[POLL] Let’s say Trump did win the election...

[OgNasty]

I think at this point even if the election was rigged, we should focus on fixing the problems going forward. Having Trump continue to be president after Biden was widely announced as the winner would be a strange asterisk on election results that would be an embarrassment to America. While this is the most typical 2020 election result we could have expected, I’m not sure we want to carry this on beyond January 20th.

What do you think? Is it about who rightly won or respecting the given outcome?

[1714686308]

1714686308

[1714686308]

1714686308

[1714686308]

1714686308

[BADecker]

Living a lie is living in failure, even if the failure becomes apparent down the road.

If the people want evil and corruption, then everything that Trump can do won't stop the evil.

Getting out of the evil by letting the truth of the election be forthcoming, and then acting on it, is a great start towards truth. Most people want the truth. Accepting evil won't bring them greater truth than accepting good.

[squatz1]

I mean if Trump really did win the election, that would assume that election fraud is really happening and Trump wasn’t able to prove it. I think all of that can’t really be true at the same time due to the fact that Donald Trump has the full force of the DOJ and FBI and (insert more alphabet agencies names here) to help him prove his case to the American people.

Plus like — are you paying off local people at county level to make this all happen? No on ends up speaking and blowing all of this up? Sounds very unlikely.

But if Trump did win the election and was unable to prove that there was fraud, then Joe Biden wins. It’s not up to Biden to show he won legitimately, it’s up to Trump and his team to prove fraud occurred.

[RevealJS]

Is it about who rightly won or respecting the given outcome?
Tough choice, either way the people seem to lose.

Would it be better for America’s faith in the election system to give Biden the presidency?
Almost everyone I know doesn't have faith in the election system. It's always set up to favor the ruling class, and most people either don't care, or know there is nothing we can really do.

[theymos]

It depends very much on your definitions. First of all, "won" is legally defined by whatever happens on Jan 6. Even if all of the voting machines were hacked, that wouldn't invalidate the result of Jan 6. States are responsible for sending in the correct electoral votes, and then Congress is responsible for overseeing them on Jan 6; any mistakes, errors, or fraud involved in this process don't invalidate the final result. The US is based on the electoral college system, administered by each state individually, not a straight nationwide democratic vote. To some degree, it is and is intended to be a political process rather than a "mathematical" process. Some people say that Trump didn't really win in 2016 because he lost the popular vote. Some people will say that Trump did win in 2020 because of various theories about how the election was rigged. But these don't determine the result.

(Ultimately, even the electoral college result doesn't really determine who wins: the Constitution is not a magical scroll that will strike dead anyone who defies it; whoever is sitting in the oval office with the powers of the President of the United States on Jan 21 is the person who really won, regardless of how he got there.)

It also depends on your view of "best for the country". As an ancap, I think that it'd be best for people to lose faith in government, for US nationalism to degrade, and for the US to eventually fall apart. (Probably it'd fall apart into smaller governments, not into an ancap utopia as I'd prefer, but smaller governments are better than bigger governments.) Therefore, based on my understanding of what'd be best for the people of the US in the long-term, it's best to see chaos here. I'd love to see Trump somehow stay president (even though there's <0.1% chance of this happening): this power struggle itself would degrade the US's cohesion significantly, Trump is a chaos agent, Trump is less competent at wielding the office of the presidency, and those policies that he does successfully pursue tend to be a bit better than the average president anyway.

Now, if you're a US nationalist, then you should definitely want Biden to smoothly take power without much lingering doubt as to the fairness of the process. Even if it was generally agreed that Trump had won fair and square, I'd been thinking pre-election that even this could lead to states like California moving away from the US and toward secession. If Trump somehow remained president at this point, you'd almost certainly see widespread secessionist movements by blue states, if he wasn't outright assassinated first by one of the millions of people absolutely incensed by this event. A huge secessionist movement like this is something I'd like to see, but not something that US nationalists will want. Nationalists should also be worried, though, that Biden is just going to continue the status quo, which is totally unsustainable. Congress is too often deadlocked, passed bills are rare, sane passed bills are even more rare, the system has been 95% on autopilot for decades, and too much power is being concentrated into a bloated executive branch. It reminds me a lot of the late Republic period of ancient Rome. If things continue on their present course, we will eventually see either a dissolution of the Union or a restructuring toward dictatorship. If you want the US to stay together and not become a dictatorship, probably you should want some reforms and constitutional amendments to do things like:
 - Reducing federal power overall, giving more power to local authorities so that California can go one way while Georgia goes another on many issues.
 - Reducing the executive branch's relative power, such as by reinstating the legislative veto and allowing/encouraging the judicial branch to fight against the administrative state to a greater extent instead of deferring to them.
 - Reversing those reforms from the Progressive Era which increased direct democracy and weakened the political parties as institutions. In particular, primaries should be replaced by more exclusive caucuses again, and Senators should be appointed by state legislatures again.
 - I think it'd help if it was much less possible for presidents to get a majority of electoral votes, so that Congress had to tiebreak more often. Maybe this could be done by requiring that each state allocate electors proportionally rather than winner-take-all.
 - Many schools and (especially) universities inculcate anti-nationalist worldviews, which leads people to want to use national institutions for their own ends instead of wanting to preserve/defend national institutions. If you're a nationalist, then you'd want schools/universities to instead inculcate nationalist worldviews.

[Gyfts]

You can't ever go by who "rightly" won because that leads a subjective interpretation. You go by the raw vote totals -- electoral college votes with respect to the raw vote totals -- winner is decided and takes office on Jan. 21st. There isn't really any other way to win.

For my view, the person who "rightly" won *is* the person who won. It's not an either-or situation.

[BADecker]

Election fraud has been going on for 30 years or more. Trump won in 2916 because the Dems weren't expecting him to use election fraud to win. But they were prepared in 2020, and did the election fraud in such large amounts, that Trump wasn't expecting it. Of course, the Dems only proved their criminal attitude this way.

The whole idea behind Trump getting in, in the first place was, so that he could get rid of the corruption. If Biden gets in, the corruption expands. If Trump gets in, the corruptions subsides to a great extent.

That's what the whole election controversy is about, in a nut shell.

[Tzupy]

If Biden will become POTUS, then the following will happen (it is known, the Democrats don't hide these goals):
1. two more states will be added, Puerto Rico and DC, so four more Democrat senators, for a comfortable Senate majority.
2. SCOTUS will be packed, meaning that the total number of Justices will be 13, and the 4 new Justices will be obviously Democrat.
3. the Electoral College will be terminated, POTUS will be elected by direct vote.
4. citizenship will be granted to ~22 million illegal immigrants, leading to effectively one-party-rule.

[Poker Player]

I believe that the one who has legally won should rule, be it Trump or Biden. Voter fraud is not foolish and letting someone who has done fraud rule simply so that the United States does not look like a banana republic in the eyes of the world would set a very dangerous precedent. In addition, if fraud has occurred and is ultimately proven, in the future whoever is in a position to attempt fraud will think twice, so I think the reason is twofold.

[TwitchySeal]

If he really did win, he sure fucked up by telling lie after lie after lie about this election Election.  (And the 2016 Election.  And all the stuff in between.)  

If Biden will become POTUS, then the following will happen (it is known, the Democrats don't hide these goals):
1. two more states will be added, Puerto Rico and DC, so four more Democrat senators, for a comfortable Senate majority.
2. SCOTUS will be packed, meaning that the total number of Justices will be 13, and the 4 new Justices will be obviously Democrat.
3. the Electoral College will be terminated, POTUS will be elected by direct vote.
4. citizenship will be granted to ~22 million illegal immigrants, leading to effectively one-party-rule.

The Republicans will very likely keep control of the Senate, making 1, 2, and 3 extremely unlikely unless the Democrats take it during the midterms. Bet even if all those things happened, it wouldn't mean all of the sudden the Democrats would all get along and the Republicans would have no power...there would be more elections, things could and would change.  They always do.

If the precedent is set that whenever the Senate is controlled by the Presidents party they can just win the election by not counting votes for their opponent (without a ruling from the courts) - is that still a democracy?

[OgNasty]

If the precedent is set that whenever the Senate is controlled by the Presidents party they can just win the election by not counting votes for their opponent (without a ruling from the courts) - is that still a democracy?

If the voting process is found to have been manipulated in order to select the winner is that still a democracy?  Would it be a good idea for America to acknowledge that the position of president can be chosen by means other than the votes of it's citizens guiding electoral votes for the popular candidate?  That's the question.  While part of me thinks we should always fight for the truth, at some point you have to realize that fighting for the truth can do a lot of collateral damage to the landscape.  People will likely believe what they want to believe anyway, so you have to ask yourself if the juice is worth the squeeze.  At this point, I'm not sure.  Even if Trump is right, is proving it the right thing to do for the country?  Looking behind the curtain doesn't always lead to a free hot air balloon ride to Kansas.

[TwitchySeal]

If the voting process is found to have been manipulated in order to select the winner is that still a democracy?

It could be disqualifying depending on the level of manipulation.  Most Authoritarian governments operate behind a charade of democracy where the leader has full control of their version of the 3 American branches of government - and thus the election.

Would it be a good idea for America to acknowledge that the position of president can be chosen by means other than the votes of it's citizens guiding electoral votes for the popular candidate?  That's the question.  While part of me thinks we should always fight for the truth, at some point you have to realize that fighting for the truth can do a lot of collateral damage to the landscape.  People will likely believe what they want to believe anyway, so you have to ask yourself if the juice is worth the squeeze.  At this point, I'm not sure.  Even if Trump is right, is proving it the right thing to do for the country?  Looking behind the curtain doesn't always lead to a free hot air balloon ride to Kansas.

It's already been acknowledged and I think that's fine since the President is not the ruler/king of the country, he just (temporarily) controls one of the three equal branches of government.  What's unfolded over the past month really highlights how vital the separation of power and those checks and balances are between the 3 branches. 

[Tash]

Funny that
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=biden,trump

[PrimeNumber7]

In 2009 when President Bush was leaving office, and transferring power to the new Obama administration, both political parties, including President Bush acknowledged the election was legitimate.

The same cannot be said in 2017 when President Obama was leaving office and preparing to transfer power to the Trump administration. The Obama administration took steps to imply that Russia had gotten Trump elected and that Trump was not a legitimate President. Democrats did the same and pushed unfounded conspiracy theories without any evidence including mainstream Democrats.

Now Trump is trying to delegitimize the Biden Presidency. Unfortunately, his messaging strategy is poor, and in the event he would be able to stay in power, he would be seen as an illegitimate President.

My point is that both major party candidates and both major parties should agree on who should be in power at the start of the next Presidential term. This is ultimately what is best for the belief in the integrity of America's election system. The candidate that won the election should be in power, regardless of if the other candidate was widely announced as the winner. If there is a dispute, it is up to the court system to resolve any disputes according to the constitution and written law.

Election laws and procedures should be clearly defined prior to the start of elections, and they should not change once voters have started casting their votes. It is up to the state legislatures to write election laws, according to the constitution. Unfortunately, in states that Biden won by slim margins, election laws were not followed according to the state legislatures, and procedures were not followed, including allowing election observers from both parties to observe the casting of ballots and the counting of ballots. These are not technicalities, and IMO should be sufficient to throw out the election results. It would be best to call for a new election in these states, and for the election laws and procedures to be followed exactly as written according to state legislatures.

As a technical matter, whatever happens on January 6 will cement who will be President at noon on January 21. My assumption is that Biden will be President at this time.

There is not going to be evidence that votes were changed, or that votes were cast without the person actually casting the votes unless some of the conspiracy theories about Dominion voting machines turn out to be true, which I would find doubtful. The only evidence that will be available is that of irregularities. If additional, substantial evidence of irregularities and/or voter fraud is discovered and is credible, it may be grounds to impeach both Biden and Harris.

As an ancap, I think that it'd be best <> for the US to eventually fall apart.

If this were to happen, most likely either China or another communist nation would take over what used to be the US, and the rest of the West. You would be living in a "utopia" but not the utopia you would be wishing for, it would be a communist "utopia".

The Cold War was about stopping/reversing the spread of Communism throughout the world. The same is true for the Vietnam and Korean wars. A weak or nonexistent US government would mean there would be nothing to stop Communist countries from exerting their influence on the rest of the world. This is largely how the Europeans were able to take over America from the Indians.

[squatz1]

You can't ever go by who "rightly" won because that leads a subjective interpretation. You go by the raw vote totals -- electoral college votes with respect to the raw vote totals -- winner is decided and takes office on Jan. 21st. There isn't really any other way to win.

For my view, the person who "rightly" won *is* the person who won. It's not an either-or situation.

+1 to all of that.

We really aren’t able to go down this weird road of theory because all it’s going to do is have us arguing about conspiracy theories without any real evidence. In theory I could sit here and contest every single election and every single ballot since the start of this republic, though there’s no reason to do that as there’s been no credible allegations of voter fraud that has led to the undermining of faith in the government.

That’s just not where we’re at in the country right now, or have ever been, Trump has not been able to prove that there is fraud which means it’s over.

Whoever is in the office on January 21’st is the President. That person will be Joe Biden and that’ll be the end of it.

[BADecker]

^^^ Yeah! We gotta get Joe in there at the same time his criminal life against the USA is exposed. Then we can get him executed for treason.

[TwitchySeal]

In 2009 when President Bush was leaving office, and transferring power to the new Obama administration, both political parties, including President Bush acknowledged the election was legitimate.

The same cannot be said in 2017 when President Obama was leaving office and preparing to transfer power to the Trump administration. The Obama administration took steps to imply that Russia had gotten Trump elected and that Trump was not a legitimate President. Democrats did the same and pushed unfounded conspiracy theories without any evidence including mainstream Democrats.

Trying to put the way the Obama administration handled the 2016 election on the same level as Trump administrations handling of the 2020 election is just as messed up as trying to equate Bidens sexual assault allegations with Trumps.  

The Russia investigation and impeachment had nothing to with overturning an election.  Besides the fact that Russia did interfere in the election to benefit Trump, even if the Senate would have convicted and removed Trump, it's not like Clinton would all the sudden become president.  (I realize impeachment was a separate issue from the Russia probe)

I've been hearing the 2016 transition period constantly be mischaracterized by right wing media in attempt to make Trumps behavior appear acceptable, so let me remind everyone of what happened between election day and the day Trump took office.

Clinton called Trump to congratulate him and the day after the election said this in her concession speech:

We have seen that our nation is more deeply divided than we thought. But I still believe in America and I always will. And if you do, then we must accept this result and then look to the future. Donald Trump is going to be our president. We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead.

Our constitutional democracy enshrines the peaceful transfer of power and we don’t just respect that, we cherish it. It also enshrines other things; the rule of law, the principle that we are all equal in rights and dignity, freedom of worship and expression. We respect and cherish these values too and we must defend them.

Obama called Trump the same day to congratulate him and said he was 'heartened' by the conversation and invited him to the White House immediately.

By all reports the Obama administration went above and beyond to work with the transition team (although Trumps people blew off most of the meetings).

Here's the letter Obama left for Trump:

Dear Mr. President -

Congratulations on a remarkable run. Millions have placed their hopes in you, and all of us, regardless of party, should hope for expanded prosperity and security during your tenure.

This is a unique office, without a clear blueprint for success, so I don’t know that any advice from me will be particularly helpful. Still, let me offer a few reflections from the past 8 years.

First, we’ve both been blessed, in different ways, with great good fortune. Not everyone is so lucky. It’s up to us to do everything we can (to) build more ladders of success for every child and family that’s willing to work hard.

Second, American leadership in this world really is indispensable. It’s up to us, through action and example, to sustain the international order that’s expanded steadily since the end of the Cold War, and upon which our own wealth and safety depend.

Third, we are just temporary occupants of this office. That makes us guardians of those democratic institutions and traditions – like rule of law, separation of powers, equal protection and civil liberties – that our forebears fought and bled for. Regardless of the push and pull of daily politics, it’s up to us to leave those instruments of our democracy at least as strong as we found them.

And finally, take time, in the rush of events and responsibilities, for friends and family. They’ll get you through the inevitable rough patches.

Michelle and I wish you and Melania the very best as you embark on this great adventure, and know that we stand ready to help in any ways which we can.

Good luck and Godspeed,

-

[PrimeNumber7]

I've been hearing the 2016 transition period constantly be mischaracterized by right wing media in attempt to make Trumps behavior appear acceptable, so let me remind everyone of what happened between election day and the day Trump took office.

The Obama administration also briefed Trump on the Steele dossier (that was later described by someone in the Obama administration as "unverified") and immediately leaked this to the press. The Obama administration also made it so many more within the government had access to information regarding Russia than was necessary, and leaked this to the press, in an effort to imply that the information implicated Trump in wrongdoing, while in reality, there was never any evidence that the Trump administration colluded with Russia.

Clinton called Trump to congratulate him and the day after the election said this in her concession speech:

She also said that she could beat Trump "again", among other things that showed she did not accept the results of the election.

Our constitutional democracy enshrines the peaceful transfer of power

The Obama administration took many steps to prevent Trump from implementing his policies (exercise his power, as vested by the Constitution). For example, Sally Yates (an Obama administration holdover) refused to defend Trump's travel ban that was later found constitutional by the Supreme Court.

[zanezane]

If you are a real man and a just player, no matter the results you should accept the outcome, only real losers whine about losing. I do not want Trump to win the election to be honest, the fact that most of his policies protect his companies instead of the people is enough evidence that he does not care about the general populace. Isn't that also the problem back then when Trump was the winner, that somehow Russia or someone rigged the election but he didn't admit that because he won, now that he lost, suddenly Biden cheated. I do not know much about Biden but these day, all who sit on the office are clowns controlled by corporations through lobbying.

[TwitchySeal]

The Obama administration also briefed Trump on the Steele dossier (that was later described by someone in the Obama administration as "unverified") and immediately leaked this to the press.

I think a lot of people are assuming that because Trump uses the office of the president to pressure intelligence and law enforcement agencies into investigating specific people and businesses that this is normal.  It's not.  Like presidents before him, Obama was not involved in FBI decisions to investigate or charge Americans.

while in reality, there was never any evidence that the Trump administration colluded with Russia.

You should read the Mueller report.

How about this, for example: A Russian intelligence officers flying into NYC from Russia for secret a meeting with Trumps campaign director (who's last job was getting Putins hand picked candidate elected as president of Ukraine) where internal campaign data was shared, and the idea to allow Russia to annex more of Ukraine was discussed.

She also said that she could beat Trump "again", among other things that showed she did not accept the results of the election.

She also received almost 3 million votes than Trump and was responding to a Trump tweet saying something like "I think crooked Hillary should run again so I can have another easy huge win".

The Obama administration took many steps to prevent Trump from implementing his policies (exercise his power, as vested by the Constitution). For example, Sally Yates (an Obama administration holdover) refused to defend Trump's travel ban that was later found constitutional by the Supreme Court.

That's not true at all.  I suggest reading the EO from Jan 2016 and comparing it to the Muslim Ban 3.0 that the Supreme Court allowed almost 2 years later.

Also, her refusing to enforce it was not a step to prevent Trump from implementing it.  It was her way of quitting in protest - by publicly announcing she would not follow Trumps orders, she knowingly forced Trump to instantly fire her.




In the end, even if all of these points were valid, and most of them are not, none of them would justify the way Trump has responded to losing the election.