[jtxxwl]

>Their sources include the content of speeches made by the President of the United States, news anchors and journalists of conversatively-biased news, and perhaps most importantly, peers they trust liking and sharing those same speeches and articles with them as a stamp of acceptance.

Their sources also include the statements and behaviors of news anchors and journalists and politicians and political activists and others with a left-leaning bias (and to a lesser extent right-leaning figures that opposed Trump, e.g. Bush, Romney, McCain). For the past 5 years, the only major position on the left is that Trump is a grave threat to our democracy and to the lives and well-being of nearly everyone on this earth. Rightly or wrongly, they have accused him of being a Russian asset, being elected thanks to (perhaps welcomed) foreign interference in the election, cruelly separating children from their parents at the border, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands due to negligence in handling a pandemic, inciting racial hatred, disenfranchising voters, ignoring or exacerbating the climate crisis when we have little time to spare in addressing it, misusing his power, attempting to take away health care from millions, attempting to set back womens' rights, and so on. See [1] for a recent example.

The rhetoric and actions of the left (and anti-Trump right) leave no room for doubt in the mind of Trump supporters that the left would do nearly anything to get Trump out of power, including cheating in the election (and that anti-Trump republicans would be happy to see it happen). How could they justify not doing so, if they truly believe the things I listed above? Do they believe the threat to democracy posed by cheating in the election is greater than the threat to democracy posed by Trump ruling for another 4 years? Does it compare to the magnitude of destruction already wrought against our people and our planet as a result of the 2016 election loss? If not cheating makes a repeat of 2016 more likely, how could they justify running the election fairly?

Add to that the undisputed pandemic-related restrictions put in place on election observers, and tell me how the right could possibly believe anything else.

The lack of smoking gun physical evidence is not convincing when the relevant materials are under the control of the very people that are believed to have done the crime, and they are not forthcoming with providing access to them.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25688158

[dang]

We've banned this account. Creating accounts for political flamewar is not allowed here, regardless of what politics you're for or against.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[niyrjczs]

Thank you for your hard work, Dan.

[arolihas]

The onus is on your side to show how this election was stolen. All of your rhetoric about the left hating trump is not evidence of any fraud. One could’ve said the same things about Hillary Clinton in 2016, who’s been reviled by the right for decades.

[beerandt]

No.

When it comes to elections, the burden of proof should always be on those conducting the election that it was done fairly and transparently.

Especially if rules weren't followed to the letter of the law.

Moreso where procedures were changed by someone other than the legislature.

[jtxxwl]

Where the onus lies is dependent on who you are and what your goals are. If you occupy an elected office, and you want people to believe that you were elected legitimately, then the onus is on you to convince the people of that, if they are skeptical. The burden of proof is not on them to convince themselves that you were elected legitimately.

If you're arguing in a court case that the election was conducted illegitimately and should be overturned, then yes of course you are correct that the onus is on you to make your case, and there will be a somewhat high standard of evidence required.

If you're trying to convince some random person one way or another, then of course the onus is on you to provide arguments, and the standard of evidence is basically whatever can be convincing to your audience.

[triceratops]

> tell me how the right could possibly believe anything else.

On the one hand we have only the word of a known liar and his band of sycophants. On the other we have the sworn testimony and/or judgments of literally thousands of election officials and judges, including from states with Republican legislatures (Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona). Maybe the "right" should get out of their bubble and join everyone else.