politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Their logic: My guy loses, "the election was rigged!", my guy wins, "power to the people!"
I don't know if that's really a thought process separated by party lines.
Ehhh, in 2016 there was a lot of talk about election interference (which was corroborated by most, if not all, intelligence agencies) but not much about the election being illegitimate. It's a subtle but very important distinction.
It's the difference between saying "the refs weren't calling it our way at all" and "the refs conspired against us!"
What was Robert mueller investigating?
Election interference, collusion with Russia and subsequent obstruction of justice.
You can believe trump should have been impeached for those crimes but again, that's very different from saying the election itself was illegitimate. At no point in that investigation did Mueller (or, as far as I know any Democrat) argue that the votes were manipulated or altered once cast.
When Nixon was basically impeached (he resigned before that could happen as back then Republicans had integrity and would put party over country) it did not mean that the election itself was illegitimate.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-is-an-illegitimate-president/2019/09/26/29195d5a-e099-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html
https://nypost.com/2022/01/10/harris-comms-chief-called-bush-43-illegitimate-president/amp/
You'll note that neither of those articles has anyone saying the election was illegitimate.
In fact, the second one goes out of the way to say thay despite her disagreement with the call (Supreme court halting recounts strictly along party lines) the comms chief still respected the outcome, which is precisely the opposite of what trump did.
Dude come on.
Dude, I am making the exact claim I started with:
There is a huge difference between casting doubt on whether the votes are being accurately counted (the election being illegitimate) and whether someone acted improperly to win those votes (trying to.collude with Russia etc).
Do you understand the difference?