griff17matt said:
Civ, I have no ill-will towards you or your views. I just think you're wrong here and I didn't think it should slide. It wasn't meant as a dunk on you. I did mean to confront your blind spots though. I hope you can see my intent and not what others want to make it out to be.
The only way forward is being able to have good faith arguments with views we don't agree with, not the people that hold them. I would hope you would take me to task if you felt I was seriously off the mark.
Zero issue with this approach griff, and appreciate the follow-up.
I've always perceived your comments to be in good faith, even if pointed.
First, to be clear I'm not here to act like Dems are clean. Politics is a dirty game and both sides are neck deep in the muck. I'm also not here to take up for Hillary or any other Dem for acting carte blanche, or to deny that they said something that they clearly did say. Hillary was imminently divisive, similar to Trump, and had a lot of Washington slime on her from her years as a career politician. Crazy that the two most divisive/unlikeable presidential candidates in modern history were running against each other in '16. Bad fortune for Americans.
My past remarks in this thread about intellectual dishonesty relate to what I perceive to be glossed-over but consequential differences in the volume, impact, and veracity of Trump's and the right's claims about electoral fraud vs. claims from the left that seem analogous at a glance.
That said, I'm not in some sort of denial that Hillary thought that Russian interference impacted her electorally; that she may have thought that interference rose to the level of collusion; or that she's handled losing poorly at times.
The electoral college lost her the election, for sure. But she's not bat-**** crazy about the interference/collusion issue. Significant Russian interference was proven. How much did that interference help Trump or hurt her? Who knows, but their level of interference was determined to be significant by independent investigators and a bipartisan Congressional committee. Also, especially early in his presidency Trump was very clearly and oddly cozy with Putin, or at least appeared that way. If you know Russians interfered, and Trump refused to acknowledge the obvious collusion and also seemed to quasi-idolize Putin, there was clear reason to wonder about explicit collusion.
I think my thoughts on what I see as key differences break down into three main parts. None of you want to read all this ****, and I don't blame you, I just don't care.
Braves-Phils are on and it's easy to sit here and collect my thoughts.
1. "Lack of definitive proof of collusion" too frequently gets conflated with "Trump was exonerated of colluding" or with "there was no Russian interference." It was never made clear there wasn't collusion (and still isn't). It's why Mueller, after a long investigation, clearly said his deep-dive investigation did not exonerate Trump's team of collusion.
It was substantiated by multiple investigations and inquires both that Russia interfered significantly, with impossible-to-quantify electoral consequences, and that members of Trump's team had improper contact with the East (Don Trump Jr. meeting with Kremlin-tied lawyer to receive dirt on Clinton during Trump's campaign; Giuliani's extortion of Ukraine for dirt on Biden, etc.) Russia hacked Clinton's campaign and blasted out anti-Clinton, pro-Trump propaganda on social media for months. Russian nationals were indicted for a massive misinformation campaign and Russian military officers were indicted for hacking Clinton's campaign and the DNC. Yet, for years Trump denied Russia even interfered, and it was reasonable for Americans (and Hillary) to question why, or whether Trump's team engaged more directly with them.
Is there an analog to this with regard to Trump's claims of electoral fraud or a stolen election? Has there been any evidence produced to date that makes courts or impartial observers believe that there was 2020 electoral fraud to the extent that it impacted Trump electorally? Not only is there nothing like this with Trump and his fraud fantasy, but courts have held 60+ times that Trump's team's claims of fraud lacked merit or standing with multiple judges lambasting the plaintiffs for their complete lack of evidence to support their claims. Members of Trump's fraud team are getting sued for a gazillion dollars for their damaging slander.
To me, for the two 'fraud' situations to be similar, there would have to be evidence of electoral fraud in 2020 that rose to the level of being significant but perhaps not determinative electorally (similar to Mueller being unable to prove collusion but clearly substantiating improper Russian contact and also significant interference that benefited Trump). There was nothing like this regarding electoral fraud.
2. "Both sides claimed the election was fraudulent!"
Again, to me, quantity and veracity matter. It's a consequential difference that Trump tweeted and was quoted 500+ times about the election being stolen whereas Hillary's remarks have expressed disappointment in the impact of Russian interference or potential collusion in a small handful of interviews. She's not out there in public beating the "FRAUD/RIGGED/STOLEN" drum hundreds of times and stirring up her followers that the election was stolen from her and the system is rigged. Quantity and intensity of communication matters.
Remember, Trump started his "Rigged election" schtick before the 2016 election. It didn't start in 2020. He preemptively started tearing down confidence in our electoral system, with no evidence and with no one to benefit but himself, in the run-up to 2016. This is his MO. If he loses, or thinks he may, it must be because other people cheated or the system is rigged against him. Hillary's crying foul was not generalized, completely unsubstantiated preemptive buffoonery, it was specific to Russia's proven interference. Ask yourself this, if Russia hadn't interfered significantly, and the outcome was the same as it was in 2016 (Hillary wins popular vote but loses the EC), would Hillary still have made the claims she did about Trump and Russia if there was zero evidence of interference? She wasn't out there complaining about a rigged system preemptively and without any evidence the way Trump was.
I think it's much more damaging long-term to decry the system and your opponents as active participants in massive, unsubstantiated fraud ("our elections are not free and fair because the Democrats rigged/stole the election!") than it is to have a more finite and substantiated accusation about a foreign adversary's interference and the nature of your political opponent's ties to that foreign adversary after your opponent's son met with Kremlin-linked attorneys to collect dirt on you.
3. "Both sides rioted after the elections in 2016 and 2020!"
As previously stated, I think it's consequential that Trump made literally hundreds of claims, posting daily tweets and being quoted multiple times a day for months/years, where (to my knowledge) Hillary has discussed the issue of interference or collusion publicly a handful of times, and has not tried (or in Trump's case, succeeded) to rally her supporters to believe that the election results were fraudulent. In 2016, she conceded the next day and offered really gracious remarks considering I'm sure her ass was royally chapped at getting waxed by a carnival barker.
Also, from a results-based analysis standpoint, Trump's actions and communication directly led to whatever you want to call January 6. I think a hostile takeover of the nation's Capitol, in the middle of Congress certifying electoral college results, during which people died during and after the event, is different symbolically and practically than protesting Trump's inauguration as president in ways that weren't linked to Clinton making calls for protest, and that didn't involve storming the Capitol building.
These thoughts are offered up in good faith. You may view these differences as inaccurate, or inconsequential, or in other ways distinctions without true differences, and you're welcome to object of course.
I enjoy reading contrary viewpoints from you and others; none of us learn anything living in echo chambers.
As always, appreciate and enjoy the back and forth.
