The case of the poisoned well - a cautionary tale.

[Dr. Who]

Since being elected in 2016, Donald J. Trump as been harping on a grand conspiracy by Democrats, all leftists, the media as well as disloyal Republicans to remove him from office and/or prevent his re-election. His tweets have been generally replete with loaded adjectives like "corrupt" to describe his political foes and "fake" to describe any media reports that question or dispute contentious statements made in his barrage of daily tweets or in more formal public statements.


He has very effectively and arguably deliberately, "poisoned the well" for his supporters who now view the results of a very close presidential election through the paranoid lens of cognitive bias, refusing to believe, even in the face of evidence that contradicts President Trump's allegations of fraud and malfeasance, that certain states have not conspired on a partisan basis to fraudulently deprive him of his votes and thus re-election.


While neither fraud or corruption should ever be ignored or tolerated in a nation where justice and the rule of law prevails, such serious allegations should never be made frivolously and absent the establishment of a prima facie case. No such prima facie case has been made for any of the allegations of fraud or corruption made by President Trump and his campaign and at best there may be limited legal issues related to states' adherence to their own legislation and constitutions which have either already been decided at their own Supreme Courts and may be accepted for review by SCOTUS or remain to be tried, if they meet the burden of evidence, at the respective Supreme Courts of those states.


By publicly and wantonly making such egregious allegations, President Trump has selfishly impugned the integrity and credibility of the electoral process in America, both in the eyes of her people as well as in the eyes of the world, casting her in the role of some corrupt third world nation that may now require international third party electoral oversight to ensure fair and impartial elections. How shameful.

[Captain Obvious]

Nailed it.

I think a lot of moderate conservatives, me included, got turned off by Trump's schtick for those exact reasons and that did bite him in the long run.

It's going to be an interesting few weeks ahead and I can't wait to see the process and results of investigations and lawsuits.

One thing you can bank on though, no matter the outcome of these investigations and lawsuits Trump nor his rabid supporters will accept the results.

It all goes back to integrity, or the lack of.

[MisterVeritis]

I laughed.

Lawsuits will be filed beginning on Monday morning and continuing all week.

Your team cheated.

[Chris]

Since being elected in 2016, Donald J. Trump as been harping on a grand conspiracy by Democrats, all leftists, the media as well as disloyal Republicans to remove him from office and/or prevent his re-election. His tweets have been generally replete with loaded adjectives like "corrupt" to describe his political foes and "fake" to describe any media reports that question or dispute contentious statements made in his barrage of daily tweets or in more formal public statements.


He has very effectively and arguably deliberately, "poisoned the well" for his supporters who now view the results of a very close presidential election through the paranoid lens of cognitive bias, refusing to believe, even in the face of evidence that contradicts President Trump's allegations of fraud and malfeasance, that certain states have not conspired on a partisan basis to fraudulently deprive him of his votes and thus re-election.


While neither fraud or corruption should ever be ignored or tolerated in a nation where justice and the rule of law prevails, such serious allegations should never be made frivolously and absent the establishment of a prima facie case. No such prima facie case has been made for any of the allegations of fraud or corruption made by President Trump and his campaign and at best there may be limited legal issues related to states' adherence to their own legislation and constitutions which have either already been decided at their own Supreme Courts and may be accepted for review by SCOTUS or remain to be tried, if they meet the burden of evidence, at the respective Supreme Courts of those states.


By publicly and wantonly making such egregious allegations, President Trump has selfishly impugned the integrity and credibility of the electoral process in America, both in the eyes of her people as well as in the eyes of the world, casting her in the role of some corrupt third world nation that may now require international third party electoral oversight to ensure fair and impartial elections. How shameful.

That was an excellect well-poisoning founded on mere psychoanalyzing.

People see what they want to see. So ignore 2020 Election Litigation Tracker.

[Davis]

Why ignore it? It's an excellent source of humor.

The best description I've heard of these lawsuits is *a tweet with a filing fee*

[Dr. Who]

Nailed it.

I think a lot of moderate conservatives, me included, got turned off by Trump's schtick for those exact reasons and that did bite him in the long run.

It's going to be an interesting few weeks ahead and I can't wait to see the process and results of investigations and lawsuits.

One thing you can bank on though, no matter the outcome of these investigations and lawsuits Trump nor his rabid supporters will accept the results.

It all goes back to integrity, or the lack of.

I have long been of the opinion that virtually no one who was literally appalled at his election in 2016 would have had any "come to Jesus" moment that changed their opinion and therefore their vote in 2020. That's probably true of the vast majority of Hillary voters in 2016. In 2016 there was also a contingent of voters who were either disgusted with status quo politics or simply couldn't bring themselves to vote for Hillary, even though they generally aligned with Democrat party politics, as well as centrists who held their noses and voted for Trump. They were either hoping for the best or they were maliciously hoping for the worst in order to make a point. Many, if not most, from the contingent did not vote again for Trump in 2020 and either voted Biden, third party or not at all.

The advent of Covid-19 while adding a level of complexity to the 2020 election, also provided a previously unavailable side benefit for a large number of voters who would otherwise have abstained from voting, not only because of Covid, but because their voting districts are undersupplied with polling stations, requiring hours of lining up to simply cast a ballot. The mail-in ballot provided a remedy and an incentive for many people to participate in the election. While most of the people who took advantage of the mail-in ballot voted Democrat, there were also Republican voters in that contingent and I believe that the option to mail-in is part of the reason for the greater number of ballots cast in this election.

DJT told his supporters to vote in person, while hypocritically, voting by mail-in himself. Telling his supporters to vote in person guaranteed Trump that the most favorable results would dominate in the early part of the election, knowing that the mail-in votes would follow and require much greater amount of processing times and scrutiny, setting them up for the spurious allegations that have colored the election results.

While the polls were inaccurate or overly optimistic in predicting the exact percentage of pro-Democrat results, I don't think that there was any illusion that there would be a swell of pro-Biden support but rather one reflecting rather vehement anti-Trump sentiment.

[Dr. Who]

That was an excellect well-poisoning founded on mere psychoanalyzing.

People see what they want to see. So ignore 2020 Election Litigation Tracker.

I noted that litigation on limited issues relating to states' adherence to their own legislation and constitutions could be litigated, but show me even one suit in the list that is making a prima facie case for "fraud" or "corruption". All eagles are birds, but all birds are not eagles, IOW the fact that these legal disputes are being put to the courts does not make the case that there was any fraudulent intent, nor that the plaintiffs in these actions will prevail either in whole or in part. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the number of implicated ballots are material to the election results.

[Captain Obvious]

I have long been of the opinion that virtually no one who was literally appalled at his election in 2016 would have had any "come to Jesus" moment that changed their opinion and therefore their vote in 2020. That's probably true of the vast majority of Hillary voters in 2016. In 2016 there was also a contingent of voters who were either disgusted with status quo politics or simply couldn't bring themselves to vote for Hillary, even though they generally aligned with Democrat party politics, as well as centrists who held their noses and voted for Trump. They were either hoping for the best or they were maliciously hoping for the worst in order to make a point. Many, if not most, from the contingent did not vote again for Trump in 2020 and either voted Biden, third party or not at all.

The advent of Covid-19 while adding a level of complexity to the 2020 election, also provided a previously unavailable side benefit for a large number of voters who would otherwise have abstained from voting, not only because of Covid, but because their voting districts are undersupplied with polling stations, requiring hours of lining up to simply cast a ballot. The mail-in ballot provided a remedy and an incentive for many people to participate in the election. While most of the people who took advantage of the mail-in ballot voted Democrat, there were also Republican voters in that contingent and I believe that the option to mail-in is part of the reason for the greater number of ballots cast in this election.

DJT told his supporters to vote in person, while hypocritically, voting by mail-in himself. Telling his supporters to vote in person guaranteed Trump that the most favorable results would dominate in the early part of the election, knowing that the mail-in votes would follow and require much greater amount of processing times and scrutiny, setting them up for the spurious allegations that have colored the election results.

While the polls were inaccurate or overly optimistic in predicting the exact percentage of pro-Democrat results, I don't think that there was any illusion that there would be a swell of pro-Biden support but rather one reflecting rather vehement anti-Trump sentiment.

Considering both candidates took the #1 and #2 most overall votes evah suggests that there was a lot of it going on. Deeply politically divided nation, people who don't generally vote voted but I suspect many of them were voting against Trump while Trumps votes likely were for him.

Having said that, I would caution not to look at the response from this forum and extrapolate it into the norm, it's an anomaly here, a lot of low information partisans. I look to see what's going on in the mainstream and it's an entirely different world.

That concept also extends to issues like climate change and the like, the standard of deviation here is pretty large.

[Chris]

I noted that litigation on limited issues relating to states' adherence to their own legislation and constitutions could be litigated, but show me even one suit in the list that is making a prima facie case for "fraud" or "corruption". All eagles are birds, but all birds are not eagles, IOW the fact that these legal disputes are being put to the courts does not make the case that there was any fraudulent intent, nor that the plaintiffs in these actions will prevail either in whole or in part. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the number of implicated ballots are material to the election results.

Fraud by definition is "wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain." Changing the rules by governors, election boards, and courts fits. Litigation alone says nothing of whether it's true or false or who will prevail. Your presumptions and assumptions poison the well of discussion.

[Dr. Who]

Considering both candidates took the #1 and #2 most overall votes evah suggests that there was a lot of it going on. Deeply politically divided nation, people who don't generally vote voted but I suspect many of them were voting against Trump while Trumps votes likely were for him.

Having said that, I would caution not to look at the response from this forum and extrapolate it into the norm, it's an anomaly here, a lot of low information partisans. I look to see what's going on in the mainstream and it's an entirely different world.

That concept also extends to issues like climate change and the like, the standard of deviation here is pretty large.

I agree, although even outside of the forum, I doubt that you are likely to find many people who are ambivalent about Donald Trump.