06-25-2021, 03:46 PM
(06-25-2021, 03:14 PM)Nately120 Wrote: This all seens to apply to the current focus of the GOP, though. I just can't imagine 3.5 more years of crying fraud is going to endear more people to Trump if 6 of 10 Republicans are on board with it now.
Who knows who democrats run in 2024, though. Lord knows they thought Nixon was buried after the 1960 election.
This point is why is don't think we'll see Trump in 2024. Right now the smart money would be on DeSantis, but three years is an eternity in politics. I'd still prefer Nikki Haley, but right now I don't see that happening.
(06-25-2021, 03:16 PM)Au165 Wrote: I get your whataboutisim position but like most things it feels disingenuous.
How so? It's entirely accurate.
Quote:Did the election interference the Russians carried out in 2016 damage democracy? The answer is yes because it shook the confidence of the country. She was actually right, we will never know how much it helped Trump but it occurred. There was actually something that occurred then, there is nothing that occurred now, so comparing them as the same thing is nonsensical. Did Abrams or Clinton attempt 60 court cases where they lost each one in regards to their defeat and then STILL claim there was fraud? No, of course they didn't because these situations are nothing alike but you know that.
You're essentially conceding the point and arguing degree, which is something I already acknowledged. You're essentially saying it's ok for Abrams and Clinton to damage our democracy to a lesser degree, but Trump took it too far.
Quote:Hiding behind "both sides do it" is a disingenuous tactic to try to claim neutrality but disregards scale.
This statement would only be accurate if I was defending Trump or minimizing his actions.
Quote:Life isn't black or white, but when we see people like you play "both sides" you tend to throw away scale and just say A is same as B when no one really believes that it's just a way to try and appear rational and fair.
Again, this argument would hold more water if I hadn't already acknowledged the "scale". They are the exact same actions, just on a different scale. Either you believe questioning the integrity of our electoral process damages our democracy or it does not. You want o argue scale, no problem, and I'd likely be close to your position in that regard. I just find it interesting that you find an accurate comparison between the three to be "whataboutism" or an attempt to minimize Trump's actions. To me, what you're doing is minimizing the actions of Clinton and Abrams. Is that not damaging as well?
