ex-President Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at low-info Boomers like my religions aunts. I have two questions:
a) Is anyone here who supports Trump bothered by lies like this?
b) Does anyone know what he's even talking about here? Like is there some grain of truth that he's embellishing on bigly?
BJ has to be a troll, there is no way someone can be compos mentis enough to get on the internet, navigate to this forum, and post at least semi-coherently, while simultaneously be gullible enough to believe that is a real and meaningful study. In fact, I find it unlikely that anyone with enough brain cells to remember to continue to breathe actually believes that is a real study.
Donald J Trump quoted it and called it one of the most important stories of the year or something like that.
Fact is even grifters might have a point at times.
For voting for ex Scandinavian countries tried electronic voting and decided paper and pencil were far preferable for a series of rational reasons.
So if a grifter who claims election fraud happened in the USA without any justification cites among other things the fact that electronic voting machines are a "bad thing", he can still be right about that even if he is a bad faith grifter.
Many su
I mean, I could start throwing out all sorts of random horseshit with no evidence to back it up and be right about something by accident. That doesn't mean you should waste the time to examine all of my claims carefully, just in case some of my delerious ramblings accidentally turn out to be correct.
In fact, what I just described there is pretty much the Trump/MAGA mode of political discourse, on the premise that it takes orders of magnitude more effort to debunk horseshit than it does to spew it.
BJ has to be a troll, there is no way someone can be compos mentis enough to get on the internet, navigate to this forum, and post at least semi-coherently, while simultaneously be gullible enough to believe that is a real and meaningful study. In fact, I find it hard to believe anyone with enough brain cells to remember to continue to breathe actually believes that is a real study.
I have seen people with very good (for a right-wing person) Twitter feeds going completely crazy about election fraud.
Literally nuanced people going to great length to discuss how asking for voter ID laws are correct but they would require expanding access to the IDs themselves for minorities and the like at taxpayer expenses in 2018-19, going in 2020 with takes such as "110% of adults voted in some Wisconsin counties".
Same as many very reasonable center left people who were nuanced in most of their policy proposals up to 2019, went crazy with covid NPIs
I have seen people with very good (for a right-wing person) Twitter feeds going completely crazy about election fraud.
Literally nuanced people going to great length to discuss how asking for voter ID laws are correct but they would require expanding access to the IDs themselves for minorities and the like at taxpayer expenses in 2018-19, going in 2020 with takes such as "110% of adults voted in some Wisconsin counties".
Same as many very rea
Voter fraud is a thing republicans invented and Trump perpetuated to disenfranchise mostly democratic voters. As far as I am aware, there are no cases of systematic voter fraud that have ever been discovered, nor is there any evidence to suggest that it is taking place. It's a fiction, like much of of the agenda that the right wing in the USA pushes.
Voter fraud is a thing republicans invented and Trump perpetuated to disenfranchise mostly democratic voters. As far as I am aware, there are no cases of systematic voter fraud that have ever been discovered, nor is there any evidence to suggest that it is taking place. It's a fiction, like much of of the agenda that the right wing in the USA pushes.
I believe Arizona found around six cases of voter fraud in 2020. And then there's Florida's special department that found a few. So there's probably a couple dozen cases country-wide. Easily enough to give Trump his landslide 🙄.
Voter fraud is a thing republicans invented and Trump perpetuated to disenfranchise mostly democratic voters. As far as I am aware, there are no cases of systematic voter fraud that have ever been discovered, nor is there any evidence to suggest that it is taking place. It's a fiction, like much of of the agenda that the right wing in the USA pushes.
In 2016, BEFORE the vote, 40% of registered voters (mostly republicans but by far not exclusively) believed the election could be rigged against Trump
/And while just 17 percent of Democrats and 39 percent of independents say they believe the election is at risk of being stolen from Trump, a whopping 73 percent of Republicans say they hold such a fear./
In 2016, BEFORE the vote, 40% of registered voters (mostly republicans but by far not exclusively) believed the election could be rigged against Trump
/And while just 17 percent of Democrats and 39 percent of independents say they believe the election is at risk of being stolen from Trump, a whopping 73 percent of Republicans say they hold such a fear./
I guess the fact that he won in 2016 is not a data point that swayed these critical thinkers?
What can I say, people are stupid. A whole bunch of them believe there is a magic fairy in the sky who grants their wishes to cure their relatives of cancer and rig the lottery on their behalf, too. The fact that a bunch of people are dumb doesn't make what they believe any more likely to be true.
I'll take that as a no.
Which is good, because nothing in that paragraph has a thing to do with what I said.
I asked you to quote where it said in the study (or anywhere else) that they polled their readers. You didn't reply. Until you provide that quote then you were indeed wrong.
Like I said, yet another one of these to add to your collection:
Spoiler
L
It's not about skimming. Firstly I disagree as I think there has been some notion that 'fight like hell' implies violence. It doesn't. If we can all agree on that then good.
I'm mostly concerned with the impact on left wing protesters which you laugh at but nolt unrelated I also totally disagree that the legal cases against trump need to be or should be built on such flimsy bricks.
No, there is no notion that "fight like hell" means violence, in isolation. Anyone who has been suggesting he meant that is doing so in the context of Trump's other actions. I wouldn't normally speak so definitively about what's in the minds of others, but in this case it seems pretty much impossible to be aware of his speech without being aware of the many, many other things Trump has done and said, and having that influence one's views of "fight like hell". And that is why I find it laughable that using any particular thing Trump said against him will lead to some kind of dangerous precedent. We all know the context in which Trump's individual statements are being criticized.
Everyone: Lozen, why did you just lie about a bunch of stuff?
Lozen: Guys, look, a squirrel!
Standard, although I'd often substitute "Lozen, here's proof you were wrong about a bunch of stuff". In fairness, he sometimes acknowledge these things, but changing the subject or choosing what to reply to are certainly favourite strategies.
I asked you to quote where it said in the study (or anywhere else) that they polled their readers. You didn't reply. Until you provide that quote then you were indeed wrong.
Like I said, yet another one of these to add to your collection:
Spoiler
L
Proudly and repeatedly demonstrating those legendary reading comprehension skills and overall mental acuity, I see.
Oh yeah, I read that. Can you quantify "substantially overstates" for us? They certainly didn't. So since their readers who had no reason not to lie responded at 28.2% that they live in a different state than they voted in (yep, that passes the eye test for sure!) then even if the real number was, oh let's say 15% then Trump still would've won. Most of the time.
lol
Yeah. There wasn't 28% fraud, Brian.
There wasn't 15%, which would qualify as
Oh, and I nearly forgot this. Here you go.
The authors also noted, “If the mail-in fraud levels were between 4% and 5%, then Trump wins enough of the swing states to actually force a tie at the electoral college.”
But don’t forget – the survey analysis that this was based on had about 28% of the respondents admitting to at least one kind of ballot fraud.
This is well beyond the 6% threshold. Trump won.
Did you just post a tweet quoting the study as though it was an independent source adding credibility to the study?
I guess the fact that he won in 2016 is not a data point that swayed these critical thinkers?
What can I say, people are stupid. A whole bunch of them believe there is a magic fairy in the sky who grants their wishes to cure their relatives of cancer and rig the lottery on their behalf, too. The fact that a bunch of people are dumb doesn't make what they believe any more likely to be true.
Fact is they very strongly doubted the legitimity of the process (40% of independents, do you realize how big that is????), BEFORE having any element to think that.
It's not about being stupid, it's about having lost even the minimal trust in society leaders. A ton of people think leaders are simply extremely evil people hellbent on violating all norms to their own advantage every time, so the election rigging hypothesis isn't a special thing, it's just part and parcel of what they think people "in the system" would and could do to achieve their goals.
Btw i only disagree with them because it's not feasible, not because i think they wouldn't do it if they could. I deeply agree with the idea most politicians are evil sociopaths with 0 moral rules governing their lives.
Fact is they very strongly doubted the legitimity of the process (40% of independents, do you realize how big that is????), BEFORE having any element to think that.
It's not about being stupid, it's about having lost even the minimal trust in society leaders. A ton of people think leaders are simply extremely evil people hellbent on violating all norms to their own advantage every time, so the election rigging hypothesis isn't a special thin
Why do you think this phenomenon seems to be uniquely American? As far as I know, the voting public in other Western countries doesn't harbour such distrust of the democratic process.
Of course he did. And the article does it too. In fact I think references like 29-33 are all the same poll. It's pretty hilarious.
Incorrect. I posted the tweet because it answers the question you asked me in the your quoted post. I even highlighted the relevant part to make it easier for you. Lol
Why do you think this phenomenon seems to be uniquely American? As far as I know, the voting public in other Western countries doesn't harbour such distrust of the democratic process.
Distrust is growing in many countries, in some more than in others. The reasons why are multifaceted and perhaps not even the same in every country (for example in Italy, more than 20 years of no increase in per capita real gdp might play a very significant role. In some other countries, massive unprecedented immigration might play a role).
Afaik voter turnout, a very rough proxy of trust in the process (not necessarily the electoral process, but in the idea that voting matters because what happens in society can depend on the choices of the elected people and they are different one from the other in meaningful ways). is dropping almost everywhere.
Europe leads the pack in the drop (starting from very high tournouts).
Just some data points to give the magnitude of what happened:
Turnout in Italy in the 1963 national political elections was 93%. In 2022 it was 64%
Turnount in France in 1965 (first direct presidential election, De Gaulle won) was 85% (first round, second was almost the same). In 2022 it was 74% (first round)
Turnout in the USA in 1960 (JFK winning narrowly vs Nixon) was 64%. In 2016 it was 60% (i don't take 2020 because covid rules made turnout not -comparable expanding vote from home a lot)
So as a broad proxy as we mentioned before, if anything the USA always mistrusted the system, and that didn't change much; in Italy there was an exceptional drop in trust in the system, from very very high levels. And In France there is still a wide trust in the system albeit a lower one than 60 years ago.
Incorrect. I posted the tweet because it answers the question you asked me in the your quoted post. I even highlighted the relevant part to make it easier for you. Lol
There are thousands of smart people around the world, of all different political persuasions, who study and monitor elections as a full time career.
If there was any real reason to believe the election was stolen, at least some of them would be saying so. You wouldn't have to rely on some fringe group of crackpots who ran their "study" like 7th graders doing a school project.
@Luciom - I would posit that, at least for Europe, in most countries any party with a realistic chance of getting elected are going to be fairly moderate - a little bit left or a little bit right of centre. In the first few years after World War II, this wasn't necessarily the case. I think it's only natural that voter turnout will drop if there is no danger of an extremist party on either side of the spectrum gaining any meaningful power. We're not in much danger of seeing another Hitler or Stalin or Mussolini. Just my hypothesis, no idea if this has also been discussed by people who understand much more about these things than I do.
In America, there is a far right conspiracy-theory peddling party that purposely sows distrust in the system, so I think the causes there are disntinctly different.
@Luciom - I would posit that, at least for Europe, in most countries any party with a realistic chance of getting elected are going to be fairly moderate - a little bit left or a little bit right of centre. In the first few years after World War II, this wasn't necessarily the case. I think it's only natural that voter turnout will drop if there is no danger of an extremist party on either side of the spectrum gaining any meaningful power.
Not sure what you mean especially for France given what everyone (including her supporters) said of Marine Le Pen. Or Wilders in the NL for that matter.
Btw Berlusconi did claim voter fraud stole him the election in 2006 (he lost with a very small margin) [turnout 84%]. He then won in 2008 when an early election was called because the gvmnt had a very thin majority which it lost because of problems within the alliance [turnout 81%].
Guys we now know how he plans to pay those hundreds of millions
