Reader responses to opinion page commentaries are useful elements of adult discourse. Oddly, some folks decide to tarnish otherwise constructive responses by talking down, inserting personal insults, or repeating previously disproven lies.
Recently, I referenced sworn affidavits being filed in court by multiple whistleblowers detailing presidential election voter irregularities. One reader included in his response: “You can throw a fanboy tantrum for Trump, Mr. Hulett, or you can accept the truth: democracy is working, despite claims to the contrary. This lame-duck President whom Hulett obviously admires urged Americans to inject bleach and swallow disinfectant instead of wearing a mask, keeping social distance, and washing our hands. Did you skip science in grade school, Mr. Hulett?” Yikes!
Another reader included in her response a bit of holier-than-thou personal shaming: “you do the readers of this newspaper a disservice when you simply parrot the unsubstantiated claims from obviously partisan sources. Your approach contributes to the assault on democracy happening in our country today. I expect better of you and other contributors to The Forum .” Wow! Sorry, Mom.
Skipping science in grade school, fanboy tantrum, injecting bleach, expecting better of you – some letter writers seem to be very comfortable being accredited with self-righteous lectures and stupid insults. Truth be told, “fanboy’s” all-time favorite science teacher was in ninth grade. He actually let us distill a cigar. No, he never advised injecting bleach or swallowing disinfectant. Wait, neither did President Trump. Readily available video long ago disproved Trump ever “urged Americans to inject bleach and swallow disinfectant.”
Putting aside worn-out liberal lies, weird personal insults, and gratuitous shaming, it is always informative if not amusing to scrutinize readers’ counter opinions:
ADVERTISEMENT
“Hulett apparently believes that the MSM (Mainstream Media) is against Trump.” No! You think?
“Use independent sources like Politifact or Snopes. A quick check with both of them shows there has been no proof provided in support of the claims listed in your commentary regarding voting irregularities.” O.K., the letter writer trusts Politifact or Snopes as her “independent sources.” That’s fine, but I have an equal right to trust what I judge to be “independent sources.” Of course I don’t! My independent sources support President Trump; therefore I am “assaulting democracy” and “doing the readers a disservice.” See how that works!
RELATED
- Barr sees no sign of major U.S. vote fraud despite Trump's claims
- U.S. prosecutors investigating potential White House 'bribery-for-pardon' scheme
Fact check update: Multiple sworn affidavits from whistleblowers containing strong evidence of voting irregularities have been submitted to state and federal courts. Those affidavits represent “proof in support of the claims” and will eventually be public. Whether it was thousands more ballots than registered voters counted in certain districts or multiple ballots from people long deceased, claims of “most secure election in history” and “no proof of irregularities provided” have been clearly proven wrong.
Unfortunately, there appears to be scant chance the U.S. Supreme Court, or any court or state legislature, has the will or interest to adjudicate claims of fraud, large or small, prior to January 20, 2021. It may be months or even years before accurate results of the 2020 election are known.
Hulett is a management consultant, former Moorhead School Board and City Council member, community volunteer, first chair of 1998 merged FM Chamber, retired MN peace officer, and proud Navy veteran.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Forum's editorial board nor Forum ownership.
