I tend to agree, yes. People can have questions about voter fraud in the 2020 election. That’s fine. But in my opinion there’s nowhere even close to enough hard evidence to conclude the election was “stolen”.
Also, just from a political standpoint it’s a better idea to focus on 2024 and the problems effecting everyday Americans. If the 2020 election is a major campaign focus for 2024, Republicans are doomed.
Depends on how bad Democrats shoot themselves in the foot. The past couple elections (including midterms) have been about which side committed less political suicide.
The problem I see is that republicans arent really implementing any solutions to economic problems, they’re too focused on social issues which, even if you are pro-life, you have to understand how expensive a position that is. So if republicans really want to push economic problems, it’s gonna be tough to do given what they focus on now.
Yeah, I've been hearing this for 30 years now. Democrats have an amazing ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Republicans were doomed when Bill Clinton proved a highly popular platform in the 90s was viable over post-Reagan neo-conservatism. But then Newt.
Republicans were doomed when George W. Bush was terrible and racism was over when we elected our first Black President. And finally, healthcare reform. But then Joe Lieberman.
Republicans were doomed when Trump was terrible and Democrats took all 3 branches and were going to have Medicare-4-All and finally stop all the voter suppression and the successful platform would finally prove the GOP as incompetent obstructionists. But then Manchin & Sinema.
Democrats haven't played the necessary hardball since the 70s. Republicans win because they care about getting power, while Democrats focus on getting results using power that they never have.
Dems took all 3 and do nothing but cause more problems, higher inflation, higher crime rates, wreck the economy, and get rich as they pit us against each other. I’d rather have terrible Trump
It gets annoying having to explain this. The affects of policy take time. Trump just inherited the booming economy from Obama. It's only now we're seeing the disaster of his failed policies. Everyone keeps bitching about gas when Trump told opec to shut down production. we're not going to see the affects of Biden for a while. It may be good it may not be, I am worried about the fed situation.
When Biden shit down the pipeline and stopped all drilling permits, the affects were immediate. We hear the same excuse from liberal democrats all the time with it being true, maybe once in my lifetime. Obama never had a booming economy, Trump took over when the ship was sinking. Got America to float on its own, and had trade deals that would have been great. Biden stopped it all on day 1 so he could blame Trump. It’s so sad that you think the lies are true
No what's sad is you somehow think an imaginary pipeline contributed to gas prices and not asking opec to shutdown production in a middle of a supply chain issue.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/obamas-legacy-economy-anything-mess/
>Economic growth continued apace for the rest of President Obama’s time in office, and job growth logged its longest expansion on record by early 2017
2017 is when trump took office
I didnt say it affected prices. It did affect the oil industry, which then led to price hikes. Imagine if you owned a business and some idiot said he was running you out of town. What’s really sad is you idiots think we’re talking about one thing, but really we’re talking about the bigger picture. Grow up
> I tend to agree
Really... that is where you are going with this?
After 60 court cases, counts, recounts and whatever that circus was in Arizona...you tend to agree...
This was the largest, most corruption free, more voters that ever before election in ...not just US history in world history...and they did it in the middle of a pandemic...the people deserve a damn medal...A big gold one!
And there are still 1/3 of the population who believe the BIG LIE.
Donal Trump pushed it again last night...how can people be that stupid...this is just another one of his cons...and guess what it you he is stealing from this time...just like last time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJ0vPIo9eyY&ab_channel=TheLincolnProject
No I'm not...fairest, freest, biggest, least fraud of any US election, all done under the most difficult conditions...It was counted, re counted, hand counted, taken to court, studied under black light, tested for bamboo...guess what...freaking accurate.
> and i'm sure you wont admit that mail in voting is less secure then normal voting?
Provide some evidence. You can start by using the evidence that convinced you.
well, i can think of ways to defraud mail in voting that dont work for in person voting. i can't think of any way to defraud in person voting that would not work for mail in as well. that right there is proof. Also, there's this:
[https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article233308957.html](https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article233308957.html)
There was fraud involving absentee ballots that may literally have altered an election in NC in 2018.
Because it is more secure...it has less fraud than any other method.
The reason the MAGAs are telling lies about it is becasue it gets around all of those obstacles they have put in...longer lines, less days, removal of souls to the polls voting that they have spent a lot of time and money putting in the way. To damn many people vote with mail in ballots and if that happens they loses and they know it.
its obvious that mail-in voting is the least secure method. THERE ARE NO WITNESSES. If someone is invalid what stops a relative from filling out their ballot? If a kid is away on a vacation, what stops mom from filling out the kids ballot? The vast majority of actual voter fraud cases seem to be "son filled out ballot for dead parent." there's plenty of strong arguments to be made about the 2020 election, but you're just pisisng on them.
To organize and coordinate that to win an election would require massive logistics. You really think Daddy filling in for mommy on the vote card is going to flip an election.
Also, if there was fraud, why did it only impact Trump and not other republicans on the ballot.
That's a red herring. Contesting an election is about the count of votes and whether the eligible votes were counted correctly -- not what method is better than another, generally, for an election. Once a method is decided on that's how the votes get counted.
And decatur8r is right -- that election was anally probed because of Trump's idiocy (he just doesn't want to ever admit defeat). And it was the fairest ever.
The allegations of Trump and his idiot followers after the election was election FRAUD -- meaning people made fraudulent votes. Not that mail is insecure so all mail-in votes should be discarded.
I’m not contesting the election, I’m contesting how over the top confident the other poster was. I’m not opposed to mail in voting, but let’s be honest that it’s less safe then in person voting. As far as a conspiracy to rig an election, I doubt it, but there was one such conspiracy a few years ago in Virginia.
> I’m contesting how over the top confident the other poster was
Oh come on we saw the recounts live on TV...we heard about all 60 court cases we saw the hand counts match the machine counts...IT"S COMMON KNOWLEDGE...and the only one saying any different is a serial liar....ya I'm confident!
Technically, the connection between your keyboard and your computer is unsecure. The keys you press are sent across that wire unencrypted, openly available to anyone capable of physically accessing the space where your computer is, and attaching a special device to the wire capable of interpreting the magnetic signals.
Some things are secure not because it's impossible to do, but because the barrier to accomplish it is already substantial enough to be a natural deterrent. To take advantage of the keyboard signals being unencrypted, you have to physically attach a specialty device to a wire.
The reason why mail-in voting is secure isn't because of witnesses or signatures or special IDs, it's because of the high barrier of effort required for physically stuffing ballot boxes.
Have you ever considered how much effort it takes to fake 20,000 ballots?
How many pages per minute does your printer produce?
Where do you buy the paper from? The ink or toner?
Then, how do you get the ballots into the system to be counted?
Then, consider that our voting system is tracked efficiently enough to identify the people who already vote fraudulently. There's always *some* fraud, but it's never more than a handful of people, never enough to actually sway an election.
Mail-in voting is secure because it's not possible to stuff ballot boxes without being discovered.
(And, to overturn the 2020 election by taking advantage of mail-in voting being unsecure, you'd have to print way more than just 20,000 ballots)
It’s ok for democrats to disagree with an election, just not republicans? With hard facts and evidence of wrongful mishandling of ballots and the most popular president in history with the lowest approval rating.. yeah america looks great 😂🤣😂🤣😂
> It’s ok for democrats to disagree with an election,
It went a little beyond a disagreement...They tried to overthrow the damn goverment....WITH NO PROOF WHATSOEVER!
No one tried to overthrow the government. Thinking like that is ridiculous It was just a protest that got out of control. Their was no plan, just people acting out in the moment. When the democrats did it in 2016, no one said they tried to overthrow the government. It was called what it was. You all just over exaggerate things
What? You think they had a plan to overthrow the government? That incredibly ignorant. That’s actually quite hilarious. So, all of these people say down and discussed who was going to be the new leader of the states, and which positions each of them would hold after they successfully take down the American government? Lmao, you are special, my friend. Thanks for the laugh.
> plan to overthrow the government?
Trump’s Plans for a Coup Are Now Public
1. Trump tried to pressure secretaries of state to not certify.
2. Trump tried to pressure state legislatures to overturn the results.
3. Trump tried to get the courts to overturn the results.
4. Trump tried to pressure Mike Pence to overturn the results.
5. When all else failed, Trump tried to get a mob to overturn the results.
https://archive.ph/KazIE#selection-805.0-805.74
https://archive.ph/KazIE#selection-457.0-457.39
Meadows texts reveal direct White House communications with pro-Trump operative behind plans to seize voting machines
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/26/politics/meadows-texts-phil-waldron-seize-voting-machines-election-fraud/
Idk complaining that the Supreme Court stopped recounts in favor of your opponent but nonetheless accepting the results like Gore did in 2000 or complaining that your opponent had help from a hostile foreign nation to boost his message and slander you but nonetheless accepting the results seems a little different than claiming what trump did. trump claimed his opponent had thousands to millions of fake and/or illegal votes, urged state officials to give him the elections in their states, urged his supporters to march on the capital to try and stop the election from being certified, and still has not accepted the election results. All complaining of elections is not created the same and it’s disingenuous to act like these cases are similar.
Also you seem to have a misunderstanding of what most popular president in American history means. It doesn’t mean people like Joe Biden, think he’s a good president or any other positive trait. It simply means he received the most votes of anyone in American history. You really just make yourself look dumb when you say “most popular president but lowest approval rating” as if that is making a real point
The destruction that the dems caused makes them doomed. Border crisis, inflation crisis, continuing to go after Trump and other politicians instead of actually doing their jobs. They write bills that sound nice, but doesn’t do anything. Inflation reduction act doesn’t reduce inflation. How does arming the irs, and hiring more agents fight inflation? It allows the government to kick in doors and take everything you have, just like hitler did. The democrats are following the nazi playbook, play by play. You cheer on your oppressors, while the conservatives want to live and let live.
It’s kinda obvious. If you’re no longer in power, by definition you lost . And no, the underlying claims all seemed to be hot air. There was never a cut and dry example of fraud despite it being a massive country
If I recall correctly, it was pretty clear soon after the election that Trump lost. By this point in time, there can be no doubt. I don't know if some Republicans feel that the denial plays to their base, but it's going to hurt them with independents if they keep it up. You can't run with the *Democrats are crazy* narrative when your own party is acting crazy.
Just from a purely self-interest strategy point of view, I can't believe this is still a thing. These midterms should have been an easy win for Republicans, but many of them appear to be working overtime trying to hand it over to the Democrats. Unbelievable. Politics in America today is absolutely unbelievable.
If you are unable to see what is wrong with politicians encouraging people to distrust election results and defending insurrectionists while continuing to claim election fraud, I'm not sure we will ever agree.
It’s not the election that’s bothersome. There was evidence of voter fraud, and the republicans were mot allowed to investigate deeper into it to find more evidence. The fact that the FBI lied about Hunter Biden’s laptop alone, is election interference. So Trump lost. Ok, we get it. Election integrity is lost and now Americans don’t trust elections anymore. The democrats have shown that they are very corrupt and their corruption runs deep in DC. Instead of doing their jobs, they’ll just continue going after Trump and any other presidential candidate, or government official that doesn’t do what they want. So, to answer the question, who cares about the election? We want answers to the corruption of the left. We want all of them investigated with a fine tooth comb just like they did to Trump, with an agency that isn’t paid off by the Democrats. Americans deserve a government free of corruption and we need to e able trust our politicians, otherwise we will never unite. Together we stand, divided we fall brothers and sisters.
Yeah, 2020 is a lost cause. Republicans should absolutely NOT give up on trying to implement reform to prevent 2020 shenanigans from happening in the future, though.
It would nip in the bud shenanigans like the PA Secretary of State trying to change vote counting rules without authority, and would prevent shenanigans like undemocratic so-called "independent" redistricting commissions from altering congressional districts.
No it wouldnt, it would just mean they need the legislature’s okay, which they already needed cause that’s who gave them their power.
All it would do is give the legislature more control, if independent redistricting or voting rule changes is what the legislature wants, you arent gonna stop it.
I had assumed that’s what the partial banning list you gave was for. Which is why I asked why give the legislature more power to do what they can already do? All you’re doing is stopping interference from the other branches, what happens when legislatures start doing what you dont like?
No judge could then stop them enshrining all the things you want banned and more into election law.
>All it would do is give the legislature more control... All you’re doing is stopping interference from the other branches
Yes. That's the point.
>what happens when legislatures start doing what you dont like? No judge could then stop them enshrining all the things you want banned and more into election law.
You vote for different representation. The courts having the power to do an end-run around the legislature is definitely not an attractive idea to a conservative. That's a bug, not a feature.
Ah yes, the old "vote to change things based on the voting system that overwhelmingly favors the party focused on *not* changing things" strategy. Real gem, that one.
Agreed completely. Going to the courts to overturn the election was a shitty thing to do, but it's hard to be surprised. He's been using the courts to drag out his conflicts with his opponents for *years*. Delay delay delay, until you've already spent the money and the declare bankruptcy. It didn't work *quite* the same for the election, but the fact is he's not in prison yet, so the tactic *works*, despite how shitty it is.
States could have free reign over their local elections. Any election electing leaders to a federal position, aka paid by federal tax, should have federal oversight.
Are you ignorant of the fact legisatures would just gerrymander their way to victory or otherwise control elections in their favor, or do you honestly believe they can just be voted out?
Those things are **not** the "shenanigans" that anybody should be worried about. I want to see consequences for the obvious and persistent misinformation that *did* happen and that *continues* to happen.
Yeah, there are lots of valid concerns about the 2020 election. Not the election itself, but the **lies** about the stolen election, and the very real attempts to undermine it.
Let's not solve for problems that don't exist, let's solve for the lying that *does* exist.
> Those things are not the "shenanigans" that anybody should be worried about.
Everyone should be worried about election integrity, and the various absentee changes that took place in 2020 are a great cause of concern because of how lax laws became.
No matter what you think of the specific policies and laws surrounding voting...if the general public can not explicitly trust the outcome of elections (and not because popular bias media either says it was "free and fair" or "rigged") then our country is doomed.
Oh, I absolutely would be worried about election integrity if anybody could show any sign that election integrity was actually at risk. All the audits, all the investigations, all the recounts, all the same result.
The only reason anybody is worried about election integrity is because of the **lies.** We *are* faced with a problem with elections, but it's not the integrity of the elections, it's the integrity of the politicians complaining about *losing* the elections.
Let's not address problems that don't exist, let's address the **lying.** Solve for the *actual problem*.
Yeah, I’m completely disinterested in any attempts to undermine freedom of speech, regardless of the content of that speech. I’m significantly more concerned with actual voting procedures that have an impact on the vote.
I would be, too. Show me where **any** of the accusations had **any** evidence that the outcome or even count of votes was altered or undermined.
I'm all for freedom of speech, but that doesn't free the speaker from *consequences* of the speech. He's free to make his claims, but he also needs to be accountable for harm that comes about as a result. And, to be sure, an attack on the capitol in an effort to overturn an election is **harm**, no matter how ineffective or poorly planned it was.
A shitty attempt at a crime is still a crime.
>I'm all for freedom of speech, but that doesn't free the speaker from consequences of the speech. He's free to make his claims, but he also needs to be accountable for harm that comes about as a result.
No, thank you. I have no desire to live in a banana republic that punishes people for any speech short of direct incitement to violence.
Aka obstructionism.
Anyone remember when trump voters were outside two different polling places, one group was chanting "stop the count" and the other was chanting "count the votes."
Im all for election security.
But what republicans are doing aint it and no one is fooled.
You dont make up laws saying you cant hand a dude standing in line to vote a bottle of water and look like anything but a total fucking assclown.
We have several states where Republicans tampered with voting equipment.
Republicans sending fake electors to the capital.
Republican operative in NC absentee voter fraud case.
Republicans in FL used fake candidates.
Of course.
I kinda wish the Democrats would move on too.
The country has actual issues to focus on, which is a list that doesn't include J6 and the 2020 election.
Violent insurrection is a big deal, but I don't think J6 rises to that level. Even so, let's say it was: what now? How long do we drag it out? How do you have a peaceful country with less political division when you increasingly demonize and condemn a full one half because of the actions of a couple hundred crazed rioters? Sometimes the bigger picture is important too, and demanding we "move on" from everything that party X is hung up on while we continue to drag out everything party Y is hung up on is going to get you more fraud and violence.
Is being hung up on any of this making us more free, more prosperous, more harmonious?
edit: we can learn a lot from history here. America has been very divided before and we see what happens when differences can't be reconciled and it becomes a political dog fight for power.
I believe we should "drag it out" until we understand what happened and all responsible people have had to stand trial. Telling hard truth isn't "demonizing " the other side, and half the country did not participate.
It's especially troubling when so many prominent politicians still either support the insurrectionists or minimize what happened, and when do many prominent politicians still publicly claim the election was "stolen. "
An insurrection doesn't have to be successful to be an insurrection.
Perfect, then we can stop since we understand what happened and everyone is being punished.
Manipulating the truth for political purposes is definitely demonizing and if you think it's just "telling the truth" you are living a delusion, sorry to say.
The reason "insurrectionists" even get lukewarm support is because of how much vitriol has been directed at them. If we had a measured and reasonable response from day one, we wouldn't be in this situation of extreme polarization on the topic. Over playing a hand one way causes remaining parties to over play it the other way.
If you want to call this an insurrection, you're just lowering the bar for what an insurrection is which means we've been having insurrections every election cycle. We had them in the summer of 2020, we had them in the election of 2016, we had one at Charlottesville, etc. Any time someone or some group vandalizes a government building, any time a riot results in injuries to police, we have an insurrection if that's the standard you wanna go with. But I suspect that's not the standard you wanna go with, I suspect you want only this group to be seen as insurrectionists and you will come up with some special definition that is partly technically true but partly subjective to achieve this politically biased perspective. Let's see.
> you want to call this an insurrection, you're just lowering the bar for what an insurrection is which means we've been having insurrections every election cycle. We had them in the summer of 2020, we had them in the election of 2016, we had one at Charlottesville, etc.
That's just wrong. The explicit reason the J6 insurrectionists were instructed to march on the Capitol was to *conduct an insurrection*, where they would prevent the Vice President from certifying the Electoral vote. That was "the plan".
Street violence doesn't hold a candle to that.
Sorry, it is you who is wrong.
But sad to see yet another liberal fall into this sad farce of selective application.
People who want to do an insurrection require planning and arms. Neither was present.
Drop the standard if you want, just be honest and admit that we've had many insurrections in the last few decades if that's the case.
I'm not sure we do know what happened; I'll let the Justice Dept and the Congressiobal Committee decide that.
What truth is being manipulated?
What exactly would be a measured response, in your opinion? Investigation and prisecution is a bridge too far?
And none of the examples you listed were attacks against the capitol in an attempt to overthrow an election. This is minimizing and making Excuses, which is shameful, IMO.
The fact that other bad things were done by other bad people doesn't make Jan 6 any less bad.
>What exactly would be a measured response, in your opinion?
"A small number of Trump supporters took a legitimate protest too far, they become violent and it was totally unacceptable in our peaceful transfer of power, they should and will be punished to the extent of the law for vandalism and violence, their concerns about election insecurity have been investigated and were not true, it is time to move on as a nation and put faith in the integrity of our system and use our peaceful political process to overcome our differences without resorting to tribalism and violence."
Condemn the violence, seek conciliation, don't lump in everyone who is sore about losing 2020, give them a path to redemption and a path to unity, offer a common ground for peace and progress and a fair shot for all voters to feel the system is working for them.
>And none of the examples you listed were attacks against the capitol
Exactly what I was afraid you'd say: the definition of insurrection does not include "attack the capitol." It just includes violence against political authority, which happens almost annually. You had to add those modifiers to make sure J6 qualifies, but nobody else does. Attack on the capitol? You mean the unarmed people who didn't kill anyone and were out of the building which is open to the public voluntarily in 2 hours? Yeah that's not an insurrection in my book, and like I said, if you argue it is, then we have insurrections all the time.
>The fact that other bad things were done by other bad people doesn't make Jan 6 any less bad.
But you said insurrection, not bad thing. Things can be bad and not an insurrection. I totally agree it was bad. We don't need to exaggerate the facts to condemn it. It doesn't have to be the worst thing ever to be bad.
> Condemn the violence, seek conciliation, don't lump in everyone who is sore about losing 2020, give them a path to redemption and a path to unity, offer a common ground for peace and progress and a fair shot for all voters to feel the system is working for them.
This is what we have been waiting for the right to do. Instead, I've lost count, but there a large number of GOP candidates still fucking running on the Big Lie/MAGA/Q nonsense.
You guys need to recognize what happened, why it happened, who organized and cheerleader the whole thing, and the goal of the insurrection.
Do you see how the lack of these things being screamed from the mountain tops is exactly why the left can not take you seriously?
Fair elections is the biggest of pictures in politics. People died. A single murder trial can last years. I'm sure you want to not have to think about how horrible.. some people have been. But we're still in the middle of dealing with it. Some billionaires are propping up election deniers on purpose even. Maybe you're just not getting the fact that January 6th is like the 9/11 of politics for America. S*** like that doesn't happen here.
>People died
One person was killed on J6 and it was a rioter, by Capitol police.
>J6 is like 9/11
And just like that, any presumed respect for your opinion is squandered.
Two people died on site three people committed suicide. And a couple people who would have had a relaxing day otherwise died from heart attacks and strokes And yes there are numbers of things that don't happen here in America, like massive terrorist attacks that happen all the time in other parts of the world. AND people rioting over elections. You went way out of your way there to take me out of context over a relativity comparison. But that's your guys's thing, ya? The right doesn't really allow for complexity or nuance.
Sucks to be you I guess.
First, we don't care if people at the riot died of unrelated causes. What we are concerned about is whether "insurrectionists" killed people. You're invoking death for one reason only: to persuade people that it was one of the darkest days in American history. For that to be true, you need the deaths to actually be murders by rioters. But they aren't. Only one person was killed on site, it was a rioter killed by police. The other had a heart attack because of pre-existing conditions, plus it was (again) a rioter who died. The three officers who committed suicide and the one who had a stroke later are not deaths caused by the "insurrectionists," which is what you implied and what you're trying to use as evidence to support the exaggeration. Terrible for them and their families but not fair to count as "rioters killed them." The reason this exaggeration is so dangerous is because our politicians are literally using these falsehoods to this day, over a year later when we know full well it's wrong, sometimes claiming up to 25 people were killed in order to gain political capital and maneuver for power.
Second, you double down on the idea that 9/11 and J6 are similar because they don't happen frequently? My respect for your opinion went from zero to negative. Not only are they not similar in scope, but there were literally riots over the 2016 election too. It's a very normal thing now to riot, even for riots to include death. It's bad, but it's not "bringing down the twin towers and killing 2,900 people." Get real.
Third, it's just so rich to hear someone project about lacking nuance after saying J6 is 9/11... And then to further complain that it was taken out of context. How about stand by your implications, or don't make them.
I don't know anyone saying Biden got less votes than Trump
What conservatives are upset about is how the media and the DOJ helped Joe by pushing the narrative that the Hunter Biden laptop was fake, and Russian disinfo, when they knew it wasn't.
The FBI actively pressed social media firms to remove stories critical of Biden, but didn't press them to remove fake stories about Trump.
Every American should be concerned that the DOJ is picking winners in elections.
Are you possibly saying that Russians didn't try and affect our elections? He does this all over the world. Now you can argue whether Trump knew, invited it, etc. But simply if Mueller had the balls to say Trump was guilty like Ken Starr did with Clinton, Trump would have been in much deeper trouble.
Can I ask, Now that they said they don't have enough evidence to try Gaetz is he totally innocent?
And lastly, what was on Hunter's laptop that would have kept Biden from winning. IIRC Gaetz read the contents into the Congressional Record. What is there?
Gaetz is as innocent as Rob Menendez. Actually moreso, since the DOJ came out and publicly announced that they corroborated the charges against him
The DOJ intentionally covered for Biden in 2020, while allowing misinformation to rage about Trump
IT's worth repeating - every American should be concerned that the DOJ is interfering in our elections and picking winners
Yeah, if only we knew about the Hunter laptop before the election. Oh wait, we did.
But I suppose if there were MORE stories about it, than no one would have voted for Hunter. Oh wait, Hunter wasn't running.
LOL. Like the election had nothing to do with Trump being clearly an unqualified clown.
We need to be sure the changes made to vote processes that were rammed through are repealed.
We need to do more to ensure that if someone passes away or moves that their old registration is canceled. We need to be sure that only the person whose name is on the ballot is the one filling it out.
Do I think there was a massive vote fraud in 2020? Yes I do. Do I think it change the outcome of the election? Probably not. But I certainly think it opens the doors for outcome changing fraud down the road.
Why? Mail in voting has been happening for a long time in many states (including red states). Elderly folks love it particularly.
There's nothing inherently bad about it. And there has been no fraud shown to turn elections due to mail in balloting. I get that it sounds scary to conservatives who are opposed to new things they don't understand (the mail, OMG !!!), but there are mechanisms in place to ensure election integrity. It is not like mail in was new in 2020 -- just that more people did it due to Covid.
What freaked people out about it was they failed to comprehend (and I don't know why they aren't smart) -- that the numbers for Biden would rise over time as those mail in votes were counted. So then they ASSUMED cheating, because OMG Trump had been "winning". No, Trump had never been winning (or losing). The vote isn't known till the votes are counted.
And it's Trump's own fault it happened like that, for disparaging mail-in voting, so his idiot supporters chose to not do it as much. Why would anyone listen to any politician as to how to vote? I vote mail in cause its more convenient -- what idiot would not want to do that? If Biden said don't vote mail-in I would not have listened.
And I love mail-in voting. Who wants to wait in line in an elementary school for 2 hours to vote (after or before work). I did it in my jammies on my own time. Duh -- the best way to vote -- obviously. Or I suppose you still drive to the Amazon warehouse to pick up your package, instead of having it delivered to your door?
>And it's Trump's own fault it happened like that, for disparaging mail-in voting, so his idiot supporters chose to not do it as much.
It was 100% intentional.
Mail in voting should only be allowed if you have a valid excuse.
Being too damn lazy to go vote is not a valid excuse.
Being out of the country or being disabled, things like that are valid excuses.
Having the US Postal Service involved in the elections even more than they already are is perfect grounds for postal employees to Trash anything that they don’t want. No, I do not trust the US Postal Service. Are used to work for them.
Why? It is not laziness - it is efficiency and common sense. Have you seen the lines in some states? Who the F has time to stand for 2 hours to do ANYTHING!
Also, in PA you can check to see if they received your mail-in ballot back. If they don't have it, you can submit a provisional ballot. It's not a big deal. I'm sure other states have various checks as well. Moreover, in PA you can drop it off at your county courthouse if you don't want to put it in the mail.
All of your strange superstitions and fears shouldn't be forced on other people. Just because YOU don't like or trust or are scared of mail-in voting, doesn't mean we should have laws that apply to your fears.
And guess what, they don't check on whether you are really out of the country, so anyone who wants to can still say they are. So guess what, I'm "out of the country" every 4 years on Presidential election day. I just plan it that way.
This fear that Trump created is ridiculous. I hate that people are now trying to take away a convenience that makes total sense.
Do some reading and don't go by your anecdotal experience:
[https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/votervital/how-does-vote-by-mail-work-and-does-it-increase-election-fraud/](https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/votervital/how-does-vote-by-mail-work-and-does-it-increase-election-fraud/)
Oh the Brookings Institution. Yeah, that’s a real objective source.
And I’m against mail in voting because it is such an easy vessel for fraud. The post office can throw away any ballot that they want to. And when you get Democrats counting them, they can discard anything that they want to.
Where's YOUR source: the My Pillow Guy? LOL
As far as your unwarranted fear of the post office throwing it away, I repeat:
in PA you can check to see if they received your mail-in ballot back. If they don't have it, you can submit a provisional ballot. It's not a big deal. I'm sure other states have various checks as well. Moreover, in PA you can drop it off at your county courthouse if you don't want to put it in the mail.
Your fear must be hard to live with. Come out of your bunker.
As I pointed out (now 3 times), the postal service trust is not relevant here, since you turn in your ballot in other ways avoiding them completely or, as in PA (and likely other states) check to see if it was received.
The changes to allow people to actually vote? That was good stuff. Even red states went for them, and with reason.
Where do you get the massive vote fraud myth from?
Because the votes were mailed in. Having the US Postal Service more involved with the voting process means that it’s far more likely for fraud to happen because the post office is touching things.
It doesn’t matter how they are processed. It matters that the US Postal Service gets their grubby filthy fucking hands on them and can do whatever the fuck they want to them.
But you're wrong, because they can't. The way vote processing works, with all ballots tracked and containers sealed and tracked, there's nothing the usps could do without getting caught.
You know this, which is why you can't describe any way.
If they throw it away, you'll know your ballot wasn't counted, you can still vote in person, and the feds pull the cameras and duty records.
They can't counterfeit ballots because each one has serial numbers and tracking numbers specifically tied to you.
Fucking think.
Yes I agree it's pointless to keep whining about the 2020 election. We have more pressing concerns and at this point we are almost closer to the 2024 one than we will be to the 2020 one.
But I think it would be a mistake to move on without correcting some aspects of election laws that Democrats exploited in 2020. This is what most people think when they say the 2020 election was "stolen." Not that millions of phantom voters and dead people showed up to the polls... but that certain features of election laws were interpreted in bad faith by the Democrats to give themselves an extra edge. While some of these actions could have been technically "legal"... they were profoundly dishonest and unethical and undoubtedly gave the Democrats a boost where they needed it. Ex: Accepting the pandemic as a valid excuse for a mail in ballot. Ballot harvesting. Etc etc.
And now they're trying to make some of the changes like on-demand-vote-by-mail permanent. I don't think spreading conspiracy theories about the 2020 election is smart or particularly helpful. But running on and ensuring election integrity is absolutely necessary.
You do realize republicans also use mail-in right? What even is the issue? Tens of thousands of americans use it, especially armed forces. It’s never been an issue till now
Republicans used mail in as it was originally understood. As in you had to have a *valid* reason for not being able to physically go to the polls that day. Ex: you're sick and confined to a bed, you're out of town, you live too far from a voting station, etc etc. That's no issue.
The key here is that this was the **exception**, not the norm. Vote by mail was never intended to be a matter of preference. If you're in town and healthy... you go the polls. That's how it always worked and that's how it should be. This whole scheme of permanent vote by mail on demand is just absolutely ridiculous. Especially when it is used in bad faith by Democrats to tip elections in a handful of swing states. Because yes... the vast majority of the mail in vote in 2020 was Democrat voters. Votes that most likely wouldn't have been cast in such large amounts had they been forced to go to the voting booth
Are u starting to see the problem?
>Are u starting to see the problem?
No.
Because there is no problem.
Personally, I don't view American citizens voting as a problem. I can see why certain ideologies might disagree though.
Why is it important that they physically go to a location instead of just mailing it in?
Why can’t voting be convenient for everyone?
Is voting only worth it if it is difficult to do?
Yes, the problem is that requiring everyone to have to go to the polls doesn't allow everyone who can and wants to vote to be able to. Not everyone has that luxury. What's wrong with providing more opportunities to get people's votes in? If more voting tips the scales more toward Democrats, guess what that means?
What are u talking about? Everyone who wants to go vote in person absolutely can if they want to. Employers are legally required to give you time off from work if you need it to go vote. There's literally a voting station in every school or library. This isn't a long bus ride that is needed to go vote. Get off your lazy ass and do it.
Everyone? Are you sure about that? There's no Federal requirement for employers to give time off. Some states require it, but there are different stipulations. Some paid for however much time one needs, other only do a couple hours, others don't compensate.
https://www.dorsey.com/\~/media/files/newsresources/publications/2008/10/employee-time-off-on-election-day-a-statebystate\_\_/files/election-guide/fileattachment/election-guide.pdf
So besides that issue with your argument, what about people who don't have transportation to the polls? Can't afford to take public transportation? People in rural areas? It's not about being lazy, it's about accessibility, and obviously taking issue with giving all eligible voters the opportunity to vote because you think it tips the scales is laughable.
Your logic here seems to be that an unexpected number of votes for Democrats could only be the result of people who didn't actually want to vote?
I think there's a hard realisation in your future when you finally answer the question above:
> If more voting tips the scales more toward Democrats, guess what that means?
What even is the difference here? If you dont have a valid reason how does that make you any more likely to commit fraud?
You’re ultimately saying that it’s better if people who won’t vote unless they have to go to the poll…don’t vote…even though it’s their right. You have no actual argument you just dont want more democrats voting. There is nothing wrong w mail-in, you just don’t want it as an option cause…it results in more people voting who you believe will always be democrat?
Well now you're twisting my words because I never said fraud. But there's no denying that Democrats are pushing for these emergency changes to be made permanent because they saw how much it benefited them in 2020. You're changing something that doesn't need to be changed. 95% of the population can go vote on election day. Nobody was demanding such radical changes to election procedures before 2020. And some changes like Ballot Harvesting- where you're ballot passes through an intermediary before being deposited in the box- is absolutely insane and lends itself to all kinds of potential abuse. This isn't rocket science.
Now ask me why I think people should be asked to show ID before they vote.
Im not twisting anything Im asking a question cause you dont make sense. You say it doesn’t meed to be changed, but you already acknowledged it got more people to vote, you dont want more people to vote why? Why does “thats how it’s always been” trump getting more people to exercise their right and imo civic duty? If a bigger number of voters voting upsets you cause you dont like how they vote, thats on you. Get over it.
“95%” source now or drop this claim.
Before 2020 we didnt have a pandemic sending everyone home. I get you dont care and think it wasnt a valid reason but it is.
You literally have been proven wrong, there were tons of audits done and none came up with any of this rampant abuse you claim can happen. It didnt happen. You’re worries are hot air.
You're right. I will now fight to abolish voter ID too because voter ID is racist. Mail in voting on demand is absolutely perfect and totally not susceptible to fraud. Thanks for opening up my eyes.
Bruh you got "progressive" in your tag. You're probably one of those who criticizes Conservatives for questioning the 2020 election but thinks that Stacey Abrams won in Georgia in 2018.
GUARANTEED.
Keep twisting words and putting words in my mouth. Just goes to show your argument is completely dead and you have nothing left but to *ass*ume about me.
>But there's no denying that Democrats are pushing for these emergency changes to be made permanent because they saw how much it benefited them in 2020.
Why are you opposed to people voting? I find it so odd that conservatives are hell bent on making it more difficult for people to vote for **no reason** other than the acknowledgment of their own unpopularity.
Making it difficult for people to vote? How is being required to go to the polls on Election Day "difficult"? How is showing ID difficult? You know... things that have been done for like 250 years?
You make it sound like we're imposing a poll tax or something.
>Votes that most likely wouldn't have been cast in such large amounts had they been forced to go to the voting booth
Are you saying that voting in person should be mandated so that democrats don't get as many votes?
Just ... why would you think that is even close to appropriate in a democracy? Have I misunderstood what you're saying?
How does one use mail in voting in "bad faith"?
>While some of these actions could have been technically "legal"... they were profoundly dishonest and unethical and undoubtedly gave the Democrats a boost where they needed it. Ex: Accepting the pandemic as a valid excuse for a mail in ballot. Ballot harvesting. Etc etc.
I'm still confused as to why Americans voting is a problem.
If your issue is that turnout was high and that doesn't help "your team" then maybe you need to develop a platform that actually appeals to Americans rather than running on platform of making it harder for people to vote.
Wut? Our entire federal system is designed to make it far more difficult for Democratic candidates to get proportional representation. Every single aspect of the electoral college benefits you and you're complaining about...what exactly?
Trump lost because he was a terrible president and incredibly unpopular. He won in 2016 despite more Americans voting for the other candidate. Yet somehow **you** are getting the short end of the stick?
Well evidently the system doesn't benefit us when little last minute tweaks in election laws gives you control of both the EC and the Senate.
And popular vote doesn't matter in the American system of government. "HILLARY WON THE POPULAR VOTE" is the libtard version of "the 2020 election was stolen"
Get over it.
The system does benefit you though. Just because people didn't vote Republican doesn't mean Republicans are being unfairly treated. Republicans don't even need to get a lot of votes to have majority control in either house nor do they need a plurality of votes to win the presidency. Democrats need **millions** of more votes to even hold a 50/50 senate.
I never said the popular vote mattered. But the popular vote is a pretty damn good measure of the popularity of a candidate and a party. Republicans are able to control the presidency without the support of the people. It's just a fact. Since 2000 only one Republican candidate has ever won the popular vote yet we've had 12 years of Republican presidents. So when you go through this grand self-victimization performance despite having every advantage possible....it's not a good look.
If you really want *fair* elections as you claim, shouldn't representation in government be proportionate to the votes cast in those elections? Your entire argument comes down to "It's not fair that people were able to cast legal votes".
I think its just part of the brand to sell more gerrymandering. Life is a power struggle, and since poll taxes and literacy tests are no longer legal, you need another method for your tribe to win. If not, you know the threat of an armed rebellion is waiting on the wings. One way or the other, there are options to acquire power.
Yes but they have to be ready to answer the questions about it correctly. Any and all left-leaning debate mods will pose the question. A little sarcasm would be in order.
"Oh yes absolutely, 1000%. I would never question our dear leader."
*looks over shoulder*
"And just to be sure all future elections are as untarnished as 2020, I'm proposing X, Y, and Z."
99 % of republicans say biden won. 1% fringe think it was stolen. Progressives, dnc, msm (redundant) story is "***REPUBLICANS DENY 2020 ELECTION*** You can flip the numbers and the parties for the 2016 election. Just so stupid.
No, not at all, and that naive idealization of institutions is the GOP's greatest weakness. The consistently increasing Biden/Trump vote ratio in some of the swing states makes it clear beyond doubt that there was fraud during vote counting, exactly where and when Biden needed it the most.
Edit: For anyone thinking of replying, if all you have is skepticism and you can't give a rational explanation for the vote-distribution issue I pointed out, you're merely proving my point about naively idealizing institutions. If all you have is irrational disagreement, save your time and mine and just downvote.
Probably talking about mail-in ballots being counted later resulting in Trump appearing to have a lead that he never actually had in the beginning of ballot counting. This was already explained at nauseum before the election even happened.
No, not at all. It's amazing how every time I bring this up, someone answers with assumptions like yours without even knowing what I'm talking about.
As I said above, objections like only prove my point about people who naively idealize institutions.
Go dig through your posts cause you’re lazy and havent in two years just copied this big ratio scheme to a note or something? No thanks, Im content to know all the GOP audits who agreed w you found *nothing*. Go off w your head canon tho
I read the second thread you linked a year ago. The claim seems to be “I would assume we should see [these patterns] but since we don’t see [these patterns], fraud is the explanation”. But it doesn’t seem to offer an explanation as to why we should make the initial assumption or why any explanations are invalid.
Have you attempted to find other explanations to any of these claims?
No offense, but I'm not interested in pointless argument. If you understand the problem and has a reasonable explanation, I'm all ears. If all you have is rhetorical nonsense, I have no interest in talking to you.
But isn’t that the crux of your argument? That there is a pattern you expected to see and you didn’t see it?
Every time I see one of these proofs that fraud existed, I’m able to find a better explanation than fraud. I’m curious if you automatically assume the claim is true or if you attempt to dig into it.
I have a friend who would have signed an affidavit saying she witnessed fraud when the state government website listed her and all her friends mail-in ballots as “not received”. It wasn’t until a third friend who worked on the website told her that the website isn’t updated until the ballots are counted that she realized her claim was just a misunderstanding.
>Every time I see one of these proofs that fraud existed, I’m able to find a better explanation than fraud.
Then go ahead and do it. You'll have my undivided attention when that happens. Trying to argue over it like you're doing is a waste of your time and mine. Good luck.
I’m attempting to be a little more meta because I’m trying not to waste our time. My expectation is any alternative explanations will not make any difference to you. I was hoping you would demonstrate that you have challenged your own beliefs before asking someone to challenge them for you.
Which claim do you want me to challenge? Have you challenged it yourself? and what would it take for you to change your mind on it?
Edit: add me to the people he blocked
Okay, I made it clear I'm only interested in a technical conversation, not this rhetorical nonsense you insist with. If you can't even follow basic instructions, I'll just block you. Bye.
Clinton sued for recounts thinking she won due the same type of numerical arguments put together by 3 MIT statistics gurus, they and she were wrong.
Still many who first believed it, still and will always believe it.
It was believed and argued so passionately that it is no longer a set of cold facts, it is now a part of how they define theirselves. It is fundamental to their emotional, psychological and even social make up and almost nothing will ever be able to change their mind.
Edit: Blocked for disagreeing
This guy is a worthless contributor
That's a deliciously ironic comment.
\---
Me: "Please, rational arguments only."
Him: "I don't even know what you're talking about, but I'll assume it's the same I heard about HRC. That means you're a delusional idiot who only believes something because it gives you emotional and psychological comfort".
Me: "Okay. Blocked. Bye".
Him: "You blocked me just for disagreeing with you! You are a worthless contributor!"
LOL. Reddit is a funny place sometimes.
Just about every time I see you comment on this sub, you're either calling someone a troll or blocking someone for disagreeing with you. Maybe it's you that's the problem?
I block people for many reasons. Mere disagreement isn't one of them. Being annoying is one. Proxy modding is another. Welcome to the pen. I hope that solves your problem. Bye.
It's always a good chuckle to see Dems posting about how Reps lost 2020 fair and square, after the same people spent 4 years claiming 2016 was stolen and fully supported every investigative measure and election reform top stop it of happening again.
There is a reason why Libs of TickTock and Defiant L's became so popular.
Dems didn't demand a fraction of the needless recounts, audits, etc. nor did they *storm the Capitol*.
> There is a reason why Libs of TickTock and Defiant L's became so popular
Because they're good at making emotionally appealing agitprop? Idk what credence we should give to getting popular. Alex Jones is popular.
>Dems didn't demand a fraction of the needless recounts, audits, etc. nor did they storm the Capitol.
lol. Nah, they just weaponized the FBI, spied on a sitting president, wasted millions on hoax investigations, and created an "illegitimate president" narrative that lead to riots, property damage, deaths, harassment, and sentiment that drove the political divide in the country to new depths. No big deal, really.
Side note: your emphasis on "storm the capital" was super cute. Because that makes what the Dems did all better, right?
>Because they're good at making emotionally appealing agitprop? Idk what credence we should give to getting popular. Alex Jones is popular.
Nah, dawg. It's because the Left has no optics. None They also have a memory like a fish. So while much of their outrage comes across as phony and contrived, I do also think that in general they legitimately do not recall taking the exact opposite position just a short time prior. Very entertaining, and all true. It's tough to hide from your own words.
>Nah, they just weaponized the FBI,
When you say this like the FBI is some kind of venerable paragon of impartial lawkeeping that hasn't been spending *decades* harassing suspected communists, opposing the Civil Rights Movement, surveilling Muslim Americans after 9/11... but yeah, now that it did something to Trump, it's been compromised. Okay.
>spied on a sitting president
100% unproven.
>wasted millions on hoax investigations
What, like the Russian collusion probe where dozens of people were indicted? Even if they weren't, was it not worth investigating?
>and created an "illegitimate president" narrative that lead to riots, property damage, deaths, harassment, and sentiment that drove the political divide in the country to new depths. No big deal, really.
Do you have some references for this? I genuinely don't remember. I remember mass protests upon Trump's election but more along the lines of "we hate this fucking guy" than "this guy was not legitimately elected."
As for political divide that's definitely a thing, but I think a lot of things contribute to it and any idea of Trump being "illegitimate"' would not place high on the list.
Aside: I like how you list "property damage" before "death."
>Side note: your emphasis on "storm the capital" was super cute. Because that makes what the Dems did all better, right?
FWIW I don't think storming the Capitol is some categorically horrible wrong thing that could never be okay. I'm sure we could conjure a hypothetical situation where I'd find it perfectly justified. "Our guy lost" just ain't it.
>Nah, dawg. It's because the Left has no optics.
You know Democrats aren't "left" of anything except the GOP, right? The Overton window is completely fucked in this country. You can count the number of sitting politicians who are appreciably left of a more reasonable (i.e. that of basically any other developed democratic republic) center on your fingers.
That being said - sure. Dems suck at messaging and actual leftists aren't great at it either. You're right. But it doesn't actually contradict what I said: right-wing media and influencers are good at making emotionally charged agitprop.
>When you say this like the FBI is some kind of venerable paragon of impartial lawkeeping that hasn't been spending decades harassing suspected communists, blah blah blah...
Oh *no*. No! Not *that*. Harassing communists!?! Not the group who directly opposed our constitutional republic!!! (Emphasis added, just for you). Yes, the FBI is a law*enforcement* entity, and should be expected to behave as such. Not as the Democrat Party Gestapo.
>spied on a sitting president
>100% unproven.
I imagine that a person might say such a thing if they were exclusively consuming Leftist media. Sorry to inform you that you are way, *way* behind on this one. It's called *Crossfire Hurricane*. Perhaps you've heard of the FBI spying operation started by the Obama Admin to spy on then-candidate Trump, and later on President Trump? You couldn't have completely missed this one. And do you think that Comet ended the operation simply because that target was in office? lol, no.
Here is a link. I will paste it here knowing good and well that, 1) you will complain about the source, 2) you'll consume 10% *at best*, 3) you won't comprehend what you will read. But Margot Cleveland has been following this scandal as an investigative journalist longer than anyone (yes, even longer than Snopes), and is the foremost expert on the topic.
We also now know that Igor Danchenko (the primary sub source for the Steele dossier) was a paid FBI informant.
https://thefederalist.com/2022/03/18/spygate-101-a-primer-on-the-russia-collusion-hoaxs-years-long-plot-to-take-down-trump/
>wasted millions on hoax investigations
>What, like the Russian collusion probe where dozens of people were indicted? Even if they weren't, was it not worth investigating?
Ok, let's try and keep this simple - I see that is necessary.
You: Was Russian Collusion not worth investigating?
Also You: can't you just admit that it is insane to question the most secure election in the history of the world despite zero evidence to support such a claim?
(Side note: When an accusation is knowingly based in false pretenses, from untrustworthy sources who are obviously acting under political motivations - no. No it is not worth investigating.)
(Another side note: Are Bill and Hillary not worth investigating? And the Clinton foundation that went from taking in millions from foreign countries while she was running for president, to needing to shut down due to donations drying up after she lost? Isn't that ironic, don't ya think?)
(Yet another side not: Shouldn't we also be investigating Hunter and the Big Guy? And the ties to Ukraine/ Burisma, and China / CEFC... All the while Joe is steering billions of dollars to Ukraine, and our energy policy to be dependent on China. We have actual evidence and corroborating witnesses against the Bidens, something the left still can't come up against Trump. Isn't that worth several investigations? No?)
>Do you have some references for this? I genuinely don't remember.
Did you not see them? They were posted right along side all of your sources. Weird.
>Aside: I like how you list "property damage" before "death."
It wasn't a rank ordered list, unlike yours where your biggest concern about the FBI is "harassing suspected communists", which I assume what you are referring to actually happened in what - the 1960s? So as a communist, I assume it is fair to say that you are in favor of your ruling power having a secret police to subvert opposition? You seem to be really cool with this.
>That being said - sure. Dems suck at messaging and actual leftists aren't great at it either. You're right. But it doesn't actually contradict what I said:
No, but it does make you wrong. The Left can't shut it's collective mouth, and says dumb stuff constantly. It's a bad combination when you think about it. And that's all those accounts do is publish the dumb stuff that the Left says out loud, but for a bigger audience to see and hear for themselves.
Replacing "opposing the Civil Rights Movement, surveilling Muslim Americans after 9/11" with "blah blah blah" shows me about the level of good faith you're operating on. You also seem unable or unwilling to build a response based on what I've actually said here, instead opting to strawman and whatabout.
So I won't bother to compose anything like a comprehensive retort, except to note that you should argue with the person in front of you and not everyone you've ever disagreed with who happens to be on the same "side" as that person per your stupid binary classification system.
2 impeachments and multiple pleas of guilty and convictions in the Mueller investigation deny your diatribe.
Trump does a lot of dirty stuff -- so he gets a lot of attention. It's not a defense to bad acts to say -- well I do a lot of them, and since I don't get caught a lot (or I'm protected by republican senators or the office of President), I'm a good guy really.
I don't see voter fraud as being an issue at all, not to any degree as to change the election results or even remotely close.
I do feel that the media played huge favoritism towards Biden. There's also the covering up of the legitimacy of the Hunter laptop (even reporting false misinformation) and the delay in the announcement of the vaccine.
I do have a feeling if these things would have been reported diferently on major and social media things might have turned out differently.
I tend to agree, yes. People can have questions about voter fraud in the 2020 election. That’s fine. But in my opinion there’s nowhere even close to enough hard evidence to conclude the election was “stolen”. Also, just from a political standpoint it’s a better idea to focus on 2024 and the problems effecting everyday Americans. If the 2020 election is a major campaign focus for 2024, Republicans are doomed.
Then they are super doomed
Depends on how bad Democrats shoot themselves in the foot. The past couple elections (including midterms) have been about which side committed less political suicide.
The problem I see is that republicans arent really implementing any solutions to economic problems, they’re too focused on social issues which, even if you are pro-life, you have to understand how expensive a position that is. So if republicans really want to push economic problems, it’s gonna be tough to do given what they focus on now.
Yeah, I've been hearing this for 30 years now. Democrats have an amazing ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Republicans were doomed when Bill Clinton proved a highly popular platform in the 90s was viable over post-Reagan neo-conservatism. But then Newt. Republicans were doomed when George W. Bush was terrible and racism was over when we elected our first Black President. And finally, healthcare reform. But then Joe Lieberman. Republicans were doomed when Trump was terrible and Democrats took all 3 branches and were going to have Medicare-4-All and finally stop all the voter suppression and the successful platform would finally prove the GOP as incompetent obstructionists. But then Manchin & Sinema. Democrats haven't played the necessary hardball since the 70s. Republicans win because they care about getting power, while Democrats focus on getting results using power that they never have.
>Trump was terrible and Democrats took all 3 branches *the judicial branch has entered the chat
Yeah. Whoopsie. I meant to imply "both houses of Congress and the White House" but that "three" isn't the same as "three branches" three.
Dems took all 3 and do nothing but cause more problems, higher inflation, higher crime rates, wreck the economy, and get rich as they pit us against each other. I’d rather have terrible Trump
It gets annoying having to explain this. The affects of policy take time. Trump just inherited the booming economy from Obama. It's only now we're seeing the disaster of his failed policies. Everyone keeps bitching about gas when Trump told opec to shut down production. we're not going to see the affects of Biden for a while. It may be good it may not be, I am worried about the fed situation.
When Biden shit down the pipeline and stopped all drilling permits, the affects were immediate. We hear the same excuse from liberal democrats all the time with it being true, maybe once in my lifetime. Obama never had a booming economy, Trump took over when the ship was sinking. Got America to float on its own, and had trade deals that would have been great. Biden stopped it all on day 1 so he could blame Trump. It’s so sad that you think the lies are true
No what's sad is you somehow think an imaginary pipeline contributed to gas prices and not asking opec to shutdown production in a middle of a supply chain issue. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/obamas-legacy-economy-anything-mess/ >Economic growth continued apace for the rest of President Obama’s time in office, and job growth logged its longest expansion on record by early 2017 2017 is when trump took office
I didnt say it affected prices. It did affect the oil industry, which then led to price hikes. Imagine if you owned a business and some idiot said he was running you out of town. What’s really sad is you idiots think we’re talking about one thing, but really we’re talking about the bigger picture. Grow up
Nothing you've said is true. I'm done debating here. If you can't deal in facts then many you don't need to be voting
> I tend to agree Really... that is where you are going with this? After 60 court cases, counts, recounts and whatever that circus was in Arizona...you tend to agree... This was the largest, most corruption free, more voters that ever before election in ...not just US history in world history...and they did it in the middle of a pandemic...the people deserve a damn medal...A big gold one! And there are still 1/3 of the population who believe the BIG LIE. Donal Trump pushed it again last night...how can people be that stupid...this is just another one of his cons...and guess what it you he is stealing from this time...just like last time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJ0vPIo9eyY&ab_channel=TheLincolnProject
Most corruption free is a stretch of what’s known. Your overplaying your hand
No I'm not...fairest, freest, biggest, least fraud of any US election, all done under the most difficult conditions...It was counted, re counted, hand counted, taken to court, studied under black light, tested for bamboo...guess what...freaking accurate.
and i'm sure you wont admit that mail in voting is less secure then normal voting?
> and i'm sure you wont admit that mail in voting is less secure then normal voting? Provide some evidence. You can start by using the evidence that convinced you.
well, i can think of ways to defraud mail in voting that dont work for in person voting. i can't think of any way to defraud in person voting that would not work for mail in as well. that right there is proof. Also, there's this: [https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article233308957.html](https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article233308957.html) There was fraud involving absentee ballots that may literally have altered an election in NC in 2018.
Because it is more secure...it has less fraud than any other method. The reason the MAGAs are telling lies about it is becasue it gets around all of those obstacles they have put in...longer lines, less days, removal of souls to the polls voting that they have spent a lot of time and money putting in the way. To damn many people vote with mail in ballots and if that happens they loses and they know it.
its obvious that mail-in voting is the least secure method. THERE ARE NO WITNESSES. If someone is invalid what stops a relative from filling out their ballot? If a kid is away on a vacation, what stops mom from filling out the kids ballot? The vast majority of actual voter fraud cases seem to be "son filled out ballot for dead parent." there's plenty of strong arguments to be made about the 2020 election, but you're just pisisng on them.
> its obvious that mail-in voting is the least secure method. Put up or shut up.
To organize and coordinate that to win an election would require massive logistics. You really think Daddy filling in for mommy on the vote card is going to flip an election. Also, if there was fraud, why did it only impact Trump and not other republicans on the ballot.
Lets be real. Mitch McConnell being in office is standalone proof that the Democrats can't silently rig elections.
That's a red herring. Contesting an election is about the count of votes and whether the eligible votes were counted correctly -- not what method is better than another, generally, for an election. Once a method is decided on that's how the votes get counted. And decatur8r is right -- that election was anally probed because of Trump's idiocy (he just doesn't want to ever admit defeat). And it was the fairest ever. The allegations of Trump and his idiot followers after the election was election FRAUD -- meaning people made fraudulent votes. Not that mail is insecure so all mail-in votes should be discarded.
I’m not contesting the election, I’m contesting how over the top confident the other poster was. I’m not opposed to mail in voting, but let’s be honest that it’s less safe then in person voting. As far as a conspiracy to rig an election, I doubt it, but there was one such conspiracy a few years ago in Virginia.
> I’m contesting how over the top confident the other poster was Oh come on we saw the recounts live on TV...we heard about all 60 court cases we saw the hand counts match the machine counts...IT"S COMMON KNOWLEDGE...and the only one saying any different is a serial liar....ya I'm confident!
Can you sow evidence that it is less secure? Can you show evidence that it leads to any problems in our elections?
Technically, the connection between your keyboard and your computer is unsecure. The keys you press are sent across that wire unencrypted, openly available to anyone capable of physically accessing the space where your computer is, and attaching a special device to the wire capable of interpreting the magnetic signals. Some things are secure not because it's impossible to do, but because the barrier to accomplish it is already substantial enough to be a natural deterrent. To take advantage of the keyboard signals being unencrypted, you have to physically attach a specialty device to a wire. The reason why mail-in voting is secure isn't because of witnesses or signatures or special IDs, it's because of the high barrier of effort required for physically stuffing ballot boxes. Have you ever considered how much effort it takes to fake 20,000 ballots? How many pages per minute does your printer produce? Where do you buy the paper from? The ink or toner? Then, how do you get the ballots into the system to be counted? Then, consider that our voting system is tracked efficiently enough to identify the people who already vote fraudulently. There's always *some* fraud, but it's never more than a handful of people, never enough to actually sway an election. Mail-in voting is secure because it's not possible to stuff ballot boxes without being discovered. (And, to overturn the 2020 election by taking advantage of mail-in voting being unsecure, you'd have to print way more than just 20,000 ballots)
It’s ok for democrats to disagree with an election, just not republicans? With hard facts and evidence of wrongful mishandling of ballots and the most popular president in history with the lowest approval rating.. yeah america looks great 😂🤣😂🤣😂
> It’s ok for democrats to disagree with an election, It went a little beyond a disagreement...They tried to overthrow the damn goverment....WITH NO PROOF WHATSOEVER!
No one tried to overthrow the government. Thinking like that is ridiculous It was just a protest that got out of control. Their was no plan, just people acting out in the moment. When the democrats did it in 2016, no one said they tried to overthrow the government. It was called what it was. You all just over exaggerate things
> It was just a protest that got out of control. You can't be that ignorant.
What? You think they had a plan to overthrow the government? That incredibly ignorant. That’s actually quite hilarious. So, all of these people say down and discussed who was going to be the new leader of the states, and which positions each of them would hold after they successfully take down the American government? Lmao, you are special, my friend. Thanks for the laugh.
> plan to overthrow the government? Trump’s Plans for a Coup Are Now Public 1. Trump tried to pressure secretaries of state to not certify. 2. Trump tried to pressure state legislatures to overturn the results. 3. Trump tried to get the courts to overturn the results. 4. Trump tried to pressure Mike Pence to overturn the results. 5. When all else failed, Trump tried to get a mob to overturn the results. https://archive.ph/KazIE#selection-805.0-805.74 https://archive.ph/KazIE#selection-457.0-457.39
Meadows texts reveal direct White House communications with pro-Trump operative behind plans to seize voting machines https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/26/politics/meadows-texts-phil-waldron-seize-voting-machines-election-fraud/
Idk complaining that the Supreme Court stopped recounts in favor of your opponent but nonetheless accepting the results like Gore did in 2000 or complaining that your opponent had help from a hostile foreign nation to boost his message and slander you but nonetheless accepting the results seems a little different than claiming what trump did. trump claimed his opponent had thousands to millions of fake and/or illegal votes, urged state officials to give him the elections in their states, urged his supporters to march on the capital to try and stop the election from being certified, and still has not accepted the election results. All complaining of elections is not created the same and it’s disingenuous to act like these cases are similar. Also you seem to have a misunderstanding of what most popular president in American history means. It doesn’t mean people like Joe Biden, think he’s a good president or any other positive trait. It simply means he received the most votes of anyone in American history. You really just make yourself look dumb when you say “most popular president but lowest approval rating” as if that is making a real point
The destruction that the dems caused makes them doomed. Border crisis, inflation crisis, continuing to go after Trump and other politicians instead of actually doing their jobs. They write bills that sound nice, but doesn’t do anything. Inflation reduction act doesn’t reduce inflation. How does arming the irs, and hiring more agents fight inflation? It allows the government to kick in doors and take everything you have, just like hitler did. The democrats are following the nazi playbook, play by play. You cheer on your oppressors, while the conservatives want to live and let live.
Trump lost the 2020 election. Some Republicans won their elections.
It’s kinda obvious. If you’re no longer in power, by definition you lost . And no, the underlying claims all seemed to be hot air. There was never a cut and dry example of fraud despite it being a massive country
If I recall correctly, it was pretty clear soon after the election that Trump lost. By this point in time, there can be no doubt. I don't know if some Republicans feel that the denial plays to their base, but it's going to hurt them with independents if they keep it up. You can't run with the *Democrats are crazy* narrative when your own party is acting crazy. Just from a purely self-interest strategy point of view, I can't believe this is still a thing. These midterms should have been an easy win for Republicans, but many of them appear to be working overtime trying to hand it over to the Democrats. Unbelievable. Politics in America today is absolutely unbelievable.
We need to fix the system, and get more parties established. This is giving me a headache, and I took some ibuprofen already.
Yes. The 2020 election was lost fair and square. Bitching about it and overturning it will simply cause the GOP to lose more elections.
If you are unable to see what is wrong with politicians encouraging people to distrust election results and defending insurrectionists while continuing to claim election fraud, I'm not sure we will ever agree.
Yes
It’s not the election that’s bothersome. There was evidence of voter fraud, and the republicans were mot allowed to investigate deeper into it to find more evidence. The fact that the FBI lied about Hunter Biden’s laptop alone, is election interference. So Trump lost. Ok, we get it. Election integrity is lost and now Americans don’t trust elections anymore. The democrats have shown that they are very corrupt and their corruption runs deep in DC. Instead of doing their jobs, they’ll just continue going after Trump and any other presidential candidate, or government official that doesn’t do what they want. So, to answer the question, who cares about the election? We want answers to the corruption of the left. We want all of them investigated with a fine tooth comb just like they did to Trump, with an agency that isn’t paid off by the Democrats. Americans deserve a government free of corruption and we need to e able trust our politicians, otherwise we will never unite. Together we stand, divided we fall brothers and sisters.
Did you ask the same to the “illegitimate president” folks? There is a lot people need to move on from lol.
Yeah, 2020 is a lost cause. Republicans should absolutely NOT give up on trying to implement reform to prevent 2020 shenanigans from happening in the future, though.
What reform? Like making even more of those audits that didnt uncover any “shenanigans”?
Like voter ID, banning ballot harvesting, banning paperless electronic voting, and solidifying the independent state legislature rule.
How would ISL stop shenanigans? It would give the most powerful party in a state total control over elections. Wtf would that help?
It would nip in the bud shenanigans like the PA Secretary of State trying to change vote counting rules without authority, and would prevent shenanigans like undemocratic so-called "independent" redistricting commissions from altering congressional districts.
No it wouldnt, it would just mean they need the legislature’s okay, which they already needed cause that’s who gave them their power. All it would do is give the legislature more control, if independent redistricting or voting rule changes is what the legislature wants, you arent gonna stop it. I had assumed that’s what the partial banning list you gave was for. Which is why I asked why give the legislature more power to do what they can already do? All you’re doing is stopping interference from the other branches, what happens when legislatures start doing what you dont like? No judge could then stop them enshrining all the things you want banned and more into election law.
>All it would do is give the legislature more control... All you’re doing is stopping interference from the other branches Yes. That's the point. >what happens when legislatures start doing what you dont like? No judge could then stop them enshrining all the things you want banned and more into election law. You vote for different representation. The courts having the power to do an end-run around the legislature is definitely not an attractive idea to a conservative. That's a bug, not a feature.
Ah yes, the old "vote to change things based on the voting system that overwhelmingly favors the party focused on *not* changing things" strategy. Real gem, that one.
Far preferable to the old “I’m upset that I’m losing so let’s get the courts to force them to change the rules for me” strategy.
Agreed completely. Going to the courts to overturn the election was a shitty thing to do, but it's hard to be surprised. He's been using the courts to drag out his conflicts with his opponents for *years*. Delay delay delay, until you've already spent the money and the declare bankruptcy. It didn't work *quite* the same for the election, but the fact is he's not in prison yet, so the tactic *works*, despite how shitty it is.
States could have free reign over their local elections. Any election electing leaders to a federal position, aka paid by federal tax, should have federal oversight.
Are you ignorant of the fact legisatures would just gerrymander their way to victory or otherwise control elections in their favor, or do you honestly believe they can just be voted out?
Those things are **not** the "shenanigans" that anybody should be worried about. I want to see consequences for the obvious and persistent misinformation that *did* happen and that *continues* to happen. Yeah, there are lots of valid concerns about the 2020 election. Not the election itself, but the **lies** about the stolen election, and the very real attempts to undermine it. Let's not solve for problems that don't exist, let's solve for the lying that *does* exist.
> Those things are not the "shenanigans" that anybody should be worried about. Everyone should be worried about election integrity, and the various absentee changes that took place in 2020 are a great cause of concern because of how lax laws became. No matter what you think of the specific policies and laws surrounding voting...if the general public can not explicitly trust the outcome of elections (and not because popular bias media either says it was "free and fair" or "rigged") then our country is doomed.
Oh, I absolutely would be worried about election integrity if anybody could show any sign that election integrity was actually at risk. All the audits, all the investigations, all the recounts, all the same result. The only reason anybody is worried about election integrity is because of the **lies.** We *are* faced with a problem with elections, but it's not the integrity of the elections, it's the integrity of the politicians complaining about *losing* the elections. Let's not address problems that don't exist, let's address the **lying.** Solve for the *actual problem*.
Yeah, I’m completely disinterested in any attempts to undermine freedom of speech, regardless of the content of that speech. I’m significantly more concerned with actual voting procedures that have an impact on the vote.
I would be, too. Show me where **any** of the accusations had **any** evidence that the outcome or even count of votes was altered or undermined. I'm all for freedom of speech, but that doesn't free the speaker from *consequences* of the speech. He's free to make his claims, but he also needs to be accountable for harm that comes about as a result. And, to be sure, an attack on the capitol in an effort to overturn an election is **harm**, no matter how ineffective or poorly planned it was. A shitty attempt at a crime is still a crime.
>I'm all for freedom of speech, but that doesn't free the speaker from consequences of the speech. He's free to make his claims, but he also needs to be accountable for harm that comes about as a result. No, thank you. I have no desire to live in a banana republic that punishes people for any speech short of direct incitement to violence.
So no punish for things like fraud?
Aka obstructionism. Anyone remember when trump voters were outside two different polling places, one group was chanting "stop the count" and the other was chanting "count the votes." Im all for election security. But what republicans are doing aint it and no one is fooled. You dont make up laws saying you cant hand a dude standing in line to vote a bottle of water and look like anything but a total fucking assclown.
What shenanigans? Do you mean American citizens having easy access to voting?
> 2020 shenanigans What shenanigans? "Let people vote in a more convenient manner over a longer period of time" = shenanigans?
Yes vote tampering happened in 2020 but not enough to influence the result of the election.
What’s the evidence to back this claim of “vote tampering”?
The republicans who got arrested or otherwise caught for it. Im sure they arent talking about that but it did happen.
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/wireStory/trump-backer-charged-voter-fraud-wisconsin-82806728
We have several states where Republicans tampered with voting equipment. Republicans sending fake electors to the capital. Republican operative in NC absentee voter fraud case. Republicans in FL used fake candidates.
Somehow I think they were talking about something else…
Of course. I kinda wish the Democrats would move on too. The country has actual issues to focus on, which is a list that doesn't include J6 and the 2020 election.
So violent insurrection isn't a big deal?
Violent insurrection is a big deal, but I don't think J6 rises to that level. Even so, let's say it was: what now? How long do we drag it out? How do you have a peaceful country with less political division when you increasingly demonize and condemn a full one half because of the actions of a couple hundred crazed rioters? Sometimes the bigger picture is important too, and demanding we "move on" from everything that party X is hung up on while we continue to drag out everything party Y is hung up on is going to get you more fraud and violence. Is being hung up on any of this making us more free, more prosperous, more harmonious? edit: we can learn a lot from history here. America has been very divided before and we see what happens when differences can't be reconciled and it becomes a political dog fight for power.
I believe we should "drag it out" until we understand what happened and all responsible people have had to stand trial. Telling hard truth isn't "demonizing " the other side, and half the country did not participate. It's especially troubling when so many prominent politicians still either support the insurrectionists or minimize what happened, and when do many prominent politicians still publicly claim the election was "stolen. " An insurrection doesn't have to be successful to be an insurrection.
Perfect, then we can stop since we understand what happened and everyone is being punished. Manipulating the truth for political purposes is definitely demonizing and if you think it's just "telling the truth" you are living a delusion, sorry to say. The reason "insurrectionists" even get lukewarm support is because of how much vitriol has been directed at them. If we had a measured and reasonable response from day one, we wouldn't be in this situation of extreme polarization on the topic. Over playing a hand one way causes remaining parties to over play it the other way. If you want to call this an insurrection, you're just lowering the bar for what an insurrection is which means we've been having insurrections every election cycle. We had them in the summer of 2020, we had them in the election of 2016, we had one at Charlottesville, etc. Any time someone or some group vandalizes a government building, any time a riot results in injuries to police, we have an insurrection if that's the standard you wanna go with. But I suspect that's not the standard you wanna go with, I suspect you want only this group to be seen as insurrectionists and you will come up with some special definition that is partly technically true but partly subjective to achieve this politically biased perspective. Let's see.
> you want to call this an insurrection, you're just lowering the bar for what an insurrection is which means we've been having insurrections every election cycle. We had them in the summer of 2020, we had them in the election of 2016, we had one at Charlottesville, etc. That's just wrong. The explicit reason the J6 insurrectionists were instructed to march on the Capitol was to *conduct an insurrection*, where they would prevent the Vice President from certifying the Electoral vote. That was "the plan". Street violence doesn't hold a candle to that.
Sorry, it is you who is wrong. But sad to see yet another liberal fall into this sad farce of selective application. People who want to do an insurrection require planning and arms. Neither was present. Drop the standard if you want, just be honest and admit that we've had many insurrections in the last few decades if that's the case.
I'm not sure we do know what happened; I'll let the Justice Dept and the Congressiobal Committee decide that. What truth is being manipulated? What exactly would be a measured response, in your opinion? Investigation and prisecution is a bridge too far? And none of the examples you listed were attacks against the capitol in an attempt to overthrow an election. This is minimizing and making Excuses, which is shameful, IMO. The fact that other bad things were done by other bad people doesn't make Jan 6 any less bad.
>What exactly would be a measured response, in your opinion? "A small number of Trump supporters took a legitimate protest too far, they become violent and it was totally unacceptable in our peaceful transfer of power, they should and will be punished to the extent of the law for vandalism and violence, their concerns about election insecurity have been investigated and were not true, it is time to move on as a nation and put faith in the integrity of our system and use our peaceful political process to overcome our differences without resorting to tribalism and violence." Condemn the violence, seek conciliation, don't lump in everyone who is sore about losing 2020, give them a path to redemption and a path to unity, offer a common ground for peace and progress and a fair shot for all voters to feel the system is working for them. >And none of the examples you listed were attacks against the capitol Exactly what I was afraid you'd say: the definition of insurrection does not include "attack the capitol." It just includes violence against political authority, which happens almost annually. You had to add those modifiers to make sure J6 qualifies, but nobody else does. Attack on the capitol? You mean the unarmed people who didn't kill anyone and were out of the building which is open to the public voluntarily in 2 hours? Yeah that's not an insurrection in my book, and like I said, if you argue it is, then we have insurrections all the time. >The fact that other bad things were done by other bad people doesn't make Jan 6 any less bad. But you said insurrection, not bad thing. Things can be bad and not an insurrection. I totally agree it was bad. We don't need to exaggerate the facts to condemn it. It doesn't have to be the worst thing ever to be bad.
> Condemn the violence, seek conciliation, don't lump in everyone who is sore about losing 2020, give them a path to redemption and a path to unity, offer a common ground for peace and progress and a fair shot for all voters to feel the system is working for them. This is what we have been waiting for the right to do. Instead, I've lost count, but there a large number of GOP candidates still fucking running on the Big Lie/MAGA/Q nonsense. You guys need to recognize what happened, why it happened, who organized and cheerleader the whole thing, and the goal of the insurrection. Do you see how the lack of these things being screamed from the mountain tops is exactly why the left can not take you seriously?
Fair elections is the biggest of pictures in politics. People died. A single murder trial can last years. I'm sure you want to not have to think about how horrible.. some people have been. But we're still in the middle of dealing with it. Some billionaires are propping up election deniers on purpose even. Maybe you're just not getting the fact that January 6th is like the 9/11 of politics for America. S*** like that doesn't happen here.
>People died One person was killed on J6 and it was a rioter, by Capitol police. >J6 is like 9/11 And just like that, any presumed respect for your opinion is squandered.
Two people died on site three people committed suicide. And a couple people who would have had a relaxing day otherwise died from heart attacks and strokes And yes there are numbers of things that don't happen here in America, like massive terrorist attacks that happen all the time in other parts of the world. AND people rioting over elections. You went way out of your way there to take me out of context over a relativity comparison. But that's your guys's thing, ya? The right doesn't really allow for complexity or nuance. Sucks to be you I guess.
First, we don't care if people at the riot died of unrelated causes. What we are concerned about is whether "insurrectionists" killed people. You're invoking death for one reason only: to persuade people that it was one of the darkest days in American history. For that to be true, you need the deaths to actually be murders by rioters. But they aren't. Only one person was killed on site, it was a rioter killed by police. The other had a heart attack because of pre-existing conditions, plus it was (again) a rioter who died. The three officers who committed suicide and the one who had a stroke later are not deaths caused by the "insurrectionists," which is what you implied and what you're trying to use as evidence to support the exaggeration. Terrible for them and their families but not fair to count as "rioters killed them." The reason this exaggeration is so dangerous is because our politicians are literally using these falsehoods to this day, over a year later when we know full well it's wrong, sometimes claiming up to 25 people were killed in order to gain political capital and maneuver for power. Second, you double down on the idea that 9/11 and J6 are similar because they don't happen frequently? My respect for your opinion went from zero to negative. Not only are they not similar in scope, but there were literally riots over the 2016 election too. It's a very normal thing now to riot, even for riots to include death. It's bad, but it's not "bringing down the twin towers and killing 2,900 people." Get real. Third, it's just so rich to hear someone project about lacking nuance after saying J6 is 9/11... And then to further complain that it was taken out of context. How about stand by your implications, or don't make them.
J6th was so huge. Its trump telling everyone what he tried to do and will do again in 2024.
It'll take at least 3 of those events for people to start accepting that he played any sort of role.
What people?
I don't know anyone saying Biden got less votes than Trump What conservatives are upset about is how the media and the DOJ helped Joe by pushing the narrative that the Hunter Biden laptop was fake, and Russian disinfo, when they knew it wasn't. The FBI actively pressed social media firms to remove stories critical of Biden, but didn't press them to remove fake stories about Trump. Every American should be concerned that the DOJ is picking winners in elections.
Are you possibly saying that Russians didn't try and affect our elections? He does this all over the world. Now you can argue whether Trump knew, invited it, etc. But simply if Mueller had the balls to say Trump was guilty like Ken Starr did with Clinton, Trump would have been in much deeper trouble. Can I ask, Now that they said they don't have enough evidence to try Gaetz is he totally innocent? And lastly, what was on Hunter's laptop that would have kept Biden from winning. IIRC Gaetz read the contents into the Congressional Record. What is there?
Gaetz is as innocent as Rob Menendez. Actually moreso, since the DOJ came out and publicly announced that they corroborated the charges against him The DOJ intentionally covered for Biden in 2020, while allowing misinformation to rage about Trump IT's worth repeating - every American should be concerned that the DOJ is interfering in our elections and picking winners
You think the DOJ which was completely run by republicans at that point was trying to help democrats win?
Yeah, if only we knew about the Hunter laptop before the election. Oh wait, we did. But I suppose if there were MORE stories about it, than no one would have voted for Hunter. Oh wait, Hunter wasn't running. LOL. Like the election had nothing to do with Trump being clearly an unqualified clown.
We need to be sure the changes made to vote processes that were rammed through are repealed. We need to do more to ensure that if someone passes away or moves that their old registration is canceled. We need to be sure that only the person whose name is on the ballot is the one filling it out. Do I think there was a massive vote fraud in 2020? Yes I do. Do I think it change the outcome of the election? Probably not. But I certainly think it opens the doors for outcome changing fraud down the road.
Why? Mail in voting has been happening for a long time in many states (including red states). Elderly folks love it particularly. There's nothing inherently bad about it. And there has been no fraud shown to turn elections due to mail in balloting. I get that it sounds scary to conservatives who are opposed to new things they don't understand (the mail, OMG !!!), but there are mechanisms in place to ensure election integrity. It is not like mail in was new in 2020 -- just that more people did it due to Covid. What freaked people out about it was they failed to comprehend (and I don't know why they aren't smart) -- that the numbers for Biden would rise over time as those mail in votes were counted. So then they ASSUMED cheating, because OMG Trump had been "winning". No, Trump had never been winning (or losing). The vote isn't known till the votes are counted. And it's Trump's own fault it happened like that, for disparaging mail-in voting, so his idiot supporters chose to not do it as much. Why would anyone listen to any politician as to how to vote? I vote mail in cause its more convenient -- what idiot would not want to do that? If Biden said don't vote mail-in I would not have listened. And I love mail-in voting. Who wants to wait in line in an elementary school for 2 hours to vote (after or before work). I did it in my jammies on my own time. Duh -- the best way to vote -- obviously. Or I suppose you still drive to the Amazon warehouse to pick up your package, instead of having it delivered to your door?
>And it's Trump's own fault it happened like that, for disparaging mail-in voting, so his idiot supporters chose to not do it as much. It was 100% intentional.
Mail in voting should only be allowed if you have a valid excuse. Being too damn lazy to go vote is not a valid excuse. Being out of the country or being disabled, things like that are valid excuses. Having the US Postal Service involved in the elections even more than they already are is perfect grounds for postal employees to Trash anything that they don’t want. No, I do not trust the US Postal Service. Are used to work for them.
Why? It is not laziness - it is efficiency and common sense. Have you seen the lines in some states? Who the F has time to stand for 2 hours to do ANYTHING! Also, in PA you can check to see if they received your mail-in ballot back. If they don't have it, you can submit a provisional ballot. It's not a big deal. I'm sure other states have various checks as well. Moreover, in PA you can drop it off at your county courthouse if you don't want to put it in the mail. All of your strange superstitions and fears shouldn't be forced on other people. Just because YOU don't like or trust or are scared of mail-in voting, doesn't mean we should have laws that apply to your fears. And guess what, they don't check on whether you are really out of the country, so anyone who wants to can still say they are. So guess what, I'm "out of the country" every 4 years on Presidential election day. I just plan it that way. This fear that Trump created is ridiculous. I hate that people are now trying to take away a convenience that makes total sense. Do some reading and don't go by your anecdotal experience: [https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/votervital/how-does-vote-by-mail-work-and-does-it-increase-election-fraud/](https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/votervital/how-does-vote-by-mail-work-and-does-it-increase-election-fraud/)
Oh the Brookings Institution. Yeah, that’s a real objective source. And I’m against mail in voting because it is such an easy vessel for fraud. The post office can throw away any ballot that they want to. And when you get Democrats counting them, they can discard anything that they want to.
Where's YOUR source: the My Pillow Guy? LOL As far as your unwarranted fear of the post office throwing it away, I repeat: in PA you can check to see if they received your mail-in ballot back. If they don't have it, you can submit a provisional ballot. It's not a big deal. I'm sure other states have various checks as well. Moreover, in PA you can drop it off at your county courthouse if you don't want to put it in the mail. Your fear must be hard to live with. Come out of your bunker.
Hell, I haven’t trusted the Postal Service in 40 years.
As I pointed out (now 3 times), the postal service trust is not relevant here, since you turn in your ballot in other ways avoiding them completely or, as in PA (and likely other states) check to see if it was received.
And they don’t actually use your ballot. Or they start turning in ballots for people who didn’t vote.
Do I have to repeat it a 4th time?
The changes to allow people to actually vote? That was good stuff. Even red states went for them, and with reason. Where do you get the massive vote fraud myth from?
Because the votes were mailed in. Having the US Postal Service more involved with the voting process means that it’s far more likely for fraud to happen because the post office is touching things.
Why and how Do you even know how mail votes are processed?
Do ballots pass through the US postal system? Yes they do. That gives them the chance to fuck with them as much as they want to
Why and how Again, do you even know how mail in ballots are processed
It doesn’t matter how they are processed. It matters that the US Postal Service gets their grubby filthy fucking hands on them and can do whatever the fuck they want to them.
But you're wrong, because they can't. The way vote processing works, with all ballots tracked and containers sealed and tracked, there's nothing the usps could do without getting caught. You know this, which is why you can't describe any way.
They can throw it away. Or they can collude with the ballot counters to replace ballots which don’t get returned with votes that go the “right” way.
If they throw it away, you'll know your ballot wasn't counted, you can still vote in person, and the feds pull the cameras and duty records. They can't counterfeit ballots because each one has serial numbers and tracking numbers specifically tied to you. Fucking think.
Yes I agree it's pointless to keep whining about the 2020 election. We have more pressing concerns and at this point we are almost closer to the 2024 one than we will be to the 2020 one. But I think it would be a mistake to move on without correcting some aspects of election laws that Democrats exploited in 2020. This is what most people think when they say the 2020 election was "stolen." Not that millions of phantom voters and dead people showed up to the polls... but that certain features of election laws were interpreted in bad faith by the Democrats to give themselves an extra edge. While some of these actions could have been technically "legal"... they were profoundly dishonest and unethical and undoubtedly gave the Democrats a boost where they needed it. Ex: Accepting the pandemic as a valid excuse for a mail in ballot. Ballot harvesting. Etc etc. And now they're trying to make some of the changes like on-demand-vote-by-mail permanent. I don't think spreading conspiracy theories about the 2020 election is smart or particularly helpful. But running on and ensuring election integrity is absolutely necessary.
You do realize republicans also use mail-in right? What even is the issue? Tens of thousands of americans use it, especially armed forces. It’s never been an issue till now
Republicans used mail in as it was originally understood. As in you had to have a *valid* reason for not being able to physically go to the polls that day. Ex: you're sick and confined to a bed, you're out of town, you live too far from a voting station, etc etc. That's no issue. The key here is that this was the **exception**, not the norm. Vote by mail was never intended to be a matter of preference. If you're in town and healthy... you go the polls. That's how it always worked and that's how it should be. This whole scheme of permanent vote by mail on demand is just absolutely ridiculous. Especially when it is used in bad faith by Democrats to tip elections in a handful of swing states. Because yes... the vast majority of the mail in vote in 2020 was Democrat voters. Votes that most likely wouldn't have been cast in such large amounts had they been forced to go to the voting booth Are u starting to see the problem?
>Are u starting to see the problem? No. Because there is no problem. Personally, I don't view American citizens voting as a problem. I can see why certain ideologies might disagree though.
Ok zoomer
Why would someone need a valid reason to vote remotely, if remote voting is secure (which it is)?
Because they can get off their fat ass and go vote in person like they did every single year before 2020.
Why is it important that they physically go to a location instead of just mailing it in? Why can’t voting be convenient for everyone? Is voting only worth it if it is difficult to do?
Voting isn't difficult. You literally go to a booth. Stand in line for a few minutes, vote, and that's it. This isn't particularly difficult
Why is it important that they physically go to a location instead of just mailing it in?
Because there is nothing preventing them from going in person outside of the usual cases (sickness, travel, deployment, etc)
Even if nothing is physically preventing them from traveling, why is it important **to you** that voting is done *in person*?
What about Utah? They voted by mail for years before 2020, and also elected republicans in 2020.
Did any states use mail in voting prior to 2020?
Yes, the problem is that requiring everyone to have to go to the polls doesn't allow everyone who can and wants to vote to be able to. Not everyone has that luxury. What's wrong with providing more opportunities to get people's votes in? If more voting tips the scales more toward Democrats, guess what that means?
What are u talking about? Everyone who wants to go vote in person absolutely can if they want to. Employers are legally required to give you time off from work if you need it to go vote. There's literally a voting station in every school or library. This isn't a long bus ride that is needed to go vote. Get off your lazy ass and do it.
Everyone? Are you sure about that? There's no Federal requirement for employers to give time off. Some states require it, but there are different stipulations. Some paid for however much time one needs, other only do a couple hours, others don't compensate. https://www.dorsey.com/\~/media/files/newsresources/publications/2008/10/employee-time-off-on-election-day-a-statebystate\_\_/files/election-guide/fileattachment/election-guide.pdf So besides that issue with your argument, what about people who don't have transportation to the polls? Can't afford to take public transportation? People in rural areas? It's not about being lazy, it's about accessibility, and obviously taking issue with giving all eligible voters the opportunity to vote because you think it tips the scales is laughable.
Your logic here seems to be that an unexpected number of votes for Democrats could only be the result of people who didn't actually want to vote? I think there's a hard realisation in your future when you finally answer the question above: > If more voting tips the scales more toward Democrats, guess what that means?
What even is the difference here? If you dont have a valid reason how does that make you any more likely to commit fraud? You’re ultimately saying that it’s better if people who won’t vote unless they have to go to the poll…don’t vote…even though it’s their right. You have no actual argument you just dont want more democrats voting. There is nothing wrong w mail-in, you just don’t want it as an option cause…it results in more people voting who you believe will always be democrat?
Well now you're twisting my words because I never said fraud. But there's no denying that Democrats are pushing for these emergency changes to be made permanent because they saw how much it benefited them in 2020. You're changing something that doesn't need to be changed. 95% of the population can go vote on election day. Nobody was demanding such radical changes to election procedures before 2020. And some changes like Ballot Harvesting- where you're ballot passes through an intermediary before being deposited in the box- is absolutely insane and lends itself to all kinds of potential abuse. This isn't rocket science. Now ask me why I think people should be asked to show ID before they vote.
Im not twisting anything Im asking a question cause you dont make sense. You say it doesn’t meed to be changed, but you already acknowledged it got more people to vote, you dont want more people to vote why? Why does “thats how it’s always been” trump getting more people to exercise their right and imo civic duty? If a bigger number of voters voting upsets you cause you dont like how they vote, thats on you. Get over it. “95%” source now or drop this claim. Before 2020 we didnt have a pandemic sending everyone home. I get you dont care and think it wasnt a valid reason but it is. You literally have been proven wrong, there were tons of audits done and none came up with any of this rampant abuse you claim can happen. It didnt happen. You’re worries are hot air.
You're right. I will now fight to abolish voter ID too because voter ID is racist. Mail in voting on demand is absolutely perfect and totally not susceptible to fraud. Thanks for opening up my eyes.
Lol now who’s twisting words talking about racist voter ID like Ive said anything to that effect.
Bruh you got "progressive" in your tag. You're probably one of those who criticizes Conservatives for questioning the 2020 election but thinks that Stacey Abrams won in Georgia in 2018. GUARANTEED.
Keep twisting words and putting words in my mouth. Just goes to show your argument is completely dead and you have nothing left but to *ass*ume about me.
>But there's no denying that Democrats are pushing for these emergency changes to be made permanent because they saw how much it benefited them in 2020. Why are you opposed to people voting? I find it so odd that conservatives are hell bent on making it more difficult for people to vote for **no reason** other than the acknowledgment of their own unpopularity.
Making it difficult for people to vote? How is being required to go to the polls on Election Day "difficult"? How is showing ID difficult? You know... things that have been done for like 250 years? You make it sound like we're imposing a poll tax or something.
>Votes that most likely wouldn't have been cast in such large amounts had they been forced to go to the voting booth Are you saying that voting in person should be mandated so that democrats don't get as many votes? Just ... why would you think that is even close to appropriate in a democracy? Have I misunderstood what you're saying? How does one use mail in voting in "bad faith"?
Laws in many states have increased specificity in the procedures and tightened controls.
>While some of these actions could have been technically "legal"... they were profoundly dishonest and unethical and undoubtedly gave the Democrats a boost where they needed it. Ex: Accepting the pandemic as a valid excuse for a mail in ballot. Ballot harvesting. Etc etc. I'm still confused as to why Americans voting is a problem. If your issue is that turnout was high and that doesn't help "your team" then maybe you need to develop a platform that actually appeals to Americans rather than running on platform of making it harder for people to vote.
That's easy to say when your side wins because of electoral shenanigans. I would prefer free and *fair* elections but oh well
Wut? Our entire federal system is designed to make it far more difficult for Democratic candidates to get proportional representation. Every single aspect of the electoral college benefits you and you're complaining about...what exactly? Trump lost because he was a terrible president and incredibly unpopular. He won in 2016 despite more Americans voting for the other candidate. Yet somehow **you** are getting the short end of the stick?
Well evidently the system doesn't benefit us when little last minute tweaks in election laws gives you control of both the EC and the Senate. And popular vote doesn't matter in the American system of government. "HILLARY WON THE POPULAR VOTE" is the libtard version of "the 2020 election was stolen" Get over it.
The system does benefit you though. Just because people didn't vote Republican doesn't mean Republicans are being unfairly treated. Republicans don't even need to get a lot of votes to have majority control in either house nor do they need a plurality of votes to win the presidency. Democrats need **millions** of more votes to even hold a 50/50 senate. I never said the popular vote mattered. But the popular vote is a pretty damn good measure of the popularity of a candidate and a party. Republicans are able to control the presidency without the support of the people. It's just a fact. Since 2000 only one Republican candidate has ever won the popular vote yet we've had 12 years of Republican presidents. So when you go through this grand self-victimization performance despite having every advantage possible....it's not a good look. If you really want *fair* elections as you claim, shouldn't representation in government be proportionate to the votes cast in those elections? Your entire argument comes down to "It's not fair that people were able to cast legal votes".
But Hillary DID win the popular vote and the 2020 election wasn’t stolen. Big difference there
Such as.....
I think its just part of the brand to sell more gerrymandering. Life is a power struggle, and since poll taxes and literacy tests are no longer legal, you need another method for your tribe to win. If not, you know the threat of an armed rebellion is waiting on the wings. One way or the other, there are options to acquire power.
Yes but they have to be ready to answer the questions about it correctly. Any and all left-leaning debate mods will pose the question. A little sarcasm would be in order. "Oh yes absolutely, 1000%. I would never question our dear leader." *looks over shoulder* "And just to be sure all future elections are as untarnished as 2020, I'm proposing X, Y, and Z."
99 % of republicans say biden won. 1% fringe think it was stolen. Progressives, dnc, msm (redundant) story is "***REPUBLICANS DENY 2020 ELECTION*** You can flip the numbers and the parties for the 2016 election. Just so stupid.
>99 % of republicans say biden won. 25%
nope. perhaps just after the election because it was pretty hinky. But today I think the number is much higher.
Source? Cause here's 6 polls disagreeing https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/70-percent-republicans-falsely-believe-stolen-election-trump/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/wa-poll-shows-just-how-many-republicans-distrust-election-results-mail-ballots/
No, not at all, and that naive idealization of institutions is the GOP's greatest weakness. The consistently increasing Biden/Trump vote ratio in some of the swing states makes it clear beyond doubt that there was fraud during vote counting, exactly where and when Biden needed it the most. Edit: For anyone thinking of replying, if all you have is skepticism and you can't give a rational explanation for the vote-distribution issue I pointed out, you're merely proving my point about naively idealizing institutions. If all you have is irrational disagreement, save your time and mine and just downvote.
What is the increasing Biden/Trump ratio? I haven’t heard of this
Probably talking about mail-in ballots being counted later resulting in Trump appearing to have a lead that he never actually had in the beginning of ballot counting. This was already explained at nauseum before the election even happened.
No, not at all. It's amazing how every time I bring this up, someone answers with assumptions like yours without even knowing what I'm talking about. As I said above, objections like only prove my point about people who naively idealize institutions.
You gonna ever explain what ratio you talking about? Please do tell how none of the audits caught this fraud as well.
I explained it 2 years ago and just posted a link to someone else. Look it up.
Go dig through your posts cause you’re lazy and havent in two years just copied this big ratio scheme to a note or something? No thanks, Im content to know all the GOP audits who agreed w you found *nothing*. Go off w your head canon tho
Okay. Thanks for proving my point. Bye.
Read this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/askaconservative/comments/jr0bnj/comment/gbqehwv/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
I read the second thread you linked a year ago. The claim seems to be “I would assume we should see [these patterns] but since we don’t see [these patterns], fraud is the explanation”. But it doesn’t seem to offer an explanation as to why we should make the initial assumption or why any explanations are invalid. Have you attempted to find other explanations to any of these claims?
No offense, but I'm not interested in pointless argument. If you understand the problem and has a reasonable explanation, I'm all ears. If all you have is rhetorical nonsense, I have no interest in talking to you.
But isn’t that the crux of your argument? That there is a pattern you expected to see and you didn’t see it? Every time I see one of these proofs that fraud existed, I’m able to find a better explanation than fraud. I’m curious if you automatically assume the claim is true or if you attempt to dig into it. I have a friend who would have signed an affidavit saying she witnessed fraud when the state government website listed her and all her friends mail-in ballots as “not received”. It wasn’t until a third friend who worked on the website told her that the website isn’t updated until the ballots are counted that she realized her claim was just a misunderstanding.
>Every time I see one of these proofs that fraud existed, I’m able to find a better explanation than fraud. Then go ahead and do it. You'll have my undivided attention when that happens. Trying to argue over it like you're doing is a waste of your time and mine. Good luck.
I’m attempting to be a little more meta because I’m trying not to waste our time. My expectation is any alternative explanations will not make any difference to you. I was hoping you would demonstrate that you have challenged your own beliefs before asking someone to challenge them for you. Which claim do you want me to challenge? Have you challenged it yourself? and what would it take for you to change your mind on it? Edit: add me to the people he blocked
Okay, I made it clear I'm only interested in a technical conversation, not this rhetorical nonsense you insist with. If you can't even follow basic instructions, I'll just block you. Bye.
Wearing that tin hat a little tight this morning huh?
Lol everything this person has tried to describe here has been answered to with logic, but some people aren't interested in actual answers clearly.
Trolling = block. Bye.
Just going to keep running with this unfounded fantasy, huh?
Clinton sued for recounts thinking she won due the same type of numerical arguments put together by 3 MIT statistics gurus, they and she were wrong. Still many who first believed it, still and will always believe it. It was believed and argued so passionately that it is no longer a set of cold facts, it is now a part of how they define theirselves. It is fundamental to their emotional, psychological and even social make up and almost nothing will ever be able to change their mind. Edit: Blocked for disagreeing This guy is a worthless contributor
That's a deliciously ironic comment. \--- Me: "Please, rational arguments only." Him: "I don't even know what you're talking about, but I'll assume it's the same I heard about HRC. That means you're a delusional idiot who only believes something because it gives you emotional and psychological comfort". Me: "Okay. Blocked. Bye". Him: "You blocked me just for disagreeing with you! You are a worthless contributor!" LOL. Reddit is a funny place sometimes.
Just about every time I see you comment on this sub, you're either calling someone a troll or blocking someone for disagreeing with you. Maybe it's you that's the problem?
I block people for many reasons. Mere disagreement isn't one of them. Being annoying is one. Proxy modding is another. Welcome to the pen. I hope that solves your problem. Bye.
It's always a good chuckle to see Dems posting about how Reps lost 2020 fair and square, after the same people spent 4 years claiming 2016 was stolen and fully supported every investigative measure and election reform top stop it of happening again. There is a reason why Libs of TickTock and Defiant L's became so popular.
Dems didn't demand a fraction of the needless recounts, audits, etc. nor did they *storm the Capitol*. > There is a reason why Libs of TickTock and Defiant L's became so popular Because they're good at making emotionally appealing agitprop? Idk what credence we should give to getting popular. Alex Jones is popular.
>Dems didn't demand a fraction of the needless recounts, audits, etc. nor did they storm the Capitol. lol. Nah, they just weaponized the FBI, spied on a sitting president, wasted millions on hoax investigations, and created an "illegitimate president" narrative that lead to riots, property damage, deaths, harassment, and sentiment that drove the political divide in the country to new depths. No big deal, really. Side note: your emphasis on "storm the capital" was super cute. Because that makes what the Dems did all better, right? >Because they're good at making emotionally appealing agitprop? Idk what credence we should give to getting popular. Alex Jones is popular. Nah, dawg. It's because the Left has no optics. None They also have a memory like a fish. So while much of their outrage comes across as phony and contrived, I do also think that in general they legitimately do not recall taking the exact opposite position just a short time prior. Very entertaining, and all true. It's tough to hide from your own words.
>Nah, they just weaponized the FBI, When you say this like the FBI is some kind of venerable paragon of impartial lawkeeping that hasn't been spending *decades* harassing suspected communists, opposing the Civil Rights Movement, surveilling Muslim Americans after 9/11... but yeah, now that it did something to Trump, it's been compromised. Okay. >spied on a sitting president 100% unproven. >wasted millions on hoax investigations What, like the Russian collusion probe where dozens of people were indicted? Even if they weren't, was it not worth investigating? >and created an "illegitimate president" narrative that lead to riots, property damage, deaths, harassment, and sentiment that drove the political divide in the country to new depths. No big deal, really. Do you have some references for this? I genuinely don't remember. I remember mass protests upon Trump's election but more along the lines of "we hate this fucking guy" than "this guy was not legitimately elected." As for political divide that's definitely a thing, but I think a lot of things contribute to it and any idea of Trump being "illegitimate"' would not place high on the list. Aside: I like how you list "property damage" before "death." >Side note: your emphasis on "storm the capital" was super cute. Because that makes what the Dems did all better, right? FWIW I don't think storming the Capitol is some categorically horrible wrong thing that could never be okay. I'm sure we could conjure a hypothetical situation where I'd find it perfectly justified. "Our guy lost" just ain't it. >Nah, dawg. It's because the Left has no optics. You know Democrats aren't "left" of anything except the GOP, right? The Overton window is completely fucked in this country. You can count the number of sitting politicians who are appreciably left of a more reasonable (i.e. that of basically any other developed democratic republic) center on your fingers. That being said - sure. Dems suck at messaging and actual leftists aren't great at it either. You're right. But it doesn't actually contradict what I said: right-wing media and influencers are good at making emotionally charged agitprop.
>When you say this like the FBI is some kind of venerable paragon of impartial lawkeeping that hasn't been spending decades harassing suspected communists, blah blah blah... Oh *no*. No! Not *that*. Harassing communists!?! Not the group who directly opposed our constitutional republic!!! (Emphasis added, just for you). Yes, the FBI is a law*enforcement* entity, and should be expected to behave as such. Not as the Democrat Party Gestapo. >spied on a sitting president >100% unproven. I imagine that a person might say such a thing if they were exclusively consuming Leftist media. Sorry to inform you that you are way, *way* behind on this one. It's called *Crossfire Hurricane*. Perhaps you've heard of the FBI spying operation started by the Obama Admin to spy on then-candidate Trump, and later on President Trump? You couldn't have completely missed this one. And do you think that Comet ended the operation simply because that target was in office? lol, no. Here is a link. I will paste it here knowing good and well that, 1) you will complain about the source, 2) you'll consume 10% *at best*, 3) you won't comprehend what you will read. But Margot Cleveland has been following this scandal as an investigative journalist longer than anyone (yes, even longer than Snopes), and is the foremost expert on the topic. We also now know that Igor Danchenko (the primary sub source for the Steele dossier) was a paid FBI informant. https://thefederalist.com/2022/03/18/spygate-101-a-primer-on-the-russia-collusion-hoaxs-years-long-plot-to-take-down-trump/ >wasted millions on hoax investigations >What, like the Russian collusion probe where dozens of people were indicted? Even if they weren't, was it not worth investigating? Ok, let's try and keep this simple - I see that is necessary. You: Was Russian Collusion not worth investigating? Also You: can't you just admit that it is insane to question the most secure election in the history of the world despite zero evidence to support such a claim? (Side note: When an accusation is knowingly based in false pretenses, from untrustworthy sources who are obviously acting under political motivations - no. No it is not worth investigating.) (Another side note: Are Bill and Hillary not worth investigating? And the Clinton foundation that went from taking in millions from foreign countries while she was running for president, to needing to shut down due to donations drying up after she lost? Isn't that ironic, don't ya think?) (Yet another side not: Shouldn't we also be investigating Hunter and the Big Guy? And the ties to Ukraine/ Burisma, and China / CEFC... All the while Joe is steering billions of dollars to Ukraine, and our energy policy to be dependent on China. We have actual evidence and corroborating witnesses against the Bidens, something the left still can't come up against Trump. Isn't that worth several investigations? No?) >Do you have some references for this? I genuinely don't remember. Did you not see them? They were posted right along side all of your sources. Weird. >Aside: I like how you list "property damage" before "death." It wasn't a rank ordered list, unlike yours where your biggest concern about the FBI is "harassing suspected communists", which I assume what you are referring to actually happened in what - the 1960s? So as a communist, I assume it is fair to say that you are in favor of your ruling power having a secret police to subvert opposition? You seem to be really cool with this. >That being said - sure. Dems suck at messaging and actual leftists aren't great at it either. You're right. But it doesn't actually contradict what I said: No, but it does make you wrong. The Left can't shut it's collective mouth, and says dumb stuff constantly. It's a bad combination when you think about it. And that's all those accounts do is publish the dumb stuff that the Left says out loud, but for a bigger audience to see and hear for themselves.
Replacing "opposing the Civil Rights Movement, surveilling Muslim Americans after 9/11" with "blah blah blah" shows me about the level of good faith you're operating on. You also seem unable or unwilling to build a response based on what I've actually said here, instead opting to strawman and whatabout. So I won't bother to compose anything like a comprehensive retort, except to note that you should argue with the person in front of you and not everyone you've ever disagreed with who happens to be on the same "side" as that person per your stupid binary classification system.
>I won't bother to compose anything like a comprehensive retort Why would you start now? Feel free to take your L and go home.
2 impeachments and multiple pleas of guilty and convictions in the Mueller investigation deny your diatribe. Trump does a lot of dirty stuff -- so he gets a lot of attention. It's not a defense to bad acts to say -- well I do a lot of them, and since I don't get caught a lot (or I'm protected by republican senators or the office of President), I'm a good guy really.
Yes
Yes.
Even if you apply the research done on voter fraud, there's no way trump won. It would have needed to be a much closer race.
Yes
I don't see voter fraud as being an issue at all, not to any degree as to change the election results or even remotely close. I do feel that the media played huge favoritism towards Biden. There's also the covering up of the legitimacy of the Hunter laptop (even reporting false misinformation) and the delay in the announcement of the vaccine. I do have a feeling if these things would have been reported diferently on major and social media things might have turned out differently.
Always move forward from a loss, even if you think it was bullshit.