last day (15 days later) » 

Feeds
Feeds
10:05
30
A: Who "spent four years refusing to accept the validity of the [2016] election"?

JontiaI wondered the same thing as you on seeing the quote from Mitch McConnell. I don't think there's a way to know for certain who he might have been referring to, but I found this article from the Washington Post regarding a September 2019 CBS interview with Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton dismiss...

Azor Ahai -- he him
Azor Ahai -- he him
To be clearer, the Democrats would be calling him illegitimate because the Electoral College has severe structural deficiencies that put him into office against the will of the majority, combined with Russian meddling. That is different than what trump is doing.
zaen
zaen
In an interview on October 26th she also said Trump "lives with this specter of illegitimacy" and that she was the candidate that Republicans "basically stole an election from."
Clay07g
Clay07g
@AzorAhai-him- The electoral college was designed specifically so that you could be legitimately elected president without the majority vote. It's the definition of legitimate. If someone was to become president with the majority votes yet not have 270 electoral votes, that would be illegitimate under the current laws.
Azor Ahai -- he him
Azor Ahai -- he him
@Clay07g Yeah, that doesn't make it not a sack of bullshit. In this case, "illegitimate" is not the same as "illegal," although I wouldn't have used the phrasing myself.
Clay07g
Clay07g
@AzorAhai-him- Well that's exactly the point. Saying that you think something is bullshit and calling it illegitimate are two entirely different statements. Also, the definition of "illegitimate" is "not recognized as lawful", so I find your second sentence nonsensical in every way. It's not an issue of phrasing. It's an issue of saying something that is simply not true.
Azor Ahai -- he him
Azor Ahai -- he him
10:05
@Clay07g I am explaining what HRC meant by "illegitimate" in this context. Being elected by an outdated, racist system is plenty illegitimate for me. But that's not the point. I was saying that Democrats, when they claim Trump is "illegitimate" (or whatever word you want to use) are saying there are structural problems with the method by which Trump won, which are valid criticisms. Trump is just making up nonsense about illegal votes or whatever. Dems are not saying illegal votes won Trump the election.
Clay07g
Clay07g
@AzorAhai-him- What do you mean, "whatever word I want to use"? Either they are claiming that the 2016 election is illegitimate or they are not. If you say the election is illegitimate because of the electoral college, I will explain why that's factually incorrect. If you think the election is "something else" because of the electoral college, then say so and don't ask me for a word to place there.
T.J. Crowder
T.J. Crowder
@AzorAhai-him- & Cla07g - I don't think Clinton's claim relates to the electoral college at all. From the WaPo article, quoting her: “I believe he understands that the many varying tactics they used, from voter suppression and voter purging to hacking to the false stories — he knows that — there were just a bunch of different reasons why the election turned out like it did.” So she's citing various tactics the GOP has been using for years. Many of those tactics are legal (some arguably wrong), but apparently to her they make his presidency illegitimate. Unfortunate, but understandable.
 
6 hours later…
BlackThorn
BlackThorn
16:32
This answer is simply gaslighting. It is perfectly obvious who McConnell is referring to. Trump was impeached because of claims that foreign interference led to his illegitimate presidency. To claim that Trump is somehow a level beyond this for submitting lawsuits during the phase of an incredibly close election with unprecedented mail in voting is absurd. If he thinks there is fraud, he should sue. That doesn't mean that he'll find anything, or that he won't concede if the lawsuits fail.
whn
whn
17:20
@Clay07g " The electoral college was designed specifically so that you could be legitimately elected president without the majority vote." True, but the number of house members was meant to expand as the nation grew, not arbitrarily halt at 435 in 1920. There would be 11,000 members if we followed the founding fathers, or 1600, if we followed 1911 precedent, but regardless, the number we have now is too few. We should have at least have around 600 house members to be on par with other nations.
 
1 hour later…
Harry Johnston
Harry Johnston
18:39
@BlackThorn, Trump was impeached because of the Ukraine scandal, not because of alleged Russian interference in the election.
 
1 hour later…
RIanGillis
RIanGillis
20:05
@BlackThorn It's absolutely insane. Politics.se is descending to reddit-tier levels of echo-chamber and snark "What ever could this evil republican turtle guy be referring to? I haven't the foggiest notion"
Harry Johnston
Harry Johnston
@RIanGillis, I for one was genuinely puzzled. Just because the answer looks obvious to you doesn't mean that other people aren't being honest when they say they don't see it.
BlackThorn
BlackThorn
20:33
@HarryJohnston and no information about his children's or his campaign's business/information dealings with Russian agents were brought to the impeachment trial, was there?
 
1 hour later…
Harry Johnston
Harry Johnston
21:39
@BlackThorn, I don't know, but I also don't see the relevance.
Obviously the Democrats were eager to take advantage of the Ukraine scandal, just as they were eager to believe the stories of Russian interference. But I don't see any reason to think that the latter was the cause of the former. They hate Trump because, well, he's Trump. They already hated him before the allegations of foreign interference ever came up.
If anything, it's the other way around - the Russian allegations were taken more seriously than they should have been precisely because Trump is hated so much.
Harry Johnston
Harry Johnston
22:05
*Russian allegations -> allegations about Russian interference
BlackThorn
BlackThorn
22:42
@HarryJohnston The relevance is this: the impeachment wasn't a result of the Ukrainian scandal, it was a culmination of cases that have been carefully procured to remove Trump from office since the moment he was elected, the details of each individual case were only important insofar as they could be used to impeach Trump, not right any other wrong that he may have committed. The only reason why he was impeached was because his opposition believed from the beginning that his election was illegitimate
To circle back, the claim being made here is that Trump taking legal action against what he considers to be an illegitimate outcome of an election is somehow unprecedented or beyond the pale. In reality, essentially the entire Democratic party and their allies have been supporting legal action against Trump for the past 4 years because some or most believe his election to have been illegitimate. McConnell is obviously referring to "Democrats" and their allies in general.
To claim that this isn't obvious or somehow isn't true is to demonstrate ignorance or disregard of American politics for the past 4 years.
Harry Johnston
Harry Johnston
@BlackThorn, well, OK, if you feel that way there's obviously no way to change your mind about it. But "ignorance or disregard" still isn't the same as "gaslighting".
BlackThorn
BlackThorn
23:02
@HarryJohnston You're right, ignorance =/= gaslighting. I just don't think that Jontia is ignorant, particularly since Jontia felt strongly enough to answer a question on this topic. I'm probably coming across as bombastic, but out-rightly denying gaslighting is the only way to combat it.
Harry Johnston
Harry Johnston
I still think the third option (honest disagreement) is worth considering. FWIW, though, I think you have the basis for a good answer here. The question revolves around the narrative as seen by Trump supporters, after all.
BlackThorn
BlackThorn
@HarryJohnston I'm not actually a Trump supporter, I just hate all of the dishonestly and gaslighting. I would have answered the question if I thought it was genuine or well researched. But I don't, so I won't.
I'd be willing to consider honest disagreement as an alternative if someone could provide a believable argument, but I just have not heard anyone even attempt one.

last day (15 days later) »