Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

precludes the need for any "proof" whatsoever.

However, lacking that, yes, the election officials should be made to prove that the procedures that were actually used were fair.

It's a retroactive proving of the process. A security audit in light of a system change. If that can be done, there's no need to prove a negative.

There is no need to excuse or not excuse. People’s words are rarely as enlightening about their value system as their actions. By promoting the posting of bail for those arrested during protests in which much harm was caused those that promoted that bailout show that they are interested in continuing those actions. If Democrats such as Sen Harris held as a value the true problem of process as punishment and the unfair cash bail, there was plenty of time before and after that point in history to promote it. By choosing that point in time they actions spoke louder than words as to what they value.

I’m glad that the president elect has spoken against cash bail although it seems to be a subject out of his federal expertise.

NPR and particular parts of the organization are ostensibly nonpartisan but are in such alignment with Democratic Party positions value-wise that the assertion of nonpartisanship is a distinction is without a difference. I write and think that as a lifelong listener. By promoting “In Defence of Looting” when they did it was clear that it wasn’t a random book review but an editorial statement of what behavior was acceptable and a dramatic non-denunciation of extra-legal actions taken by people peripheral to the protests of the period.

Would you be willing to wager something about some concrete action a Biden administration could take about cash bail that would indicate a care for the topic outside of the quadrennial BLM protests? It might be a block grant to assist municipalities in decreasing cash bail or a regulatory restriction on funding that encouraged the same, or some other class of concrete action that wasn’t just words.

What I trust is that if Trump had serious allegations with evidence, that Republican election officials in Georgia would treat them seriously rather than debunking them in the midst of death threats. Or that some Republican judge, especially one of those nominated by Trump would have allowed a lawsuit to get traction.

Reading the transcript of the call to the SoS, and reading a couple of the legal opinions on one of the lawsuits, is worth more than a million news articles to me. Trump said there were thousands of dead people who voted; the SoS said there were two, in the face of people calling for his execution as a RINO. That's compelling.

Your objection about the rule changes is, of course, that it allowed more of the wrong kind of people to vote legally. It's naked anti-democratic BS, attempting to masquerade as a valid concern.

Sure. But in this case, a known liar with a lot of motivation to lie is alleging the crime. And there's no evidence, even though you'd need thousands of mostly ordinary people to coordinate the crime and subsequent coverup. If even one of them breaks ranks, everyone else is going to jail. Look at it completely objectively: taking out the names, parties, policies and so on, if you were a betting man/woman, who would your money be on?

> I know many on the political right are certain, for excellent reasons, that the Democrats were motivated to bias the election against Trump,

Here's the problem though. The only way, the only way, they'd be 100% convinced the election was fair is if had Trump won. They simply won't entertain the idea that maybe, just maybe, most voters aren't so enamored of their guy as they are. If you refuse to accept, without violence, the result of an election as fair unless your candidate won then it's not a democracy.

> Can you point out something I've said that relies on taking Trump's word for something?

This whole election fraud this is a Trump invention. He knew he was going to lose and sowed the seeds well in advance. He's sued dozens of times and lost nearly every single case.

> Is cheating in elections really a complex story from your point of view?

Across multiple states, parties, officials, and judges? With no leaks, no whistleblowers, no emails or texts? I'm not saying it's impossible in theory. But in this particular case, when it's a known liar making the allegations, color me skeptical. If Trump had a history of probity and honesty in his past conduct, I might be more inclined to listen.