Hacker News Reader

Comment by skippyboxedhero | Hacker News Reader

He didn't try to overthrow an election. He tried to use the same legal procedures to challenge the result that were used in 2001, and that are available to candidates in every election.

And you believe they were lies, you are saying that you are the ultimate arbiter of truth...I don't support Trump, but I am willing to accept that people have different interpretations of events. I am also willing to accept that courts should be the ultimate arbiter of truth, not social media companies. Welcome to democracy.

Btw, the irony of this is unbearable...Hilary Clinton has contested almost every election she lost. She said 2016 was rigged and challenged that result legally. She said that Obama rigged the Iowa primary. Politicians often think their opponents cheat, it is called motivated reasoning...again, that is why we have courts to decide, not you, not me.

View on HN

*that we know of.

A lot of information is coming out, and it looks very bad. It certainly is not as simple as "tried to sue".

This comment may age poorly.

>He tried to use the same legal procedures to challenge the result that were used in 2001

He didn't merely challenge a few items, he loudly proclaimed as fact before the fact that the election was intentionally rigged by a large combination of Democrats and RINO Secretaries of State, and was shot down at every challenge due to a complete lack of evidence. He and his liar sycophants continue to spread these lies not just as supposition, but as fact. It is disingenuous to compare Trump's challenges-cum-lies to any run-of-the-mill challenge of years past.

Back to the main point: He could stand up a blog very quickly and have the ears of all willing listeners on the planet.

Which is within his rights to do. There is no law saying that you are unable to say you believe an election is being rigged before it occurs, logically that is when the rigging would occur...it is hard to rig an election that has ended (and btw, Clinton claimed that Obama bussed people in from Illinois before the result...if you didn't know Clinton had a lot of "theories" about the integrity of elections in Iowa, which she repeated in 2016).

The challenges he made were identical. Read what you wrote again, you refer to no laws, you are referring only to the fact that he said something you don't agree with. There is no law against this. He challenged the result legally, he was not successful, he took no other action but to repeat his claim that he believed the election result was fraudulent...which he is within his rights to do.

Great, I suppose that everyone who wants to leave Twitter now will be able to do the same...right? (I don't think you understand that arguing against free speech is not a winnable argument, you are arguing against inalienable rights that founded the USA, I could also posit...if you don't like free speech, you could consider starting your own blog and moving to a country where there is no free speech?).

Posting to Twitter is not a right. Any argument about just how awful he was, or how obvious his treason is, is only a way to bolster the moral argument for removing him.

There is no legal right to post to Twitter. Your last line is so objectionable, I'll target it specifically: anyone can start a blog. Anyone can have the entire internet see their thoughts. Twitter isn't covered by the first amendment. No one in the US is being told they can't have a website.

If I told you you had a right to eat, you would sue me for not feeding you ribeye for every meal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com