Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 124,391
- 81,340
- 2,635
The mobs were organized and and paid and their goal was to be disruptive. And I agree, Harris followed the law in the sense she had a choice to make and either choice she made would have followed the law. And she chose to disenfranchise voters by not counting their votes because counties were late. I also have no doubt that she would have accepted late returns, which would have been within the guidelines set by law, had it been Bush who was trailing in votes.Nonsense. They tried to delegitimize the 2000 election. As I pointed out, Katherine Harris refused to accept returns filed after a week following the election, even though she didn’t have to. Then there were the mobs of GOP operatives, paid to disrupt the recounts. Hoping to at least stall the recounts if not end them entirely.Okay, maybe I'm wrong.I have a feeling if the shoe were on the other foot, Republicans would be looking at this differently.
I have a feeling you only think that because YOUR principles are selfish and subjective, and you assume everyone is like you. Don't project.
More than maybe. It's not like Democrats haven't won in recent history, and I have yet to see concerted efforts among Republicans to invalidate and delegitimize those elections. Disagree with and oppose policies, sure. Delegitimize, no.
There's a difference between opposing the result you wanted, and delegitimizing the election. Katherine Harris followed the law as written, however much it wasn't how you wanted things to be. The GOP also demanded that the law be followed as written, however much it "disrupted" your attempts to make things the way you wanted them.