tetrometal

The quality of the evidence presented by challengers to the election is what is being examined in the courts. You can certainly assert that there hasn't been any concrete and sound evidence, but someone else can come along and assert the opposite. You're both making the same mistake of making an assertion and accepting it as fact while we are currently undergoing the process of determining the validity of the evidence.

Such proclamations come off as either "Nothing to see here" or "Lock her up" rhetoric to me. Too much, too soon.

Some of us are trying to be open-minded about the evidence being presented, while others accept the first argument that supports their bias. I think it's wiser to take the first tack.

How much more research do you do on any particular piece of evidence after some media outlet tells you that you don't need to worry about it?

What challenges are you referring to, specifically? I have been following most of them and nothing seemed water-muddying to me.

The trial in the court is a legal challenge. I don't really have a problem with Trump (or Biden) supporters being rallied. Why does "rally his base" have a bad connotation in your mind?

I don't really care what legal straws he grasps at, though. I say go for it. Any challenge only serves to strengthen our democracy, excepting any that succeed in spite of being wrong.

I have so far seen no reason to worry about the latter bit.

I think I mostly agree with your first statement. I have a different take on the legal proceedings (there's still the vote count, at which point congress can make challenges, etc.)

But certainly there are limits to how far the challenge can go. I'll be right there LOLing with you if he needs to be bodily removed from the WH. I disagree that he's given any indication that he'd go that far, though. Once his options are exhausted, he'll leave.

No, they are challenging the validity of the election and have so far failed. This is an ongoing process. You don't get to declare it a one-and-done just because you don't like that it's happening.

No human has the right to threaten or use violence against another human for communicating data. American free speech isn't extreme, it's simply ethical.

1. I don't think so. Not in the "free speech" sense. Twitter owns itself and should be permitted to do as it pleases with its property.

2. I don't think it's okay, but I think a proper response to it lies in the social sphere, not at the end of the government gun.

3. I think this is probably an inevitable outcome for humanity's first swing at social media. It's centralized and so will come under the control of some partisan group or another. I think the behavior will push us inevitably towards more decentralized platforms.

4. I'm not convinced they have power - not power that can't be removed from them by society, anyway. If they misbehave or underperform enough, society will move on. See MySpace.

Challenging the validity of an election is not a "coup". We need these challenges to keep our elections secure. I cheered Hillary for telling Biden not to concede under any circumstances.

The left-biased media was worried about election fraud for months before the election (good!) and are now declaring it the "most secure election in American history" in spite of the broad introduction of mail-in voting.

People living in democracies should scrutinize the hell out of their elections.

https://spectator.us/reasons-why-the-2020-presidential-elect...

https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/23/5-more-ways-joe-biden-m...

Challenging elections to ensure they're fair and legal is hardly undermining them. It forces them to be strengthened against fraud.

I don't think Bush/Gore undermined anything.

I don't think Hillary undermined them when she told Biden not to concede under any circumstances. I don't support her or Biden's politics, but I cheered that position.

Contrary to the hypocritical ravings of the left, I think election challenges are healthy for democracy. I wish they happened every time. I don't have a lot of trust in them as-is, and whatever the outcome of Trump's challenges, one of them will be that anyone thinking about committing fraud will likely think again after all this.

https://spectator.us/reasons-why-the-2020-presidential-elect...

Being "not racist" - AKA the unfairly-maligned philosophy of "color blindness" - is a perfectly reasonable aspiration. I shouldn't be any more concerned with skin color than hair color or eye color.

I find the "anti-racist" philosophy of Kendi et al. to be misguided at best and divisive and racist at worst.

The NYT has long been complicit in promoting the divisive and racist woke/CRT cult. I can't imagine either side of this genuinely believes they are an impartial party.

And yet you'll find numerous comments in this thread using disproportionate population statistics to erroneously declare bias and bigotry.

Sure sounds like quotas are what is desired.

If you measure some quantity using biased sampling, you're invariably going to see biased results. The assumption that the biased results in this scenario are due to lack of opportunity, racism, etc are unfounded. Correlation is not causation.

If you and I get marooned on an unclaimed island and I construct a spear for hunting crabs, you have no right to my spear. I am within my natural rights to defend my property should you try to take it by force.

No, like the founders of the USA, I believe in natural rights. The right of people to be secure in their persons and their property being one of those rights.

If you and I get marooned on an unclaimed island and I construct a spear for hunting crabs, you have no right to my spear. I am within my natural rights to defend my property should you try to take it by force.

Of course there are other ways. I don't understand this myopic perspective.

Society has a problem: poor people exist. There are a UNIVERSE of possible solutions. Charitable organizations, churches, help from family - the list goes on and on and on.

Yet here you are, saying "I can't think of anything we can possibly do except point guns at not-poor people, take their money, and give it to poor people."

The crazy thing is that I believe you when you say it; I think you're saying it in good faith! I just can't fathom how you reached that conclusion. It's utterly nonsensical to me on its face.

Best possible? Someone could probably do better, but off the top of my head, "if we aggregate metrics from populations using a sampling method other than a uniform random distribution, we should expect to see differences" probably approximates it.

What is the worst possible interpretation of socialism, communism, collectivism, and the new Woke cult?

> They also stopped Ebola from spreading, which is at least an order of magnitude worse than COVID.

Pure unmitigated ignorance.

Re: Nestle - Corporatist structures twisting the state to do their bidding isn't property rights.

Property rights and human needs are both real things. I never argued otherwise.

You took the worst possible interpretation of the former and the best possible interpretation of the latter. In what world do you think anyone believes this was done in good faith?

Take a free market society with no taxes. There is no slavery there.

Now add 100% taxes. That's full-blown slavery.

Now cut the taxes to 50%. That's 50% slavery.

If he believes it is invalid, I'm not sure what else I'd expect him to say.

The fact that the left has been absolutely out of their minds with hatred for the man for the last four years makes it very, very difficult for people to easily trust that they are not engaging in impropriety during the election. Their motto for removing him is essentially "At any cost" at this point.

I'm not sure why you're framing his actions or words along the lines of "fascist dictator". This is simply a continuation of the vitriolic rhetoric I've been trying to combat for years now. It's crazed, and I do not understand why you - someone who can write clearly enough that you must be intelligent - cannot see it. It's rhetoric like that that is driving so many people to distrust you.

Trump will challenge the election results in court and succeed or fail. It's as simple as that. Personally, I hope it's a failure because I don't want there to have been any impropriety. If that's the case, Trump is done. There is no fascism. There is no dictator. Please stop catastrophizing.

This is such a blatantly false framing that it's impossible for me to believe you're presenting it in good faith.

Government restriction is aggressive force or the threat thereof. It's unethical. That's the difference.

I have no problem with people redistributing wealth. Just don't use aggressive force or the threat of it to do so.

It's amazing to me that you frame it that way and probably think you're doing so in good faith.

Anyway, I'm reasonably confident that if we tallied the deaths resulting from racism and collectivism, collectivism would win handily.

I don't think something that requires others to labor can ever be a right. I would call that slavery.

Distribution of wealth is a metric, it can neither provide nor deprive of liberty.

People protecting their property is an ethical action. People trying to take it from them against their will is not. This can't be reasoned away.

Fortunately, we have agency in this world that does not require violence. We can work to improve our lot.

Well, they've been presenting him as a fascist authoritarian for four years, so if that were true I'd be inclined to believe their response was appropriate.