Wow, we've gone rather far afield here and it's partially my fault. Please allow me to quote the article's author when he explains his position on the election.
Let me begin by repeating something I said to Sullivan: I do not actively disbelieve in the outcome of the 2020 election. I do not assert that the election was stolen. I also do not believe the election was totally fair, “belief” being an affirmative mental state. I say only that I don’t know; I haven’t been convinced either way. One side tried to convince me and failed (at least so far). The other side has made no such attempt but instead mostly shouts in my face that I must believe. The latter effort, in addition to being aggravating and insulting, has been less effective.
I think that sums it up pretty well and is also very close to what I've been trying to say. Neither side has convinced me of their rightness. It's to the point that it's moot.
Yeah, I get it.
The assumption should be, given all that is legally done to ensure election integrity, that the election was not rigged. However, I believe it was rigged and I've seen evidence that should have been looked into, but wasn't. So, I can believe whatever I want to believe, but there is no actual proof of a rig. Plenty of evidence, no proof. Mostly because those in charge of using the evidence to prove it was rigged seem unwilling to do so.
We live in a country that depends on checks and balances to keep the elections free and fair and if both sides seem intent on an agreed outcome, that's the outcome that we get. It looks like both sides wanted Trump gone. So, he's gone.
(post is archived)