alt Hacker NewsWe already established precedent (Biden election results disputes) that we don't get to question how fair the elections are.
Replies
Are you suggesting the other side didnt get to dispute that Biden won? There were literally a 100 lawsuits, all of them lost except like 1 on some random technical issue that had zero impact to the results.
Some states had quite a deep dive, forensic audits, the whole thing. https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-wisconsin-presidential-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Maricopa_County_president...
The 2020 election was probably the most scrutinized in history. How is that not being able to question a fair election?
Except this time, the regime in charge taking public action to tamper and interfere with elections, including threats of intimidation at polling stations. Red state governments are outright gloating that they're gerrymandering their districts based on party lines to retain power.
Even if Dems take the House and Senate, this can't be called a fair election.
What do you mean you don't get to question how fair the elections are? The sitting president of the entire country has questioned and investigated them. No one has stopped questioning and investigating them. People literally stormed the capital over it and had effectively zero real long term consequences in the overwhelming majority of cases. Dozens and dozens of lawsuits, none of which amounted to anything, even when they were in front of Trump appointee judges.
The precedent, if anything, is that we will tolerate people upending the whole public discourse and portions of the government for years over nonsense that never had any evidence of anything occurring on a level that would impact the elections.
Meanwhile, Trump has spent the entire administration trying to restrict the ability for demographics that won't vote for him from being able to vote. Openly. Sometimes honestly, but mostly also blaming all of it on the election he lost and claiming it's to stop the voter fraud that never actually occurred.
The precedent that was set is that questioning the election can become dogma for a political party no matter if there is absolutely zero evidence of what they are saying happened.