At least the vast majority didn’t object to the results or had supporters storm the capital. Not really a moral equivalence here.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Differences: In 2000, Al Gore conceded and wouldn't accept people saying that he'd won. In 2016, Pelosi never disputed the Electoral College results. Now the "stolen" election is GOP orthodoxy. No one, until Trump, incited followers to violence.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
BUT AL GORE CONCEDED!!! Do you see the difference? Do you see how even if people for all time will question if Gore had only just pushed back harder to re-examine the votes, maybe he could have won, as opposed to claims of voter machine hacks and bamboo ballots???
-
Do you think Dan cares about the facts here? This is all just deflection so he can avoid addressing the radicalization of the GOP around figures like Matt Gaetz and MTG.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Yea let me know when you find the pictures of Ds breaking down the doors of Congress over an election they don’t like.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This type of false equivalence only creates permission structures for political violence, Dan. You are helping enable the radicalization of the GOP into a violent, authoritarian movement.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Gore, Kerry, and Clinton all conceded. None of them led a riot against legislators. None of them got 5 people killed in a violent insurrection. This isn’t hard.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Why should the 2000 and 2020 elections be treated equally when the underlying facts are quite different?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.