It’s official Joe Biden becomes the 46 President of the United States.

[Dougie]

This is true but also misses the point, in a big way. Which opens the gate for takes like this one:



The salient point - and the one worth repeating - is not that they haven’t proved voter fraud. There are a lot of things in life that you can’t prove with absolute certainty, and but for which there is strong circumstantial evidence and you would do well to assume it’s true.

The issue with voter fraud is not that it hasn’t been PROVEN (which implies that it is more than plausible but just doesn’t pass some strict standard), but that there is zero evidence - none - to create the concern that it is happening on any serious scale. Is it possible? Sure. Is there any basis to assume it’s happening at scale? There is not. None.

It is the same as whether a building will collapse. Is it impossible? No, it is possible. Should some people be entrusted with worrying about it? Sure - that’s why we have building codes and fire codes and inspections and all that. Should we assume that buildings are about to start collapsing, because it is not impossible? Absent any evidence that is happening (not proof - just credible basis), most will agree that is not a wise approach.

Contrast with Russiagate, the essential points of which have plenty of evidence and/or been proven, even if at this point we do not have evidence to secure a conviction for the crime of conspiracy.

The conflation of standards - the proven with the likely with the reasonable - creates fertile ground for demagogues to choose the standard that is convenient, rather than the one that is relevant. When it comes to Russian interference in US elections, what matters is that not enough evidence exists to put Trump himself in jail, otherwise it never happened. And when it comes to massive election fraud, as long as one can’t prove it didn’t happen, it means that we can scream ad infinitum about it despite no credible basis in fact.

I agree with your post, but I think you misunderstood my point.

For PR purposes the Republicans are trying to shift the burden of proof to the negative claim of you can't prove that no fraud or no mistakes happened anywhere. Of course, it's an impossible task.

I compare it to Russiagate because you had many media personalities and journalists floating the possibility that Trump was a Russian agent since the 1980s, that Trump was controlled by Putin with zero proof of such claims. That the Russian bought some Facebook ads and favored Trump is a given, but the claims were far greater than that. Even after all the investigations, without any proof to back up the claims, journalists and some within the democratic party continue to claim Trump is a Russian agent, he's controlled by Putin, the only reason he won was because of Russia.

For the past four years you had many MSNBC liberals saying Trump only won because of Russia, and now we'll have 4 years of deplorables claiming it was a fraudulent election.

 

[Macanudo]

For the past four years you had many MSNBC liberals saying Trump only won because of Russia, and now we'll have 4 years of deplorables claiming it was a fraudulent election.

I wonder if HIllary Clinton would have won in 2016 if she hadn't referred to Trump supporters as deplorables?

 

[Renzi]

I wonder if HIllary Clinton would have won in 2016 if she hadn't referred to Trump supporters as deplorables?

I personally doubt it. She's been one of the most "divisive" (a nice way to say "hated") figures in US politics since the 90s. In 2008 she lost the nominaiton to Obama, who was more or less a nobody at the time. In 2016, the DNC rigged the primary so that literally nobody ran against her. She only had to beat Bernie (not even a Democrat), who similarly was not well known nationally at the time, and almost lost (and some might argue that she actually did lose). In the presidential election she ran against a reality show personality, and lost.

To give an idea just how unpopular Hillary is, racist voters preferred a Black man over her.

 

[on the brink]

H

I personally doubt it. She's been one of the most "divisive" (a nice way to say "hated") figures in US politics since the 90s. In 2008 she lost the ominaiton to Obama, who was more or less a nobody at the time. In 2016, the DNC rigged the primary so that literally nobody ran against her. She only had to beat Bernie (not even a Democrat), who similarly was not well known nationally at the time, and almost lost (and some might argue that she actually did lose). In the presidential election she ran against a reality show personality, and lost.

To give an idea just how unpopular Hillary is, racist voters preferred a Black man over her.

Please note that Hillary lost the Electoral college, but won the popular vote by 3.5 million. And the main reason she lost is because she's a woman. Most people will be crucified before admitting it, but they could not stomach a woman president. Remember those "3:00 a.m. call" TV ads?

 

[TWB103]

H
Please note that Hillary lost the Electoral college, but won the popular vote by 3.5 million. And the main reason she lost is because she's a woman. Most people will be crucified before admitting it, but they could not stomach a woman president. Remember those "3:00 a.m. call" TV ads?

A black man can be president but a woman can't?..Hillary could have won. And if she hadnt been Hillary would have won.

 

[on the brink]

Sadly, I believe people prefer a MAN of any color whatsoever over a mere woman. Perhaps you didn't see that three a.m. call ad. It stressed how a woman is too undependable to be able to deal with a national emergency - they are all at the mercy of their hormones. In spite of that, Hillary won - 3,500,000 more Americans preferred her over Trump.

The Electoral College is an anachronism that should be abolished. Twice in this century - in 2000 and 2016 - it saddled the country with presidents who lost the popular vote. Let's pray Trump does not manage to overturn popular will one more time.

 

[Dougie]

Sadly, I believe people prefer a MAN of any color whatsoever over a mere woman. Perhaps you didn't see that three a.m. call ad. It stressed how a woman is too undependable to be able to deal with a national emergency - they are all at the mercy of their hormones. In spite of that, Hillary won - 3,500,000 more Americans preferred her over Trump.

The Electoral College should be abolished - if it wasn't for it, we would not be in the mess we are in. Thanks to that aberration, we keep getting stuck with presidents who are not preferred by the majority of Americans.

Didn't her campaign make an advertisement to highlight how you don't want an unexperienced black man picking up the phone at 3am?

Her campaign also released photos of Obama in Somali clothing, his campaign manager at the time called the Clinton move "the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we've seen from either party in this election."

I'd argue that Obama won because his rhetoric was much more inspiring than that of Hillary's. He positioned himself as someone from outside the mainstream who could be a transformational president, not caught in the battles of the past.

If it's as you propose that it was just because he was a man and she was a woman, then we would have to assume that a large portion of the Democratic party is sexist.

 

[ben]

I agree with your post, but I think you misunderstood my point.

For PR purposes the Republicans are trying to shift the burden of proof to the negative claim of you can't prove that no fraud or no mistakes happened anywhere. Of course, it's an impossible task.

I compare it to Russiagate because you had many media personalities and journalists floating the possibility that Trump was a Russian agent since the 1980s, that Trump was controlled by Putin with zero proof of such claims. That the Russian bought some Facebook ads and favored Trump is a given, but the claims were far greater than that. Even after all the investigations, without any proof to back up the claims, journalists and some within the democratic party continue to claim Trump is a Russian agent, he's controlled by Putin, the only reason he won was because of Russia.

For the past four years you had many MSNBC liberals saying Trump only won because of Russia, and now we'll have 4 years of deplorables claiming it was a fraudulent election.

Here is the deal with Russiagate. I hesitate to write about this because I do not want the focus shifted to this.

The overarching issue with Russia is the circumstantial evidence. There is just too much smoke - undisputable smoke - for there not to be fire.
Here is what is not in dispute:

• Changing the Republican platform in 2016 to weaken support for Ukraine, is weird and has no benign explanation.
• His refusal to criticize Putin in any substantial way - contrasted with his manner of speaking to just about all US allies - is weird and has no benign explanation.
• His pathetic self-abasement on-stage with Putin in Helsinki is weird and has no benign explanation.
• Scores of comments of his - “we’re not so clean either” - are weird and have little or no benign explanation.
• Lots of his Russian associations are of an unsavory variety.
• There is virtual certainty about Russia using Wikileaks as an outlet for releasing the intelligence it acquired, and lots of contacts between the Trump campaign and Wikileaks have no benign explanation.
  • These were covered more or less by the highly-anticipated Mueller report, but there was still a lot left wanting.
  • Much more comprehensive treatment was given to this by the Senate report, which was released to much less fanfare and but had a broader mandate and covered much more ground.
  • From the Senate report - the GOP-controlled Senate, mind you - the coordination with Wikileaks emerges as established fact.
• The sanctions maneuvering is one more point that was beyond weird and has no benign explanation.
  • Flynn spoke to Russia’s ambassador and discussed the just-announced US sanctions and how Russia should respond to them.
  • Then VP-elect Mike Pence then stated that that did not happen.
  • It was then claimed that Flynn lied to Pence.
  • It is a fact that Flynn lied to the FBI.
    • That Pence was lied to, though, is not clear.
    • Flynn and Trump may both have well been aware of what Flynn and Kislyak were discussing.
    • It is, in fact, more than probable than to imagine that Flynn was acting on his own.
    • Trump’s continued interest in protecting Flynn, given his propensity to cut people loose at the first opportunity, strongly suggests that Flynn knows something that Trump does not want publicized.
    • This interest includes DOJ interfering with the case in an extraordinary and virtually unprecedented fashion.
• Other activity such as repeatedly bashing NATO, refusing to commit to Article 5, etc, is exactly the behavior you would expect from someone who is either an asset or at least a useful idiot.

This is the stuff I remember off the top of my head. There is a lot more that I don’t.

To compare Trump’s interplay with Russia and Putin - which we still do not fully understand but which is clearly there and clearly unusual, to say the least - to the evidence-free and solely-politically-motivated charge of voter fraud, is ludicrous. It is a textbook case of false equivalency.

 

[Dougie]

Here is the deal with Russiagate. I hesitate to write about this because I do not want the focus shifted to this.

The overarching issue with Russia is the circumstantial evidence. There is just too much smoke - undisputable smoke - for there not to be fire.
Here is what is not in dispute:

• Changing the Republican platform in 2016 to weaken support for Ukraine, is weird and has no benign explanation.
• His refusal to criticize Putin in any substantial way - contrasted with his manner of speaking to just about all US allies - is weird and has no benign explanation.
• His pathetic self-abasement on-stage with Putin in Helsinki is weird and has no benign explanation.
• Scores of comments of his - “we’re not so clean either” - are weird and have little or no benign explanation.
• Lots of his Russian associations are of an unsavory variety.
• There is virtual certainty about Russia using Wikileaks as an outlet for releasing the intelligence it acquired, and lots of contacts between the Trump campaign and Wikileaks have no benign explanation.
  • These were covered more or less by the highly-anticipated Mueller report, but there was still a lot left wanting.
  • Much more comprehensive treatment was given to this by the Senate report, which was released to much less fanfare and but had a broader mandate and covered much more ground.
  • From the Senate report - the GOP-controlled Senate, mind you - the coordination with Wikileaks emerges as established fact.
• The sanctions maneuvering is one more point that was beyond weird and has no benign explanation.
  • Flynn spoke to Russia’s ambassador and discussed the just-announced US sanctions and how Russia should respond to them.
  • Then VP-elect Mike Pence then stated that that did not happen.
  • It was then claimed that Flynn lied to Pence.
  • It is a fact that Flynn lied to the FBI.
    • That Pence was lied to, though, is not clear.
    • Flynn and Trump may both have well been aware of what Flynn and Kislyak were discussing.
    • It is, in fact, more than probable than to imagine that Flynn was acting on his own.
    • Trump’s continued interest in protecting Flynn, given his propensity to cut people loose at the first opportunity, strongly suggests that Flynn knows something that Trump does not want publicized.
    • This interest includes DOJ interfering with the case in an extraordinary and virtually unprecedented fashion.
• Other activity such as repeatedly bashing NATO, refusing to commit to Article 5, etc, is exactly the behavior you would expect from someone who is either an asset or at least a useful idiot.

This is the stuff I remember off the top of my head. There is a lot more that I don’t.

To compare Trump’s interplay with Russia and Putin - which we still do not fully understand but which is clearly there and clearly unusual, to say the least - to the evidence-free and solely-politically-motivated charge of voter fraud, is ludicrous. It is a textbook case of false equivalency.

I didn't say the situations are equivalent. I use it as a comparison because it's similar in some aspects.

As you said, Russiagate is a whole other discussion that will derail this thread, so we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[Macanudo]

Here is the deal with Russiagate. I hesitate to write about this because I do not want the focus shifted to this.

The overarching issue with Russia is the circumstantial evidence. There is just too much smoke - undisputable smoke - for there not to be fire.
Here is what is not in dispute:

• Changing the Republican platform in 2016 to weaken support for Ukraine, is weird and has no benign explanation.
• His refusal to criticize Putin in any substantial way - contrasted with his manner of speaking to just about all US allies - is weird and has no benign explanation.
• His pathetic self-abasement on-stage with Putin in Helsinki is weird and has no benign explanation.
• Scores of comments of his - “we’re not so clean either” - are weird and have little or no benign explanation.
• Lots of his Russian associations are of an unsavory variety.
• There is virtual certainty about Russia using Wikileaks as an outlet for releasing the intelligence it acquired, and lots of contacts between the Trump campaign and Wikileaks have no benign explanation.
  • These were covered more or less by the highly-anticipated Mueller report, but there was still a lot left wanting.
  • Much more comprehensive treatment was given to this by the Senate report, which was released to much less fanfare and but had a broader mandate and covered much more ground.
  • From the Senate report - the GOP-controlled Senate, mind you - the coordination with Wikileaks emerges as established fact.
• The sanctions maneuvering is one more point that was beyond weird and has no benign explanation.
  • Flynn spoke to Russia’s ambassador and discussed the just-announced US sanctions and how Russia should respond to them.
  • Then VP-elect Mike Pence then stated that that did not happen.
  • It was then claimed that Flynn lied to Pence.
  • It is a fact that Flynn lied to the FBI.
    • That Pence was lied to, though, is not clear.
    • Flynn and Trump may both have well been aware of what Flynn and Kislyak were discussing.
    • It is, in fact, more than probable than to imagine that Flynn was acting on his own.
    • Trump’s continued interest in protecting Flynn, given his propensity to cut people loose at the first opportunity, strongly suggests that Flynn knows something that Trump does not want publicized.
    • This interest includes DOJ interfering with the case in an extraordinary and virtually unprecedented fashion.
• Other activity such as repeatedly bashing NATO, refusing to commit to Article 5, etc, is exactly the behavior you would expect from someone who is either an asset or at least a useful idiot.

This is the stuff I remember off the top of my head. There is a lot more that I don’t.

To compare Trump’s interplay with Russia and Putin - which we still do not fully understand but which is clearly there and clearly unusual, to say the least - to the evidence-free and solely-politically-motivated charge of voter fraud, is ludicrous. It is a textbook case of false equivalency.

Here’s an other point of view:

Rep. Nunes on alleged voting irregularities and Biden's push to get access to intelligence briefings | Fox News Video

President-elect Joe Biden 'had been getting' intelligence briefings contrary to what his transition team claims, House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., tells 'Sunday Morning Futures.'

video.foxnews.com