You know there was more than just the presidential elections, right? It happened with Stacey Abrams losing and anytime there are changes in election laws.
Still not remotely the same--and not
any time there are changes in the election laws. I think the charge with respect to Stacey Abrams was that the Republican candidate was also the guy who was overseeing the election, and he should therefore recuse himself (as well he should have--and the same would apply if it were a Democrat doing the overseeing and also was a candidate in the election). He also purged the rolls shortly before election day and didn't spend much effort letting voters know he had purged them. There's no controversy over these points--they're facts acknowledged by both sides, and there's sufficient evidence to believe that both are correct, though of course some Republicans disagree that Kemp should have recused himself.
So far, Republicans have not only not presented any evidence of their claims, quite a bit of evidence has been brought forward that the instigators of those claims knew they were false at the time they were doing the instigating.
Similarly, there's no controversy over whether election laws are being changed or not--only whether they
should be changed. Republicans, on the other hand, believe in a certain set of propositions that, if true, would form a factual background. It wouldn't amount to just whether we should or shouldn't do something. The equivalent would be if there were evidence of massive election fraud, and Democrats were arguing that we shouldn't do anything about it.
That would be a real equivalence of the kind you're looking for, if it ever were to happen. But it clearly hasn't, and I don't think it would.
You think those are the only knowing lies? Biden said that Romney literally wanted to put Black people back in chains, so the fake high ground you think you're standing on does not exist.
I'm claiming no particular high ground and I certainly realize that Democratic politicians lie all the time--as often as do Republicans. However, the topic of
this conversation is a Rasmussen survey about beliefs among likely voters as to cheating in the 2020 election, and related issues.
Less than half, by a bit. I'm aware there is a segment of society that wants to cut opposing viewpoints out of access to public discourse. There are always authoritarians out there.
It's not merely an opposing viewpoint when someone knowingly lies for the purpose of stirring up political sentiment and action. A viewpoint is something a person has about a certain set of facts. A lie is a knowing false claim about those facts. Ergo, there is a difference between someone stating their point of view, and someone knowingly lying. The former should be allowed, whether or not I or anyone else agrees with the view. The latter should not, at least not when it comes to mass media.
That's a really dumb attempt at a point. Totalitarian regimes aren't defined by making toilet paper. However, they are defined by authoritarianism and the shutting down of opposing voices.
Not so dumb. Just because we might shut down certain claims doesn't mean we'd be descending into authoritarianism, any more than does the fact that we make toilet paper or engage in other activities that totalitarian regimes engage in. Totalitarian regimes shut down discourse on the basis of its point of view--not merely on the basis of whether or not someone used the mass media to knowingly deceive the public. Again, going after the latter would not commit us to going after the former, and would not, therefore, amount to us suddenly becoming authoritarian.
