Previous posts in this discussion:
PostBoth Sides Should Be Heard (Nicholas Ruiz III, USA, 11/21/20 3:10 pm)
Thank you, John. I've read and appreciate all of the time and energy put forth by WAISers to share their thoughts on these and other matters.
Regardless of political affiliation (I've identified as No Party Affiliation, Green and Democrat at different times in life--I currently identify as NPA), my political lens is always non-partisan and issue-based, and policy ideas of merit I find are often available on both sides of the aisle, depending upon the issue at hand and its level of politicization. For example, the environment and oceans should be preserved, cared for and responsibly managed--but what that means in practice may be less than ideal from an excessively partisan point of view, which I do not support.
However, the election proceedings as we've witnessed lately in the USA are an absolute fiasco--and it's best to be informed about both sides of the case. Claims and issues are being raised which cannot be ignored. Most of what has been presented in mass media circulation are simply hit pieces, which are not journalism, and it's sad to recognize that such activity passes for news. The New York Times for example, has certainly produced some good writing in the past, but their work as of late is not representative of it. Much of it now reads like the work of embedded trolls.
If you haven't had a chance to watch the entire Giuliani press conference, you should try to make time to review it. There is information within it that is simply not being adequately recorded and reported, and at present forms the only basis for ascertaining what claims exactly are being made, none of which, if true, have anything to do with Trump (like or dislike him, but it's irrelevant), but rather, the electoral process in the USA. Summarily, the conference illustrates one side's case as they see it, which is not being responsibly reported by the mass media, which in itself is unacceptable.
I cannot offer a review, but do offer a recommendation that each side be given their proper time on the floor to speak and provide their best evidence, so citizens may hear and evaluate what they have to say; no more or less for either side.
JE comments: Certainly one should hear every side. But why is there an "other" side in this election cycle? One thing we can safely assume: 2020 was the first outcome in modern times to be contested with ample conviction and few facts, but it won't be the last.
Let's put it in another way: if Trump were a "normal" politician (think George HW Bush or Jimmy Carter), does anyone seriously believe he would refuse to concede the election?
Jimmy Carter's Premature Concession in 1980
(Edward Jajko, USA
11/22/20 10:03 AM)
In his comments on Nicholas Ruiz III's post of November 21st, John E asked if anyone seriously doubts whether a "normal" politician in Trump's position would have conceded the election by now. As examples, John cited Jimmy Carter and George HW Bush.
If I recall correctly, "normal politician" Jimmy Carter conceded to Ronald Reagan too soon, while polls in western states, on the highly populous West Coast, and of course Alaska and Hawaii were still open. The presidential contest had indeed been settled, but many voters in the West who were waiting in line, hearing of the concession, decided there was no point in voting on something that had already been decided, and left--affecting voting for other offices, propositions, etc.
JE comments: I remember 1980, seeing television interviews with California voters waiting to vote in an election that was already decided. Didn't the press make a pact after 1980, never to "call" an election until 8 PM Pacific (11 PM Eastern)? This is what happened, for example, in 2008. In '12, the AP waited until 11:38 PM.