[syshum]

Clearly election security is perfect when Democrats win, but if Republicans win then Russia stole it

//for the record I think both results are valid and we just see cry baby partisans in action on both sides, in 2016 and 2020. It is pure tribalism and I am not a member of either tribe

[SamBam]

No prominent Democrats actually argued that Donald Trump wasn't actually the president, or that the transition shouldn't happen, or that election officials should be shot.

"#NotMyPresident" was a statement of dissatisfaction, and a belief that Trump won the election unfairly, not a statement claiming that Trump was not legally the president. It was also never espoused by members of the government.

There's a difference between saying someone won by underhanded tactics and saying that someone didn't actually win and isn't legally the president. The two are not comparable.

[jpttsn]

It’s so easy to get unlucky with hashtags, am I right? I heard Twitter is working on a program to label hashtags that ignorant people keep taking too literally.

It’s baffling that #NotMyPresident would somehow give you the idea that Trump was not legally the president.

[SamBam]

Did a single member of government or member of the DNC ever use that hashtag?

I don't care what some no-name Twitter account says, any more than we should attribute the many, many threats of violence towards Biden and his associates to the Republican party as a whole.

Bob in Connecticut using a hashtag is different from the President and many members of Congress baselessly stating, again and again, that his opponent literally faked 7 million ballots and disenfranchised the will of the American people.

[syshum]

aside from your subjective view as to what constitutes a "prominent Democrat" Hilary Clinton her self stated multiple times that election was stolen from her.

Multiple News personalities dedicated billions of dollars in air time to the meh Russia Stole the election narrative for 3.5 years.

So miss me with your partisan moral grandstanding

[SamBam]

Clinton gave her concession speech the day after the election. She said in it "We owe Donald Trump an open mind and a chance to lead."[1] She approved of Obama starting the transition process as soon as possible.

She didn't initiate a single court-case that tried to reverse the results of the election, or throw out votes. She didn't call up individual state electors to talk them into changing their vote.

There's a big difference in saying "my opponent may have broken the law/a foreign government tried to interfere in our election" vs. actually claiming that 7 million votes were fraudulently added and suing to overturn the results of a democratic election. I'm sorry if you can't see that the matter of scale is a serious distinction.

1. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-concession-spee...

[dredmorbius]

Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections

ICA 2017-01D 6 January 2017

Key Judgments

Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations.

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments. ...

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

[mrguyorama]

How many people involved in Trump's campaign went to prison or were otherwise convicted of doing shady shit with russians and money?

Wasn't it close to 20?