Where's the evidence backing your claim? It's not sufficient to merely make a statement as if it's a fact with no evidence that can be grappled with.
The evidence that I have to the contrary is the multiple instances where Democrats questioned the validity of elections results without being accused of trying to "overturn" them, despite that obviously being the intention:
- In 2000, for Al Gore vs George W. Bush (which led to legal challenges and recounts, ultimately reaching the Supreme Court.)
- In 2004, for George W. Bush's vs John Kerry (which led to objections during the Electoral College certification).
- In 2016, when some Democratic politicians questioned aspects of Donald Trump's victory, and alleged foreign interference and again, issues with the electoral system.
Additionally, Hillary Clinton's campaign and the DNC funding the compilation of the Steele Dossier, which falsely accused Trump of colluding with foreign enemies right on the heels of his victory in 2016.
To me, it seems like questioning and even concerted attempts to undermine election results—even going so far as to levy false criminal allegations against the opposing candidate—doesn't get treated with the same concern if it isn't Trump.
In fact, I'd say it's far more malicious and dangerous that an established politician like Clinton funded what could have put her political opponent in prison.
Perhaps the media you're considering isn't sufficiently balanced, which leads to weighing the same actions of different people very differently.
Yeah, this isn't very convincing. Most of this applies a double-standard to Trump, whereby his mistrust of the voting processes and vote counting is cast as an attempt to overthrow the election, meanwhile I listed multiple other instances of the same behavior coming from Democrats—although often in more polished or through more "official" channels—and nobody bat an eye at it.
There's also the flaw of mind-reading, where the author claims he has special insight into Trump's mind and can *just tell* he knew he had lost and was pretending otherwise. The main piece of evidence for this is the testimony of an individual unconstitutionally appointed to investigate Trump by his political opponents: https://x.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1790860530195791990. Pretty shoddy evidence and in fact, makes more of a case that the "attempted coup" narrative has been cultivated intentionally for the purpose of lawfare.
And this is ultimately why I don't buy into the hype about Trump "attempting a coup," which besides sounding absurdly dramatic on its face, is revealed to be more dependent on the media's framing of the very same things that previous politicians have done than on anything particularly unique to Trump.
That said, I disagree with Trump's reaction to the election because it's ultimately an unproductive way to raise concerns about election corruption and only provided his opponents with fodder to concoct grandiose narratives about him "attempting a coup." But there's a world of difference between being a bad sport about losing and attempting a coup. As all the other points I made previously show, only Trump gets journalized in a way that takes the same behavior other politicians have done and paints it as the End of Democracy™.
A good example of why this is likely propaganda is the fact that a coup never actually happened nor did it come close to happening. Usually real tyrants try a little harder, perhaps like Clinton funding a smear campaign that almost led to the false imprisonment of her election opponent...but somehow that just doesn't get the same attention.
Trump did try to overturn the results of the 2020 election. He did attempt a coup.
Where's the evidence backing your claim? It's not sufficient to merely make a statement as if it's a fact with no evidence that can be grappled with.
The evidence that I have to the contrary is the multiple instances where Democrats questioned the validity of elections results without being accused of trying to "overturn" them, despite that obviously being the intention:
- In 2000, for Al Gore vs George W. Bush (which led to legal challenges and recounts, ultimately reaching the Supreme Court.)
- In 2004, for George W. Bush's vs John Kerry (which led to objections during the Electoral College certification).
- In 2016, when some Democratic politicians questioned aspects of Donald Trump's victory, and alleged foreign interference and again, issues with the electoral system.
Additionally, Hillary Clinton's campaign and the DNC funding the compilation of the Steele Dossier, which falsely accused Trump of colluding with foreign enemies right on the heels of his victory in 2016.
To me, it seems like questioning and even concerted attempts to undermine election results—even going so far as to levy false criminal allegations against the opposing candidate—doesn't get treated with the same concern if it isn't Trump.
In fact, I'd say it's far more malicious and dangerous that an established politician like Clinton funded what could have put her political opponent in prison.
Perhaps the media you're considering isn't sufficiently balanced, which leads to weighing the same actions of different people very differently.
Here’s a good summary of the evidence: https://open.substack.com/pub/benthams/p/trump-attempted-a-coup
Yeah, this isn't very convincing. Most of this applies a double-standard to Trump, whereby his mistrust of the voting processes and vote counting is cast as an attempt to overthrow the election, meanwhile I listed multiple other instances of the same behavior coming from Democrats—although often in more polished or through more "official" channels—and nobody bat an eye at it.
There's also the flaw of mind-reading, where the author claims he has special insight into Trump's mind and can *just tell* he knew he had lost and was pretending otherwise. The main piece of evidence for this is the testimony of an individual unconstitutionally appointed to investigate Trump by his political opponents: https://x.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1790860530195791990. Pretty shoddy evidence and in fact, makes more of a case that the "attempted coup" narrative has been cultivated intentionally for the purpose of lawfare.
And this is ultimately why I don't buy into the hype about Trump "attempting a coup," which besides sounding absurdly dramatic on its face, is revealed to be more dependent on the media's framing of the very same things that previous politicians have done than on anything particularly unique to Trump.
That said, I disagree with Trump's reaction to the election because it's ultimately an unproductive way to raise concerns about election corruption and only provided his opponents with fodder to concoct grandiose narratives about him "attempting a coup." But there's a world of difference between being a bad sport about losing and attempting a coup. As all the other points I made previously show, only Trump gets journalized in a way that takes the same behavior other politicians have done and paints it as the End of Democracy™.
A good example of why this is likely propaganda is the fact that a coup never actually happened nor did it come close to happening. Usually real tyrants try a little harder, perhaps like Clinton funding a smear campaign that almost led to the false imprisonment of her election opponent...but somehow that just doesn't get the same attention.