Comments by "MarcosElMalo2" (@MarcosElMalo2) on "Trump's Election Fraud Allegations | Denial vs. Delusion" video.
-
7
-
7
-
It’s certainly within his right, up to a point. That point is can the actual challenges in court change the outcome, and the answer to that is no. In court, one must show credible evidence to back one’s claims. After a certain point, further litigation is frivolous and should stop. Trump has exhausted his right.
His wild and damaging claims made outside of court are also his “right” (as in the right free speech). However, he’s not only telling lies, he’s doing great and long term damage to the country. It’s immoral, unethical, and irresponsible. If he had credible evidence for any of his claims, it would have been presented within the past month.
Al Gore had the right to challenge the 2000 election that he lost to George W. Bush. And he got two recounts in Florida (where the court challenges took place). It was during the third recount that the Supreme Court stepped in and said, “enough”! Al Gore had exhausted his right to challenge the counting of votes. Realizing this, he conceded, and then . . . HE SHUT UP. He did not continue grousing, whining, or complaining. He did not try to undermine the public’s faith in elections, for the good of the country. It would have been his right to do so but he didn’t because he’s a decent human being, whatever his liberal shortcomings. (And yes, I’m a conservative who left the GOP when it became clear that its shift to Authoritarianism couldn’t be stopped.)
7
-
6
-
You seem deeply in denial, perhaps delusional. Of course, it is useless to argue with you because you are not amenable to logic.
The Russians did interfere in the 2016 election, and they did influence people. There is little doubt about this among those that investigating—the only argument and room for opinion is how much influence did the Russian operation have on the 2016 election. We can also debate what the Russian goals were. Was it to help Trump win or was it to foment division, or was it originally one and then morphed into the other?
See, those are debates we can have if you could accept the basic facts on the ground. But you won’t because you’re enmeshed in system of fantasy thinking.
Now, let’s address the question of collusion and Trump’s obeisance to Putin, a similar delusion among some Democrats, but not a majority. Again, the evidence doesn’t exist that Trump colluded with the Russians and was being directed by Putin. There are some facts that suggest it could have happened (Trump’s own words and the attempts by Rodger Stone), but no direct proof—despite extensive investigation.
At best, we know Trump and his family have borrowed money from Russians and are predisposed to friendlier relations with Putin and Russia so as not to disrupt their business relations. But it doesn’t prove the wilder conspiracy theories put forth by a few delusional Democrats.
If you are not delusional, by chance, but are merely trying to make what (you think) is the strongest case, you’re doing yourself and everyone else a disservice. Stick to the facts, be open to new facts, find a basis of agreement, and we can debate.
5
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1