…pretending not to see — the huge differences between the 2000/Gore situation and the 2020/Trump situation?

First off, it was Gore’s side — not Bush’s — that was violating the law by counting invalid ballots and counting them only in heavily Dem areas. He had no legitimate beef with the outcome because it was HIS OWN SIDE violating the law to erase his vote deficit. Of course he should have conceded. He should be condemned for encouraging and countenancing that bullshit to begin with. That’s a huge difference from 2020 when it was Trump’s opponents — not Trump himself — violating the law.

Second, Gore and Bush both had their cases thoroughly vetted in court, including the Florida and US supreme courts. Judges back then didn’t hide behind “standing” bullshit, laughably pretending that the fucking candidates themselves had no standing to adjudicate an election dispute or Constitutional question of import. (Of course, the 2000 election also wasn’t preceded by months of unpunished leftist street riots intended to fire a shot across the bow of anyone trying to stand in the left’s way, so one can sympathize with the 2020 judges weighing their personal safety in deciding to punt.)

No, instead, Trump couldn’t even get his cases heard — cases which had far more merit than Gore’s, which was heard. Had the 2020 courts heard the cases — particularly the US Supreme Court, which was asked to consider clear Constitutional issues within its purview — then perhaps the country could have been spared what followed (unless Trump won those cases, which would likely have precipitated a violent civil war from the left).

Since courts abdicated their Constitutional duties, however, we were left with 1) no judicially provided basis on which to accept or reject the election results and 2) a turn to more extraordinary remedies out of necessity.

[Post edited by Los Angeles Hoo at 08/30/2023 11:16AM]