Despite the MSM's claims that Trump's fraud allegations are baseless, thousands are now staging protests against the Dems.
Of course they are. There was never a need for the allegations to be based in fact to stage a protest.Despite the MSM's claims that Trump's fraud allegations are baseless, thousands are now staging protests against the Dems.
Delegitimizing the elections is bad for the country overall.This is smart politics. The least it will accomplish is to keep that Georgia runoffs cleam and to motivate Georgia GOP voters who will see themselves as the vanguard who can salvage the election.
Bring on the tear gas and rubber bullets.Despite the MSM's claims that Trump's fraud allegations are baseless, thousands are now staging protests against the Dems.
It's a tight contest which is more destructive: 1) contesting election results without sufficient cause, or 2) resisting, as a concept, the determination of election disputes by the courts.Delegitimizing the elections is bad for the country overall.
Trump was claiming fraud in February...he’s had this planned for awhile.In 2016, Trump won MI, WI, PA by margins of about 10,000, 22,000 and 46,000 respectively. Democrats didn’t cry foul and voting was clean according to Trump and his supporters.
In 2020, Biden is leading MI, WI, PA by 146,000, 20,500 and 45,700 (and counting). Democrats are celebrating but Trump and his supporters are claiming fraud.
Trump maxim: he is the only one that should win all the time in a democracy. Anything else is a fraud. This is the philosophy of a dictator George Orwell would recognize.
Let them protest...they’ll just look stupid and show the rest of country how proper behaviour usually wins out.It's a tight contest which is more destructive: 1) contesting election results without sufficient cause, or 2) resisting, as a concept, the determination of election disputes by the courts.
If I have to pick one, I'd say 2) is worse. The social disruption of 1) is completely cured by a court decision dismissing the suit. By contrast, 2) leads, without exception, to public unrest.
Is it really possible you don't understand that the difference in 2020 is the adoption of mail-in balloting in the key swing states this time (a process with inherently more opportunity for error/fraud), and allegations of voting/tabulating irregularities in these states (including extraordinary actions by the Governor in Pennsylvania to amend voting rules)? You should have no doubt the Democrats would have challenged irregularities in 2016 if they had anything to go on.In 2016, Trump won MI, WI, PA by margins of about 10,000, 22,000 and 46,000 respectively. Democrats didn’t cry foul and voting was clean according to Trump and his supporters.
In 2020, Biden is leading MI, WI, PA by 146,000, 20,500 and 45,700 (and counting). Democrats are celebrating but Trump and his supporters are claiming fraud.
Trump maxim: he is the only one that should win all the time in a democracy. Anything else is a fraud. This is the philosophy of a dictator George Orwell would recognize.
The public will accept the verdict of SCOTUS on these issues, and really no one else, no matter how they rule (even if they decide not to rule). That's the hard truth of the situation. Claiming virtue means nothing.Let them protest...they’ll just look stupid and show the rest of country how proper behaviour usually wins out.
C’mon, you think Trump supporters will accept a SCOTUS decision? I don’t think these decisions will make it that far, the state court will squash them.The public will accept the verdict of SCOTUS on these issues, and really no one else, no matter how they rule (even if they decide not to rule). That's the hard truth of the situation. Claiming virtue means nothing.
Yes, of course Trump supporters will accept a SCOTUS decision. They've been told that the membership of that court is actually capable of being fair to conservatives.C’mon, you think Trump supporters will accept a SCOTUS decision? I don’t think these decisions will make it that far, the state court will squash them.
I think the courts at all levels are a lot more reasonable than some think.Yes, of course Trump supporters will accept a SCOTUS decision. They've been told that the membership of that court is actually capable of being fair to conservatives.
I agree that lower courts are highly likely to dismiss claims of the Trump campaign at first instance, whether those claims have merit or not. There's a much higher likelihood that in the states that are in greatest play Democratshe are overrepresented on the bench, but even Republican appointees of Bush are most likely of the old school of "don't ask me to look into an election - nothing to see here". It's so predictable, it would be better for the country if the campaigns agreed to state their cases to the lower courts in a perfunctory way, get their dismissals, and move more quickly to seeking leave from SCOTUS. But they won't. The Dems don't trust SCOTUS for the same reasons I say Trump voters do trust them.
No one has been stopping him bringing the cases to the courts.It's a tight contest which is more destructive: 1) contesting election results without sufficient cause, or 2) resisting, as a concept, the determination of election disputes by the courts.
If I have to pick one, I'd say 2) is worse. The social disruption of 1) is completely cured by a court decision dismissing the suit. By contrast, 2) leads, without exception, to public unrest.
You're right. We should investigate the Republicans to see how much voter fraud they did. Just because they failed doesn't mean it isn't serious.In all likelihood, in 2016 there were people in Pennsylvania trying to help the Democrats win. However they failed, so their conduct was never investigated.
Which is why Trump lost.Revolt against tyranny is in the American DNA.
And if it decides against them it will be proof of betrayal by the deep state.Yes, of course Trump supporters will accept a SCOTUS decision. They've been told that the membership of that court is actually capable of being fair to conservatives.
Why? The lower courts are heavily packed by Trump appointees. He has bragged about this repeatedly.I agree that lower courts are highly likely to dismiss claims of the Trump campaign at first instance, whether those claims have merit or not.
We agree that SCOTUS is explicitly political and no one expects them to decide things based on legal merit. Interesting. That isn't something I thought you would admit.The Dems don't trust SCOTUS for the same reasons I say Trump voters do trust them.
Here's a comprehensive list of election litigation thus far: https://www.scotusblog.com/election-litigation/ The Trump campaign has obtained some relief in at least 2 cases (Penn observers allowed closer to election workers doing the tally, Penn must segregate ballots received after polls closed), has had a number of applications dismissed, but most are still pending. I wouldn't describe the litigation in the terms that you do. There haven't been any "scathing" judicial decisions yet. Mostly, cases have been dismissed based upon insufficient evidence, not that there was no arguable legal theory to support the suit. Of course, since many of the suits are complaining about being denied access to oversight of the process, you have to ask yourself how meaningful dismissals based on a lack of evidence are.No one has been stopping him bringing the cases to the courts.
He has and they have been so far laughed out of court as garbage.
You and I both know that this isn't about actual legitimate complaints or court filings, this is about creating a narrative politically, like you said.