[TigerLikesRoosterNew]

I am not really against Taibbi. But here is the problem. We can present eloquent argument hoping that it will persuade them. Such an argument in and out of itself doesn't have much impact unless they see the real proof that it is right.

People splitting into two groups which have less and less in common, people moving to another location where their views are welcomed not condemned. All progressing under the surface without angry protests. Until that happens, they will scoff at Taibbi.

[MountainWalker]

Honestly, I don’t think it matters. If you could somehow show them proof of voter fraud that swung the election in a way that they couldn’t deny, they would simply go to their fallback position of the popular vote being the only that that should matter. Their political ends justify the means.

In a way it’s like we’re having political arguments with defense lawyers. It’s not about the truth but what they can get the jury/public to believe.

[TigerLikesRoosterNew]

On the other hand, Taibbi is really ignorant about glaring security problems of voting machine and potential abuse of mail-in ballots. If he believes they are all merely a fantasy since courts say so, he is not up to realizing the true extent of vote fraud.