There are 34 comments.

1. Member
   J. D. Fitzpatrick

   @JDFitzpatrick

   

   8:33 PM EST ⋅ Jan 13, 2021

   D.A. Venters (View Comment):

   Henry Racette: 2. …. We simply don’t know the extent of the fraud, and we don’t know that the President is wrong — nor to what extent.

    

   I know he thinks he was cheated. He properly brought those matters before the state Courts and the state courts held that their laws provided no remedy for him. Many times over, that occurred. He then, as he had every right to do, sought help with the legislatures of the disputed states. They declined to address his concerns, as they had every right to do. They chose to let their election results stand and to send Biden electors to the Electoral College.

   As I mentioned in a comment on another post – people lose in court every day. They lose for procedural reasons, substantive reasons, all kinds of reasons. This often means they lose much more than a 4 year job; sometimes they lose years of freedom, their kids, their money, and on and on. They are very often never satisfied that justice was done. They feel that they weren’t heard, that the never had the chance to put their best evidence forward, etc…Even when there is an agreed resolution the parties often feel they got shafted.

   This is not about John Doe winning a few bucks from McDonalds because he was burned by corporation coffee. An election is an attempt to determine the will of the American people for their government, and this is precisely what Trump is defending, by all means at his disposal.

   I will not deny that there is an element of self-preservation in his tactics, but the million people at the Jan 6 event were not there to support Trump the man; they were there to defend the American political process. You are trivializing the time and energy that they put into their trip to Washington by comparing the endgame of this election to a run-of-the-mill court case. 

   Regarding the fraud accusation, the politicians have had ample opportunity to lay the concerns of ordinary citizens to rest. With a handful of exceptions they have refused. Think about that: They have refused to take steps to confirm the validity of the result of the most important election in the world. Questions remain unanswered, legal rulings remain unfollowed; no wonder a million plus people descended on Washington, at their own expense, in order to express their anger. 

   Thank goodness for a politician who fought back against this disgrace of an election. And how proper of him, in fact, to draw on support from the American people—the holders of this country’s sovereignty. We are not ruled by courts, legislators, or even presidents. Bringing us together on Jan 6 was absolutely the right thing to do to remind politicians who is in charge. 

2. Inactive
   Randy Webster

   @RandyWebster

   9:37 PM EST ⋅ Jan 13, 2021

   D.A. Venters (View Comment):

   But we do know this: There is a legal process for selecting the President established by the Constitution and various federal statutes. That process was followed and when the EC votes were certified several weeks ago, the president’s legal options expired. There is no way, under current law, that he can remain president after 1/20. That has been true for a long time, well before he called for the 1/6 protest.

   I know he thinks he was cheated. He properly brought those matters before the state Courts and the state courts held that their laws provided no remedy for him. Many times over, that occurred. He then, as he had every right to do, sought help with the legislatures of the disputed states. They declined to address his concerns, as they had every right to do. They chose to let their election results stand and to send Biden electors to the Electoral College.

   The whole purpose of fraud is to appear legitimate while cheating in the background.

3. Coolidge
   TBA

   @RobtGilsdorf

   2:05 AM EST ⋅ Jan 14, 2021

   Jim McConnell (View Comment):

   “The gravest injustice this year is not the 501st lawless riot. It is the silencing of so many voices by powerful institutions like Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, and Google. Be wary of anyone who tells you that depriving people of their voice is in everyone’s best interest.”

   But, how oh how did this great country manage to survive for 240 or so years without the internet?

   By reading newspapers, which is something this great country no longer does in favor of reading the internet. 

   Edit: Redundant.

4. Member
   Jim McConnell

   @JimMcConnell

   

   10:07 AM EST ⋅ Jan 14, 2021

   Henry Racette (View Comment):

   Jim McConnell (View Comment):

   Henry, in the paragraph that I quoted from your OP, it seemed to me that you were saying that without Twitter, Facebook, etc., we were in danger of losing the ability to communicate.

   To your later comment, I think it’s clear that the reason we no longer have the great variety of newspapers, especially locals, it that they have been largely replaced by the internet. That seems to be the free market in action; the internet is apparently doing a better job in meeting consumer needs (or desires). I don’t participate in any social media (unless that’s what Ricochet is), but apparently many folks rely on it.

   Jim, it’s certainly true that the internet has displaced older media. I don’t think that’s good, but I do think it’s irreversible and so we’ll have to deal with it.

   It’s of course true that people can find ways to continue communicating. But it’s also true that a handful of tech giants can dramatically limit that communication if they wish. There’s obviously a tension here between free markets and the ability of a free people to stay informed. I love free markets, but I also love a functioning democratic republic. I’m willing to see tech behemoths broken apart in order to prevent a concentration of control over communication.

   I agree.