Mango Mussolini filed 62 lawsuits contesting the results of the 2020 election. Why doesn't Kamala do the same???

[LaMouffette]

I posted this question earlier in response to another post about Spoonamore's "Duty to Warn" letter to Kamala Harris.

If she asks for a recount and is denied, then she should file lawsuits in all of the swing states. Democracy itself is on the line, here. We will not survive another four years of Trump, and who is to say that he will leave the White House in four years after he's termed out?

With Trump as president and Tulsi Gabbard as head of the Department of National Security, we are toast, all buttered up and handed on a silver tray to Putin.

C'mon, Kamala! When we fight, we win, remember????

[BootinUp]

1. Why would an intelligent person want to "do the same" as a fucking narcissist?

[LaMouffette]

11. I misspoke/miswrote. What I should have written was that if there is the least bit of legitimate concern that there was

hacking of swing states' ballots, then VP Harris should ask for an investigation, audit, recount, whatever it takes to unearth any hacking activity that could have changed the results.

[Fiendish Thingy]

2. Because she has conceded that Trump win.

Harris has accepted the results of the election.

[Abnredleg]

3. As have the Dem elected officials in the swing states /nt

[magicarpet]

4. Because we are not provocateurs,...

... trying to teardown and dismantle American Democracy for shits and giggles or inflate our damaged or hurt egos.

[TheKentuckian]

5. Why anyone thinks Chump setting fire to the confidence in elections

based on nothing but him losing was a positive or even acceptable, I cannot even guess.

It was a geyser fountain of meritless lies that lead to an insurrection.

[LaMouffette]

12. I agree. And I should have rephrased my original post, that is for sure! What I meant is that if there are legitimate

concerns that Trump teamed up with Musk to hack the election, there should be an audit, recount, or investigation to see if there is evidence of hacking.

The key word is "legitimate."

You're right that Trump and his minions severely damaged Americans' trust in the election system. Unfortunately, what they also did was make it so that anyone questioning the results of Trump's win are also seen as damaging trust in the election system. Okay, but what if they really did hack the election? Are we supposed to accept the results unquestioningly? Or do we accept the results once irregularities are sorted out and the election is found to be unhacked?

In other words, do we shy away from questioning the results just because we want to take the high road so that we're not accused of being election deniers?

[TheKentuckian]

14. You said you agreed but ended right back in the same place

You will only accept wins and call unspecified cheating that must be investigated even though what cheating was done cannot even be articulated much less substantiated otherwise.

This is straight mirrored behavior and reasoning as we saw in 2020 and wanting to move the goalposts to the impossible of proving a negative.

This isn't a desire to look into something, it is an understandable
desperation to find ANYTHING to change the results.

Seriously, what would satisfy and why was that standard not demanded before we lost and be honest, if we had won would you have required the same burden of proof to accept that?

[Silent Type]

6. Waste of time and effort.

[wryter2000]

7. Because he lost all of them? N/t

Nt

[doc03]

8. The election won't be overturned and Democrats

beleive in democracy and accept the results.

[republianmushroom]

9. Because she is a democrats and democrats are traditionalist.

And they (democrats) are only starting to learn to fight.

[MineralMan]

10. Trump Lost All but One of Those.

Lack of real evidence. He didn't have any. Do we? I mean real, demonstrable evidence of wrongdoing.

I don't think so.

[LaMouffette]

13. Hi MineralMan. First of all, love your posts. Second, I must say I wish I had worded mine differently. What I should

have written is that if there are legitimate concerns that the ballots in the swing states were hacked, we shouldn't shy away from voicing those concerns just because we don't want to be labeled election deniers.

As for no evidence, I would say that it would be optimal to begin with evidence, but is that how it always works? Or does the unearthing of the truth begin with an uneasy sense of "fishy-ness," a feeling that "something just ain't right about this"?

I would point to Trump's strange behavior and remarks on the campaign trail, such as "I'm not supposed to say this, but you don't have to vote. I don't need any more votes. I've got all the votes I need."

And then that Spoonamore guy's "Duty to Warn" letter. I mean, that could absolutely be just a conspiracy theory, and a cruel one at that,, because it is giving me and others a glimmer of hope that a wrong could be righted.

I mean, what would it hurt to put our best "high IQ" cyber security people on this to do a deep audit to see if there is anything to the "bullet ballots" irregularities that Spoonamore talks about in his letter?

Yes, it would create chaos and upheaval if our side challenges the results, but chaos and upheaval are what we are in for anyway for the next four years. And beyond, if they have, indeed, figured out a high-tech way to overturn the results.

I don't know. Anyway we look at it, the future is pretty grim.