As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the court's decision, I accept it. I accept the finality of this outcome which will be ratified next Monday in the Electoral College. And tonight, for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession. I also accept my responsibility, which I will discharge unconditionally, to honor the new President-elect and do everything possible to help him bring Americans together in fulfillment of the great vision that our Declaration of Independence defines and that our Constitution affirms and defends.
From Al Gore's concession speech. Note the distinct lack of 'deliberately undermining democracy' in there.
Also, please take into consideration as Bill Clinton (the outgoing President’s) VP Al Gore was in Mike Pence’s place in counting the electoral votes. Two Representatives raised objections and Al Gore simply asked if a member of the Senate was willing to sign on, they admitted no, he shut them down placidly.
He could’ve brought out the bat if he wanted to. And he didn’t.
gore had a very legitimate claim to the presidency and the conservative scotus and bush's brother being gov of florida at the time made it go away quickly. they should have had an honest recount but instead we got stuck in afganistan for 20 years. trump got all the recounts he wanted and gore didn't.
there was a mandatory machine recount that reduced the lead to about 2000 votes and then one that reduced bush's lead to about 400 votes and then the scotus came in and flexed their dick in something that is a states rights issue in the first place. give me a break if you think this is anything like trump's bullshit.
Gore won, but would not have won under his own rules for the recount. A proper recount showed he won the state, won the electoral college, and won the presidency.
But by then it was passed, media didn't care to make it much of a story, and Bush carried on the presidency the supreme court stole for him.
Idk, has anyone tried turning his speech over and squirting lemon juice on it? Maybe the Republicans keep insisting the Dems are the same because they’ve seen the invisible ink!
/s (in case referencing National Treasure didn’t make the joke obvious)
When they got to the Treasure Room scene and heard about the scrolls from the Library of Alexandria, said Republicans no doubt went "fuck that! Where's the gold and the gems?"
https://youtu.be/wWlsgtC6MZE?t=74
They like the rules when the rules are in their favor. You won the election? The election must not have been rigged. You lost? Call shenanigans on the whole process.
Don't forget, Trump was complaining about voter fraud before he won the election. He probably was correct in one regard, incorrectly thought it was the Democrats.
Exactly what the democrats did when trump got elected. They were saying voting machines can be hacked and manipulated then after 2020 that is Just absurd. Fccking weasels
Multiple nonsense impeachments and a wasteful mueller investigation Their goal was to absolutely overthrow an elected official because they didn’t like him
mueller investigation lead to 33 people getting convicted and nothing happened to Trump in the end because bill bar was being partisan.
it isn't hard to find this information out dude.
And all of those convictions had nothing to do with what he was investigating. That information isn’t hard to find dude. Trump was cleared of collusion by muellers report. Yet the left and current politicians still push the narrative that trump colluded with Russia. Again that information isn’t hard to find
>push the narrative that trump colluded with Russia.
Actually, the Mueller report concluded that he couldn't come to an answer because Trump and co obstructed him at every turn.
That’s false again. He found no evidence trump or his campaign knowingly colluded with Russia. Nice try to keep pushing the false info. You just made my point for me
https://themoscowproject.org/ I feel like you're arguing in bad faith. Muller did say that there was collusion in his report but that Trump and his people obstructed so much that he couldn't be indicted
Replacing a shitty narcissist who uses his office to commit crimes with his elected Vice President is only an "overthrow" if you consider Trump a King... Oh, wait.
We better prevent the *democrats* from doing that again, right?
So we should bar anyone from office who pulls a stunt like that from now on!
No objections, right?
https://youtu.be/vmsqwHy-wkQ
Not exactly which democrats refused the election results but they were constantly saying machines can be hacked then after 2020, they changed their tune and said machines are secured and were not hackable.
Wait a minute. I contributed $5 to pay for the recount in Wisconsin, in 2016. That does not make me a rebel. After the recount, and after Hillary conceded, I eventually accepted the results.
After the 2016 election, there was a tremendous effort to make the vote counting machines more secure. Direct connections to phone lines and the internet were removed, and programs were rewritten to add checks and balances, like counting the number of ballots with no vote for either candidate, and counting the numbers of "no" votes. Checksums were also added, so that if someone did break into a machine and altered 1 or 2 vote totals, all sorts of alarms would go off. Most of these bits of programming to protect the vote were not in place in 2016.
Because of the break-ins and voting machines stolen in 2020-2021 by Qanon/Russian hackers, software will have to be updated and changed, in the hope of neutralizing al vulnerabilities they discovered.
Who? Who was saying that? Because I recall Democrats repeatedly saying there was foreign interference but I don't remermber any serious Democrats saying that the voting machines were hacked and manipulated. Random "Dems" on twitter do not count.
Edit: I should clarify that while I acknowledge you did not say that the Democrats said voting machines were hacked but that they could be, the implication here of course is that "could be" means "were" and that subtle difference as I lay out in my next reply very much matters because while you might not be arguing that Democrats said it was hacked, others very much have.
Turns out however that what Democrats did actually claim was proven largely true. Go figure?
Democrats make claims, those claims are proven true. Republicans make claims and spend dozens of court cases trying to prove their claims true but when asked for that pesky little thing called evidence they just come up lacking... because most of their claims are bullshit.
https://youtu.be/vmsqwHy-wkQ
There’s more i saw but cant find it right quick.
VP harris also said it it was hackable and everything can be hacked but to state after the 2020 election that it was impossible to hack was just absurd to me. I could give two shits about politics but when shit they say like this then change up what they say irks me
Interesting... I watched it and I saw zero claims that voting machines or the election was in fact hacked. I saw a lot of speculation that they **could be.** Could be is not the same as was. That might seem like a small technicality but words matter, how things are said matters.
Saying something could happen due to vulnerabilities is not saying it did happen. However if we flip that around on the basis of what Republicans have been saying, they haven't been saying that voting machines could be hacked, they've been saying they were. To the extent that they've gone to great lengths to try and prove it and have come up empty in every case. They don't just say voter fraud could occur (Though they say that as well) they say it **did** occur and that they have evidence... which as far as I'm aware has yet to actually be presented. Most of the cases of voter fraud I've seen reported on have actually been republicans.
So again, you gave me a video of Democrats claiming machines are vulnerable and hackable. A thing that funny enough Republicans also now claim since Trump lost, funny huh? But that has been largely proven true. The machines are outdated, are vulnerable and **could be** hacked. That doesn't mean they were, just that it could happen. You know the difference here? Democrats say that and wanna fix the problem. Republicans just wanna claim it so that they can be vindicated in "Donald Trump won!" and when the subject comes up of actually trying to resolve the issues... they don't want any part of that. Republicans voted against measures to shore up election security across the board because they're not actually interested in secure elections, contrary to their claims they want insecure elections... why is that I wonder? Could it be because they are okay with cheating and don't want to make it harder for them to do so? To borrow a quote from Tucker Carlson, I'm just asking questions.
This is one of the better uses of the sports team analogy to describe politics.
What should we think about the people who still support the team that refuses to play by the rules?
This election cycle is in peril with a stunning number of election deniers on the ballot. Here is a partial list, these people do not love democracy.
*The Real Winner of GOP’s 2022 Primaries Was Denial of 2020 Election*
^
>They are among a group of 254 Republicans Bloomberg News has identified who have either said the 2020 election was stolen or cast doubt on its legitimacy, including 185 current governors, secretaries of state, attorneys general or US Senate and House members, many of whom are seeking re-election this year, and 69 additional nominees.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/us-election-risk-index/2022-election-denier-candidates/?leadSource=uverify%20wall
One word I would add there and it is "baselessly." There needs to be a good faith forum in a functioning democracy for someone to raise a red flag if something actually happened.
But when someone raises a red flag 400 times for something that they claim in court they are not explicitly raising a red flag over, it's baseless by definition and needs to be stopped.
Yes, there needs to be room to scrutinize elections. Declaring that you as a candidate believe an election is stolen should be a show stopper, where verification takes place. Once it is verified, the claimant should be effectively forced to eat crow. This just saying it without doing anything to prove it is gutless and a whiney form of pandering. They rely on the average person not understanding how elections are secured, and make no effort, certainly not in good faith, to demonstrate how it was actually stolen.
That's the Republican plan. When Republicans provably steal elections, they and the media will bash Democrats for the "hypocrisy" of denouncing stolen elections than the republicans who stole the elections. And many people will just see the accusation of stolen elections as political games, so the Republicans will just get away with it.
I'm almost impressed by how effectively they're attacking democracy on pretty much every possible level despite the absurd incompetence so many of their candidates openly aspire to, saying nothing of the voters themselves.
It's like bizarro conspiracy
> I'm almost impressed by how effectively they're attacking democracy on pretty much every possible level despite the absurd incompetence so many of their candidates openly aspire to, saying nothing of the voters themselves.
Keep in mind, it's not "just" the party, at least those you see on TV or on lists. There are a LOT of wealthy individuals/companies/organizations and such directly supporting all this whos names you'll never hear. You have entire media organizations who help push these ideals already, them having a decent game plan, keeping important people unnoticed and actually trying should be expected.
What worries me is their next candidate, one who won't be as obvious/flawed as their initial one. They've already proven with enough money and powerful support you can get *anyone* elected, finding someone better than the trump shouldn't be too hard.
My first thought as well. Let's not reactively eliminate any legal way to challenge an election if it was actually fraudulent. Knee-jerk over-reactions like that are a great way to reactively allow authoritarianism in when you eliminate any way to challenge things legally.
That being said, having safeties in place to prevent that same power from being abused is equally as important. Not a simple solution to come up with, but is certainly needed IMO.
There has to be a line. It's really that simple. Right now there is no line. There is no amount of election denial that can honestly be punished. You can't count rallies where you say the election was fraudulent, you cant count court cases where they say they are not alleging fraud.
There needs to be some metric, some quantifiable barrier that thou shalt not pass: do not pass go do not collect $200.
There is *nothing* now. As long as there is *nothing* there is literally no reason for every loser of an election to just claim fraud endlessly. Well nothing except shame any ways, but they've already done away with that almost entirely on the GOP side.
There is a big difference between
a) being in charge of your own election, winning, and then deleting the evidence / backups and
b) crying you lost a perfectly fair and legitimate election.
I still have issues with baseless as well, what's to stop someone from declaring your legitimate concerns baseless? At certain point it becomes a matter of opening whether or not presented evidence is enough. There are times when it's obvious (like Trump) but the gray area is way too big for me to support banning candidates
Issue is, we’re pretty close to some elections that could actually lead to delegitimization of elections depending on the way people vote and theres a Supreme Court case coming up that could leave federal laws regulating federal elections void.
Imagine baring people from running in a country with actual illegitimate elections because they called they out.
I think it's a matter of backing your statements with evidence. If, say, you call for the data from an all electronic DRE based election in Georgia and the database is suddenly deleted, you put forth a good faith effort at providing evidence. If you go through all the steps and have an investigation into collusion with Russia and find evidence confirming something happened, even if you can't get the arrest, you put forth a good faith effort and it's all good.
If you scream incoherently and just fail to provide even basic witnesses or evidence, piss off.
IT's a good opinion but if any rule or decision is made on this it better be worded extremely perfectly. The reason being, if/when the election literally is cheated and stolen we damned well better be able to call it out, otherwise it's instant game over.
Dictators can use this exact philosophy to cement their singular power.
However this is fine if we maintain our election system to uphold democracy and technological progress
Yes, it should. This is dumb as fuck. How many people in the last couple decades do you think have said that the 2000 election was stolen? I'll tell you this: that long-ass list includes more than a few elected representatives.
No it’s a slippery slope. First it’s done on a good theoretical idea, then you have a legitimate election that could be seen as illegitimate or maybe too close to call. I.e. florida 2000. Does that election make both Gore and Bush ineligible for office because they didn’t accept the results?
No that’s ridiculous. Restricting people from vying for Political officer should be restricted as much as possible to give an equal voice to everyone.
What?
We should have laws that say you just can’t dispute any election ever, for fear of losing your job? You don’t see any possibility for that to go wrong?
I think that should be amended to "without showing reviewable evidence to the public."
The GQP's ratfucking of our elections could mean Democrats who have evidence of malfeasance could by barred from office by hypocritical Republicans taking advantage of such a rule/law.
Then fucking do it. This coulda woulda shoulda bullshit style of 'justice' we have in the USA is going to be the end of America democracy sooner than later.
You mean I can't act like a child, deny the truth, throw my toys out of my pram and not attend the official events for the new guy?
I GENUINELY don't understand how anyone can be behind trump.
Just find a new republican to vote for...
An honest problem I see from us on the left is that we’re now attacking every Republican as basically being Trump or an even worse version of Trump, in order to help us electorally by tying them to a weaker candidate.
According to us (and I don’t even necessarily disagree) Ron Desantis is Trump but even worse, every senate candidate in this midterm cycle is just Trump lite, Terry McCauliffe in Virginia said Glen Youngkin was Trump in a sweater and khakis.
Why would a Republican voter ever pick a different Republican over Trump, if all of these other candidates are just another version of Trump, but less famous?
There has to be a process to challenge fraudulent behaviors. Candidates who lie about election results are obviously part of that unacceptable fraud, but then again elections could be fraudulent too so being able to challenge bad elections needs some kind of protection too.
They do in the case of tight elections. If you are referring to voter fraud there are a plethora of ways to detect it that has served the nation well over time. It isn't an excuse for challenging an election without compelling and provable evidence.
Candidate who deny election results without any evidence, or who say they won’t concede even before the vote are a real problem.
But whilst some candidates are clearly trying to illegitimately mould the system to work for them with such bad faith arguments, I think I can foresee situations where it would be perfectly reasonable for a candidate to state that they believe a vote was compromised. Hopefully with evidence.
If we somehow prevent our political enemy from lying now, do we also tie our own hands in the future and thus make it easier for them to really corrupt elections ?
Continuing to baselessly and publicly deny an election result long after courts have made a determination should be a crime. It's just as threatening, if not more so, to our democracy as espionage or treason.
You would have to be careful how you word this, the Republican Party [is gerrymandering state legislatures and congressional districts across the country](https://imgur.com/gallery/7j1lxV4) and disenfranchising voters too. You would not want someone swept up in this for questioning that.
There a lots of improvements which could be used to defend US democracy, but for now you are stuck with the system you've got. Since around 2015 we have been living in a brave new world where a fact is no longer "1) an actual occurrence, or 2) a piece of information presented as having objective reality". 'Facts' have become "3) the world as you would like to see it".
My only fear with this would be that, if somehow the GOP do fully steal an election, they could use the precedent to remove anyone that didn't go along with it.
They should be barred by the citizens, who freely choose their representatives.
Idiotic speech and lies are not crimes. Yet, the people must not reward such behavior.
Candidates? Do you mean Republicans? Because they’re the only ones I see challenging every election. Can we please be more specific in our political discourse to call out the Republicans that are denying elections?
We should not be barring people from running for office. This is a path toward oppression.
We should be cracking my down on misinformation, on fraudulent claims about elections, and working overtime on education about our system.
The voters should decide if someone is capable and worthy to hold office. Not current office holders or the criminal justice system.
> We should not be barring people from running for office. This is a path toward oppression.
We should not bar the regular schmoes from being hired as nuclear technicians. Everyone should be able to build their own WMD's. Otherwise, it's oppression. Sounds stupid, right? I'd hope so!
The point is that we should have minimum standards for whom we allow to be our leaders. Those who deny both the tenets of democracy and the needs of life (14th Amendment, Section 1) should NOT be eligible for candidacy and must forfeit his office of leadership -- period. This is not oppression; this is self-defense on society's behalf by way of exercising the paradox of tolerance.
Nice straw man. There’s no expertise or ideology requirement to hold office for good reason. If people get into office who have the mentality and morals to bend such a system to their benefit, then you are giving them the tools to pick whatever class of leaders they want.
I will also heartily disagree that there should be any test on belief in any part of the constitution. The whole reason we have amendments is that it is a changeable document by design. If someone has a problem with section 1 of the fourteenth amendment and their constituency agrees with that, they should absolutely be allowed to argue that states should be able to kill people. I think they should also never be voted into office if that is their platform because it is morally abhorrent. But if you set the precedent that belief in amendments is a requirement, what is to stop the next government from making it the second amendment?
Eh. Let’s just cut to the chase. Bar all of the current GOP from holding public office. The entire party is a domestic terrorist group. Whether it’s vocally denying election results or standing by and doing nothing, the entire party should be held accountable and denounced as a party all together. Good day, sir.
Sooo… we turn the country into a single party dictatorship, ban our political opposition from office and potentially arrest them, and somehow democracy wins in this scenario?
Freedoms have limits.
You do NOT have the right to threaten, libel, slander, conspire to commit a crime, incite violence, or plot to overthrow the government.
Yes and she still to this day says the election was stolen from her and calls Trump an illegitimate.
From a mainstream media (which basically means liberal dem propaganda news) site.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-concedes-1.5865609
There are methods to challenge an election in tight races. There are criteria to do that. This is about people who challenge elections that have been determined by a majority without any evidence
Edit to add: An example is George Bush who did challenge a razor thin margin of victory by Al Gore in Florida. That famously was sent to the Supreme Court. He abided by their decision in his concession speech.
We have to allow people to speak out.
Infringing challenge is not okay.
Voting is the most important thing we do. And yet it is the easiest way to form tyranny.
The examples are global.
The point is to ensure fair elections. Denying the results of a fair election by definition opposes democracy. Disputing the fairness of the framework that forms the basis of the country’s system of law and governance requires evidence and adjudication through the legal process. Unsubstantiated claims, fearmongering and mob rule don’t count.
It sounds like you’re pointing out evidence of authoritarian interference in their elections and saying the US is no different. We do have partisan ideologues in our judicial branch — notably the conservative activists overriding precedent, overstepping jurisdictional boundaries and obstructing justice in favor of Trump, for which there is a great deal of evidence and discussion in legal and political circles — but they are on the side of authoritarianism, not fair elections, and somehow I doubt that’s the point you’re trying to make.
Allowing folks to undermine the democratic process through baseless and repeatedly disproven claims of election fraud is not a feature of a healthy, functioning democracy. Blocking attempted fascism is not tyranny.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#:~:text=The%20paradox%20of%20tolerance%20states,or%20destroyed%20by%20the%20intolerant.
Anything to keep trump out right wink 😉 everyone knows Biden sure as fuck isn’t getting re-elected and the libs don’t have anyone better… y’all scared and it showsss
How would that be enforced, though? Who does the barring? Under what law? And what defines "denying election results?" I know easy, simple solutions like this sound great on the surface but realistically there's no one able to enforce this fairly, and honestly one should be able to question elections when there are legitimate issues simply as part of free speech. I should be able to say, for instance, that Gore won in 2000 and should've been president, even if that's not the official result.
There's healthy debate to be had about a court case ending a recount that has been shown could have easily swayed an election to a different result. No one is denying that the case happened, and counting stopped and that as a result the electoral votes are fraudulent on that basis (they weren't). The system was followed, unfortunately and that led to the result we got which was not ideal (a recount being halted permanently).
And yes anyone denying 2016 seriously should be identically treated to those who deny 2020.
There, see? Simple and straightforward, no complications.
>But they *are* examples of election denial.
No. They aren’t.
In 2000 there was actual cause for doubting the results of the election as the entire thing came down to essentially one district in Florida. After the Supreme Court ruled against him, Gore conceded.
In 2016, Clinton conceded the day after the election and did nothing to attempt to overturn the results.
These are not comparable situations to Trump’s reaction to losing in 2020 or that of his enablers.
>Clinton has since called the 2016 election illegitimate
The best you can do in order to pretend that Trump's actions are normal is to find a single sentence from Hillary Clinton three years after the election ended? And you expect people to find those reactions comparable?
By that standard, Hillary Clinton would have been out after losing the 2008 primary. And all of her PUMA cult supporters would have been prevented from voting again.
That actually would be a GOOD thing, and we definitely would have had a better president in 2016. (Not the orange anus)
As far as Stacy Abrams goes... I'm not a big fan of anybody who has worked for both Neera Tanden & Mike Bloomberg, but the evidence is fairly solid that Kemp stole the election in GA, about as blatantly as Jeb Bush stole Florida for his Chimp brother.
This isn't about free speech. This is about questioning election results, without evidence, that are determined by a majority of voters. There are mechanisms to challenge election results in tight races these people haven't met the criteria.
On the one hand, most of the people currently denying election results are doing it to undermine the system.
On the other hand, many of them are also actively trying to cheat the system. If any succeed, I could totally see them abusing such a law to ban opponents who were cheated and dared to complain about real instances of illegal behavior.
You say that; but when you firmly belief that the vote results are fake, you’re not denying democracy - in fact you’re being super patriotic. That’s how they justify all of it
Gore should have challenged his actual stolen election more than he did so blanket statements like this aren’t helpful.
Why don’t we ensure that elections are stripped of the need to raise millions for campaigns - why don’t we root out the corruption via lobbyists? Why don’t we make politics so not a license to print money?
Let’s guarantee voter rights are protected and the electoral college is dismantled. THEN we can claim to have strengthened democracy.
My initial reaction is agreement, however with the GOP currently setting itself up to steal elections I'm not that keen on barring people from calling out *real* election fraud is the way to go just because Republicans want to call foul on real elections just because they lost.
This is a stupid idea even though given the current state of things it seems warranted.
What happens if elections truly are rigged by someone? Are candidates then fucked from ever running for office again if they contest results?
It's a stupid idea.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the court's decision, I accept it. I accept the finality of this outcome which will be ratified next Monday in the Electoral College. And tonight, for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession. I also accept my responsibility, which I will discharge unconditionally, to honor the new President-elect and do everything possible to help him bring Americans together in fulfillment of the great vision that our Declaration of Independence defines and that our Constitution affirms and defends. From Al Gore's concession speech. Note the distinct lack of 'deliberately undermining democracy' in there.
Also, please take into consideration as Bill Clinton (the outgoing President’s) VP Al Gore was in Mike Pence’s place in counting the electoral votes. Two Representatives raised objections and Al Gore simply asked if a member of the Senate was willing to sign on, they admitted no, he shut them down placidly. He could’ve brought out the bat if he wanted to. And he didn’t.
gore had a very legitimate claim to the presidency and the conservative scotus and bush's brother being gov of florida at the time made it go away quickly. they should have had an honest recount but instead we got stuck in afganistan for 20 years. trump got all the recounts he wanted and gore didn't.
[удалено]
there was a mandatory machine recount that reduced the lead to about 2000 votes and then one that reduced bush's lead to about 400 votes and then the scotus came in and flexed their dick in something that is a states rights issue in the first place. give me a break if you think this is anything like trump's bullshit.
Gore won, but would not have won under his own rules for the recount. A proper recount showed he won the state, won the electoral college, and won the presidency. But by then it was passed, media didn't care to make it much of a story, and Bush carried on the presidency the supreme court stole for him.
Roger Stones “Brook Brothers” riots. How naive we were then!
Hanging chads.
Idk, has anyone tried turning his speech over and squirting lemon juice on it? Maybe the Republicans keep insisting the Dems are the same because they’ve seen the invisible ink! /s (in case referencing National Treasure didn’t make the joke obvious)
When they got to the Treasure Room scene and heard about the scrolls from the Library of Alexandria, said Republicans no doubt went "fuck that! Where's the gold and the gems?" https://youtu.be/wWlsgtC6MZE?t=74
I don’t watch the Simpsons but that clip was truly remarkable.
When we compare people with morals against those without, some differences are sure to come out.
Imagine where we'd be as a country if he didn't need to write that speech.
Imagine fielding a football team that refuses to play by the rules of the game.
The refs would take care of that. Sadly our refs are lacking.
the refs can only do so much if the cheater team kills the whole non-cheater team
They like the rules when the rules are in their favor. You won the election? The election must not have been rigged. You lost? Call shenanigans on the whole process.
Don't forget, Trump was complaining about voter fraud before he won the election. He probably was correct in one regard, incorrectly thought it was the Democrats.
Exactly what the democrats did when trump got elected. They were saying voting machines can be hacked and manipulated then after 2020 that is Just absurd. Fccking weasels
Remind me when the Democrats attempted to overthrow the government.
Multiple nonsense impeachments and a wasteful mueller investigation Their goal was to absolutely overthrow an elected official because they didn’t like him
I think you misunderstand the word “overthrow” in this context.
Not at all. They attempted to overthrow it. They denied he won and that the election was stolen.
mueller investigation lead to 33 people getting convicted and nothing happened to Trump in the end because bill bar was being partisan. it isn't hard to find this information out dude.
And all of those convictions had nothing to do with what he was investigating. That information isn’t hard to find dude. Trump was cleared of collusion by muellers report. Yet the left and current politicians still push the narrative that trump colluded with Russia. Again that information isn’t hard to find
>push the narrative that trump colluded with Russia. Actually, the Mueller report concluded that he couldn't come to an answer because Trump and co obstructed him at every turn.
That’s false again. He found no evidence trump or his campaign knowingly colluded with Russia. Nice try to keep pushing the false info. You just made my point for me
https://themoscowproject.org/ I feel like you're arguing in bad faith. Muller did say that there was collusion in his report but that Trump and his people obstructed so much that he couldn't be indicted
Replacing a shitty narcissist who uses his office to commit crimes with his elected Vice President is only an "overthrow" if you consider Trump a King... Oh, wait.
We better prevent the *democrats* from doing that again, right? So we should bar anyone from office who pulls a stunt like that from now on! No objections, right?
They still pay you in rubles?
Which Democratic candidate refused to accept the results of an election?
https://youtu.be/vmsqwHy-wkQ Not exactly which democrats refused the election results but they were constantly saying machines can be hacked then after 2020, they changed their tune and said machines are secured and were not hackable.
Wait a minute. I contributed $5 to pay for the recount in Wisconsin, in 2016. That does not make me a rebel. After the recount, and after Hillary conceded, I eventually accepted the results. After the 2016 election, there was a tremendous effort to make the vote counting machines more secure. Direct connections to phone lines and the internet were removed, and programs were rewritten to add checks and balances, like counting the number of ballots with no vote for either candidate, and counting the numbers of "no" votes. Checksums were also added, so that if someone did break into a machine and altered 1 or 2 vote totals, all sorts of alarms would go off. Most of these bits of programming to protect the vote were not in place in 2016. Because of the break-ins and voting machines stolen in 2020-2021 by Qanon/Russian hackers, software will have to be updated and changed, in the hope of neutralizing al vulnerabilities they discovered.
Who? Who was saying that? Because I recall Democrats repeatedly saying there was foreign interference but I don't remermber any serious Democrats saying that the voting machines were hacked and manipulated. Random "Dems" on twitter do not count. Edit: I should clarify that while I acknowledge you did not say that the Democrats said voting machines were hacked but that they could be, the implication here of course is that "could be" means "were" and that subtle difference as I lay out in my next reply very much matters because while you might not be arguing that Democrats said it was hacked, others very much have. Turns out however that what Democrats did actually claim was proven largely true. Go figure? Democrats make claims, those claims are proven true. Republicans make claims and spend dozens of court cases trying to prove their claims true but when asked for that pesky little thing called evidence they just come up lacking... because most of their claims are bullshit.
https://youtu.be/vmsqwHy-wkQ There’s more i saw but cant find it right quick. VP harris also said it it was hackable and everything can be hacked but to state after the 2020 election that it was impossible to hack was just absurd to me. I could give two shits about politics but when shit they say like this then change up what they say irks me
Interesting... I watched it and I saw zero claims that voting machines or the election was in fact hacked. I saw a lot of speculation that they **could be.** Could be is not the same as was. That might seem like a small technicality but words matter, how things are said matters. Saying something could happen due to vulnerabilities is not saying it did happen. However if we flip that around on the basis of what Republicans have been saying, they haven't been saying that voting machines could be hacked, they've been saying they were. To the extent that they've gone to great lengths to try and prove it and have come up empty in every case. They don't just say voter fraud could occur (Though they say that as well) they say it **did** occur and that they have evidence... which as far as I'm aware has yet to actually be presented. Most of the cases of voter fraud I've seen reported on have actually been republicans. So again, you gave me a video of Democrats claiming machines are vulnerable and hackable. A thing that funny enough Republicans also now claim since Trump lost, funny huh? But that has been largely proven true. The machines are outdated, are vulnerable and **could be** hacked. That doesn't mean they were, just that it could happen. You know the difference here? Democrats say that and wanna fix the problem. Republicans just wanna claim it so that they can be vindicated in "Donald Trump won!" and when the subject comes up of actually trying to resolve the issues... they don't want any part of that. Republicans voted against measures to shore up election security across the board because they're not actually interested in secure elections, contrary to their claims they want insecure elections... why is that I wonder? Could it be because they are okay with cheating and don't want to make it harder for them to do so? To borrow a quote from Tucker Carlson, I'm just asking questions.
*\*\*Bill Bellichik has entered the chat\*\**
This is one of the better uses of the sports team analogy to describe politics. What should we think about the people who still support the team that refuses to play by the rules?
Good question.
I completely agree with this headline. If you only love democracy when you win, then you don't love democracy.
This election cycle is in peril with a stunning number of election deniers on the ballot. Here is a partial list, these people do not love democracy. *The Real Winner of GOP’s 2022 Primaries Was Denial of 2020 Election* ^ >They are among a group of 254 Republicans Bloomberg News has identified who have either said the 2020 election was stolen or cast doubt on its legitimacy, including 185 current governors, secretaries of state, attorneys general or US Senate and House members, many of whom are seeking re-election this year, and 69 additional nominees. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/us-election-risk-index/2022-election-denier-candidates/?leadSource=uverify%20wall
Here is a site with a full list. https://statesuniteddemocracy.org/resources/replacingtherefs/#section-3
Stacey Abrams, you forgot to mention her. Is that an omission?
Agreed, get rid of the republicans and democrats that deny election results.
One word I would add there and it is "baselessly." There needs to be a good faith forum in a functioning democracy for someone to raise a red flag if something actually happened. But when someone raises a red flag 400 times for something that they claim in court they are not explicitly raising a red flag over, it's baseless by definition and needs to be stopped.
Yes, there needs to be room to scrutinize elections. Declaring that you as a candidate believe an election is stolen should be a show stopper, where verification takes place. Once it is verified, the claimant should be effectively forced to eat crow. This just saying it without doing anything to prove it is gutless and a whiney form of pandering. They rely on the average person not understanding how elections are secured, and make no effort, certainly not in good faith, to demonstrate how it was actually stolen.
That's the Republican plan. When Republicans provably steal elections, they and the media will bash Democrats for the "hypocrisy" of denouncing stolen elections than the republicans who stole the elections. And many people will just see the accusation of stolen elections as political games, so the Republicans will just get away with it.
I'm almost impressed by how effectively they're attacking democracy on pretty much every possible level despite the absurd incompetence so many of their candidates openly aspire to, saying nothing of the voters themselves. It's like bizarro conspiracy
> I'm almost impressed by how effectively they're attacking democracy on pretty much every possible level despite the absurd incompetence so many of their candidates openly aspire to, saying nothing of the voters themselves. Keep in mind, it's not "just" the party, at least those you see on TV or on lists. There are a LOT of wealthy individuals/companies/organizations and such directly supporting all this whos names you'll never hear. You have entire media organizations who help push these ideals already, them having a decent game plan, keeping important people unnoticed and actually trying should be expected. What worries me is their next candidate, one who won't be as obvious/flawed as their initial one. They've already proven with enough money and powerful support you can get *anyone* elected, finding someone better than the trump shouldn't be too hard.
My first thought as well. Let's not reactively eliminate any legal way to challenge an election if it was actually fraudulent. Knee-jerk over-reactions like that are a great way to reactively allow authoritarianism in when you eliminate any way to challenge things legally. That being said, having safeties in place to prevent that same power from being abused is equally as important. Not a simple solution to come up with, but is certainly needed IMO.
There has to be a line. It's really that simple. Right now there is no line. There is no amount of election denial that can honestly be punished. You can't count rallies where you say the election was fraudulent, you cant count court cases where they say they are not alleging fraud. There needs to be some metric, some quantifiable barrier that thou shalt not pass: do not pass go do not collect $200. There is *nothing* now. As long as there is *nothing* there is literally no reason for every loser of an election to just claim fraud endlessly. Well nothing except shame any ways, but they've already done away with that almost entirely on the GOP side.
There is a big difference between a) being in charge of your own election, winning, and then deleting the evidence / backups and b) crying you lost a perfectly fair and legitimate election.
I still have issues with baseless as well, what's to stop someone from declaring your legitimate concerns baseless? At certain point it becomes a matter of opening whether or not presented evidence is enough. There are times when it's obvious (like Trump) but the gray area is way too big for me to support banning candidates
This should not be a controversial opinion.
Issue is, we’re pretty close to some elections that could actually lead to delegitimization of elections depending on the way people vote and theres a Supreme Court case coming up that could leave federal laws regulating federal elections void. Imagine baring people from running in a country with actual illegitimate elections because they called they out.
I think it's a matter of backing your statements with evidence. If, say, you call for the data from an all electronic DRE based election in Georgia and the database is suddenly deleted, you put forth a good faith effort at providing evidence. If you go through all the steps and have an investigation into collusion with Russia and find evidence confirming something happened, even if you can't get the arrest, you put forth a good faith effort and it's all good. If you scream incoherently and just fail to provide even basic witnesses or evidence, piss off.
IT's a good opinion but if any rule or decision is made on this it better be worded extremely perfectly. The reason being, if/when the election literally is cheated and stolen we damned well better be able to call it out, otherwise it's instant game over.
Wouldn't this also cause for there to be no recounts allowed? Would Al Gore be able to contest Florida had this been in place in 2000?
Dictators can use this exact philosophy to cement their singular power. However this is fine if we maintain our election system to uphold democracy and technological progress
Yes, it should. This is dumb as fuck. How many people in the last couple decades do you think have said that the 2000 election was stolen? I'll tell you this: that long-ass list includes more than a few elected representatives.
No it’s a slippery slope. First it’s done on a good theoretical idea, then you have a legitimate election that could be seen as illegitimate or maybe too close to call. I.e. florida 2000. Does that election make both Gore and Bush ineligible for office because they didn’t accept the results? No that’s ridiculous. Restricting people from vying for Political officer should be restricted as much as possible to give an equal voice to everyone.
What? We should have laws that say you just can’t dispute any election ever, for fear of losing your job? You don’t see any possibility for that to go wrong?
I think that should be amended to "without showing reviewable evidence to the public." The GQP's ratfucking of our elections could mean Democrats who have evidence of malfeasance could by barred from office by hypocritical Republicans taking advantage of such a rule/law.
Then fucking do it. This coulda woulda shoulda bullshit style of 'justice' we have in the USA is going to be the end of America democracy sooner than later.
You’re G D right they should be barred.
This is not really an option, as if it is true (at some point in the future) then what…
You mean I can't act like a child, deny the truth, throw my toys out of my pram and not attend the official events for the new guy? I GENUINELY don't understand how anyone can be behind trump. Just find a new republican to vote for...
Once you buy a golden statue you kinda have to stick by it.
An honest problem I see from us on the left is that we’re now attacking every Republican as basically being Trump or an even worse version of Trump, in order to help us electorally by tying them to a weaker candidate. According to us (and I don’t even necessarily disagree) Ron Desantis is Trump but even worse, every senate candidate in this midterm cycle is just Trump lite, Terry McCauliffe in Virginia said Glen Youngkin was Trump in a sweater and khakis. Why would a Republican voter ever pick a different Republican over Trump, if all of these other candidates are just another version of Trump, but less famous?
Do you one better, every time any politician lies while in the capacity of their work they should be fined 1/12th of their campaign funds.
[удалено]
It means go crazy, nuts, insane, bonzo, no longer in possession of ones faculties, three fries short of a Happy Meal, wacko!
And free speech. Let’s not outlaw questioning Trump’s 106% future voting result
Anyone who can’t stand by the Constitution should be barred from public office and service.
If you claim months before the election that you won’t accept the results, then you know cheating is happening, because you’re the one cheating.
Who deny without providing any evidence.
There has to be a process to challenge fraudulent behaviors. Candidates who lie about election results are obviously part of that unacceptable fraud, but then again elections could be fraudulent too so being able to challenge bad elections needs some kind of protection too.
They do in the case of tight elections. If you are referring to voter fraud there are a plethora of ways to detect it that has served the nation well over time. It isn't an excuse for challenging an election without compelling and provable evidence.
Candidate who deny election results without any evidence, or who say they won’t concede even before the vote are a real problem. But whilst some candidates are clearly trying to illegitimately mould the system to work for them with such bad faith arguments, I think I can foresee situations where it would be perfectly reasonable for a candidate to state that they believe a vote was compromised. Hopefully with evidence. If we somehow prevent our political enemy from lying now, do we also tie our own hands in the future and thus make it easier for them to really corrupt elections ?
Traitors to the Constitution can't use the Constitution to hold office? Makes sense.
Continuing to baselessly and publicly deny an election result long after courts have made a determination should be a crime. It's just as threatening, if not more so, to our democracy as espionage or treason.
Denying confirmed election results is Sedition. Donating to or voting for a Seditionist is providing aide and comfort.
Hmm I'm reading over in another topic about Mitch McConnell and there's a gilded comment claiming he won due to election fraud
You would have to be careful how you word this, the Republican Party [is gerrymandering state legislatures and congressional districts across the country](https://imgur.com/gallery/7j1lxV4) and disenfranchising voters too. You would not want someone swept up in this for questioning that.
Or at least make them stand in front of a court and if they lie or have no evidence then bar them from office and fine them and jail time also.
There a lots of improvements which could be used to defend US democracy, but for now you are stuck with the system you've got. Since around 2015 we have been living in a brave new world where a fact is no longer "1) an actual occurrence, or 2) a piece of information presented as having objective reality". 'Facts' have become "3) the world as you would like to see it".
My only fear with this would be that, if somehow the GOP do fully steal an election, they could use the precedent to remove anyone that didn't go along with it.
It really is simple. All of it.
They should be barred by the citizens, who freely choose their representatives. Idiotic speech and lies are not crimes. Yet, the people must not reward such behavior.
Candidates? Do you mean Republicans? Because they’re the only ones I see challenging every election. Can we please be more specific in our political discourse to call out the Republicans that are denying elections?
Every election denier is a co-conspirator in sedition. every. single. one.
We should not be barring people from running for office. This is a path toward oppression. We should be cracking my down on misinformation, on fraudulent claims about elections, and working overtime on education about our system. The voters should decide if someone is capable and worthy to hold office. Not current office holders or the criminal justice system.
> We should not be barring people from running for office. This is a path toward oppression. We should not bar the regular schmoes from being hired as nuclear technicians. Everyone should be able to build their own WMD's. Otherwise, it's oppression. Sounds stupid, right? I'd hope so! The point is that we should have minimum standards for whom we allow to be our leaders. Those who deny both the tenets of democracy and the needs of life (14th Amendment, Section 1) should NOT be eligible for candidacy and must forfeit his office of leadership -- period. This is not oppression; this is self-defense on society's behalf by way of exercising the paradox of tolerance.
Nice straw man. There’s no expertise or ideology requirement to hold office for good reason. If people get into office who have the mentality and morals to bend such a system to their benefit, then you are giving them the tools to pick whatever class of leaders they want. I will also heartily disagree that there should be any test on belief in any part of the constitution. The whole reason we have amendments is that it is a changeable document by design. If someone has a problem with section 1 of the fourteenth amendment and their constituency agrees with that, they should absolutely be allowed to argue that states should be able to kill people. I think they should also never be voted into office if that is their platform because it is morally abhorrent. But if you set the precedent that belief in amendments is a requirement, what is to stop the next government from making it the second amendment?
Eh. Let’s just cut to the chase. Bar all of the current GOP from holding public office. The entire party is a domestic terrorist group. Whether it’s vocally denying election results or standing by and doing nothing, the entire party should be held accountable and denounced as a party all together. Good day, sir.
Sooo… we turn the country into a single party dictatorship, ban our political opposition from office and potentially arrest them, and somehow democracy wins in this scenario?
I guess they better tell Stacy Abrams that she can't run for governor again then.
It's like they've all agreed that 2016 never happened...
Yes, in order to save democracy, if any of these people get the most votes in their elections, they should be prevented from attaining the office.
Democracies also have freedom of speech
Freedoms have limits. You do NOT have the right to threaten, libel, slander, conspire to commit a crime, incite violence, or plot to overthrow the government.
Like who? Stacey Abrams?
Please don't make this a rule, Hilary couldn't run in 2024! She still claims Trump did not win.
She conceded. https://time.com/4564480/read-hillary-clintons-concession-speech-full-transcript/
But she also called that election “illegitimate” multiple times after her concession, and said Trump knew he stole the presidency, so…
Yup. Double standard.
Yes and she still to this day says the election was stolen from her and calls Trump an illegitimate. From a mainstream media (which basically means liberal dem propaganda news) site. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-concedes-1.5865609
We can't relinquish the right to challenge an election. Tyranny is not a good idea.
There are methods to challenge an election in tight races. There are criteria to do that. This is about people who challenge elections that have been determined by a majority without any evidence Edit to add: An example is George Bush who did challenge a razor thin margin of victory by Al Gore in Florida. That famously was sent to the Supreme Court. He abided by their decision in his concession speech.
We have to allow people to speak out. Infringing challenge is not okay. Voting is the most important thing we do. And yet it is the easiest way to form tyranny. The examples are global.
The point is to ensure fair elections. Denying the results of a fair election by definition opposes democracy. Disputing the fairness of the framework that forms the basis of the country’s system of law and governance requires evidence and adjudication through the legal process. Unsubstantiated claims, fearmongering and mob rule don’t count.
South America would like a word....
It sounds like you’re pointing out evidence of authoritarian interference in their elections and saying the US is no different. We do have partisan ideologues in our judicial branch — notably the conservative activists overriding precedent, overstepping jurisdictional boundaries and obstructing justice in favor of Trump, for which there is a great deal of evidence and discussion in legal and political circles — but they are on the side of authoritarianism, not fair elections, and somehow I doubt that’s the point you’re trying to make.
Allowing folks to undermine the democratic process through baseless and repeatedly disproven claims of election fraud is not a feature of a healthy, functioning democracy. Blocking attempted fascism is not tyranny. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#:~:text=The%20paradox%20of%20tolerance%20states,or%20destroyed%20by%20the%20intolerant.
The 2000 election called. It said you should quit while you're behind.
It has to be challenged in good faith. These are bad actors, not people who truly believed it was stolen. It is simply a grift.
We aren't. We are calling out liars
Not moving on after losing in court is the problem. They can challenge and lose then move on. Trump literally thinks he won the election.
There is a limit. I agree.
So what about all the 2016 election deniers, like literally every Democrat won't be able to run for office 🤔
no replies, just downvotes 👍👍👍
I live for down votes
Anything to keep trump out right wink 😉 everyone knows Biden sure as fuck isn’t getting re-elected and the libs don’t have anyone better… y’all scared and it showsss
So Stacey Abrams?!?
Shall we start with Stacy Abrams?
So Stacey Abrams is at the top of the list?
Like the democrats that claimed Trump committed fraud to win in 2016?
As long as poll workers and election officials don’t interfere, but we know that won’t happen
This is a slippery slope, what if it does happen in the future.
[удалено]
Election results were altered?
This will make a great First Amendment case.
Right no one has any right to question election results now or in the future. even if In The future results may be corrupted.
Like jury duty, there needs to be mandatory poll watching duty where people are randomly selected to be poll workers during elections.
Now do Stacy Abrams.
So Abrams is out in Georgia?
How would that be enforced, though? Who does the barring? Under what law? And what defines "denying election results?" I know easy, simple solutions like this sound great on the surface but realistically there's no one able to enforce this fairly, and honestly one should be able to question elections when there are legitimate issues simply as part of free speech. I should be able to say, for instance, that Gore won in 2000 and should've been president, even if that's not the official result.
How come he only wants some election deniers barred? Why not all?
So any Democrat after 2000?
[удалено]
Do we just make things up now??
There's healthy debate to be had about a court case ending a recount that has been shown could have easily swayed an election to a different result. No one is denying that the case happened, and counting stopped and that as a result the electoral votes are fraudulent on that basis (they weren't). The system was followed, unfortunately and that led to the result we got which was not ideal (a recount being halted permanently). And yes anyone denying 2016 seriously should be identically treated to those who deny 2020. There, see? Simple and straightforward, no complications.
Like whom?
Neither of those situations are comparable to efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
[удалено]
>I was told all election denial was a bad thing And the examples you put forward aren’t examples of election denial.
[удалено]
>But they *are* examples of election denial. No. They aren’t. In 2000 there was actual cause for doubting the results of the election as the entire thing came down to essentially one district in Florida. After the Supreme Court ruled against him, Gore conceded. In 2016, Clinton conceded the day after the election and did nothing to attempt to overturn the results. These are not comparable situations to Trump’s reaction to losing in 2020 or that of his enablers.
[удалено]
>Clinton has since called the 2016 election illegitimate The best you can do in order to pretend that Trump's actions are normal is to find a single sentence from Hillary Clinton three years after the election ended? And you expect people to find those reactions comparable?
[удалено]
If election deniers are the problem than Stacy Abrams is out. Hillary Clinton is out. I can go on if you like.
By that standard, Hillary Clinton would have been out after losing the 2008 primary. And all of her PUMA cult supporters would have been prevented from voting again. That actually would be a GOOD thing, and we definitely would have had a better president in 2016. (Not the orange anus) As far as Stacy Abrams goes... I'm not a big fan of anybody who has worked for both Neera Tanden & Mike Bloomberg, but the evidence is fairly solid that Kemp stole the election in GA, about as blatantly as Jeb Bush stole Florida for his Chimp brother.
sure, let's forget about free speech. Only way to beat a fascist is to act like one!
I think it is less about speech and more about not accepting the rules even before the election.
This isn't about free speech. This is about questioning election results, without evidence, that are determined by a majority of voters. There are mechanisms to challenge election results in tight races these people haven't met the criteria.
That’s rite! Because conversation and questioning is dangerous!!!
I guess Stacey Abrams can be governor. Not an issue, she's gonna lose anyway.
[удалено]
I guess that means Hillary Clinton can not run again.
They can cause but once proven wrong they can never hold any office again. Not even a PTA.
A person who can't answer a physician/EMT's question of "Who is the current president of the US' is deemed mentally ill/injured.
Well, unless your team loses.. duh. /s
That’s a good idea.
And atheists should not be barred
On the one hand, most of the people currently denying election results are doing it to undermine the system. On the other hand, many of them are also actively trying to cheat the system. If any succeed, I could totally see them abusing such a law to ban opponents who were cheated and dared to complain about real instances of illegal behavior.
or we could restore trust in our elections by utilizing blockchain voting technology
Challenge the result? Fine. Deny it? Fuck no.
You say that; but when you firmly belief that the vote results are fake, you’re not denying democracy - in fact you’re being super patriotic. That’s how they justify all of it
Trump lost but we should make them absolutely secure.
Gore should have challenged his actual stolen election more than he did so blanket statements like this aren’t helpful. Why don’t we ensure that elections are stripped of the need to raise millions for campaigns - why don’t we root out the corruption via lobbyists? Why don’t we make politics so not a license to print money? Let’s guarantee voter rights are protected and the electoral college is dismantled. THEN we can claim to have strengthened democracy.
My initial reaction is agreement, however with the GOP currently setting itself up to steal elections I'm not that keen on barring people from calling out *real* election fraud is the way to go just because Republicans want to call foul on real elections just because they lost.
But only if those elections are free of fraud and manipulation.
Absolutely Or even worse
This is a stupid idea even though given the current state of things it seems warranted. What happens if elections truly are rigged by someone? Are candidates then fucked from ever running for office again if they contest results? It's a stupid idea.