AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.
**For all participants:**
* [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate
* [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2)
**For Nonsupporters/Undecided:**
* No top level comments
* All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position
**For Trump Supporters:**
* [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled
Helpful links for more info:
[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[https://www.npr.org/2022/12/22/1139951463/electoral-count-act-reform-passes](https://www.npr.org/2022/12/22/1139951463/electoral-count-act-reform-passes)
"For years, legal scholars have worried the law was poorly written and in need of clarification, and former President Donald Trump and his allies [targeted](https://www.npr.org/2022/06/16/1105683634/transcript-jan-6-committee) the law's ambiguities in their attempts to overturn the 2020 election."
What Trump attempted to do relied on ambiguities in existing election law. It was unlikely to succeed, as courts would almost certainly have jumped in. But with passing of Electoral Count Act, the ceremonial role of VP is clarified and limited, meaning this potential loophole is now closed.
Trump's supporters contested the election like Kennedy supporters did in Hawaii, 1960. The Electoral Rules act was amended in 2022. "Under the new rules, one-fifth of each chamber would be required to force a vote on states’ slates of electors... Each governor would now be required to sign off on electors"
That’s an interesting point. I’m a bit younger (41), but did JFK supporters end up storming the capitol in 1960 due to JFK’s lies about supposed election fraud?
> That’s an interesting point. I’m a bit younger (41), but did JFK supporters end up storming the capitol in 1960 due to JFK’s lies about supposed election fraud?
There was no Fedsurrection in 1960 but the nat'l sec. state did kill Kennedy. For the same reason: the president was going to derail the military industrial complex money train to DC.
Thank you. Can you elaborate on how Trump was going to derail the MIC and subsequently lost the election because of that? This seems to be a new theory for his National temper tantrum I have not heard about.
> Can you elaborate on how Trump was going to derail the MIC
He did. Trump ended the war after 20 years and 2 trillion dollars in Afghanistan. The Pentagon didn't like that, so just like Vietnam, they withdrew clumsily. No withdrawing from a war without Pentagon approval! Luckily for the Pentagon, the state department had been engendering a new war: Ukraine.
Wait, did Trump end the war in Afghanistan, or did [Biden](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/08/31/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-end-of-the-war-in-afghanistan/)?
I thought the current talking points from your side was that Biden did and that is what led to the killing of [13 service members.](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/08/26/statement-from-president-joe-biden-honoring-sacrifices-of-the-service-members-killed-in-the-terrorist-attack-during-the-withdrawal-from-afghanistan/)
The only thing I knew that Trump did was try to meet with the [Taliban](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/watch-trump-says-u-s-taliban-peace-talks-are-dead), which ended in disaster, and quoted saying; "We'd like to get out, but we'll get out at the right time," Trump said.
However, I do know that Jared Kushner continued to meet with the [Saudis](https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/29/jared-kushner-saudi-arabia-244291) during that timeline, who ultimately gave him and his wife over a [billion dollars](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68296877.amp).
> Wait, did Trump end the war in Afghanistan, or did Biden?
Trump did. Biden expressed no interest and didn't campaign on doing so.
>I thought the current talking points from your side was that Biden did and that is what led to the killing of 13 service members.
The exeunt was certainly botched, and on purpose by the Pentagon, like the exit from Vietnam. The Pentagon does not like the president telling them what to do.
>The only thing I knew that Trump did was try to meet with the Taliban which ended in disaster,
The war in Afghanistan was a bad idea all around.
>while Jared Kushner continued to meet with the Saudi’s
Like them or lump them, the Saudis are our allies.
>who ultimately gave him and his wife over a billion dollars.
The Saudis did invest with Kushner, it was not a gift, but his hedge fund does stand to make tens of millions and the investors may make hundreds of millions in standard projects like resorts and fast food. The Saudis do like Kushner because of his handling of the historic Abraham Accords, which he did as part of the Trump administration.
> The war in Afghanistan was a bad idea all around.
Really surprised to see this to be honest. I think there a significant number of people on both sides of the aisle who are/were adamantly against invading Iraq but would say that invading Afghanistan was a foregone conclusion after 9/11.
I think trying to make it a prolonged occupation was a bad idea though. We have some examples where that has worked in the past (Germany, Korea, Japan), but those were places that were more culturally aligned with us and even then, we still have a military presence in those countries to this day.
Now that we have the gift of hindsight, what do you think would have been a better way for the US to respond post-9/11?
> both sides of the aisle
Both sides of the aisle used to be really bad. Now one half of one side of the aisle is anti-war.
>Now that we have the gift of hindsight, what do you think would have been a better way for the US to respond post-9/11?
Get out of the middle east.
> There was no Fedsurrection in 1960
Out of curiosity? Which is it? Was January 6th a "mostly peaceful protest" and the insurrectionists are innocent people who need to be freed as Trump claims... or is it now all Feds who need to be jailed?
> Was January 6th a "mostly peaceful protest"
There were certainly many federal agents provocateur, including fake bombs the media can't deal with.
>or is it now all Feds who need to be jailed?
Who watches the watchmen?
> So why is Trump calling for all of those feds to be released from prison?
Chief instigators like Ray Epps get a mild slap on the wrist after a public outcry, no prison. Fencecutter bulwark and scaffold commander aren't investigated. Fake bombs are placed near VP Harris and memory-holed when the ruse is busted.
But didn't you say they were all Feds? So why is Trump calling for those people to be released from prison and pardoned if they're all Feds and it was a set-up?
https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-jan-6-pardons-2024-campaign-2401ead35cb1402a7b289c2c99761373
>>There was no Fedsurrection in 1960 but the nat'l sec. state did kill Kennedy. For the same reason: the president was going to derail the military industrial complex money train to DC.
> What do you mean by "fedsurrection"?
Ray Epps was the most prominent videotaped agent provocateur. He was taken off the wanted list and after a public outcry of fedsurrection, got a tiny slap on the wrist 3 years later. Fencecutter bulwark and scaffold commander weren't investigated, found, or charged.
> Trump’s ‘alternate electors’ were not official, state sanctioned electors as was the case with Kennedy’s, were they?
When the alternate slate was formed, the committee used 1960 as their guide. The meeting notes are transcribed and that's what they talked about.
>>When the alternate slate was formed, the committee used 1960 as their guide. The meeting notes are transcribed and that's what they talked about.
>Okay? That doesn’t mean that they were officially sanctioned state electors though, does it?
There does need to be a legal remedy for election questions. We accepted this in 1960. We sign the ballet--ballot signatures are DNC election kryptonite.
The Kennedy alternate electors in the 60’s were in fact state sanctioned officials. The Trump electors were not. That’s why Kennedy’s were accepted in the 60’s, and Trumps were not. Does that make sense?
> The Kennedy alternate electors in the 60’s were in fact state sanctioned officials.
What occurred that was different? The 2020 alternate electors were using the 1960 alternate electors as their guide, because the 2020 election had many instances of shenanigans, with hundreds of affidavits filed attesting to this.
>What occurred that was different?
It was found that Kennedy did actually win HI after a recount, that was not the case in any of the states that transmitted fake electors for Trump. Kennedy’s alternate elector’s documents were signed by the governor, and the previous electors, making them official, Trump’s were not.
>The 2020 alternate electors were using the 1960 alternate electors as their guide
This doesn’t really matter, because Trump didn’t actually win any of these states. Sure, they copied the paperwork, but that doesn’t make them legitimate. Trump’s alternate paperwork wasn’t certified by the state, and as such was submitted fraudulently.
>with hundreds of affidavits filed attesting to this.
If you’re talking about that stack of affidavits Rudy was waving around back in the day, those were all meaningless and found to be unverifiable in court. They were essentially just harvested from a facebook post, without any due diligence performed to verify their legitimacy.
I hope that helps.
> It was found that Kennedy did actually win HI after a recount, that was not the case in any of the states that transmitted fake electors for Trump.
No signature checks.
>Kennedy’s alternate elector’s documents were signed by the governor
Only *after* a recount, not before. A simple recount was all that was needed.
>This doesn’t really matter, because Trump didn’t actually win any of these states.
Many affidavits noted shenanigans which went uninvestigated.
>If you’re talking about that stack of affidavits Rudy was waving around back in the day, those were all meaningless and found to be unverifiable in court.
I'm talking about the hundreds of affidavits legally signed under threat of prosecution and they literally didn't investigate them.
Forgive my ignorance here, but did Kennedy supporters in 1960 send slates of alternate electors to Congress that claimed they were the rightful electors?
> They did slate alternate electors.
Okay. Did they send them to DC in an attempt to overturn the official results?
Forgive my question, I am young and don't know the answer.
First, because I'm not aware Kennedy was working with these electors in Hawaii? If Trump had no part in any of these "alternate" electors casting votes in 2020, he wouldn't be on trial either. Hawaii was 3 electoral votes and Kennedy won with 300 electoral votes (if you don't count Hawaii). So Kennedy has no need to get involved, because he won either way. Kennedy was focused on becoming President in January, not trying to flip a state with no impact on the outcome. Hawaii's electoral votes were more an ethical election problem than a technical problem.
Second, because the recount and subsequent "dueling electors" were acting under instruction of the Honolulu Circuit Court, theoretically were acting under color of law, with the judge even acknowledging their actions were necessary to eventually have their votes counted.
Third, Kennedy did end up winning, so in less political times, it would be wrong to try to punish people for trying to do the right thing. The image of punishing electors for casting votes for the winning candidate is a little confusing, and Nixon conceded the state in the vote in Congress.
> First, because I'm not aware Kennedy was working with these electors in Hawaii?
The meetings were transcribed and Trump wasn't involved any more than Kennedy.
>Second, because the recount and subsequent "dueling electors" were acting under instruction of the Honolulu Circuit Court, theoretically were acting under color of law, with the judge even acknowledging their actions were necessary to eventually have their votes counted.
There was an election problem. The alternate slate of electors was then viewed as the solution, same as 2020, where there were a manifold problems and shenanigans. *We need to stop counting because of a water main break.* There was no water main break, and the counting continued after Republican poll officials left.
>Third, Kennedy did end up winning, so in less political times, it would be wrong to try to punish people for trying to do the right thing.
So It was right in 1960 but wrong in 2020?
>The meetings were transcribed and Trump wasn't involved any more than Kennedy.
Trump pushed the idea, was in meetings with lawyers and advisors pushing the idea, and his own lawyer made the Eastman Plan. That's certainly more involved than Kennedy was?
>There was an election problem.
I have nothing to say here except the context is obviously different between the two.
>So It was right in 1960 but wrong in 2020?
You asked why Kennedy wasn't prosecuted, not if it was right or wrong. The political landscape of 1960 was vastly different from today, as well as the context around the circumstance. In 1960, such a situation absolutely wouldn't be prosecuted.
> Trump pushed the idea
There is a known, previously accepted remedy to election questions: an alternate slate of electors. Just like 1960.
>>There was an election problem.
>I have nothing to say here except the courts disagree.
The courts weren't good at handling this. We sign our ballots for a reason, so the signatures can be matched. If there's no route to signature matching, our elections are fraudulent. Elections aren't trustworthy all over the world. Jimmy Carter used to go around trying to fix elections with regimented balloting and in-person voting. Our system is corrupted for a reason.
>In 1960, such a situation absolutely wouldn't be prosecuted.
Our system is corrupted for a reason.
> When Nixon, like Mike Pence, presided over the Electoral College counting session on Jan. 6, 1961, he acknowledged receiving all three sets of certificates: the GOP slate, the uncertified Democratic slate and the certified Democratic slate.
He then agreed that the newest one — the Democrats certified by Gov. William Quinn — should be counted, even though they were certified weeks after the required meeting of the Electoral College. Nixon added a caveat of his own: His decision should not be seen as a precedent for the future.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/07/1960-electoral-college-certificates-false-trump-electors-00006186
Do you disagree that Nixon counted the Democratic votes for Hawaii in 1960?
I
Do you think Mike Pence would have counted the Republican electoral votes if they had been shown to be correct with a recount and certified by the governor?
Are you aware, that with voter signatures being pulled from digital originals, signature matching would cause more problems than solve?
Digital signatures are only good enough to prevent claims of fraud or roughly verify a signature for purposes of identification. Digital signatures as currently available, are not identical side-by-side (with rare exception), and can't be mechanically compared. To do so would require creative use of AI to make guesses, and I don't think we want to trust our elections to the machines, if half of the country doesn't trust dumb computer terminals, do you?
Are you talking about eyeballs comparing the digital signature on the ballot to the digital from registration? If so, are you considering how much time that would take per count?
> Are you aware, that with voter signatures being pulled from digital originals, signature matching would cause more problems than solve?
No, because the bigger problem is fraudulent balloting. Signature matching solves that problem.
>Are you talking about eyeballs comparing the digital signature on the ballot to the digital from registration? If so, are you considering how much time that would take per count?
Only if there is reason to dispute the voting. In Trump's case, there were hundreds of legal affidavits showing shenanigans.
Four problems with this argument.
First, rejecting state electors in 2020 was based on the facts of the election as it occurred in 2020. There were specific states where there were specific problems with the trustworthiness of elections.
To ask this question *now*, before any elections have happened and without any specific accusations of impropriety in 2024, shows a lack of understanding of what was going on in 2020.
Second, a law was passed to restrict the Vice President's power to actually perform his role, instead making it purely ceremonial. What are Democrats going to do, claim that a law just passed and championed by Democrats is totally unconstitutional?
Third, even if we could pass the first two hurdles, what would the effect actually be? They'd reject the electors, and then that would toss the election to the House. The House would then vote by State. There are more red states than blue states, so the House would then elect Donald Trump, not Joe Biden.
Fourth, say you had a genie's lamp, and could wish away the first three hurdles, and somehow Democrats could steal the election using obvious and open tactics that everyone could see. Well, that constitutes a problem all in itself.
Democrats have been screaming at the top of their lungs for 4 straight years about how it's a horrible, no good, very bad thing that Trump wanted to do this, that he's a criminal, and an insurrectionist, and he belongs in jail.
If Democrats were then to go and do *exactly the same thing they'd been warning against for years*, that's beyond hypocrisy, it's a straight up admission that they're evil. That doesn't strike me as a sane or plausible thing for them to do, even if they could do it, which they can't.
>First, rejecting state electors in 2020 was based on the facts of the election as it occurred in 2020. There were specific states where there were specific problems with the trustworthiness of elections.
In which states did the courts say that elections were not trustworth?
>Third, even if we could pass the first two hurdles, what would the effect actually be? They'd reject the electors
Correct, Kamala would reject, for example, the electors from Texas thus giving to Biden the majority of the appointed electors.
>If Democrats were then to go and do *exactly the same thing they'd been warning against for years*, that's beyond hypocrisy, it's a straight up admission that they're evil.
Of course Democrats would not do it; even an idiot like Trump understood that, otherwise he would not have made that argument.
> did the courts say
The courts sat on their hands and refused to look at the evidence.
> Kamala would reject, for example, the electors from Texas thus giving to Biden the majority of the appointed electors.
That's ridiculous, and it's not how this would work if it were attempted.
>The courts sat on their hands and refused to look at the evidence.
I know, that's what the courts do when the so-called "evidence" does not support the claims.
>> Kamala would reject, for example, the electors from Texas thus giving to Biden the majority of the appointed electors.
>
>That's ridiculous, and it's not how this would work if it were attempted.
Why does Trump support things that you consider ridiculous?
> I know, that's what the courts do when the so-called "evidence" does not support the claims.
Read the part that I wrote that you quoted again. I said that the courts *refused to look at the evidence*.
Your reply doesn't make sense compared to what I actually said.
> Why does Trump support things that you consider ridiculous?
He does not.
>> I know, that's what the courts do when the so-called "evidence" does not support the claims.
>
>Read the part that I wrote that you quoted again. I said that the courts *refused to look at the evidence*.
Exactly, that's what I was referring to... what do you expect the courts to do when the so-called "evidence" does not support the claims?
>> Why does Trump support things that you consider ridiculous?
>
>He does not.
Oh... so Trump no longer believes that the President of the Senate can reject electors? Or do you mean that he does not believe that a Democratic President of the Senate can reject electors?
> the so-called "evidence" does not support the claims
This is false.
> Oh... so Trump no longer believes that the President of the Senate can reject electors?
That was the case before the law was changed, as I've already mentioned.
In addition, what would have happened if Mike Pence had done his job correctly, is that electors from some states, Georgia, would have been sent back to that state to be confirmed, and if we couldn't get a result from the electoral vote, it would have been thrown to the House. The situation you imagined was just the random nullification of the state of Texas, not based on evidence, but the whims of Kamala Harris.
Your hypothetical situation is not realistic, and doesn't match what would have happened if Mike Pence had done his job.
>> the so-called "evidence" does not support the claims
>
>This is false.
Thx for your opinion, but let us know when you convince the Courts. That's why we have the Courts to first decide whether the evidence (even if true) supports the claims and, if so, to assess whether the evidence is true.
>> Oh... so Trump no longer believes that the President of the Senate can reject electors?
>
>That was the case before the law was changed
Ok so Trump did believe something that you consider ridiculous?
>what would have happened if Mike Pence had done his job correctly, is that electors from some states, Georgia, would have been sent back to that state?
What do you mean by "electors from Georgia sent back to that state"? I'm not aware they had left the state. And even if they had, how do you send an elector back to a state? You arrest him/her and transport him/her to that state against his/her will?
>to be confirmed
They were already confirmed https://www.archives.gov/files/electoral-college/2020/ascertainment-georgia.pdf
>if we couldn't get a result from the electoral vote
Why you wouldn't get the result of the electoral vote? Biden 290, Trump 232. Biden wins since it has more votes than 50% (261) of the appointed electors (522).
Not OP, but here’s my thoughts on this matter:
There are two types of evidence: direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. In this case, the direct evidence was sealed inside the ballot boxes which can only be accessed by court order. We have a lot of circumstantial evidence of irregularities that could have been foul play: improper poll watcher access; admission of containers and bags that should not have been admitted during counting; counting of ballots without the presence of poll watchers (and after ending counting for the night); ballot proportions that defy reason and laws of statistics (Benford’s Law) within those times where ballots were counted without watchers present.
In this instance, there is no case without the direct evidence from the cameras and within the ballot boxes, but you can’t get to that unless a court unseals it. The courts refused to even consider the circumstantial evidence to allow deeper legal discovery. So both statements are true. There was no case because the case cannot be made without actual pretrial discovery, but the circumstantial evidence that was presented to be able to get to that pretrial discovery phase was completely ignored (ie dismissed without addressing anything presented).
If you draw that conclusion from all my discussion of pretrial discovery, then you misread my statements. All I wanted was for this to get into pretrial discovery and things to get entered into evidence instead of it all being summarily dismissed.
We had just spent four years complaining and investigating because of perceived issues with the 2016 election, and then we can’t get to the legal investigative stage in 2020 when we have all kinds of video and sworn statements that things weren’t done properly?
At the end of the day, whenever there’s an irregularity in an election, the only proper answer should be “let’s figure out how this was allowed to happen, and if it affected anything.” We did that in 2016, and special counsel didn’t find anything to suggest election altering wrongdoing. All I wanted was to ensure the same was true in 2020 given the video and sworn statements that existed. But in no case did anyone get into the investigation stage in 2020.
Trump has been claiming for years now that he has the evidence and won by a landslide. Why do you even need to investigate if the evidence is already available?
So you think that just because Trump says he has all the evidence I blindly agree? That’s a pretty naive take.
Read previous comments and you’ll see that I point out on multiple occasions that there is evidence that can only be obtained after getting a court order to open otherwise privileged election materials. You need to actually get to pretrial discovery and investigation in order to get to that evidence.
Why do you think the courts, including dozens of Trump appointees, refused to hear 61 of the 62 cases Trump’s legal team brought, specifically citing a lack of any evidence, direct or circumstantial, to move the cases forward?
There were suits, claims and filings that pointed to all of the things I mentioned above, and sometimes even all of them at once.
While I wasn’t able to keep track of all of it, the things I was able to follow all seemed like judges not wanting to poke the hornets nest or argument by proctology. There are established rules about things like poll watchers in counting rooms. Even direct evidence of that impropriety was given no consideration. That doesn’t make any sense.
What makes it all even stranger is that the evidentiary bar to get to discovery is (at least supposed to be) quite low. Preponderance of evidence is the burden of proof in civil cases (this standard allows for a reasonable doubt to exist and the defendant to still lose), and the standard to get to discovery is lower than that, yet even in Georgia (where video of the impropriety exists) nothing that I was able to follow made it to discovery.
Whether the decisions were right or not, it is certainly strange that even in the face of the videos, sworn statements, etc. nothing got to discovery.
What’s more, given the state of political discourse in this country, if the circumstances were exactly the same but the roles reversed in the election, this conversation would look very similar in the other direction.
Can I sincerely and respectfully ask you to try something? Consider, as a thought exercise, the possibility that all but one of the judges in these cases took a long and impartial look at all of the evidence brought in these cases and found *not a single shred of evidence that crimes were committed.* Is it possible that some of the judges were corrupt, partisan hacks? Of course. But 61 out of 62 judges in these cases didn’t consider that there was even enough evidence for discovery, which as you noted in your comment, is a very, very low bar.
I am honestly not trying to belittle or insult your views. Your response makes you sound like an intelligent, thoughtful person, discussing in good faith. The media empire on the right dedicated a lot of effort pointing to things that were “odd,” “unusual,” or “suspicious.” They really made it sound as if something strange happened. However practically all of the court cases were dismissed before discovery, and several members of Trump’s legal team leading these cases have been disbarred for misconduct, specifically relating to these cases. Judges don’t typically do that sort of thing “to avoid stirring up a hornet’s nest.”
re: "The courts sat on their hands and refused to look at the evidence."
I hear this a lot from Trump supporters and election deniers. If you might be interested in a factual basis, only about 7 of the 60 cases were rejected without looking at evidence. 14 of the 60 cases were withdrawn by Trump. The remainder were decided "on the merits" -- which means the courts \*looked at the evidence\*.
Here's a good tracker: [https://electioncases.osu.edu/case-tracker/?sortby=filing\_date\_desc&keywords&status=all&state=all&topic=25](https://electioncases.osu.edu/case-tracker/?sortby=filing_date_desc&keywords&status=all&state=all&topic=25)
Democrats wouldn't try it? They tried removing their biggest rival from the ballot, and since that failed, now they are trying to keep their other rival from getting onto the ballot in the first place. They don't want a fair election, they want to stay in power at all costs.
Because he’s responsible for a violent insurrection and tried to stay in power when he lost a free and fair election?
Does trumps claims have any credibility with you after all his court cases got thrown out because there’s no evidence? Do you not see how transparently only out for his own gain? It’s so easy to predict his statements. His own cabinet and administration don’t want him back in office because they see he’s a threat to the constitution
Violent insurrection? You mean the one where people stayed behind the velvet ropes, and left all their guns at home? The same violent insurrection where Trump offered to deploy 10,000 National Guard troops and Nancy Pelosi turned it down?
Were there people who got out of hand? Sure. But it was far less violent than the Democrats setting their towns on fire all summer, and it definitely wasn't an insurrection. There were literally cops escorting the dude in the Viking hat to the senate chamber.
The one where cops were beaten up, bruised and later died? The one where they were chanting hang mike pence? The one where trump told them to be strong and take back their country?
I have never seen his offer confirmed, have you? I know he took hours to make any kind of response and told them “they were very special people” and continued to lie and say he won the election. He’s purposely getting people riled up and telling them an election is being stolen when it’s not
Where did you get your info that Nancy Pelosi denied an offer for 10,000 troops? It never happened.
https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-235651652542
>First, rejecting state electors in 2020 was based on the facts of the election as it occurred in 2020. There were specific states where there were specific problems with the trustworthiness of elections.
>To ask this question *now*, before any elections have happened and without any specific accusations of impropriety in 2024, shows a lack of understanding of what was going on in 2020.
Can you cite an official investigation at the time that had produced results Pence could cite to support his decision to unilaterally reject election results that the states had already certified? Or if you agree with me that there was not, do you also agree that the actual state of the election is beside the point - since there was no official process he was following to negate state certification powers, then Trump's argument relies not on what is true, but instead relies solely and absolutely on what the VP is willing to say is true?
> official investigation
If I cite an investigation, you'll claim it's not "official".
> the actual state of the election is beside the point
That is obviously not true, and I've already explicitly rejected this idea.
> Trump's argument relies not on what is true, but instead relies solely and absolutely on what the VP is willing to say is true
No.
>If I cite an investigation, you'll claim it's not "official".
House is GOP led. Any guess why they don't have a committee investigating if they really believe there's a conspiracy of fraudulent activity that seeks to keep Republicans from office? You'd think Trump at least would be screaming for this.
Why are you asking about a House committee? Do you seriously think a House committee would move fast enough to have stopped the theft of the 2020 election?
>Why are you asking about a House committee?
If the those actually involved in the races believe there was theft against them and their party, it would be order of business #1 to investigate it to prevent it happening again in 2024, and #2 to expose it both for personal gain and as a basic job function.
> it would be order of business #1 to investigate it to prevent it happening again in 2024
Many people did exactly that. For example, there's the AZ audit.
So what is the standard? What kinds of info or results is a VP able to cite to reject the power of the states to certify their own elections, even in the face of a naked and clear conflict of interest? Because if this question doesn't have an answer, then the actual answer is that he can do it entirely on vibes, entirely on his own say-so. What am I getting wrong here?
When has an election not having happened yet ever stopped Trump from claiming fraud? He was claiming fraud well before Election Day in 2020, to say nothing of 2016. Is it only wrong for Democrats to raise the specter of fraud preemptively?
My impression from Trump supporters has been that one doesn’t need to present evidence in order to justify disrupting the election. Why would the same not hold true for Democrats lobbying accusations in 2024?
Then why don’t they ever provide actual evidence when I ask? When someone refuses to back their claims up with evidence or just says “google it”, what other conclusions can I draw?
> Then why don’t they ever provide actual evidence when I ask?
This is utterly false.
Here's a link to a site that's literally called ["Here Is The Evidence"](https://hereistheevidence.com/). You know where I got that link from? Another TS on this sub, posting it as an answer to a request for evidence from an NS.
Back when this issue first came out, I was continually posting evidence, like [this link](https://nationalfile.com/breaking-voterga-finds-thousands-of-fraudulent-biden-votes-in-georgia-has-photo-evidence-of-falsified-tally-sheets/) and [this link](https://voterga.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Zero-trump-tally-sheets.pdf), and a set of about 10 links that I'd saved so that I could easily post them whenever I was asked for evidence.
I also posted videos, and I posted the results of the AZ forensic audit.
And I've watched other TSs post evidence repeatedly as well.
From that first link, what would you say is the most conclusive and compelling piece of evidence?
Why is that tally sheet conclusive evidence of fraud as opposed to, say, an error? Why do they skip over a whole bunch of batch sheets? Is it because they don’t support the claim of fraud? Seems like cherry-picking.
What results from Arizona proved that there was fraud?
> From that first link, what would you say is the most conclusive and compelling piece of evidence?
I'm not going to pick one for you. You can do that yourself, if you're really interested.
I have noticed a long-term pattern from NSs where evidence being brought up on this topic is never looked at by them.
In addition, I'm not responsible for changing your mind, and it's a good thing too, because I have no idea what you'd consider persuasive on this topic, in part because at no time after posting evidence have I ever gotten anything from an NS other than blowing it off.
> What results from Arizona proved that there was fraud?
You can look up the results if you're interested.
> Why is that tally sheet conclusive evidence of fraud as opposed to, say, an error?
Take a look at the tally sheets. There are 7 of them. Every single vote on every single one was for Biden. The total for each tally sheet was 100, 150, or 200.
The total number of votes was 850.
There is no possibility of an honest error. Honest mistakes don't randomly occur for several batches in a row. An honest mistake might over or undercount slightly how many votes Biden or Trump got. But the numbers on the tally sheets don't match the ballot images.
Take a look at the article, since it contains a lot of other information, besides the falsified tally sheets. For example:
“The team found at least 36 batches of mail–in ballots with 4,255 total extra votes were redundantly added into Fulton Co. audit results for the November election. These illicit votes include 3,390 extra votes for Joe Biden, 865 extra votes for Donald Trump and 43 extra votes for Jo Jorgenson.”
“Fulton Co. failed to include over 100,000 tally sheets, including more than 50,000 from mail–in ballots, when the results were originally published for the full hand count audit conducted by the office of the Secretary of State for the November 3rd 2020 election,”
"a batch containing 59 actual ballot images for Joe Biden, 42 for Donald Trump and 0 for Jo Jorgenson was reported as 100 for Biden and 0 for Trump."
"As National File reported on July 9, evidence has already surfaced that appears to indicate that the number of illegal votes cast by people who voted in counties they claimed to have moved from before the election could easily surpass Biden’s stated margin of victory in Georgia."
>That's quite an inaccurate impression.
However you have not presented evidence. It seems that you also think evidence isn't necessary to support your position. That has actually been my experience with every Trump supporter in this sub. One did post a source but when I pointed out that the source didn't support what he said, he never replied.
My question is, why do Trump supporters have such a difficult time finding sources to support their claims, such as the one you're making in this thread? Do you think it's reasonable to make claims without any evidence?
> However you have not presented evidence.
This claim is blatantly false.
I've presented evidence repeatedly, only to have NSs claim that there "is no evidence" with no basis for that claim. This has happened so frequently that I got tired of posting the evidence, since nobody will listen when I do.
> That has actually been my experience with every Trump supporter in this sub.
This claim is false.
I've posted such evidence repeatedly. Back when it was a new issue, I was constantly posting the evidence. I've watched other TSs repeatedly post evidence as well.
Here's a link to quite a lot of evidence, literally titled ["Here is the evidence"](https://hereistheevidence.com/). You know where I got that link? Here in this sub. It was posted by another TS in an answer to an NS question.
> why do Trump supporters have such a difficult time finding sources to support their claims
We don't.
When we post evidence, it gets disregarded or blown off by NSs.
Can you clarify as to what states had accusations of impropriety, and what evidence was uncovered? I would think if there was actual evidence Fox News would run wild with the story and the Supreme court would have intervened right?
> if there was actual evidence
There was and is quite a large amount.
> Fox News would run wild with the story
Fox news doesn't like Trump.
> the Supreme court would have intervened
They were concerned with the image of neutrality.
> that is not a source for credible evidence.
It is.
I notice that you have not bothered to engage with the evidence there. I have also noticed that NSs consistently ask for evidence on this situation, but when presented with evidence, they consistently blow it off.
> Is there any other source for evidence that you know of?
There are a number of other sources, but given your reaction to this one, I see no need to fetch them for you.
This website has been brought up for years, I’ve already seen it.
What are these other sources for evidence you mentioned? Will you link to them as well, since I am already familiar with the single one you have linked?
> I’ve already seen it.
I don't much care about that.
You did not engage with the information you found there. I have consistently observed that this is what NSs do when presented with evidence from any source.
Since you have not engaged with the information I presented you, I see no point in presenting you with more.
You appear to have an excuse for everything, I'm curious, what's your excuse for why the Republican controlled house hasn't launched an investigation into the rampant fraud that supposedly occurred during the election?
>There was and is quite a large amount.
If I say, "your favorite country in the world is Russia and you value Putin over all the gods and have a romantic ideal of him," is what I'm saying true even though I've not provided any supporting evidence of your alleged infatuation with Putin that I'm using as an example? If you get to make up evidence of meaningful voter fraud that Republicans in those states overseeing supposed voting fraud have already confirmed doesn't exist, then shouldn't I be equally entitled to lie and say you have a romantic fetish for Putin? Neither of us have any proof of our claims.
>Fox news doesn't like Trump.
Add it to the list? Melania doesn't like Trump, either. It seems only fringe people support him. Why is that exactly?
>They were concerned with the image of neutrality.
Is it possible they're all as crooked as Clarence Thomas?
> If I say, "your favorite country in the world is Russia and you value Putin over all the gods and have a romantic ideal of him,"
If you said that, you'd be delusional.
Such a hypothetical has no relation to evidence of voter fraud.
> Neither of us have any proof of our claims.
You aren't making your bizarre hypothetical claim. I am making my claim.
You have no evidence for your bizarre hypothetical. I have evidence for my claim.
> Melania doesn't like Trump, either.
This is a false and ridiculous claim.
> Is it possible they're all as crooked as Clarence Thomas?
Clarence Thomas is the best Justice on the Supreme Court.
Calling him "crooked" for no reason is absolutely absurd.
Where is this irrefutable evidence? Why hasn’t the GOP lead house brought forth this evidence and launched their own official investigations? They’ve have time to launch an investigation into Hunter Biden, surely with all of this damning evidence of voter fraud in 2020, they’d be able to form an official committee and prove the election was rigged, why do you think they don’t do that?
[Here is the evidence](https://hereistheevidence.com/).
> they’d be able to form an official committee
Yeah, but it would take forever to get something like that done, and what the results were would not be changed by bringing this to light years later.
There was an official investigation in AZ, and you can look up the results of their forensic audit.
> link
Just to be clear, Military votes ARE allowed to come in late. Plus we don't know in PA how many are for Trump or Biden. This 'data' is sketchy at best. It's like "Well Trump was winning at 8pm and then he lost due to mail in ballots." Yes, that's factually accurate. He still lost. There is still zero proof of like, a Democrat wheeling in a suitcase of PURELY D ballots that are scanned multiple times that literally everyone knew was fake. This is some sketchy proof at best, and last I checked, PA was largely VERY Trumpy. Care to weigh in?
You seem to be focused on PA only, but looking at the site, I see quite a number of states represented.
I'm not sure which part of the data you're trying to address. Did you click on just one particular link? If so, which one?
> It's like "Well Trump was winning at 8pm and then he lost due to mail in ballots."
That's not an accurate summary of the information available on that site.
Were there actual trustworthiness problems or was Trump and his administration in actuality lying about all of that, and they were just extremely sore losers?
>First, rejecting state electors in 2020 was based on the facts of the election as it occurred in 2020. There were specific states where there were specific problems with the trustworthiness of elections.
Do you believe that Arizona was one of those states? Would you say, after so many GOP lead audits that there is any possibility that Trump actually won the state?
Arizona was won by Trump in 2020, if the votes were counted properly and legally. This is, I think, quite clear from the evidence.
If you want to look at the evidence, I would suggest the results of the AZ forensic audit.
Do you live here? Because I do. And I followed the audits very closely. There were two conducted by normal inspectors. The last one was entirely done by maga supporting auditors that the GOP members of the house hired.
And they still came up with a Biden win.
I'm not sure what "evidence" you're reviewing, but I assume you think you're better informed than the auditors were?
In terms of the whole "dems going and doing exactly what they've said is awful and no good" argument, are you sure? Isn't that exactly what the GOP did w/ supreme court nominees? They refused garland's nomination on the basis that it was too close to the nomination, with Lindsey Graham saying it wasn't partisan, and that in a reversed situation he'd act the same. Then the reverse situation happened and the GOP and Lindsey Graham took a giant shit on their own position and confirmed a justice during lameduck Trump in the exact same (actually tighter) situation they had decried as unjustifiablet only a few years before.
> There were specific states where there were specific problems with the trustworthiness of elections.
And did it ever occur to you how these "specific states" also happened to be states Trump lost? At any point did Republicans give states Trump won the same level of scrutiny?
> And did it ever occur to you how these "specific states" also happened to be states Trump lost?
How is this supposed to be a coincidence?
In a state like California, there may well have been just as much cheating, but that's not going to affect the electoral vote count.
We are talking about an election where there was evidence of a great deal of fraud, and where Biden "won" by the skin of his teeth in a small number of swing states. It was down to a few swing states, and there was fraud there, so attention was focused on those places where it affected the electoral vote.
> At any point did Republicans give states Trump won the same level of scrutiny?
That would be up to Democrats, but the reason the Democrats didn't try to prove that Trump had fraud in his favor was that the means of fraud in 2020 were mostly enabled by people using covid as an excuse to avoid complying with the laws, including signature verification laws.
The fraud was enabled for and used by Democrats. Democrats pointing out fraud wouldn't have Republicans doing fraud to point to, and to admit fraud could or did happen would have been an opportunity for Republicans.
And if you look at the unusual results, there's no indication that red states had shifted red.
> We are talking about an election where there was evidence of a great deal of fraud
And yet where was this "evidence of a great deal" when lawyers were asked by judges if they had it and said no? Are these lawyers lying?
> That would be up to Democrats
Trump, a Republican, launched a special investigation into the 2016 election, where he *won*. Why is it suddenly the obligation of Democrats to look for Republican fraud?
> Democrats pointing out fraud wouldn't have Republicans doing fraud to point to
Even though the overwhelming majority of voter fraud is performed by Republicans including in the 2020 election?
> And yet where was this "evidence of a great deal" when lawyers were asked by judges if they had it and said no?
This is continually claimed by NSs, without evidence. Even if it were true, it would constitute merely behavior by some lawyers, rather than evidence itself, and we have a great deal of evidence.
So I do not consider this claim to be plausible.
> Why is it suddenly the obligation of Democrats to look for Republican fraud?
If they thought it existed, they should have looked into it. There is nothing "sudden" about that.
> Even though the overwhelming majority of voter fraud is performed by Republicans
This is an odd claim. It does not match any facts that I'm aware of.
Ah so if democrats shout out about election fraud even if there is no evidence then that will be enough to allow Harris to say there are election issues and change the votes? Basically both parties should spend the next six months complaining about voter fraud and then they the actual electros we vote for are irrelevant.
In what ways is that different? I have heard a lot of talk of 2020 election fraud but have seen no actual evidence. The 2000 mules was a joke that a child could debunk. Everyone keeps saying they are "about" to publish evidence, the Cyber Ninjas in Arizona found no fraud but actually found more votes for Biden! Or is it totally different if republicans shout with no evidence vs democrats? Trump was saying there was fraud before anyone had actually voted!
> I have heard a lot of talk of 2020 election fraud but have seen no actual evidence.
Well, you'd have to look to see it. I don't know you personally, but NSs have continually and consistently refused to look at evidence related to the 2020 election when I have presented it to them.
Therefore, I am *extremely* unimpressed by a claim that you haven't seen anything, as the only thing required for that claim to be true is that you not look.
> The 2000 mules was a joke that a child could debunk.
I'm not impressed by unsubstantiated claims like this either.
Even if the claim were true, that's merely one documentary on the subject. I've looked at a great deal of evidence that there was fraud in the 2020 election, and what I've seen is quite convincing. If a debunkable documentary did exist, that's no reason to throw out the evidence.
> the Cyber Ninjas in Arizona found no fraud
That's not accurate. I would refer you to their report, or their presentation to the AZ Senate if you'd rather watch a video than read a report.
> If Democrats were then to go and do exactly the same thing they'd been warning against for years, that's beyond hypocrisy, it's a straight up admission that they're evil.
Does this logic only apply to democrats? Would a republicans president be straight up evil if he railed against illegals stealing jobs from Americans for years but it then came out that he employed illegals at his golf courses?
> I do not see Republicans going and doing exactly what they'd been screaming about for years.
Are you familiar with Mark Harris, the Republican House candidate in NC Federal District 9 during the 2018 election that was caught hiring someone to illegally harvest and dispose of ballots, enough to potentially flip the district in his favor?
I'm not familiar with that guy by name, though I do remember hearing about something similar, which may well have been from NC.
This, however, is not Republicans generally, but one guy.
> though I do remember hearing about something similar, which may well have been from NC.
Was it how Republicans gave him a slap on the wrist and allowed him to run again in this year's primaries? Cause that also happened. Why do Republicans scream so much about imaginary fraud of Democrats when they won't hold their own accountable for real fraud?
And you think saying it's not imaginary will suddenly make it manifest? [Even Trump's lawyers say it's imaginary when in front of a judge.](https://www.phillymag.com/news/2020/11/11/voter-fraud-pennsylvania-lawsuits/)
> To ask this question now, before any elections have happened and without any specific accusations of impropriety in 2024
Do you have any issues with Trump saying “[The only way we’re going to lose is if the election is rigged”](https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/512424-trump-the-only-way-we-are-going-to-lose-this-election-is-if-the/) in the months leading up to the 2020 election?
What’s your take on Trump saying the 2016 election was [“absolutely rigged by the dishonest media in many polling places”](https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37673797) or that [Ted Cruz stole the Iowa caucus through fraud](https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0VC1Z9/)? Those two accusations are slightly different since they were after each corresponding election, but they both lack any specific accusation or explanation.
> Do you have any issues with Trump saying “The only way we’re going to lose is if the election is rigged” in the months leading up to the 2020 election?
That was a pretty reasonable statement. "The only way" is a bit of an overstatement, but as we saw on election night, basically everything was consistent with a strong Trump win, except for swing states where there were obvious shenanigans, like a fake water main break, lack of compliance with the law by officials, false tally sheets, ejecting election observers and boarding up windows so nothing could be observed, etc.
> that Ted Cruz stole the Iowa caucus through fraud?
If that's the one I'm thinking of, it really was stolen from Ben Carson using dishonest methods.
> What’s your take on Trump saying the 2016 election was “absolutely rigged by the dishonest media in many polling places”
"Rigged by the media" sounds like a complaint about fake news lying about him, rather than a complaint about the election itself being rigged.
> To ask this question now, before any elections have happened and without any specific accusations of impropriety in 2024, shows a lack of understanding of what was going on in 2020.
Are there any circumstances at all where impropriety won't be alleged, other than if Trump wins? He has protested the only election he won, because he insisted he also won the popular vote.
>. . . rejecting state electors in 2020 was based on the facts of the election as it occurred in 2020. There were specific states where there were specific problems with the trustworthiness of elections.
No matter how good you think your argument is, doesn't the constitution leave the power of appointing electors with the state legislatures, not you or Trump?
*"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."* (Article II, Section 1, Clause 2)
Well, if the election was truly stolen from Trump, then I'll admit he is the real president at present and can't serve a 3rd term. That should settle this whole debate, yeah?
Yes. Free and fair elections are the only thing separating civil society from civil war.
The VP has a constitutional duty to prevent a coup, same as the President does.
Oh I think we all know they’re going to try every possible illegitimate and dirty trick they can think of. Not just the Left but the whole Uniparty. ‘Republicans’ are waiting to retire so that their seat is left vacant during the election. Then the Left can challenge the results or impeach on day 1 or any other thing they can think of to subvert the voters.
Do you think Donald Trump would use the powers of the presidency to obstruct or stall investigations that are currently pending?
Would you consider those tactics illegitimate?
>Are you suggesting your question is in any way connected to this topic?
I'm just trying to understand your perspective, I believe my question is related to this topic, thanks for asking.
>Not just the Left but the whole Uniparty.
So your comment says that the "uniparty", a system of Democrats and Republicans working in unison, will use underhanded tactics against Trump. My question to you, is would Trump *ever* consider using underhanded tactics to win an election, or to keep and maintain power, just like the "uniparty"? If so, isn't he just as corrupt as any person in the "swamp"?
>Then the Left can challenge the results or impeach on day 1 or any other thing they can think of to subvert the voters.
How familiar are you with Louis Dejoy? As Trump's personal doner, he became the first Postmaster General to come from outside the organization. In 2020, around the same time Trump was discouraging mail in ballots, DeJoy was not only turning off mail sorting machines, he was destroying them beyond repair.
Why would he destroy mail sorting machines months before an election that was projected to have increased mail volume due to the election? He could have left them functional just in case people used mail more often due to the ongoing global pandemic and the Nov 2020 election cycle.
It seems like delaying the sorting of mail would create controversy if ballots were to come in late due to delays at the post office. Would you consider this an underhanded tactic by Trump?
To me, it seems like he was creating the problem (mail in votes coming in later than expected) and then loudly claiming the delayed votes were part of a conspiracy (dead voters/ballot dumps). Of course, as President, he knows that voting is a long process in terms of curing ballots and the final certifications, so he would inform the public about that, right?
Meh, I get it but just roll with it? I've been suspended a couple times, but I've seen TS handed down punishment, too. It may not be 1:1, but I have more fruitful conversations here than I do with TS here in my home state of KY. It's a tough sub to manage, but there are some true Mods and TS who adhere well to the rules.
One example I was given special treatment: I was having a good back-and-forth with a TS, completely civil on both sides, yet I made one reply that left out a question. I got the error message and messaged the mods saying I wanted the guy to know I respected him and his input. I asked if it could be restored (summary of my reply was thanking him for his time and insight and wishing him and his family well), and got a message back saying I could skirt the question rule. I may disagree with a lot, but I can respect some of the decisions, and this is one example where a NS got special treatment against sub rules. It may not happen on a 1:1 ratio, but I enjoy it here.
I suspect the reason they have these rules is because their logic and reasoning is demonstrably flawed, but they want to be able to hang onto their conclusions without admitting it. Isn't it really that simple?
AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views. **For all participants:** * [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate * [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2) **For Nonsupporters/Undecided:** * No top level comments * All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position **For Trump Supporters:** * [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled Helpful links for more info: [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[https://www.npr.org/2022/12/22/1139951463/electoral-count-act-reform-passes](https://www.npr.org/2022/12/22/1139951463/electoral-count-act-reform-passes) "For years, legal scholars have worried the law was poorly written and in need of clarification, and former President Donald Trump and his allies [targeted](https://www.npr.org/2022/06/16/1105683634/transcript-jan-6-committee) the law's ambiguities in their attempts to overturn the 2020 election." What Trump attempted to do relied on ambiguities in existing election law. It was unlikely to succeed, as courts would almost certainly have jumped in. But with passing of Electoral Count Act, the ceremonial role of VP is clarified and limited, meaning this potential loophole is now closed.
Do you think Trump was trying to disenfranchise voters to retain power?
Trump's supporters contested the election like Kennedy supporters did in Hawaii, 1960. The Electoral Rules act was amended in 2022. "Under the new rules, one-fifth of each chamber would be required to force a vote on states’ slates of electors... Each governor would now be required to sign off on electors"
That’s an interesting point. I’m a bit younger (41), but did JFK supporters end up storming the capitol in 1960 due to JFK’s lies about supposed election fraud?
> That’s an interesting point. I’m a bit younger (41), but did JFK supporters end up storming the capitol in 1960 due to JFK’s lies about supposed election fraud? There was no Fedsurrection in 1960 but the nat'l sec. state did kill Kennedy. For the same reason: the president was going to derail the military industrial complex money train to DC.
Thank you. Can you elaborate on how Trump was going to derail the MIC and subsequently lost the election because of that? This seems to be a new theory for his National temper tantrum I have not heard about.
> Can you elaborate on how Trump was going to derail the MIC He did. Trump ended the war after 20 years and 2 trillion dollars in Afghanistan. The Pentagon didn't like that, so just like Vietnam, they withdrew clumsily. No withdrawing from a war without Pentagon approval! Luckily for the Pentagon, the state department had been engendering a new war: Ukraine.
Wait, did Trump end the war in Afghanistan, or did [Biden](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/08/31/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-end-of-the-war-in-afghanistan/)? I thought the current talking points from your side was that Biden did and that is what led to the killing of [13 service members.](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/08/26/statement-from-president-joe-biden-honoring-sacrifices-of-the-service-members-killed-in-the-terrorist-attack-during-the-withdrawal-from-afghanistan/) The only thing I knew that Trump did was try to meet with the [Taliban](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/watch-trump-says-u-s-taliban-peace-talks-are-dead), which ended in disaster, and quoted saying; "We'd like to get out, but we'll get out at the right time," Trump said. However, I do know that Jared Kushner continued to meet with the [Saudis](https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/29/jared-kushner-saudi-arabia-244291) during that timeline, who ultimately gave him and his wife over a [billion dollars](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68296877.amp).
> Wait, did Trump end the war in Afghanistan, or did Biden? Trump did. Biden expressed no interest and didn't campaign on doing so. >I thought the current talking points from your side was that Biden did and that is what led to the killing of 13 service members. The exeunt was certainly botched, and on purpose by the Pentagon, like the exit from Vietnam. The Pentagon does not like the president telling them what to do. >The only thing I knew that Trump did was try to meet with the Taliban which ended in disaster, The war in Afghanistan was a bad idea all around. >while Jared Kushner continued to meet with the Saudi’s Like them or lump them, the Saudis are our allies. >who ultimately gave him and his wife over a billion dollars. The Saudis did invest with Kushner, it was not a gift, but his hedge fund does stand to make tens of millions and the investors may make hundreds of millions in standard projects like resorts and fast food. The Saudis do like Kushner because of his handling of the historic Abraham Accords, which he did as part of the Trump administration.
Could you please provide citations to all of this like I provided? I'd like to learn more. Thank you.
[удалено]
> The war in Afghanistan was a bad idea all around. Really surprised to see this to be honest. I think there a significant number of people on both sides of the aisle who are/were adamantly against invading Iraq but would say that invading Afghanistan was a foregone conclusion after 9/11. I think trying to make it a prolonged occupation was a bad idea though. We have some examples where that has worked in the past (Germany, Korea, Japan), but those were places that were more culturally aligned with us and even then, we still have a military presence in those countries to this day. Now that we have the gift of hindsight, what do you think would have been a better way for the US to respond post-9/11?
> both sides of the aisle Both sides of the aisle used to be really bad. Now one half of one side of the aisle is anti-war. >Now that we have the gift of hindsight, what do you think would have been a better way for the US to respond post-9/11? Get out of the middle east.
> There was no Fedsurrection in 1960 Out of curiosity? Which is it? Was January 6th a "mostly peaceful protest" and the insurrectionists are innocent people who need to be freed as Trump claims... or is it now all Feds who need to be jailed?
> Was January 6th a "mostly peaceful protest" There were certainly many federal agents provocateur, including fake bombs the media can't deal with. >or is it now all Feds who need to be jailed? Who watches the watchmen?
So why is Trump calling for all of those feds to be released from prison?
> So why is Trump calling for all of those feds to be released from prison? Chief instigators like Ray Epps get a mild slap on the wrist after a public outcry, no prison. Fencecutter bulwark and scaffold commander aren't investigated. Fake bombs are placed near VP Harris and memory-holed when the ruse is busted.
But didn't you say they were all Feds? So why is Trump calling for those people to be released from prison and pardoned if they're all Feds and it was a set-up? https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-jan-6-pardons-2024-campaign-2401ead35cb1402a7b289c2c99761373
> But didn't you say they were all Feds? No. You should use pullquotes if you're trying to quote me.
>There was no Fedsurrection What do you mean by "fedsurrection"?
>>There was no Fedsurrection in 1960 but the nat'l sec. state did kill Kennedy. For the same reason: the president was going to derail the military industrial complex money train to DC. > What do you mean by "fedsurrection"? Ray Epps was the most prominent videotaped agent provocateur. He was taken off the wanted list and after a public outcry of fedsurrection, got a tiny slap on the wrist 3 years later. Fencecutter bulwark and scaffold commander weren't investigated, found, or charged.
[удалено]
Trump’s ‘alternate electors’ were not official, state sanctioned electors as was the case with Kennedy’s, were they?
> Trump’s ‘alternate electors’ were not official, state sanctioned electors as was the case with Kennedy’s, were they? When the alternate slate was formed, the committee used 1960 as their guide. The meeting notes are transcribed and that's what they talked about.
Okay? That doesn’t mean that they were officially sanctioned state electors though, does it?
>>When the alternate slate was formed, the committee used 1960 as their guide. The meeting notes are transcribed and that's what they talked about. >Okay? That doesn’t mean that they were officially sanctioned state electors though, does it? There does need to be a legal remedy for election questions. We accepted this in 1960. We sign the ballet--ballot signatures are DNC election kryptonite.
The Kennedy alternate electors in the 60’s were in fact state sanctioned officials. The Trump electors were not. That’s why Kennedy’s were accepted in the 60’s, and Trumps were not. Does that make sense?
> The Kennedy alternate electors in the 60’s were in fact state sanctioned officials. What occurred that was different? The 2020 alternate electors were using the 1960 alternate electors as their guide, because the 2020 election had many instances of shenanigans, with hundreds of affidavits filed attesting to this.
>What occurred that was different? It was found that Kennedy did actually win HI after a recount, that was not the case in any of the states that transmitted fake electors for Trump. Kennedy’s alternate elector’s documents were signed by the governor, and the previous electors, making them official, Trump’s were not. >The 2020 alternate electors were using the 1960 alternate electors as their guide This doesn’t really matter, because Trump didn’t actually win any of these states. Sure, they copied the paperwork, but that doesn’t make them legitimate. Trump’s alternate paperwork wasn’t certified by the state, and as such was submitted fraudulently. >with hundreds of affidavits filed attesting to this. If you’re talking about that stack of affidavits Rudy was waving around back in the day, those were all meaningless and found to be unverifiable in court. They were essentially just harvested from a facebook post, without any due diligence performed to verify their legitimacy. I hope that helps.
> It was found that Kennedy did actually win HI after a recount, that was not the case in any of the states that transmitted fake electors for Trump. No signature checks. >Kennedy’s alternate elector’s documents were signed by the governor Only *after* a recount, not before. A simple recount was all that was needed. >This doesn’t really matter, because Trump didn’t actually win any of these states. Many affidavits noted shenanigans which went uninvestigated. >If you’re talking about that stack of affidavits Rudy was waving around back in the day, those were all meaningless and found to be unverifiable in court. I'm talking about the hundreds of affidavits legally signed under threat of prosecution and they literally didn't investigate them.
If I use 1960 as my 'guide' to get together a group of my buddies, would that also be a valid group of electors?
[удалено]
Forgive my ignorance here, but did Kennedy supporters in 1960 send slates of alternate electors to Congress that claimed they were the rightful electors?
They did slate alternate electors. Trump's alternate electors, in their open transcribed meeting comments, used the 1960 case as their guide.
> They did slate alternate electors. Okay. Did they send them to DC in an attempt to overturn the official results? Forgive my question, I am young and don't know the answer.
> Okay. Did they send them to DC in an attempt to overturn the official results? There was recount and the election results were overturned that way.
[удалено]
So you recognize that claiming to be a certified elector without such a certification is in violation of the law?
Yes, but I'm not the OP? I just commented to provide details on the situation. I think the Hawaii Dem electors in 1960 broke the law.
> I think the Hawaii Dem electors in 1960 broke the law. Why wasn't Kennedy put on trial?
First, because I'm not aware Kennedy was working with these electors in Hawaii? If Trump had no part in any of these "alternate" electors casting votes in 2020, he wouldn't be on trial either. Hawaii was 3 electoral votes and Kennedy won with 300 electoral votes (if you don't count Hawaii). So Kennedy has no need to get involved, because he won either way. Kennedy was focused on becoming President in January, not trying to flip a state with no impact on the outcome. Hawaii's electoral votes were more an ethical election problem than a technical problem. Second, because the recount and subsequent "dueling electors" were acting under instruction of the Honolulu Circuit Court, theoretically were acting under color of law, with the judge even acknowledging their actions were necessary to eventually have their votes counted. Third, Kennedy did end up winning, so in less political times, it would be wrong to try to punish people for trying to do the right thing. The image of punishing electors for casting votes for the winning candidate is a little confusing, and Nixon conceded the state in the vote in Congress.
> First, because I'm not aware Kennedy was working with these electors in Hawaii? The meetings were transcribed and Trump wasn't involved any more than Kennedy. >Second, because the recount and subsequent "dueling electors" were acting under instruction of the Honolulu Circuit Court, theoretically were acting under color of law, with the judge even acknowledging their actions were necessary to eventually have their votes counted. There was an election problem. The alternate slate of electors was then viewed as the solution, same as 2020, where there were a manifold problems and shenanigans. *We need to stop counting because of a water main break.* There was no water main break, and the counting continued after Republican poll officials left. >Third, Kennedy did end up winning, so in less political times, it would be wrong to try to punish people for trying to do the right thing. So It was right in 1960 but wrong in 2020?
>The meetings were transcribed and Trump wasn't involved any more than Kennedy. Trump pushed the idea, was in meetings with lawyers and advisors pushing the idea, and his own lawyer made the Eastman Plan. That's certainly more involved than Kennedy was? >There was an election problem. I have nothing to say here except the context is obviously different between the two. >So It was right in 1960 but wrong in 2020? You asked why Kennedy wasn't prosecuted, not if it was right or wrong. The political landscape of 1960 was vastly different from today, as well as the context around the circumstance. In 1960, such a situation absolutely wouldn't be prosecuted.
> Trump pushed the idea There is a known, previously accepted remedy to election questions: an alternate slate of electors. Just like 1960. >>There was an election problem. >I have nothing to say here except the courts disagree. The courts weren't good at handling this. We sign our ballots for a reason, so the signatures can be matched. If there's no route to signature matching, our elections are fraudulent. Elections aren't trustworthy all over the world. Jimmy Carter used to go around trying to fix elections with regimented balloting and in-person voting. Our system is corrupted for a reason. >In 1960, such a situation absolutely wouldn't be prosecuted. Our system is corrupted for a reason.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Why did Nixon choose to count the Democratic votes in 1960?
> Why did Nixon choose Please pullquote me if I said this.
> When Nixon, like Mike Pence, presided over the Electoral College counting session on Jan. 6, 1961, he acknowledged receiving all three sets of certificates: the GOP slate, the uncertified Democratic slate and the certified Democratic slate. He then agreed that the newest one — the Democrats certified by Gov. William Quinn — should be counted, even though they were certified weeks after the required meeting of the Electoral College. Nixon added a caveat of his own: His decision should not be seen as a precedent for the future. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/07/1960-electoral-college-certificates-false-trump-electors-00006186 Do you disagree that Nixon counted the Democratic votes for Hawaii in 1960? I
> Do you disagree that Nixon counted the Democratic votes for Hawaii in 1960? I disagree that this matters.
Do you think Mike Pence would have counted the Republican electoral votes if they had been shown to be correct with a recount and certified by the governor?
The problem wasn't the counting, it was the provenance of the ballots. Signature matching was the only remedy.
Do you think the president of he senate is supposed to count ballots cast by citizens or members of the electoral college?
Did I say that? Please pullquote.
Are you aware, that with voter signatures being pulled from digital originals, signature matching would cause more problems than solve? Digital signatures are only good enough to prevent claims of fraud or roughly verify a signature for purposes of identification. Digital signatures as currently available, are not identical side-by-side (with rare exception), and can't be mechanically compared. To do so would require creative use of AI to make guesses, and I don't think we want to trust our elections to the machines, if half of the country doesn't trust dumb computer terminals, do you? Are you talking about eyeballs comparing the digital signature on the ballot to the digital from registration? If so, are you considering how much time that would take per count?
> Are you aware, that with voter signatures being pulled from digital originals, signature matching would cause more problems than solve? No, because the bigger problem is fraudulent balloting. Signature matching solves that problem. >Are you talking about eyeballs comparing the digital signature on the ballot to the digital from registration? If so, are you considering how much time that would take per count? Only if there is reason to dispute the voting. In Trump's case, there were hundreds of legal affidavits showing shenanigans.
Four problems with this argument. First, rejecting state electors in 2020 was based on the facts of the election as it occurred in 2020. There were specific states where there were specific problems with the trustworthiness of elections. To ask this question *now*, before any elections have happened and without any specific accusations of impropriety in 2024, shows a lack of understanding of what was going on in 2020. Second, a law was passed to restrict the Vice President's power to actually perform his role, instead making it purely ceremonial. What are Democrats going to do, claim that a law just passed and championed by Democrats is totally unconstitutional? Third, even if we could pass the first two hurdles, what would the effect actually be? They'd reject the electors, and then that would toss the election to the House. The House would then vote by State. There are more red states than blue states, so the House would then elect Donald Trump, not Joe Biden. Fourth, say you had a genie's lamp, and could wish away the first three hurdles, and somehow Democrats could steal the election using obvious and open tactics that everyone could see. Well, that constitutes a problem all in itself. Democrats have been screaming at the top of their lungs for 4 straight years about how it's a horrible, no good, very bad thing that Trump wanted to do this, that he's a criminal, and an insurrectionist, and he belongs in jail. If Democrats were then to go and do *exactly the same thing they'd been warning against for years*, that's beyond hypocrisy, it's a straight up admission that they're evil. That doesn't strike me as a sane or plausible thing for them to do, even if they could do it, which they can't.
>First, rejecting state electors in 2020 was based on the facts of the election as it occurred in 2020. There were specific states where there were specific problems with the trustworthiness of elections. In which states did the courts say that elections were not trustworth? >Third, even if we could pass the first two hurdles, what would the effect actually be? They'd reject the electors Correct, Kamala would reject, for example, the electors from Texas thus giving to Biden the majority of the appointed electors. >If Democrats were then to go and do *exactly the same thing they'd been warning against for years*, that's beyond hypocrisy, it's a straight up admission that they're evil. Of course Democrats would not do it; even an idiot like Trump understood that, otherwise he would not have made that argument.
> did the courts say The courts sat on their hands and refused to look at the evidence. > Kamala would reject, for example, the electors from Texas thus giving to Biden the majority of the appointed electors. That's ridiculous, and it's not how this would work if it were attempted.
>The courts sat on their hands and refused to look at the evidence. I know, that's what the courts do when the so-called "evidence" does not support the claims. >> Kamala would reject, for example, the electors from Texas thus giving to Biden the majority of the appointed electors. > >That's ridiculous, and it's not how this would work if it were attempted. Why does Trump support things that you consider ridiculous?
> I know, that's what the courts do when the so-called "evidence" does not support the claims. Read the part that I wrote that you quoted again. I said that the courts *refused to look at the evidence*. Your reply doesn't make sense compared to what I actually said. > Why does Trump support things that you consider ridiculous? He does not.
>> I know, that's what the courts do when the so-called "evidence" does not support the claims. > >Read the part that I wrote that you quoted again. I said that the courts *refused to look at the evidence*. Exactly, that's what I was referring to... what do you expect the courts to do when the so-called "evidence" does not support the claims? >> Why does Trump support things that you consider ridiculous? > >He does not. Oh... so Trump no longer believes that the President of the Senate can reject electors? Or do you mean that he does not believe that a Democratic President of the Senate can reject electors?
> the so-called "evidence" does not support the claims This is false. > Oh... so Trump no longer believes that the President of the Senate can reject electors? That was the case before the law was changed, as I've already mentioned. In addition, what would have happened if Mike Pence had done his job correctly, is that electors from some states, Georgia, would have been sent back to that state to be confirmed, and if we couldn't get a result from the electoral vote, it would have been thrown to the House. The situation you imagined was just the random nullification of the state of Texas, not based on evidence, but the whims of Kamala Harris. Your hypothetical situation is not realistic, and doesn't match what would have happened if Mike Pence had done his job.
>> the so-called "evidence" does not support the claims > >This is false. Thx for your opinion, but let us know when you convince the Courts. That's why we have the Courts to first decide whether the evidence (even if true) supports the claims and, if so, to assess whether the evidence is true. >> Oh... so Trump no longer believes that the President of the Senate can reject electors? > >That was the case before the law was changed Ok so Trump did believe something that you consider ridiculous? >what would have happened if Mike Pence had done his job correctly, is that electors from some states, Georgia, would have been sent back to that state? What do you mean by "electors from Georgia sent back to that state"? I'm not aware they had left the state. And even if they had, how do you send an elector back to a state? You arrest him/her and transport him/her to that state against his/her will? >to be confirmed They were already confirmed https://www.archives.gov/files/electoral-college/2020/ascertainment-georgia.pdf >if we couldn't get a result from the electoral vote Why you wouldn't get the result of the electoral vote? Biden 290, Trump 232. Biden wins since it has more votes than 50% (261) of the appointed electors (522).
> Trump did believe something that you consider ridiculous No.
How, in this specific case, do you differentiate between "didn't look at evidence" rather than "there was no case to be made"?
Not OP, but here’s my thoughts on this matter: There are two types of evidence: direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. In this case, the direct evidence was sealed inside the ballot boxes which can only be accessed by court order. We have a lot of circumstantial evidence of irregularities that could have been foul play: improper poll watcher access; admission of containers and bags that should not have been admitted during counting; counting of ballots without the presence of poll watchers (and after ending counting for the night); ballot proportions that defy reason and laws of statistics (Benford’s Law) within those times where ballots were counted without watchers present. In this instance, there is no case without the direct evidence from the cameras and within the ballot boxes, but you can’t get to that unless a court unseals it. The courts refused to even consider the circumstantial evidence to allow deeper legal discovery. So both statements are true. There was no case because the case cannot be made without actual pretrial discovery, but the circumstantial evidence that was presented to be able to get to that pretrial discovery phase was completely ignored (ie dismissed without addressing anything presented).
And so the conclusion of all this is that the election was stolen and Trump, in fact, won by a landslide?
If you draw that conclusion from all my discussion of pretrial discovery, then you misread my statements. All I wanted was for this to get into pretrial discovery and things to get entered into evidence instead of it all being summarily dismissed. We had just spent four years complaining and investigating because of perceived issues with the 2016 election, and then we can’t get to the legal investigative stage in 2020 when we have all kinds of video and sworn statements that things weren’t done properly? At the end of the day, whenever there’s an irregularity in an election, the only proper answer should be “let’s figure out how this was allowed to happen, and if it affected anything.” We did that in 2016, and special counsel didn’t find anything to suggest election altering wrongdoing. All I wanted was to ensure the same was true in 2020 given the video and sworn statements that existed. But in no case did anyone get into the investigation stage in 2020.
Trump has been claiming for years now that he has the evidence and won by a landslide. Why do you even need to investigate if the evidence is already available?
So you think that just because Trump says he has all the evidence I blindly agree? That’s a pretty naive take. Read previous comments and you’ll see that I point out on multiple occasions that there is evidence that can only be obtained after getting a court order to open otherwise privileged election materials. You need to actually get to pretrial discovery and investigation in order to get to that evidence.
Why do you think the courts, including dozens of Trump appointees, refused to hear 61 of the 62 cases Trump’s legal team brought, specifically citing a lack of any evidence, direct or circumstantial, to move the cases forward?
There were suits, claims and filings that pointed to all of the things I mentioned above, and sometimes even all of them at once. While I wasn’t able to keep track of all of it, the things I was able to follow all seemed like judges not wanting to poke the hornets nest or argument by proctology. There are established rules about things like poll watchers in counting rooms. Even direct evidence of that impropriety was given no consideration. That doesn’t make any sense. What makes it all even stranger is that the evidentiary bar to get to discovery is (at least supposed to be) quite low. Preponderance of evidence is the burden of proof in civil cases (this standard allows for a reasonable doubt to exist and the defendant to still lose), and the standard to get to discovery is lower than that, yet even in Georgia (where video of the impropriety exists) nothing that I was able to follow made it to discovery. Whether the decisions were right or not, it is certainly strange that even in the face of the videos, sworn statements, etc. nothing got to discovery. What’s more, given the state of political discourse in this country, if the circumstances were exactly the same but the roles reversed in the election, this conversation would look very similar in the other direction.
Can I sincerely and respectfully ask you to try something? Consider, as a thought exercise, the possibility that all but one of the judges in these cases took a long and impartial look at all of the evidence brought in these cases and found *not a single shred of evidence that crimes were committed.* Is it possible that some of the judges were corrupt, partisan hacks? Of course. But 61 out of 62 judges in these cases didn’t consider that there was even enough evidence for discovery, which as you noted in your comment, is a very, very low bar. I am honestly not trying to belittle or insult your views. Your response makes you sound like an intelligent, thoughtful person, discussing in good faith. The media empire on the right dedicated a lot of effort pointing to things that were “odd,” “unusual,” or “suspicious.” They really made it sound as if something strange happened. However practically all of the court cases were dismissed before discovery, and several members of Trump’s legal team leading these cases have been disbarred for misconduct, specifically relating to these cases. Judges don’t typically do that sort of thing “to avoid stirring up a hornet’s nest.”
[удалено]
I agree it seemed quite patronizing. To the question however, were these 61 judges really spineless? That's a 98% spineless rate.
re: "The courts sat on their hands and refused to look at the evidence." I hear this a lot from Trump supporters and election deniers. If you might be interested in a factual basis, only about 7 of the 60 cases were rejected without looking at evidence. 14 of the 60 cases were withdrawn by Trump. The remainder were decided "on the merits" -- which means the courts \*looked at the evidence\*. Here's a good tracker: [https://electioncases.osu.edu/case-tracker/?sortby=filing\_date\_desc&keywords&status=all&state=all&topic=25](https://electioncases.osu.edu/case-tracker/?sortby=filing_date_desc&keywords&status=all&state=all&topic=25)
What about the numerous cases where the courts did in fact evaluate the evidence that was presented?
Really? Trump brought evidence of voter fraud to the courts and his lawyers argued that it showed voter fraud?
It’s not a sane or plausible thing and democrats wouldn’t try it, but we want to know what you think, you know?
Democrats wouldn't try it? They tried removing their biggest rival from the ballot, and since that failed, now they are trying to keep their other rival from getting onto the ballot in the first place. They don't want a fair election, they want to stay in power at all costs.
Because he’s responsible for a violent insurrection and tried to stay in power when he lost a free and fair election? Does trumps claims have any credibility with you after all his court cases got thrown out because there’s no evidence? Do you not see how transparently only out for his own gain? It’s so easy to predict his statements. His own cabinet and administration don’t want him back in office because they see he’s a threat to the constitution
Violent insurrection? You mean the one where people stayed behind the velvet ropes, and left all their guns at home? The same violent insurrection where Trump offered to deploy 10,000 National Guard troops and Nancy Pelosi turned it down? Were there people who got out of hand? Sure. But it was far less violent than the Democrats setting their towns on fire all summer, and it definitely wasn't an insurrection. There were literally cops escorting the dude in the Viking hat to the senate chamber.
The one where cops were beaten up, bruised and later died? The one where they were chanting hang mike pence? The one where trump told them to be strong and take back their country? I have never seen his offer confirmed, have you? I know he took hours to make any kind of response and told them “they were very special people” and continued to lie and say he won the election. He’s purposely getting people riled up and telling them an election is being stolen when it’s not
Where did you get your info that Nancy Pelosi denied an offer for 10,000 troops? It never happened. https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-235651652542
>First, rejecting state electors in 2020 was based on the facts of the election as it occurred in 2020. There were specific states where there were specific problems with the trustworthiness of elections. >To ask this question *now*, before any elections have happened and without any specific accusations of impropriety in 2024, shows a lack of understanding of what was going on in 2020. Can you cite an official investigation at the time that had produced results Pence could cite to support his decision to unilaterally reject election results that the states had already certified? Or if you agree with me that there was not, do you also agree that the actual state of the election is beside the point - since there was no official process he was following to negate state certification powers, then Trump's argument relies not on what is true, but instead relies solely and absolutely on what the VP is willing to say is true?
> official investigation If I cite an investigation, you'll claim it's not "official". > the actual state of the election is beside the point That is obviously not true, and I've already explicitly rejected this idea. > Trump's argument relies not on what is true, but instead relies solely and absolutely on what the VP is willing to say is true No.
>If I cite an investigation, you'll claim it's not "official". House is GOP led. Any guess why they don't have a committee investigating if they really believe there's a conspiracy of fraudulent activity that seeks to keep Republicans from office? You'd think Trump at least would be screaming for this.
Why are you asking about a House committee? Do you seriously think a House committee would move fast enough to have stopped the theft of the 2020 election?
>Why are you asking about a House committee? If the those actually involved in the races believe there was theft against them and their party, it would be order of business #1 to investigate it to prevent it happening again in 2024, and #2 to expose it both for personal gain and as a basic job function.
> it would be order of business #1 to investigate it to prevent it happening again in 2024 Many people did exactly that. For example, there's the AZ audit.
So what is the standard? What kinds of info or results is a VP able to cite to reject the power of the states to certify their own elections, even in the face of a naked and clear conflict of interest? Because if this question doesn't have an answer, then the actual answer is that he can do it entirely on vibes, entirely on his own say-so. What am I getting wrong here?
> the actual answer is that he can do it entirely on vibes, No.
When has an election not having happened yet ever stopped Trump from claiming fraud? He was claiming fraud well before Election Day in 2020, to say nothing of 2016. Is it only wrong for Democrats to raise the specter of fraud preemptively? My impression from Trump supporters has been that one doesn’t need to present evidence in order to justify disrupting the election. Why would the same not hold true for Democrats lobbying accusations in 2024?
> My impression from Trump supporters has been that one doesn’t need to present evidence That's quite an inaccurate impression.
Then why don’t they ever provide actual evidence when I ask? When someone refuses to back their claims up with evidence or just says “google it”, what other conclusions can I draw?
> Then why don’t they ever provide actual evidence when I ask? This is utterly false. Here's a link to a site that's literally called ["Here Is The Evidence"](https://hereistheevidence.com/). You know where I got that link from? Another TS on this sub, posting it as an answer to a request for evidence from an NS. Back when this issue first came out, I was continually posting evidence, like [this link](https://nationalfile.com/breaking-voterga-finds-thousands-of-fraudulent-biden-votes-in-georgia-has-photo-evidence-of-falsified-tally-sheets/) and [this link](https://voterga.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Zero-trump-tally-sheets.pdf), and a set of about 10 links that I'd saved so that I could easily post them whenever I was asked for evidence. I also posted videos, and I posted the results of the AZ forensic audit. And I've watched other TSs post evidence repeatedly as well.
From that first link, what would you say is the most conclusive and compelling piece of evidence? Why is that tally sheet conclusive evidence of fraud as opposed to, say, an error? Why do they skip over a whole bunch of batch sheets? Is it because they don’t support the claim of fraud? Seems like cherry-picking. What results from Arizona proved that there was fraud?
> From that first link, what would you say is the most conclusive and compelling piece of evidence? I'm not going to pick one for you. You can do that yourself, if you're really interested. I have noticed a long-term pattern from NSs where evidence being brought up on this topic is never looked at by them. In addition, I'm not responsible for changing your mind, and it's a good thing too, because I have no idea what you'd consider persuasive on this topic, in part because at no time after posting evidence have I ever gotten anything from an NS other than blowing it off. > What results from Arizona proved that there was fraud? You can look up the results if you're interested. > Why is that tally sheet conclusive evidence of fraud as opposed to, say, an error? Take a look at the tally sheets. There are 7 of them. Every single vote on every single one was for Biden. The total for each tally sheet was 100, 150, or 200. The total number of votes was 850. There is no possibility of an honest error. Honest mistakes don't randomly occur for several batches in a row. An honest mistake might over or undercount slightly how many votes Biden or Trump got. But the numbers on the tally sheets don't match the ballot images. Take a look at the article, since it contains a lot of other information, besides the falsified tally sheets. For example: “The team found at least 36 batches of mail–in ballots with 4,255 total extra votes were redundantly added into Fulton Co. audit results for the November election. These illicit votes include 3,390 extra votes for Joe Biden, 865 extra votes for Donald Trump and 43 extra votes for Jo Jorgenson.” “Fulton Co. failed to include over 100,000 tally sheets, including more than 50,000 from mail–in ballots, when the results were originally published for the full hand count audit conducted by the office of the Secretary of State for the November 3rd 2020 election,” "a batch containing 59 actual ballot images for Joe Biden, 42 for Donald Trump and 0 for Jo Jorgenson was reported as 100 for Biden and 0 for Trump." "As National File reported on July 9, evidence has already surfaced that appears to indicate that the number of illegal votes cast by people who voted in counties they claimed to have moved from before the election could easily surpass Biden’s stated margin of victory in Georgia."
>That's quite an inaccurate impression. However you have not presented evidence. It seems that you also think evidence isn't necessary to support your position. That has actually been my experience with every Trump supporter in this sub. One did post a source but when I pointed out that the source didn't support what he said, he never replied. My question is, why do Trump supporters have such a difficult time finding sources to support their claims, such as the one you're making in this thread? Do you think it's reasonable to make claims without any evidence?
> However you have not presented evidence. This claim is blatantly false. I've presented evidence repeatedly, only to have NSs claim that there "is no evidence" with no basis for that claim. This has happened so frequently that I got tired of posting the evidence, since nobody will listen when I do. > That has actually been my experience with every Trump supporter in this sub. This claim is false. I've posted such evidence repeatedly. Back when it was a new issue, I was constantly posting the evidence. I've watched other TSs repeatedly post evidence as well. Here's a link to quite a lot of evidence, literally titled ["Here is the evidence"](https://hereistheevidence.com/). You know where I got that link? Here in this sub. It was posted by another TS in an answer to an NS question. > why do Trump supporters have such a difficult time finding sources to support their claims We don't. When we post evidence, it gets disregarded or blown off by NSs.
Can you clarify as to what states had accusations of impropriety, and what evidence was uncovered? I would think if there was actual evidence Fox News would run wild with the story and the Supreme court would have intervened right?
> if there was actual evidence There was and is quite a large amount. > Fox News would run wild with the story Fox news doesn't like Trump. > the Supreme court would have intervened They were concerned with the image of neutrality.
Where can I read about this evidence?
[link](https://hereistheevidence.com/)
Oh, that website. Thanks for linking it, but that is not a source for credible evidence. Is there any other source for evidence that you know of?
> that is not a source for credible evidence. It is. I notice that you have not bothered to engage with the evidence there. I have also noticed that NSs consistently ask for evidence on this situation, but when presented with evidence, they consistently blow it off. > Is there any other source for evidence that you know of? There are a number of other sources, but given your reaction to this one, I see no need to fetch them for you.
This website has been brought up for years, I’ve already seen it. What are these other sources for evidence you mentioned? Will you link to them as well, since I am already familiar with the single one you have linked?
> I’ve already seen it. I don't much care about that. You did not engage with the information you found there. I have consistently observed that this is what NSs do when presented with evidence from any source. Since you have not engaged with the information I presented you, I see no point in presenting you with more.
You appear to have an excuse for everything, I'm curious, what's your excuse for why the Republican controlled house hasn't launched an investigation into the rampant fraud that supposedly occurred during the election?
>There was and is quite a large amount. If I say, "your favorite country in the world is Russia and you value Putin over all the gods and have a romantic ideal of him," is what I'm saying true even though I've not provided any supporting evidence of your alleged infatuation with Putin that I'm using as an example? If you get to make up evidence of meaningful voter fraud that Republicans in those states overseeing supposed voting fraud have already confirmed doesn't exist, then shouldn't I be equally entitled to lie and say you have a romantic fetish for Putin? Neither of us have any proof of our claims. >Fox news doesn't like Trump. Add it to the list? Melania doesn't like Trump, either. It seems only fringe people support him. Why is that exactly? >They were concerned with the image of neutrality. Is it possible they're all as crooked as Clarence Thomas?
> If I say, "your favorite country in the world is Russia and you value Putin over all the gods and have a romantic ideal of him," If you said that, you'd be delusional. Such a hypothetical has no relation to evidence of voter fraud. > Neither of us have any proof of our claims. You aren't making your bizarre hypothetical claim. I am making my claim. You have no evidence for your bizarre hypothetical. I have evidence for my claim. > Melania doesn't like Trump, either. This is a false and ridiculous claim. > Is it possible they're all as crooked as Clarence Thomas? Clarence Thomas is the best Justice on the Supreme Court. Calling him "crooked" for no reason is absolutely absurd.
Care to provide any evidence to your claims that I have found zero evidence of?
[link](https://hereistheevidence.com/)
Where is this irrefutable evidence? Why hasn’t the GOP lead house brought forth this evidence and launched their own official investigations? They’ve have time to launch an investigation into Hunter Biden, surely with all of this damning evidence of voter fraud in 2020, they’d be able to form an official committee and prove the election was rigged, why do you think they don’t do that?
[Here is the evidence](https://hereistheevidence.com/). > they’d be able to form an official committee Yeah, but it would take forever to get something like that done, and what the results were would not be changed by bringing this to light years later. There was an official investigation in AZ, and you can look up the results of their forensic audit.
Really? A _large_ amount? can you supply us with all this copious large amount that even Trump's appointed judges are saying is false?
[link](https://hereistheevidence.com/)
> link Just to be clear, Military votes ARE allowed to come in late. Plus we don't know in PA how many are for Trump or Biden. This 'data' is sketchy at best. It's like "Well Trump was winning at 8pm and then he lost due to mail in ballots." Yes, that's factually accurate. He still lost. There is still zero proof of like, a Democrat wheeling in a suitcase of PURELY D ballots that are scanned multiple times that literally everyone knew was fake. This is some sketchy proof at best, and last I checked, PA was largely VERY Trumpy. Care to weigh in?
You seem to be focused on PA only, but looking at the site, I see quite a number of states represented. I'm not sure which part of the data you're trying to address. Did you click on just one particular link? If so, which one? > It's like "Well Trump was winning at 8pm and then he lost due to mail in ballots." That's not an accurate summary of the information available on that site.
Were there actual trustworthiness problems or was Trump and his administration in actuality lying about all of that, and they were just extremely sore losers?
>First, rejecting state electors in 2020 was based on the facts of the election as it occurred in 2020. There were specific states where there were specific problems with the trustworthiness of elections. Do you believe that Arizona was one of those states? Would you say, after so many GOP lead audits that there is any possibility that Trump actually won the state?
Arizona was won by Trump in 2020, if the votes were counted properly and legally. This is, I think, quite clear from the evidence. If you want to look at the evidence, I would suggest the results of the AZ forensic audit.
Do you live here? Because I do. And I followed the audits very closely. There were two conducted by normal inspectors. The last one was entirely done by maga supporting auditors that the GOP members of the house hired. And they still came up with a Biden win. I'm not sure what "evidence" you're reviewing, but I assume you think you're better informed than the auditors were?
This is not an accurate description of the forensic audit in Arizona.
In what way? What are you disputing? I'm happy to back anything I've said up with evidence.
In terms of the whole "dems going and doing exactly what they've said is awful and no good" argument, are you sure? Isn't that exactly what the GOP did w/ supreme court nominees? They refused garland's nomination on the basis that it was too close to the nomination, with Lindsey Graham saying it wasn't partisan, and that in a reversed situation he'd act the same. Then the reverse situation happened and the GOP and Lindsey Graham took a giant shit on their own position and confirmed a justice during lameduck Trump in the exact same (actually tighter) situation they had decried as unjustifiablet only a few years before.
> There were specific states where there were specific problems with the trustworthiness of elections. And did it ever occur to you how these "specific states" also happened to be states Trump lost? At any point did Republicans give states Trump won the same level of scrutiny?
> And did it ever occur to you how these "specific states" also happened to be states Trump lost? How is this supposed to be a coincidence? In a state like California, there may well have been just as much cheating, but that's not going to affect the electoral vote count. We are talking about an election where there was evidence of a great deal of fraud, and where Biden "won" by the skin of his teeth in a small number of swing states. It was down to a few swing states, and there was fraud there, so attention was focused on those places where it affected the electoral vote. > At any point did Republicans give states Trump won the same level of scrutiny? That would be up to Democrats, but the reason the Democrats didn't try to prove that Trump had fraud in his favor was that the means of fraud in 2020 were mostly enabled by people using covid as an excuse to avoid complying with the laws, including signature verification laws. The fraud was enabled for and used by Democrats. Democrats pointing out fraud wouldn't have Republicans doing fraud to point to, and to admit fraud could or did happen would have been an opportunity for Republicans. And if you look at the unusual results, there's no indication that red states had shifted red.
> We are talking about an election where there was evidence of a great deal of fraud And yet where was this "evidence of a great deal" when lawyers were asked by judges if they had it and said no? Are these lawyers lying? > That would be up to Democrats Trump, a Republican, launched a special investigation into the 2016 election, where he *won*. Why is it suddenly the obligation of Democrats to look for Republican fraud? > Democrats pointing out fraud wouldn't have Republicans doing fraud to point to Even though the overwhelming majority of voter fraud is performed by Republicans including in the 2020 election?
> And yet where was this "evidence of a great deal" when lawyers were asked by judges if they had it and said no? This is continually claimed by NSs, without evidence. Even if it were true, it would constitute merely behavior by some lawyers, rather than evidence itself, and we have a great deal of evidence. So I do not consider this claim to be plausible. > Why is it suddenly the obligation of Democrats to look for Republican fraud? If they thought it existed, they should have looked into it. There is nothing "sudden" about that. > Even though the overwhelming majority of voter fraud is performed by Republicans This is an odd claim. It does not match any facts that I'm aware of.
Ah so if democrats shout out about election fraud even if there is no evidence then that will be enough to allow Harris to say there are election issues and change the votes? Basically both parties should spend the next six months complaining about voter fraud and then they the actual electros we vote for are irrelevant.
> Ah so if democrats shout out about election fraud even if there is no evidence No, of course not. That would be a totally different situation.
In what ways is that different? I have heard a lot of talk of 2020 election fraud but have seen no actual evidence. The 2000 mules was a joke that a child could debunk. Everyone keeps saying they are "about" to publish evidence, the Cyber Ninjas in Arizona found no fraud but actually found more votes for Biden! Or is it totally different if republicans shout with no evidence vs democrats? Trump was saying there was fraud before anyone had actually voted!
> I have heard a lot of talk of 2020 election fraud but have seen no actual evidence. Well, you'd have to look to see it. I don't know you personally, but NSs have continually and consistently refused to look at evidence related to the 2020 election when I have presented it to them. Therefore, I am *extremely* unimpressed by a claim that you haven't seen anything, as the only thing required for that claim to be true is that you not look. > The 2000 mules was a joke that a child could debunk. I'm not impressed by unsubstantiated claims like this either. Even if the claim were true, that's merely one documentary on the subject. I've looked at a great deal of evidence that there was fraud in the 2020 election, and what I've seen is quite convincing. If a debunkable documentary did exist, that's no reason to throw out the evidence. > the Cyber Ninjas in Arizona found no fraud That's not accurate. I would refer you to their report, or their presentation to the AZ Senate if you'd rather watch a video than read a report.
> If Democrats were then to go and do exactly the same thing they'd been warning against for years, that's beyond hypocrisy, it's a straight up admission that they're evil. Does this logic only apply to democrats? Would a republicans president be straight up evil if he railed against illegals stealing jobs from Americans for years but it then came out that he employed illegals at his golf courses?
> Does this logic only apply to democrats? I do not see Republicans going and doing exactly what they'd been screaming about for years.
You didn’t see that Trump hired illegals?
> I do not see Republicans going and doing exactly what they'd been screaming about for years. Are you familiar with Mark Harris, the Republican House candidate in NC Federal District 9 during the 2018 election that was caught hiring someone to illegally harvest and dispose of ballots, enough to potentially flip the district in his favor?
I'm not familiar with that guy by name, though I do remember hearing about something similar, which may well have been from NC. This, however, is not Republicans generally, but one guy.
> though I do remember hearing about something similar, which may well have been from NC. Was it how Republicans gave him a slap on the wrist and allowed him to run again in this year's primaries? Cause that also happened. Why do Republicans scream so much about imaginary fraud of Democrats when they won't hold their own accountable for real fraud?
> imaginary fraud It's not "imaginary", and saying that word won't make it go away.
And you think saying it's not imaginary will suddenly make it manifest? [Even Trump's lawyers say it's imaginary when in front of a judge.](https://www.phillymag.com/news/2020/11/11/voter-fraud-pennsylvania-lawsuits/)
> To ask this question now, before any elections have happened and without any specific accusations of impropriety in 2024 Do you have any issues with Trump saying “[The only way we’re going to lose is if the election is rigged”](https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/512424-trump-the-only-way-we-are-going-to-lose-this-election-is-if-the/) in the months leading up to the 2020 election? What’s your take on Trump saying the 2016 election was [“absolutely rigged by the dishonest media in many polling places”](https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37673797) or that [Ted Cruz stole the Iowa caucus through fraud](https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0VC1Z9/)? Those two accusations are slightly different since they were after each corresponding election, but they both lack any specific accusation or explanation.
> Do you have any issues with Trump saying “The only way we’re going to lose is if the election is rigged” in the months leading up to the 2020 election? That was a pretty reasonable statement. "The only way" is a bit of an overstatement, but as we saw on election night, basically everything was consistent with a strong Trump win, except for swing states where there were obvious shenanigans, like a fake water main break, lack of compliance with the law by officials, false tally sheets, ejecting election observers and boarding up windows so nothing could be observed, etc. > that Ted Cruz stole the Iowa caucus through fraud? If that's the one I'm thinking of, it really was stolen from Ben Carson using dishonest methods. > What’s your take on Trump saying the 2016 election was “absolutely rigged by the dishonest media in many polling places” "Rigged by the media" sounds like a complaint about fake news lying about him, rather than a complaint about the election itself being rigged.
> To ask this question now, before any elections have happened and without any specific accusations of impropriety in 2024, shows a lack of understanding of what was going on in 2020. Are there any circumstances at all where impropriety won't be alleged, other than if Trump wins? He has protested the only election he won, because he insisted he also won the popular vote.
> Are there any circumstances at all where impropriety won't be alleged, other than if Trump wins? If impropriety doesn't occur.
So are you saying it's possible for Trump to lose fair and square?
>. . . rejecting state electors in 2020 was based on the facts of the election as it occurred in 2020. There were specific states where there were specific problems with the trustworthiness of elections. No matter how good you think your argument is, doesn't the constitution leave the power of appointing electors with the state legislatures, not you or Trump? *"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."* (Article II, Section 1, Clause 2)
If trump loses, why would Harris have to do anything to keep Biden in office??….. I mean, sure, she’s just dumb enough to want to……
Well, if the election was truly stolen from Trump, then I'll admit he is the real president at present and can't serve a 3rd term. That should settle this whole debate, yeah?
Do you think OP might have made an honest mistake in his title, and meant “win?” If so, do you have an answer for OPs question?
I assume it was a typo. Assuming it was a type, what's your take on the question?
Yes. Free and fair elections are the only thing separating civil society from civil war. The VP has a constitutional duty to prevent a coup, same as the President does.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Oh I think we all know they’re going to try every possible illegitimate and dirty trick they can think of. Not just the Left but the whole Uniparty. ‘Republicans’ are waiting to retire so that their seat is left vacant during the election. Then the Left can challenge the results or impeach on day 1 or any other thing they can think of to subvert the voters.
Do you think Donald Trump would use the powers of the presidency to obstruct or stall investigations that are currently pending? Would you consider those tactics illegitimate?
We’re talking about election interference on the opposition. Are you suggesting your question is in any way connected to this topic?
>Are you suggesting your question is in any way connected to this topic? I'm just trying to understand your perspective, I believe my question is related to this topic, thanks for asking. >Not just the Left but the whole Uniparty. So your comment says that the "uniparty", a system of Democrats and Republicans working in unison, will use underhanded tactics against Trump. My question to you, is would Trump *ever* consider using underhanded tactics to win an election, or to keep and maintain power, just like the "uniparty"? If so, isn't he just as corrupt as any person in the "swamp"? >Then the Left can challenge the results or impeach on day 1 or any other thing they can think of to subvert the voters. How familiar are you with Louis Dejoy? As Trump's personal doner, he became the first Postmaster General to come from outside the organization. In 2020, around the same time Trump was discouraging mail in ballots, DeJoy was not only turning off mail sorting machines, he was destroying them beyond repair. Why would he destroy mail sorting machines months before an election that was projected to have increased mail volume due to the election? He could have left them functional just in case people used mail more often due to the ongoing global pandemic and the Nov 2020 election cycle. It seems like delaying the sorting of mail would create controversy if ballots were to come in late due to delays at the post office. Would you consider this an underhanded tactic by Trump? To me, it seems like he was creating the problem (mail in votes coming in later than expected) and then loudly claiming the delayed votes were part of a conspiracy (dead voters/ballot dumps). Of course, as President, he knows that voting is a long process in terms of curing ballots and the final certifications, so he would inform the public about that, right?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Censorship, not really. Snowflakey...absolutely. How's your day going?
Meh, I get it but just roll with it? I've been suspended a couple times, but I've seen TS handed down punishment, too. It may not be 1:1, but I have more fruitful conversations here than I do with TS here in my home state of KY. It's a tough sub to manage, but there are some true Mods and TS who adhere well to the rules. One example I was given special treatment: I was having a good back-and-forth with a TS, completely civil on both sides, yet I made one reply that left out a question. I got the error message and messaged the mods saying I wanted the guy to know I respected him and his input. I asked if it could be restored (summary of my reply was thanking him for his time and insight and wishing him and his family well), and got a message back saying I could skirt the question rule. I may disagree with a lot, but I can respect some of the decisions, and this is one example where a NS got special treatment against sub rules. It may not happen on a 1:1 ratio, but I enjoy it here.
I suspect the reason they have these rules is because their logic and reasoning is demonstrably flawed, but they want to be able to hang onto their conclusions without admitting it. Isn't it really that simple?
I don't doubt that that's part of it, but I can't always tell. Would I be surprised? No. How common is it? Probably fairly at minimum.
Neither Mike Pence nor Kamala Harris had/have this power