Reply #38: you bet it's partisan

[rman]

> Fraud

> 1. It makes the much needed Election Reform a partisan issue. A very partisan issue.

Fraud in this case means there are a lot of indicators that there was fraud. There is a whole lot of evidence pointing in that direction, at least as much as in the Ukraine. Normally this would warrant thourough investigation. Republicans don't want this investigated - you bet it is a partisan issue.

> 2. When you examine all evidence under the pretext that fraud was committed it distorts the analysis of the evidence and discredits that evidence that may have credibility. The wacky-looney stuff makes everything wacky-looney.

Who is examining the evidence under the *pretext* that fraud was committed? Like i said, there is a lot of evidence indicating that there was fraud. It's not evidence that there was no fraud - the only evidence of no fraud would be absence of evidence that there was fraud. There seems to be a whole lot of smoke and we'd like for some professional firemen to find the cause. Maybe there is no fire, but it doesn't look good. That is not "pretext" nor wacky-loony, it's common sense.

> 3. It diminishes the incredible work of tens of thousands of Democratic volunteers all over the country that busted their ass working this election cycle. It drowns out all the positive things that happened on election day.

It doesn't diminish any such thing. In part thanks to the election Dems grassroots is in revival and it isn't going to go away. The fact that a lot of positive things happened that day is no reason not to mention fraud, if there's so much evidence for it.

> 4. The examination of fraud is extremely divisive in its execution. It creates an us vs. them mentality. The Democratic Party is already a thousand legged Blue Monster that tries to walk in 500 different directions.

Right. So, you'd rather not have it investigated, not because there's no evidence but because it would be divisive? Just so that we have that clear.

> 5. At the very least it damages voter confidence. In some cases it literally destroys voter confidence. The repukes are becoming an incredibly well tuned machine and we don't need anything that makes their job easier.

You're darn right it damages voter confidence. That's what you get from privitization of elections.

> Ohio is a fucking mess.

You don't say. What's your explanation if you think it wasn't fraud?

> And, I'm not "over it". I'm actually pumped. I think this election cycle was an incredible learning tool. Yea, I'm a "half-full" kind of guy..... I believe there were some positive things that we can build on and I believe there were some really bad mistakes made that were identified and we can learn from them.

Indeed. Allowing the system to be rigged is one of those mistakes, which needs to be corrected. For starters, let's call a spade a spade. Not mentioning it isn't going to help.