarian leader, Trump would be a pretty bad choice. He's bad at PR and bad at actually accomplishing things.
If the allegation are true, it would explain the primary win of Clinton over Sanders in California back in the previous election when they used the same system.
yeah but the Sanders supporters prefer Biden to Trump so they aren't going to get on board with allegations of election fraud until Trump has been safely removed from the WH. This is expected because few people care about election integrity as a good in itself. They care about election integrity because when their candidate wins then they have perceived legitimacy to enact policies.
There might not be fraud. There doesn't appear to be enough votes impacted by irregularities to turn the election, however investigating all claims of fraud will only strengthen the democracy.
Let the system play this out and I think you'll find the American system is incredibly robust.
I read through it until you tried to say that Donald Trump is staging coup. This just isn't true. He's using every legal option available to him to investigate oddities in an election. This is the way things should be done.
What's unbelievable is that there are countless examples of first-hand accounts of voter fraud and Democrats don't want it investigated and are outright attacking anyone for even suggesting it.
Governor Whitmer, for example, publicly stated that the two people that didn't want to certify the election were racist for doing so. This was after they were attacked, doxxed, and shamed for only wanting an investigation into the many allegations we have been seeing since election day. Does this sound like Democracy? It sounds like mob tactics to me.
If there is no investigation, then the Democrats staged a coup and it proves all along that most people on the left don't care about justice or fairness, they only care about being right and getting power.
Trump may very well have lost, but I want to ensure the future integrity of our elections.
The media also tried to say that dead people did not cast ballots in the election. I was able to find a dozen dead people in multiple states that requested and cast a ballot in the election.
Real journalists should be curious about this and actually want to find out why. It's very odd that so many are trying to deny it or cover it up.
That’s super interesting. What did you do with that information? Did you report it to the authorities and have them investigated and arrested? One person finding 12 cases of fraud is a huge deal and I think you would be hailed a hero and be on the news. Can you tell me what happened with your finding?
I don’t need one. The trump campaign is desperate for evidence. They are scraping the bottom of the barrel and claiming ballots with chocolate sauce on it to be thrown out. If that’s the best they can provide, they would have jumped at this one and it would lead to a thousand lawsuits.
Of course you're entitled to your opinion. It just appears to be motivated reasoning when someone asks for evidence and then, when provided evidence, interprets it in a way that diminishes its significance with no evidence for their interpretation.
> The trump campaign is desperate for evidence.
do you have evidence for this? Based on the number of sworn affidavits that have been filed, I'm not convinced they are short of evidence. The problem is that many people aren't concerned about election integrity when they think they have managed to compromise the election for their guy. Which is entirely expected, Republicans behaved the same way in 2000.
Sorry your rationale and line of reasoning is utterly unconvincing.
You say an amateur video is proof for widespread fraud. You say that inspite of this being the US and the election being the most watched in the world from media all over the world. You want me to believe that not a single media entity picked upon it and pursued it? There is a multi billion dollar right wing media like fox and others, that live for these and you want me to believe they didn’t look into this?
On top of that you also say that the trump administration has extremely credible lawsuits and proof of fraud? I was discussing purely out of intellectual curiosity if am done here. Have a good one.
> You say an amateur video is proof for widespread fraud.
Project Veritas are not amateurs. I did not say it was proof of widespread fraud, but certainly more than 12 cases.
> You say that inspite of this being the US and the election being the most watched in the world from media all over the world.
How many countries sent international observers?
> You want me to believe that not a single media entity picked upon it and pursued it?
I am not asking you to believe that. [0] They did a cursory report and stopped covering it. Media report on PV regularly, frequently lying or misrepresenting the truth, and often having to issue retractions. [1] You are free to come up with your own interpretation for this behavior.
> There is a multi billion dollar right wing media like fox and others, that live for these and you want me to believe they didn’t look into this?
Actually I want to illustrate that your perception ("One person finding 12 cases of fraud is a huge deal and I think you would be hailed a hero and be on the news.") is not accurate.
> On top of that you also say that the trump administration has extremely credible lawsuits and proof of fraud?
I didn't pass judgment on their credibility as the sworn affidavits of many witnesses stand on their own, since the witnesses would be subject to perjury charges if what they have said is found to be untrue. However the videos of Raquel Rodriguez are indeed proof of fraud. I'm not surprised that people who find them inconvenient would latch onto any interpretation ("dramatic reconstrcution") in order to maintain their worldview and/or rhetorical position.
> I was discussing purely out of intellectual curiosity
Real journalists have investigated claims like that, and actually tracked down those so-called "dead people" to find that many were very much alive. It turns out some people have the same name as other (dead) people, or that birthdates have been recorded incorrectly, or that older widows sometimes have very traditional ideas about married names, and so on.
Journalists and government agencies have done a better job investigating than you have, clearly.
If we really take election integrity seriously, it should not be the press doing the investigation, or breaking the news, it should be State law enforcement, on the authority of the Secretary of State for that State.
Again, no one wants to take claims of lack of election integrity seriously right now, because everyone is worried about picking up the stain of being some Trump supporter or something.
I don't care who wins, I care they win because the process in all cases happened as planned, and that every accusation of a threat to the integeity of the system gets investigated. No republic can afford the luxury of not doing so. If voting is in question, the very foundation of governmental legitimacy is in question. I want everyone to be able to accept that the results were legitimate and that assertions of lack of integrity were given best effort attempts at investigation and resolution which means bringing everyone to the table, like it or not, and laying it all out for God and Everyone.
Further, to all those up thread who see the Electoral College as a mere formality, that Elector, unless legislation in your State of questionable Federal Constitutionality, has not one reason to abdicate their right to go Faithless. The Faithless Elector is a feature, not a bug, and was never intended by the Founders to be influenced by some external covenant with what at the end of the day is a private, national scale, highly politically motivated organiztion, that in no way whatsoever is connected or a given with regards to the United States. People need to realize how broken the Two-Party system is, and what ills that two party division creates. As long as those two parties believe their survival or continued legitimacy is free from challenge, there is no end to the issues we'll run into.
Finally we are not a democracy. We're a Union of States arranged as a group of Constitutional Republics with a Federal Constitutional Republic with a highly restricted and largely explicitly defined jurisdiction to handle issues of an interstate nature.
I said "Real journalists" because I was responding to a sentence that started "Real journalists."
But I also said "Journalists and government agencies" because government agencies have been doing the investigations.
There is a lot of noise around this issue, and that is very deliberate--the noise started even before Election Day, on purpose--but if you filter through the noise, you will find that every state is carrying on, auditing where necessary, and certifying their results.
Monday will be the last state certification deadline that matters, in that it will clinch enough certified results to ensure Biden has won the presidency. Presumably people saying that we should wait for certification before declaring the winner will accept the winner then, right?
It's not doxxing when it's a public official. Also why was it that they refused to certify black communities after they already certified white communities with worse discrepancies. Also one of them was found with racist memes and Qanon conspiracy theories on their Facebook
When they are doxxed and their families are threatened (I saw the videos making the rounds and the tweets afterwards), it doesn't make it okay.
" refused to certify black communities after they already certified white communities with worse discrepancies"
Everything isn't attributed to race. You are trying to tell us the intent of these individuals without knowing what they are actually thinking or why they chose to make this decision. I suppose this is the definition of bias.
"Also one of them was found with racist memes and Qanon conspiracy theories on their Facebook"
Many Democrat officials still believe the Russian collusion conspiracy theory. Should we discount everything they say as well?
I'll address your points in detail below. But first I am curious if you really believe that the election was 'stolen' by the Democrats.
"When they are doxxed and their families are threatened (I saw the videos making the rounds and the tweets afterwards), it doesn't make it okay."
Again, they are public officials so calling them by name isn't Doxxing. Secondly, there is an angry Twitter mob saying all kinds of nonsense on both sides, so I think that cancels itself out. Are you saying Trump supporters have never asked for violence at all? Maybe you need to browse thedonald.win a bit first. So let's keep it focused on what was actually stated by the politicians in question.
"Everything isn't attributed to race. You are trying to tell us the intent of these individuals without knowing what they are actually thinking or why they chose to make this decision. I suppose this is the definition of bias."
You haven't really answered my question. If not race, then what was the metric, exactly, that made them question the validity of these black regions when by the same metrics the councilor was so concerned about several white communities with worse numbers were certified. But sure we can give them the benefit of the doubt and say they're not racists they're just trying to block votes from the party they don't like.
"Many Democrat officials still believe the Russian collusion conspiracy theory. Should we discount everything they say as well?"
There's two major problems with this.
1) There was real evidence that there was a russian conspiracy. In case you forgot several members of Trump's team, including his ex lawyer got arrested for crimes linked to this! Robert Muller didn't say Trump was innocent by the way, he said a sitting president couldn't be convicted for crimes by the investigation!
2) For all their whining on social media, Hilary never refused to concede the election, and called Trump the next day.
Look I'm fine if you want to say this wasn't a 'fair' election, you can even make a good argument for that. Tucker Carlson, who I really don't like, has made arguments to this. But for this to be a 'stolen' election, for the president to routinely say this without any evidence beyond affidavits is absurd.
This is exactly right. However, Trump has been harming his case dramatically by making hyperinflated claims to the public in the process, claims that are extremely unlikely to be true, and could undermine the very trust the court cases could produce.
Trump has every right to ask for a recount, and as far as I know, nothing is final until all votes have been counted and it's decided that there was no fraud.
Trump can run his mouth off, but it doesn't mean there isn't voter fraud. His attorneys are the ones that are collecting evidence and will present them to the courts.
> His attorneys are the ones that are collecting evidence and will present them to the courts.
Well, I mean, they haven’t in the couple dozen cases that have already been dismissed, and most of them have quit, and the remaining ones have often had to make humiliating admissions that they had no evidence of grandiose claims made in opening statements in those cases and the others that haven't yet finished petering out. But, sure, keep believing that eventually Rudy Giuliani is going to pull evidence of something out of some orifice.
It's frankly quite embarassing that the holder of that office, an office used to be held by people you'd expect to show leadership and some sort of level-headedness, is basically getting a pass that he behaves like a clown, a very entitled kindergartner, and... what else can I compare him to?
> but it doesn't mean there isn't voter fraud.
If I had to bet money, I wouldn't bet that all the votes cast were legal and good, there is probably at least 1 vote which was "bad", but come on, Biden's lead in each of the states being challenged are around a few thousand, and fraud that large is very hard to hide. So far Team Total Landscaping has failed 30+ legal challenges because they could only bring trivial bullshit before the judges, and the judges have mostly thrown their cases out.
> His attorneys are the ones that are collecting evidence and will present them to the courts.
See above. Giuliani is apparently charging the campaign $20,000 a day [0] (ok he's since issued a denial[1]) and he's the one whispering to Trump that there was fraud. Well done Rudy you scumbag, you're scamming the scammer. But I doubt you'll ever see the money, but maybe you'll be able to go to some nice dinners and pay with IOUs saying "Yeah the Trump 2020 campaign owes me a million dollars, when they pay me, I'll pay you, we good here?".
For $20,000 a day, I'd go on stage and scream quotes from My Cousin Vinny as well, aren't we all just prostitutes.
"It's frankly quite embarassing that the holder of that office, an office used to be held by people you'd expect to show leadership and some sort of level-headedness, is basically getting a pass that he behaves like a clown, a very entitled kindergartner, and... what else can I compare him to?"
As compared to pretty much every Democrat in every office for the past 4 years calling Trump supporters Nazis and saying and tweeting things just as bad if not worse? Why are you giving them a pass?
"Biden's lead in each of the states being challenged are around a few thousand, and fraud that large is very hard to hide. So far Team Total Landscaping has failed 30+ legal challenges because they could only bring trivial bullshit before the judges, and the judges have mostly thrown their cases out."
This may be true, but it needs to be sorted out. They are most likely buying time while they put together the much bigger case that ties everything together.
I personally found dead people that voted in Multiple states that received a ballot. This was based on SSN, address, name, and birthday. If I could find a dozen of these people without much effort, I can't imagine the amount of dead people that actually cast a ballot. How does this even happen? Isn't anyone the least bit curious??
"See above. Giuliani is apparently charging the campaign $20,000 a day [0] (ok he's since issued a denial[1]) and he's the one whispering to Trump that there was fraud. Well done Rudy you scumbag, you're scamming the scammer. But I doubt you'll ever see the money, but maybe you'll be able to go to some nice dinners and pay with IOUs saying "Yeah the Trump 2020 campaign owes me a million dollars, when they pay me, I'll pay you, we good here?".
For $20,000 a day, I'd go on stage and scream quotes from My Cousin Vinny as well, aren't we all just prostitutes."
Now you lost me. You're high on emotions, low on facts.
> As compared to pretty much every Democrat in every office for the past 4 years calling Trump supporters Nazis and saying and tweeting things just as bad if not worse? Why are you giving them a pass?
"Well your team is cheating so it's legitimate that we cheat too!".. fucking hell, talk about undignified. It's always this "Well the other side is doing it too!", well, god damn, talk about a lack of self-respect and not expecting "your side" to have some dignity. "Oh it's fine that my beloved Trump is an incoherent clown spewing nonsense instead of showing some class and intelligence, because the Dems are tweeting about Nazis!". "Every democrat in every office", that sounds a little bit (a lot) of hyperbole...
> They are most likely buying time while they put together the much bigger case that ties everything together.
Oh, honey, bless your heart.
Bet you 1000 bucks they have nothing. I suppose we'd have to define what "bigger case" means. Maybe 1000 votes that a court confirms to be fraudlent and agrees to throw out? Although Biden would still win without said 1000 votes.
Although the next step in your conspiracy theorist mind is that the courts are in in the theft of the election. And so democracy gets undermined a bit further in the USA (except in your mind it was those god-damned libruls who are responsible).
Can’t wait for this evidence that’s been promised for the last two weeks, but has yet to be delivered.
Trump also claimed there was widespread voter fraud in 2016, that caused him to lose the popular vote. He was never able to produce any evidence of this, even after having a committee do an investigation.
"You are talking to someone who believes Trump when he says that he will release his tax returns."
I'm an individual, not a group. You have no idea what I believe about Trump's tax returns.
I expected to have intelligent conversations/discussions here on HN, but all the half-hearted, biased responses I'm seeing, and the downvoting, tells me that it's probably not going to happen.
Trump claimed in 2012 that Obama won the election due to voter fraud. He claimed in 2016 that he lost the popular vote due to voter fraud. And again in 2020 he’s claiming that he lost due to voter fraud. In 2012 and 2016 there was never any evidence of massive voter fraud found, Trump even appointed a committee to investigate 2016 and found nothing.
Now for the past two weeks, lawsuits have been getting thrown out and nothing substantial has been found. But Trump somehow knew there was voter fraud one day after the election?
Trump must prove there’s voter fraud and given his history, there’s no reason to think he will. Every Secretary of State and even the director of cyber security has said there was no massive voter fraud, Trump fired the director for saying that.
Taking all of these facts together and saying that we have no faith in Trumps claims, somehow this makes us the biased ones?
The official process is chugging along properly just as it always has. We have to wait till December for the Electoral College to make a decision. Why? Why don't they just read the news and decide based on that to appease the masses? Because robust processes aren't robust if you skip them!
Plenty of people denies the last president-elect after that election too. But the system kept on working because it's stable.
> We have to wait till December for the Electoral College to make a decision.
Can you point to any time since the adoption of the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 that the GSA has waited until Electoral College vote to begin the transition process as required by law, or, in the alternative, provide any legal argument as to why you believe that every Presidential Transition since then has been conducted illegally?
> Plenty of people denies the last president-elect after that election too.
Yes, sure, but not the people legally mandated to facilitate the transition, in order to protect continuity and effectiveness of government operations and national security.
> Can you point to any time since the adoption of the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 that the GSA has waited until Electoral College vote to begin the transition process as required by law, or, in the alternative, provide any legal argument as to why you believe that every Presidential Transition since then has been conducted illegally?
You're missing the point. Usually the transition happened early because the winner and the loser agreed on who had won. At this time, the official results are still in doubt. Therefore there isn't a reason to begin official transition.
According to me? According to anybody who's not blinded by partisanship. The objective reality is that there is no path to a Trump victory. That ship sailed weeks ago. All that's left is Trump desperately trying to somehow prevent the inevitable, and looking hopeless, desperate, and delusional in the process. That's the reality.
And Biden isn't "my" guy. I don't particularly want him. (Didn't want Trump, either, and I got them both, one after the other.)
> According to me? According to anybody who's not blinded by partisanship.
Thats your perspective. The law says differently.
> The objective reality is that there is no path to a Trump victory.
In fact that's not the case, although I can understand how you would feel that way, since the media has been negligent in informing the public about the facts.
> All that's left is Trump desperately trying to somehow prevent the inevitable, and looking hopeless, desperate, and delusional in the process. That's the reality.
No, that's a picture painted by partisans who are hoping to bully people into accepting their preferred outcome prematurely.
> And: "win"? Biden won. No "quotes" about it.
The winner won't be official until electors are chosen. Thats how the system works. Although I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you would have called Al Gore delusional at this stage of the process in 2000 as well.
The electors don't show up by magic. They come from states, based on the votes in those states. The electors haven't voted, but they will, and we know what they will vote. But I'm pretty sure you knew that. You're clinging to the hope that things will change.
Trump has legal remedies, and he's filed suits. But those suits don't add up to enough votes in enough states to change the result.
As the vote count currently stands he’s going to be the president. There’s no reason to think the vote totals are going to change. In 2016, Trump was also referred to as president elect at this point. Or were you very careful to correct anyone that said Trump had won in 2016 and pointed out that it wasn’t actually decided until the election was certified?
This whole thing is such a farce. Trump has been claiming massive voter fraud with no evidence since 2016 (actually he also claimed it in 2012 when Obama won). He started claiming it a day after the election and has yet to produce any evidence. While every Secretary of State says there’s no evidence of massive voter fraud. And pointing this out and that trumps claims are baseless, which is all purely factual, has somehow become biased.
> As the vote count currently stands he’s going to be the president
Actually the president is not chosen by the popular vote. You may not like how our democracy chooses presidents but that doesn't change facts.
> There’s no reason to think the vote totals are going to change. In 2016, Trump was also referred to as president elect at this point.
In 2016 the other contestant had conceded.
> Or were you very careful to correct anyone that said Trump had won in 2016 and pointed out that it wasn’t actually decided until the election was certified?
I'm pretty sure I asked what makes him President-elect. Do you have an answer?
> Trump has been claiming massive voter fraud with no evidence since 2016
What kind of evidence would you accept?
> He started claiming it a day after the election and has yet to produce any evidence.
Videos of ballot fraud and sworn affidavits are evidence.
> While every Secretary of State says there’s no evidence of massive voter fraud. And pointing this out and that trumps claims are baseless, which is all purely factual, has somehow become biased.
The bias is insisting that there is no evidence when there is evidence.
> Actually the president is not chosen by the popular vote. You may not like how our democracy chooses presidents but that doesn't change facts.
I was not referring to the popular vote, by the current vote count Biden wins enough electoral votes to be the next president.
> In 2016 the other contestant had conceded.
Curious, conceding also has no constitutional bearing on who the next president is. But, that's sufficient to you, as opposed to all of the votes having being counted and it being clear who the winner is.
> Videos of ballot fraud and sworn affidavits are evidence.
> The bias is insisting that there is no evidence when there is evidence.
Where is this evidence and why has it not shown up in any of these court cases. Rudy and Powell just had an absurd press conference, claiming all sorts of voter fraud. The trump campaign's lawsuit in Pennsylvania, that Rudy personally argued, was just dismissed, let me quote the Judge:
> In other words, Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters. This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated. One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens. That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence.
It is not bias to say there's no evidence, when time and time again, it's shown in court, that there's no evidence.
> I was not referring to the popular vote, by the current vote count Biden wins enough electoral votes to be the next president.
Those vote counts are provisional until certified and some are in the process of being challenged based on evidence of fraud. Illegal ballots negate legal votes and so for election integrity it is very important that the government be seen to take matters of election integrity seriously and prevent the addition of illegal ballots from distorting the results.
> Curious, conceding also has no constitutional bearing on who the next president is.
Concession means that the person with standing to contest the provisional results has accepted them. Therefore the lack of a possibility of meaningful challenge allows the presumptive victor to move forward. In this case that has not happened so there is no reason to jump to conclusions and allow a person who may not have won to begin transitioning to duties he will not carry out.
> But, that's sufficient to you, as opposed to all of the votes having being counted and it being clear who the winner is.
My opinion is not at issue here. I'm merely explaining the relevant factors that result in the differences from 2016 to 2020 that you were concerned about.
> Where is this evidence and why has it not shown up in any of these court cases.
You have not seen the sworn affidavits? Below are links so you can inform yourself. How unfortunate that our famously free press has not informed the public of this :(
> despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.
I believe the contention of the trump campaign is that those votes were not cast by citizens, or if they were, they were illegally cast. That would mean the negative impact on the citizens would be felt by allowing these votes to be counted.
At least we are confident that the Trump administration did a better job preventing the Russians from interfering than did President Obama who famously scolded Mitt Romney for considering the Russians to be a threat to our democracy.
> It is not bias to say there's no evidence, when time and time again, it's shown in court, that there's no evidence.
You don't think sworn witness statements count as evidence? You don't think that people risking perjury to testify about violations of election law that they personally witnessed are evidence? Or are you relying on the press to inform you of evidence and taking their statements that there is no evidence at face value? Or are you attempting to verify their statements, but having trouble locating the sworn affidavits because everything that comes up on a search engine when you use terms "trump lawsuit affidavit" is blogspam falsely claiming there is no evidence?
