[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

That's a reasonable enough position, Cool Hand, but I don't think ill of you and I still think you dodged godfry's point: ie, you don't have to be a Carvillian style operator to think the election was stolen, that such an opinion is in fact shared by many legal scholars.

Do you have a response to that?

Yeah, but not to godfrey (case sensitive about it and all) and not in this thread. I'm not trying to dodge his point (there were several, actually). I'm declining to respond substantively to him because I surmise, wrongfully or not, that he has determined that I'm incapable of responding without insulting or belittling him. Not wishing to piss on him, I simply think it's best for me not to respond at all, out of my suspicion that he will take anything I say, regardless of my actual intent, to be condescending. He appears to be cool with that.

Furthermore, I trust that you might recognize such a thing as "argument fatigue." By that I mean that perhaps some posters, including myself, might become fatigued by an ongoing discussion or debate and not feel like carrying it on at the moment, or perhaps even wishing to drop it altogether.

I'm not sure how I feel about engaging in a protracted, about certain to be contentious, debate about whether or not the 2000 Presidential election was "stolen." It is a tired subject. It has been debated publicly and privately by many before now. I doubt that I can add anything new that hasn't already been put forth.

Assuming for the sake of this post that we do discuss it, I will say this much. First, I think such a term as "stolen" is highly inflammatory and immediately loads the debate with invective from the start. Second, the election itself was one of the most divisive ones in my lifetime, and the divisiveness is the fault of both parties and the most rabid supporters on both sides. Third, the divisiveness apparently continues among many persons on both sides, and has carried over into this election year. I'm not in favor of its perpetuation at all.

I am likely less partisan than some here apparently suspect. If you pay careful attention to my discussion on political issues (and I don't mean to be suggest that you or anyone else would or should care so such about my views), you might notice that most of my participation is by way of criticism of assertions or propositions, rather than as a proponent. Thus, my usual role of critic tends to draw out defensiveness in some posters. I sometimes hear charges of being condescending leveled at me. At least some of that might be due not so much to my intent as it is a reaction to having one's views critiqued. I understand that. I suppose that it is sometimes a natural reaction to criticism of one's views. One reaction I might have to that is simply to keep my mouth shut so as not to anger anyone or stir things up. I sometimes wish to participate, however, and I usually choose to do so in my naturally inclined role as a critic. It's just the way I usually think. I'm inclined to be analytical rather than creative. That often means I deconstruct what others have to say. That often leads to conflict and the taking of offense, even when none may have been intended. So be it.

Because the proponents of political positions I find here and elsewhere on skeptical forums so often skew to the left, my criticisms tend to be aimed in that direction. Were there many proponents making arguments from the right, I might find myself aiming my critical remarks at them. To them, I might look like a liberal. Indeed, I am liberal on many, if not most, social issues. Of course, I'm not obligated to critique every remark someone makes. Therefore, simply because I say nothing does not mean I agree with someone's assertions. I might not have read them, or I might not have been interested enough or informed enough at the moment to speak up. I might be too tired to respond, or I might make a conscious decision that my saying anything will likely cause more harm than not.

Much of the discussion in this thread is concerned with partisanship. Some of it is actually about substantive political issues. I find the most strident discussion to be about the business of politics itself, however. More precisely, it's about political campaigning, the rhetoric political parties and their supporters espouse, reactive rhetoric from their opponents, and how reality gets distorted by both sides in the process. I'm far more interested in ripping away the rhetoric and discussing the reality.

When the discussion starts with the proposition that the election was stolen, my first reaction is going to rip away the loaded term "stolen" and to try to push the discussion towards a firmer foundation, one without so much invective built in. Therefore, if you wish to discuss with me the merits of the legitimacy or not of how the election was ultimately resolved, I would suggest beginning it with an assertion less melodramatic and less loaded than that it was stolen. If you choose not to, that is fine with me. You are under no obligation either.

Thanks for asking, Liv. I appreciate the respect you afford me. I trust that you understand that I respect you as well.

Cool Hand