Subject: Re: What would be more chaos?
So of the list of examples, you think 1 or more is likely?

I think it is inevitable that something will happen that right wing partisans will characterize as nefarious, even though it is not. They are already deeply suspicious of the entire process to the point where they see conspiracies around every corner.

You're doing the conflating thing again. Riots are spontaneous acts; saying "so and so wasn't proven in court" comes after the fact.

That's not what I'm saying.

You're saying that the right wing will riot only if X happens. But that's not entirely accurate. At best, your statement is that the right wing will riot only if they believe that X has happened. It doesn't matter whether X actually happened - if they believe it happened, they will not accept the outcome as fair.

I refer to court, because there were a lot of "X" events in 2020 that the right wing believed happened, but were subsequently evaluated in court and found not to have happened. In several proceedings, judges pointedly asked lawyers for the Trump campaign whether they were alleging that there were any fraudulent acts with respect to actually counting the ballots; the parties admitted there were not. In Giuliani's proceedings, the court evaluated whether or not his claims of mishandling ballots and/or fraud were factually accurate; the court ruled they were not. In Mike Lindell's case, he was sued over his claims that he had evidence of voter fraud, and the court ruled that the plaintiff had demonstrated that he did not.

But all of those things were falsely believed to have happened by the right wing, which got them all into a lather in the 2020 elections.

So whether the right wing "riots" or not doesn't depend on whether any of the things actually happen, but whether someone tells the right wing that they happened.