It’s been a while since I appeared on MAGAMedia, but I spoke on a panel with them last week. Here are some of my past appearances.
Here is the post to MAGAMedia, MAGAMedia Podcast With Guests Agnes Gibboney, Joshua Spodek, Bebe, and Shawn [Video], and below is the video.
My goal in participating was not to debate or win, but to share my views and learn others’. I’ve read a lot of views disputing Biden’s win by a margin President Trump described as a “landslide,” but not heard people describing it in conversation.
Given our different views, I would much rather engage and communicate openly with people and communities who see things differently than to disengage and write off the possibility of meaningful communication. I wrote about my strategy emerging from my view of What makes America great and our greatest vulnerability: unity.
Since this recording, the Supreme Court, including three Trump appointees, rejected with one sentence the case that reached them. A Pennsylvania judge appointed to the court by President Trump, Stephanos Bibas, wrote “Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here,” sentiment I understand repeated in every case.
Another example: Justice Brian Hagedorn of the Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected a Republican attempt to overturn that state’s elections results, stating “Judicial acquiescence to such entreaties built on so flimsy a foundation would do indelible damage to every future election. This is a dangerous path we are being asked to tread.”
I haven’t found an impartial review of the court cases that looks kindly on them. I hear a lot of out-of-court hearsay, but none of the hearsay has resulted in in-court evidence. When most of the population has a camera with them at all times, I would expect some pictures if there were evidence beyond hearsay.
I agree everyone has the right to petition the court. As far as I can tell, no serious evidence has appeared. I’m open to evidence appearing, but the plaintiffs in something like fifty cases are showing none to judges or the court of public opinion. While they have the right, claiming evidence when none exists would seem embarrassing.
I’ve heard that President Trump’s team has collected over $170 million so far. That much money suggests why they may continue pursuing this strategy, whether they have evidence or not. I hate to feel jaded about the President of the United States, but so far getting money seems the most likely motivation for what appears the most likely situation: filing cases despite knowing they have no evidence and no cases. Of course, evidence would change my view immediately.
I can’t understand where my fellow panelists’ confidence in the evidence is coming from. If she considers the ballot she showed evidence, why doesn’t she supply it to the court cases that keep losing? I hadn’t thought to ask her while recording.
Normally I don’t follow Hungarian politics, but you know how when someone mentions something unusual, you notice if it comes up again? Since she mentioned the problems with socialism in the Hungary she grew up in, the morning after recording, I saw this story, Hungary’s rightwing rulers downplay MEP ‘gay orgy’ scandal amid hypocrisy accusations.
I don’t know if the story makes me laugh more or cry.
Read my weekly newsletter
On initiative, leadership, the environment, and burpees