2024 US Presidential Election

[SGR]

[Trollheart]

While I have, as usual, little of worth to add to this high-minded conversation, I would like to note two things:

1) The idea of all of the world's governments being controlled by AI seems to me, instead of Lisna and SGR praising their AI overlords, to be running a desperate, last-ditch resistance, the final hope of humanity, while also reading a lot and listening to, and sharing, some bitchin' music. Movie options scrawled on the back of a beermat...

2) Of no use whatever, but I thought you might like to know that before I found out what gerrymandering was, I used to picture a cute little green salamander called Gerry calling at people's doors asking who they intended to vote for.   

That is all.

And now, I go back to whatever it is I do!

[Psy-Fi]

Biden aides, Dems blame 'MAGA Republicans' for brutal report on president's cognitive decline

[Trollheart]

What is the deal with RFK Jr.? I'm watching a series on the Kennedys and the guy talks like someone half-inched his vocal chords! Is he sick or something? Every word seems to be a struggle. And this is the guy who thinks he might make it to the White House?


Oh yeah, forgot: this is America. 

[SGR]

What is the deal with RFK Jr.? I'm watching a series on the Kennedys and the guy talks like someone half-inched his vocal chords! Is he sick or something? Every word seems to be a struggle. And this is the guy who thinks he might make it to the White House?


Oh yeah, forgot: this is America. 

It's called 'abductor spasmodic dysphonia'. I agree, politically, I don't think you could ever win with that voice, never mind that a worm ate part of his brain. Feel bad for the guy, because it's not his fault, and without that voice issue, he could be a serious problem for both Trump and Biden given how much everyone dislikes both of them, but I think that after a lot people hear him for the first time they say: "Nah, I think I'll pick between Trump or Biden". 

[SGR]

Biden aides, Dems blame 'MAGA Republicans' for brutal report on president's cognitive decline

Republicans say Biden completely cognitively depleted, comparing him to a walking corpse. Democrats say, behind closed doors, they struggle to keep up with Biden with all his energy and attention to detail. More news at 11. 

[Trollheart]

It's called 'abductor spasmodic dysphonia'. I agree, politically, I don't think you could ever win with that voice, never mind that a worm ate part of his brain. Feel bad for the guy, because it's not his fault, and without that voice issue, he could be a serious problem for both Trump and Biden given how much everyone dislikes both of them, but I think that after a lot people hear him for the first time they say: "Nah, I think I'll pick between Trump or Biden". 

Yeah, could you imagine inauguration day?

"I, Robert Francis Kennedy Junior do solemenly..."
"Sir, you need to speak up."
"I AM speaking up!"
"Nobody can hear you, Mister President."
"I, ROBERT FRANCIS KENN -"
"Nope. Still can't hear you. For everyone out there, sir."
"I, ROB-ERT FRAN-CIS KEN-"
"Perhaps this megaphone might help, sir."
"I, ROHHHH- BUUUURRRRTTT FRANNNCCCCCISSSSS-"
"Did anyone check the batteries in this thing?"

(I know it's not his fault and my bad for laughing at him, but the guy deserves it for his crazy stances and theories so sorry not sorry).

[Lexi Darling]

While I have, as usual, little of worth to add to this high-minded conversation, I would like to note two things:

1) The idea of all of the world's governments being controlled by AI seems to me, instead of Lisna and SGR praising their AI overlords, to be running a desperate, last-ditch resistance, the final hope of humanity, while also reading a lot and listening to, and sharing, some bitchin' music. Movie options scrawled on the back of a beermat...

2) Of no use whatever, but I thought you might like to know that before I found out what gerrymandering was, I used to picture a cute little green salamander called Gerry calling at people's doors asking who they intended to vote for.   

That is all.

And now, I go back to whatever it is I do!

Ah, one of my political arch nemeses, Gerry Mandering. He's right up there with Philip Buster.

[Trollheart]

Oh yeah. And don't forget Republican Vito, and his Swiss friend L.X. Shunfraud.

Oh, and while we're at it, can someone tell the President of the United States that Executive Order does not mean six more gin and tonics at this table, please? Nor, indeed, does Secret Service entail suited goons in shades teaching him how to play tennis.

And no, Donald, you cannot sue the card game of bridge for copyright breach. They had trumps long before you rolled off the production assembly line.

[Lisnaholic]

I don't necessarily disagree. I honestly don't know which party breaks the rules and 'cheats' more. Regardless, I'm fairly certain they both do it to varying degrees. The Brookings article is interesting and was an enjoyable read, but I definitely did pick up on a liberal bias in how certain things were framed (e.g. "On January 6th, with President Trump's encouragement, his supporters stormed the Capitol", essentially implying that Trump directly encouraged his supporters to storm the Capitol in protest, which isn't true).

First in bold :
Here's a super-long Wiki article about Voter Suppression which leaves little doubt, as far as I can see, that it is the Republicans who most consistently try to reduce voter turnout:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_United_States

On the related topics of not accepting election results, inventing a "steal" that didn't exist, and filing I don't know how many fake elector documents and giving them to Mike Pence, all that has been exclusively the work of the Republican party, afaik.
Gotta say I'm surprised that such a keen observer as yourself doesn't know which party cheats more.

Second in bold:
Actually, I think it is true, according to this article: https://www.npr.org/2023/11/18/1213961050/colorado-judge-finds-trump-engaged-in-insurrection-but-keeps-him-on-ballot

It's from npr, which I rate as a fairly impartial source, and begins: "DENVER — A Colorado judge on Friday found that former President Donald Trump engaged in insurrection during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol but rejected an effort to keep him off the state's primary ballot because it's unclear whether a Civil War-era Constitutional amendment barring insurrectionists from public office applies to the presidency."

The New York Times describes them as 'a pillar of Washington's liberal establishment', for whatever that's worth, but it doesn't mean they (they being Brookings) are wrong. Republicans could be doing more cheating and voter suppression than Democrats - but ultimately, I don't really care who's cheating more, I just want the issue (election security/integrity) to be corrected and improved enough so that we can stop having these questions and doubts about it.

^ Of course you are entitled to focus on whatever interests you more, but, as per my analogy about the plumbing in the house, the bigger prob for representative democracy in the US is in pre-election machinations like gerrymandering and voter suppresion.

Thanks Lisna! It's at least a starting point I think. One thing I left off my bullet point list is that I think Presidential Election Day should be a National Holiday so that no one has any excuses for not turning out and making their voices heard. We should do everything, as a nation, to empower people to vote.

^That's an excellent suggestion that would immediately make the application of open elections much easier for everyone. Here in Mexico, election days are Sundays, which comes close to achieving the same effect.

Again, I don't think it's just the GOP, though they're certainly part of the problem. Like I said, if Trump wins, whether it's by a small margin or a large margin in 2024, I expect the GOP will largely shut up about election vulnerabilities and problems. And Democrats will take up the mantle in questioning the problems with the obviously problematic election system we have. I don't care who takes up the mantle, I just want it fixed, which I don't think will happen until we're less polarized politically. Who knows how long that will take?

^ I'm sure you're right about the kind of partisan flip-flopping that surrounds the election-integrity issue: each side argues the case that suits them best at the moment.
But, returning to the thing about fake electors: Does that help improve confidence and accuracy in elections? Which political party uses it as a tactic? 

I've failed to ask, have you ever visited America before Lisna? I've never visited either the UK or Europe myself, but would love to someday. Who knows, by the time I do, maybe AI will be running all of our governments, and we could both praise our new AI overlords and the undoubted integrity and security of the election system it's put in place.

   That's kind of you to ask, SGR: I've been to America twice, for all of two weeks and one day! I once had a two week vacation in the San Diego/ San Franscico area, and on a different occasion, a one-night stop-over within taxi distance of Miami Airport. That was quite weird for me: I still remember walking around some random leafy suburb in the dark, thinking "This is Miami! I'm in Miami!" but still failing to believe it. Then flying out the next day, making my night-time stroll feel even more like an isolated dream sequence.

Your question made me wonder about why I even care about US politics, and I think it's this: the USA's great cultural exports. It started with reading Superman comics as a child, then Mark Twain books, then Dylan's music, then HPLovecraft, then the Summer of Love, LSD and Tom Wolfe. There has been so much to admire about the US that it makes me angry to see what Trump, the current GOP and the Christian Nationalists are trying to do to the country.

And I have a question for you too, SGR (answer optional of course): are you a big-city, East Coast guy? Are you down in the hot and steamy Bible Belt?
Also, I have wondered during our debates here, irl are you surrounded by people who agree with you in political discussions, or do you find that you are regularly making a case that meets with opposition?     

[Psy-Fi]

RFK Jr. files new petition in Nevada amid legal battle over ballot access

[SGR]

First in bold :
Here's a super-long Wiki article about Voter Suppression which leaves little doubt, as far as I can see, that it is the Republicans who most consistently try to reduce voter turnout:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_United_States

Oh jeez, @Lisnaholic, I fear we may have opened up the election equivalent of Pandora's Box here. 

Firstly, thus far we've primarily been talking about the more fundamental aspects of the election process (counting the ballots/fraud/'glitches'/software vulnerabilities/statistical irregularities), but not so much the part that happens before all that (pre-election machinations as you call them later in your post) - the voters actually turning out and voting. Could voter suppression be considered 'cheating?'. I think it could, but I also think discussions about this point back to concerns about how each state is allowed to conduct their elections independently. This has some benefits, but there's obviously (as we see here) serious flaws with this as well. I will agree that many of the recent examples in the wiki article (and those are the ones we really care about, i.e. voter suppression in the 1850s probably doesn't hold much direct use in guiding us to improve our systems today) do seem to show Republicans as the one's more responsible for voter suppression. That being said, some of the 'voter suppression' is up for debate in terms of the state's right to do it or even whether or not it's the right thing to do, and whether or not it should be done differently, e.g. felons voting:

Alabama boasts the 3rd highest rate of people barred from voting due to a felony conviction per 100,000 residents in each state across the US, according to a recent study.[141] This disproportionately affects African Americans.[141]

Arguments could be made (and I see compelling arguments on both sides) about whether or not felons should be able to vote, but I suppose in a technical sense, it is 'voter suppresion'. Maine and Vermont for example, allow felons to vote even while incarcerated.

Other examples though are blatantly illegal ones:

In the Maryland gubernatorial election in 2010, the campaign of Republican candidate Bob Ehrlich hired a consultant who advised that "the first and most desired outcome is voter suppression", in the form of having "African-American voters stay home."[102] To that end, the Republicans placed thousands of Election Day robocalls to Democratic voters, telling them that the Democratic candidate, Martin O'Malley, had won, although in fact the polls were still open for some two more hours.

Some are even in between, where a judge might say it disenfranchises voters even if it isn't technically illegal. So there is some murkiness here.

One other commonly cited example of voter suppression, and a rather controversial one, is the requirement of 'voter ID'. I think it's worth noting that there seems to be a philosophical difference between many Republicans and Democrats on what's better for a functioning democracy. Democrats would argue that universal participation is the highest value, and that everyone eligible should participate and no unnecessary barriers should be present that would hinder them from doing so. Republicans, on the other hand, would argue that something like voter ID would help in preventing fraud, and that if someone isn't informed enough or invested in the political process enough to cross that barrier, their lack of participation would be a net benefit for the results of the electoral system (I'm not defending this viewpoint, just trying to summarize it). Both parties suspect the other not of having a grounded philosophy and acting in good faith, but of vying for a strategic advantage. Democrats think that Republicans don't want a lower turnout because it might result in a more informed electorate, but because it favors their side, Republicans think that Democrats don't really value large civic engagement, but rather that higher turnout benefits their side (High voter turnout benefiting Democrats may not be true, at least in many cases).

With all that being said, I think it's fair to say that Democrats do not, universally, support universal voter participation. I don't know exactly how it was decided which examples made it into that wiki article (maybe it was the amount of public awareness of each case, f.ex), but Democrats certainly are known to engage in their own voter suppression when it benefits them. Take this article from FiveThirtyEight for example:

In the ongoing fight between Democrats and Republicans over election procedures like voter ID and early voting, the Democrats are supposedly the champions of higher turnout and reducing barriers to participation. But when it comes to scheduling off-cycle elections like those taking place today, the Democratic Party is the champion of voter suppression.

The long and short of the article is that in off-cycle elections for (often) local positions, Democrats will vote against consolidated elections that would increase turn out because off-cycle elections ensure that the majority of voters will be Democrat-aligned interest groups (like Teachers Unions and Municipal Employees Organizations) who really care about the issue at hand, rather than the average Joe who might vote against it if it was on the ballot he'd normally vote on, but doesn't care enough about the issue to go out of his way for an off-cycle election:

Consolidation is popular, and during the decade-long period between 2001 and 2011 that Anzia studied, state legislatures across the country considered over 200 bills aimed at consolidating elections. About half, 102 bills, were focused specifically on moving school board election dates so that they would coincide with other elections. Only 25 became law.

The consolidation bills, which were generally sponsored by Republicans, typically failed because of Democratic opposition, according to Anzia. By her account, Democrats opposed the bills at the urging of Democratic-aligned interest groups, namely teachers unions and municipal employee organizations.

I don't remember seeing any mention of this in the wiki article, which just demonstrates that it's certainly not a comprehensive list. And I wouldn't hang my hat on it directing me to the right conclusion (as to which party 'cheats' more). There are local elections, state elections, national elections, etc. - both parties have their fingers in the pie.

On the related topics of not accepting election results, inventing a "steal" that didn't exist, and filing I don't know how many fake elector documents and giving them to Mike Pence, all that has been exclusively the work of the Republican party, afaik.

I think I've posted this before, but maybe it bears a repost if we're talking about denying election results (and I'm not saying the Democrats in this video are even wrong - they very well could be right, and I'd bet they are right about some of them- it's just that we as a country have a short memory, and denying/questioning election results is not some kind of partisan phenomenon):

The crux of my argument thus far has been that we don't have any way to positively verify that said 'steal' didn't exist. You can state that the 'steal' didn't exist insofar as it hasn't been proven, but we have no way to verify that holistically. That's the problem. Some Democrats (though not the same exact thing, or with the same tenacity, action, or conviction) were supporting faithless electors in the electoral college in 2016. The Republicans did it a bit differently by filing some paperwork in a convoluted scheme that relied on Mike Pence. Ultimately, had both gone the way each respective party wanted (faithless electors voting opposite of their pledge, and enough of them to change the outcome of the election; fake electors being certified), both would have most likely been overturned by the Supreme Court.

Gotta say I'm surprised that such a keen observer as yourself doesn't know which party cheats more.

I'm flattered you consider me a 'keen observer'.  But again, to reiterate, as someone who does pay some attention to this stuff, there's no real way to know (at this point in time) which party 'cheats' more. Cheating encompasses more than just suppressing voter turnout or gerrymandering. The election system is fallible and vulnerable, it's not completely auditable, the integrity of it is not beyond question as you yourself admit.

I took your advice and read the Jill Stein article, from which I learned a lot about how votes are tabulated - and everything I learned was either shocking or worrying, so I now have much more sympathy with your call for improved security around vote counting. The whole process is more of a mess than I imagined.

I'm thinking now that the issue of election integrity is a can of worms that has no easy fix: I had imagined that the USA had better systems in place

So yes, I don't know which party cheats more - and I'm not being dishonest or disingenuous about that fact. And again, at this point, it doesn't much matter to me which party does, if such an absolute conclusion could be reached. The system needs to be fixed regardless.

As a recap on 'which party cheats more in elections':

• How do we define 'election cheating'? Can something be considered 'election cheating' if it's not illegal?
• There are two boxes here (at least): election cheating that we know, and election cheating that we don't know (I think it's fair to say there's cheating that's happened/happening that we're not aware of)
• There are national elections, state elections, county elections, local elections, etc. It's safe to assume that in all of these types of elections, there has been/will be cheating by both parties
• If we were to try and measure which party 'cheats more', how would we go about doing that? Would it just be the volume of attempts at 'cheating'? Would it be the impact of the 'cheats' in question on voters (that itself would be difficult to measure)? Would we weigh the different kinds of cheating differently (illegal voter suppresion vs. manual manipulation of vote counts for example)? Would we weigh the same kind of cheating in local elections differently than we would a national election?
• When the best and brightest in software engineering graduate college, do you think they're more likely to go and get a job working on election software/security or do you think they're more likely to go and get a job working at Apple/Google/Microsoft?

Second in bold:
Actually, I think it is true, according to this article: https://www.npr.org/2023/11/18/1213961050/colorado-judge-finds-trump-engaged-in-insurrection-but-keeps-him-on-ballot

It's from npr, which I rate as a fairly impartial source, and begins: "DENVER — A Colorado judge on Friday found that former President Donald Trump engaged in insurrection during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol but rejected an effort to keep him off the state's primary ballot because it's unclear whether a Civil War-era Constitutional amendment barring insurrectionists from public office applies to the presidency."

My original point was that the article you linked made it sound like Trump 'encouraged his supporters to storm the Capitol' which I thought was an example of their liberal leaning (a leaning NY Times even pointed out). A district court judge in Colorado finding that Trump engaged in insurrection is a separate matter from what Trump said to his supporters.

^ Of course you are entitled to focus on whatever interests you more, but, as per my analogy about the plumbing in the house, the bigger prob for representative democracy in the US is in pre-election machinations like gerrymandering and voter suppresion.

This could very well be the case. Gerrymandering and voter suppression though are more visible and difficult to hide. The inner workings, security, software, etc of our election system are not visible or transparent. If our election system was, hypothetically, 100% auditable, it might bear out your viewpoint. On the other hand, if we were able to completely audit past elections and find any and all cheating/manipulation that occurred, it might end up shocking you.

^That's an excellent suggestion that would immediately make the application of open elections much easier for everyone. Here in Mexico, election days are Sundays, which comes close to achieving the same effect.

That's a good way to do it! As that FiveThirtyEight link I sent you demonstrates, here in America, even the day elections take place are politicized for party interest advantages. Gerrymandering, voter suppression, off-cycle elections, insecure election software, the system in America is a complete mess. So much for 'American Exceptionalism' when we're looking to Mexico for ideas on how to improve our elections. 

^ I'm sure you're right about the kind of partisan flip-flopping that surrounds the election-integrity issue: each side argues the case that suits them best at the moment.
But, returning to the thing about fake electors: Does that help improve confidence and accuracy in elections? Which political party uses it as a tactic? 

It certainly wouldn't have improved confidence or accuracy in elections if it worked! 

But, to be fair, and to give some credit to the system we have, despite its many flaws, it did not work. It is, I think, worth pointing out that the scheme was both hatched by Republicans (or specifically, John Eastman, based on a fringe legal theory about the unilateral power of the VP to reject state certified electors) and ultimately snuffed out by Republicans (or specifically, Mike Pence). Had Mike Pence gone along with the scheme, I'm almost certain the issue would've ended up in the Supreme Court where they would've overturned it.

  That's kind of you to ask, SGR: I've been to America twice, for all of two weeks and one day! I once had a two week vacation in the San Diego/ San Franscico area, and on a different occasion, a one-night stop-over within taxi distance of Miami Airport. That was quite weird for me: I still remember walking around some random leafy suburb in the dark, thinking "This is Miami! I'm in Miami!" but still failing to believe it. Then flying out the next day, making my night-time stroll feel even more like an isolated dream sequence.

That's awesome! I'd love to visit the west coast some day. The farthest west I've been was to Denver, which is a great city. I've got plans to go to Chicago for the first time this year, so that should be fun! I have been to Florida a few times (Orlando) and boy, does it get fucking hot down there. I think I would die if I had to live down there permanently, even with an AC! 

Your question made me wonder about why I even care about US politics, and I think it's this: the USA's great cultural exports. It started with reading Superman comics as a child, then Mark Twain books, then Dylan's music, then HPLovecraft, then the Summer of Love, LSD and Tom Wolfe. There has been so much to admire about the US that it makes me angry to see what Trump, the current GOP and the Christian Nationalists are trying to do to the country.

The USA certainly is a cultural powerhouse and I can definitely see why others not native to the country would care so much about it!

And I have a question for you too, SGR (answer optional of course): are you a big-city, East Coast guy? Are you down in the hot and steamy Bible Belt?

I'm from the beautiful Granite State, New Hampshire! Northern New Hampshire, which is not the big city - I'm in what you could call 'small town America', not the big city, and not the boonies. Here's a picture of one of our highways to give you an idea of one of the common sights I see:

Also, I have wondered during our debates here, irl are you surrounded by people who agree with you in political discussions, or do you find that you are regularly making a case that meets with opposition?     

That's an interesting question. New Hampshire, politically, is very diverse. I've talked and debated with people of all types of leanings. For example, I have, in the same day argued with a conservative co-worker who thought it should be a crime to burn the American flag and argued with a liberal co-worker about UBI. My father is a conservative (but does not identify as a Republican) and my mother is a Democrat. One of my uncles at a cookout (this was 2020) was burning a Joe Biden campaign sign in a barrel and at the same cookout my other uncle and his daughters were wearing masks and politely requesting social distancing. My family would often debate things at the dinner table politically while I was growing up, but it was usually respectful and never done with malice. When I was in college, I had three great friends. One was black, the other was asian, and the other was white. My black friend was liberal, my white friend was a conservative, and my asian friend was a misanthropic anarchist. We always had some of the most hilarious and insightful conversations. So yeah, throughout my 29 years on Earth (and counting), I've had the luxury of discussing political and philosophical issues with a very diverse cast of characters. 

[SGR]

"Get ready! November! Pack it up! You're on a slow-boat to Chinaaaa!"

"If a guy pulled his dick out right now, would you even take a peak?"

"Depends, if he's in my line of sight, you can't help but peak"

"Come on man, Guyana is a sex country. Come on, America? Don't touch the women? Come on, what do you mean? No, you're supposed to touch them, you know why? You're a child of god!"

"If a motherfucker say he straight about Trump, he's something wrong with him. They raised him in the Ku Klux Klan!"

"I'm straight, am I the straightest guy? I don't know everybody out here, so I couldn't tell you that."

"I work hard, so you know, I had a beer, and what are you gonna do?"

"That's not even the right way to make a fucking swastika! Look at her, she doesn't even know what she's talking about! Fucking right, the swastika is not right! You're like scrambled eggs!"

"I don't know what it means, I'm french"

"Biden sucks, Kamala swallows, fuck Joe, and that hoe"

"I want to have sex with AOC"

"Fuck Donald Trump, and fuck Biden too! Fuck em all!"

Ryan's got the full spectrum of America on display in this video. 

[SGR]

RFK Jr. Inching Closer to Qualifying for CNN's June 27 Presidential Debate

[Lisnaholic]

That's another long post, SGR ! I might respond to it in parts, if that's ok.

That being said, some of the 'voter suppression' is up for debate in terms of the state's right to do it or even whether or not it's the right thing to do, and whether or not it should be done differently, e.g. felons voting:

^ Yep, as you mention at the outset, the topic of voter suppression is v complex, so I prefer to focus on calling out tactics that are obviously, blatantly, and unjustifiably unfair. I don't consider the issue of felons voting or not as falling into that category, and neither does wikipedia, as far as I can tell: I didn't see any mention of it in their article.

I don't remember seeing any mention of this in the wiki article, which just demonstrates that it's certainly not a comprehensive list. And I wouldn't hang my hat on it directing me to the right conclusion (as to which party 'cheats' more). There are local elections, state elections, national elections, etc. - both parties have their fingers in the pie.

^ The same applies to consolidation: also not mentioned by wiki, and not blatantly unfair repression, so I'm going to leave that topic alone too, if you don't mind, in hopes of keeping our discussion from sprawling too far from my initial point.
______________________________________________

I think I've posted this before, but maybe it bears a repost if we're talking about denying election results (and I'm not saying the Democrats in this video are even wrong - they very well could be right, and I'd bet they are right about some of them- it's just that we as a country have a short memory, and denying/questioning election results is not some kind of partisan phenomenon):

^ If you haven't posted this before, then Nimbly certainly posted something similar ages ago. No way I'm going to watch 23 mins of video clips like that, but I watched enough to be able to make these points:-
i) grumbling about election results (clearly a long-term habit among US politicians) is different from flat-out refusing to accept them, bullying governors to "just find votes", calling on people to "fight like hell", defaming election workers, etc. As far as I can see you and Nimbly both are not distinguishing between the guy who says, "I think my bank cheated me" and the guy who breaks th law and robs the bank. You're not comparing like with like.
ii) too many of those clips are without context. Many of the comments may have been made in  response to questions about the popular vote. To me it's fair enough to say, "Without winning the popular vote, the President could be regarded as being illegitimate" I bet that is how some of those comments arose.

The crux of my argument thus far has been that we don't have any way to positively verify that said 'steal' didn't exist. You can state that the 'steal' didn't exist insofar as it hasn't been proven, but we have no way to verify that holistically.

^ Isn't commonly accepted that proving a negative is all but impossible ?? How can I prove that my neighbour isn't an extraterrestrial? I prefer to use Occam's razor, as I understand it: explain the observable facts with the simplest working hypothesis, cut away the unnecessary. In this case, as upheld by various courts, there was no steal: Trump lost.

My original point was that the article you linked made it sound like Trump 'encouraged his supporters to storm the Capitol' which I thought was an example of their liberal leaning (a leaning NY Times even pointed out). A district court judge in Colorado finding that Trump engaged in insurrection is a separate matter from what Trump said to his supporters. 

Did Trump encourage his supporters to storm the Capitol" ? That's a semantic discussion to be had about phrases like "fight like hell". TBH I'm not inclined to engage in that debate and will concede that the Brookings article went too far, but in a discussion about trying to subvert election results, surely the Colorado ruling that Trump engaged in insurrection is the bottom line take away.
__________________________________________

Great photo of where you live ! Thanks. You are very lucky, and I will quiz you later about how it feels to be surrounded by such wonderful scenery.