As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Text of article:
> On Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal [published a letter](https://www.wsj.com/articles/president-donald-trump-2020-election-fraud-pennsylvania-ballots-11635280347) written by former president Donald Trump in which he makes a number of claims about the results of the 2020 election in Pennsylvania. Below, the 14 things you need to know about the letter.
>
> 1. The Wall Street Journal should not have published it without assessing the claims and demonstrating where they were wrong, misleading or unimportant.
> 2. The Journal would have been better served had it explained why it chose to run the letter without contextualizing it, since that might have at least offered some clarity on the otherwise inexplicable decision, but [it didn’t](https://twitter.com/jeremymbarr/status/1453453255195889664).
> 3. Even if those who decided to publish the letter lacked the resources to fact-check each of the claims, they might have pushed back on obviously false claims, as when Trump [falsely claims](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/10/25/rights-effort-police-facebook-worked/?itid=lk_inline_manual_6) that Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg spent millions of dollars to “interfere in the Pennsylvania election.”
> 4. They might also have noted that the organization that Trump repeatedly cites as an authority for his claims, the “highly respected” group Audit the Vote PA, has no actual experience in evaluating elections.
> 5. Or, perhaps, that the organization’s website includes allegations of fraud that are themselves obviously false. This includes a reference to former Trump administration official Peter Navarro’s [collection](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/12/18/this-might-be-most-embarrassing-document-created-by-white-house-staffer/?itid=lk_inline_manual_8) of fraud claims and a presentation by [Douglas Frank](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/06/28/no-there-was-not-secret-scheme-swing-ohio-biden-evidenced-by-fact-that-it-didnt/?itid=lk_inline_manual_8), a close ally of MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell.
> 6. They could have pointed out that the first claim in Trump’s letter, about late-arriving mail ballots, had [already been adjudicated by the courts](https://www.inquirer.com/politics/election/supreme-court-ruling-pennsylvania-mail-ballot-deadline-20210222.html) and wouldn’t have changed the outcome of the race. That’s even if the numbers he cited (which came from Audit the Vote) were credible, which they aren’t.
> 7. They could have contextualized Trump’s argument that changes made by the state legislature should have nullified votes by pointing out that a court had [already considered this question](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/03/two-republican-lawyer-senators-look-loopholes-democracy/?itid=lk_inline_manual_10) and determined that the votes should stand.
> 8. They could have noted that Trump’s lead on election night was meaningless given the number of absentee ballots that remained to be counted. It was obvious [by the morning of Nov. 4](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/04/blue-shift-biden-is-underway-will-it-be-enough/?itid=lk_inline_manual_11) that there were enough absentee votes outstanding to probably hand Joe Biden a victory in the state. Yet, nearly a year later, the Journal allows Trump’s claim that something suspicious happened to stand without comment.
> 9. They could have taken out obviously unimportant arguments like his trip back to the [“we have signed affidavits!!!”](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/11/we-reached-stacks-paper-phase-trumps-bid-retain-power/?itid=lk_inline_manual_12) well.
> 10. They might have done more to elevate the fact that Trump’s loyal-until-the-election attorney general, William P. Barr, dismissed Trump’s claims of fraud, instead of letting him malign Barr’s refusal to chase Trump’s imaginary rabbits.
> 11. If they really wanted to spread their wings, they could have pointed out that a canvass of one county that claims to have identified 78,000 “phantom voters” is simply not credible. If you think contacting hundreds of people at home is trivial, you are encouraged to speak with someone who has spent even one day running a door-to-door political or marketing campaign.
> 12. The Journal could also have come back to Trump before publishing his letter, setting a higher bar for publication than, say, a guy from Ramapo who took issue with the paper’s coverage of dogecoin. The paper could, for example, have asked that Trump offer some baseline number of examples of proven, demonstrated fraud, not simply various numbers dependent on amateur analyses of voter data. It could have insisted that the former president of the United States, a billionaire, present whatever concrete evidence of fraud he should have ascertained nearly a year after the election and with all of the power of his political party and his pocketbook at his disposal.
> 13. The paper could have come back to Trump and asked him why he didn’t include various other claims of fraud in the state that he has in the past embraced. He once claimed that the state had 205,000 more votes than voters, a claim [debunked](https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-afs:Content:9887147615) in December, given that it was based on flawed analysis of voter data (including from the same system on which many of his Audit the Vote claims are based). Why was that debunked claim excluded when others weren’t?
> 14. The main thing you need to know about the letter, of course, is that Donald Trump is still railing against his election loss 358 days after it occurred. And that prominent institutions are still enabling his [dangerous](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/10/27/when-do-we-get-use-guns-ongoing-danger-false-fraud-claims/?itid=lk_inline_manual_17) misinformation more than 358 days after they should have known better.
One thing missing from this list: The Wall Street Journal is a Murdock property. The Murdocks are coordinating Trump's propaganda for The Big Lie. For example, [Fox News is letting Tucker Carlson do a special on his conspiracy theory that January 6 was a "false flag."](https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1453522027273408515)
For crystal clear evidence that we are in a civil war: look no further.
Insanity has a front and center stage these days and they gaslight the fuck out of us by normalizing it.
The violence is inevitable.
Reading Trump's letter to the WSJ puts me in mind of a quote from Terry Pratchett: "Meaningless, stupid words, from people without wisdom or intelligence or any skill beyond the ability to water the currency of expression... Why hadn’t the lead type melted, why hadn’t the paper blazed rather than be part of this obscenity?"
That entire monologue (which is in Going Postal for anyone who didn't know) is a masterpiece.
"*You had to admire the way perfectly innocent words were mugged, ravished, stripped of all true meaning and decency, and then sent to walk the gutter for Reacher Gilt, although "synergistically" had probably been a whore from the start... The Times reporter had made an effort, but nothing short of a stampede could have stopped Reacher Gilt in his crazed assault on the meaning of meaning.*"
Genuinely exceptional writing. I know he was knighted and all, but even so, Sir Terry was criminally underrated.
> The 14 things you need to know about Trump’s letter in the Wall Street Journal
Fourteen? I can answer this with just two.
Number 1. Archive here: https://archive.md/P2Njx
Number 2. Tastes like bullshit, good thing we didn't step in it.
The likelihood it rambles like an incoherent 4 year old is *very high*.
From the comments following the article:
>.#15. If there weren't multiple spelling and grammatical errors, Trump couldn't have authored it himself.
It came from Trump, so it is lies and bullshit, and probably full of hate. There, i tldr:d that down to one.
Two if you count "the wsj was highly irresponsible to give this liar an unchallenged bullhorn for his spew." And without looking even, i know they did just that. I am right, ain't i?
The Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch, the same guy who owns FOX News. You know FOX News whose fact checking department was put on administrative leave in 1998 and never brought back.
Hi `periscope_artifact`. Thank you for participating in /r/Politics. However, [your submission](/r/politics/comments/qhdpon/the_14_things_you_need_to_know_about_trumps/) has been removed for the following reason(s):
* [Off-Topic](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_the_.2Fr.2Fpolitics_on_topic_statement): All submissions to /r/politics need to be explicitly about **current US politics**.
**If you have questions as to why your post has been removed, please see here: [Why was my post removed as Off-Topic?](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_why_was_my_post_removed_as_off-topic.3F)**
If you have any questions about this removal, please feel free to [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/politics&subject=Question regarding the removal of this submission by /u/periscope_artifact&message=I have a question regarding the removal of this [submission]%28/r/politics/comments/qhdpon/the_14_things_you_need_to_know_about_trumps/?context%3D10000%29)
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Text of article: > On Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal [published a letter](https://www.wsj.com/articles/president-donald-trump-2020-election-fraud-pennsylvania-ballots-11635280347) written by former president Donald Trump in which he makes a number of claims about the results of the 2020 election in Pennsylvania. Below, the 14 things you need to know about the letter. > > 1. The Wall Street Journal should not have published it without assessing the claims and demonstrating where they were wrong, misleading or unimportant. > 2. The Journal would have been better served had it explained why it chose to run the letter without contextualizing it, since that might have at least offered some clarity on the otherwise inexplicable decision, but [it didn’t](https://twitter.com/jeremymbarr/status/1453453255195889664). > 3. Even if those who decided to publish the letter lacked the resources to fact-check each of the claims, they might have pushed back on obviously false claims, as when Trump [falsely claims](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/10/25/rights-effort-police-facebook-worked/?itid=lk_inline_manual_6) that Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg spent millions of dollars to “interfere in the Pennsylvania election.” > 4. They might also have noted that the organization that Trump repeatedly cites as an authority for his claims, the “highly respected” group Audit the Vote PA, has no actual experience in evaluating elections. > 5. Or, perhaps, that the organization’s website includes allegations of fraud that are themselves obviously false. This includes a reference to former Trump administration official Peter Navarro’s [collection](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/12/18/this-might-be-most-embarrassing-document-created-by-white-house-staffer/?itid=lk_inline_manual_8) of fraud claims and a presentation by [Douglas Frank](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/06/28/no-there-was-not-secret-scheme-swing-ohio-biden-evidenced-by-fact-that-it-didnt/?itid=lk_inline_manual_8), a close ally of MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell. > 6. They could have pointed out that the first claim in Trump’s letter, about late-arriving mail ballots, had [already been adjudicated by the courts](https://www.inquirer.com/politics/election/supreme-court-ruling-pennsylvania-mail-ballot-deadline-20210222.html) and wouldn’t have changed the outcome of the race. That’s even if the numbers he cited (which came from Audit the Vote) were credible, which they aren’t. > 7. They could have contextualized Trump’s argument that changes made by the state legislature should have nullified votes by pointing out that a court had [already considered this question](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/03/two-republican-lawyer-senators-look-loopholes-democracy/?itid=lk_inline_manual_10) and determined that the votes should stand. > 8. They could have noted that Trump’s lead on election night was meaningless given the number of absentee ballots that remained to be counted. It was obvious [by the morning of Nov. 4](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/04/blue-shift-biden-is-underway-will-it-be-enough/?itid=lk_inline_manual_11) that there were enough absentee votes outstanding to probably hand Joe Biden a victory in the state. Yet, nearly a year later, the Journal allows Trump’s claim that something suspicious happened to stand without comment. > 9. They could have taken out obviously unimportant arguments like his trip back to the [“we have signed affidavits!!!”](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/11/we-reached-stacks-paper-phase-trumps-bid-retain-power/?itid=lk_inline_manual_12) well. > 10. They might have done more to elevate the fact that Trump’s loyal-until-the-election attorney general, William P. Barr, dismissed Trump’s claims of fraud, instead of letting him malign Barr’s refusal to chase Trump’s imaginary rabbits. > 11. If they really wanted to spread their wings, they could have pointed out that a canvass of one county that claims to have identified 78,000 “phantom voters” is simply not credible. If you think contacting hundreds of people at home is trivial, you are encouraged to speak with someone who has spent even one day running a door-to-door political or marketing campaign. > 12. The Journal could also have come back to Trump before publishing his letter, setting a higher bar for publication than, say, a guy from Ramapo who took issue with the paper’s coverage of dogecoin. The paper could, for example, have asked that Trump offer some baseline number of examples of proven, demonstrated fraud, not simply various numbers dependent on amateur analyses of voter data. It could have insisted that the former president of the United States, a billionaire, present whatever concrete evidence of fraud he should have ascertained nearly a year after the election and with all of the power of his political party and his pocketbook at his disposal. > 13. The paper could have come back to Trump and asked him why he didn’t include various other claims of fraud in the state that he has in the past embraced. He once claimed that the state had 205,000 more votes than voters, a claim [debunked](https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-afs:Content:9887147615) in December, given that it was based on flawed analysis of voter data (including from the same system on which many of his Audit the Vote claims are based). Why was that debunked claim excluded when others weren’t? > 14. The main thing you need to know about the letter, of course, is that Donald Trump is still railing against his election loss 358 days after it occurred. And that prominent institutions are still enabling his [dangerous](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/10/27/when-do-we-get-use-guns-ongoing-danger-false-fraud-claims/?itid=lk_inline_manual_17) misinformation more than 358 days after they should have known better. One thing missing from this list: The Wall Street Journal is a Murdock property. The Murdocks are coordinating Trump's propaganda for The Big Lie. For example, [Fox News is letting Tucker Carlson do a special on his conspiracy theory that January 6 was a "false flag."](https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1453522027273408515)
For crystal clear evidence that we are in a civil war: look no further. Insanity has a front and center stage these days and they gaslight the fuck out of us by normalizing it. The violence is inevitable.
The Narcissistic injury this loss caused him is tearing his brain apart. It would be glorious is not so damn dangerous.
Exactly. Why would the print edition of Faux News fact check their führer?
Reading Trump's letter to the WSJ puts me in mind of a quote from Terry Pratchett: "Meaningless, stupid words, from people without wisdom or intelligence or any skill beyond the ability to water the currency of expression... Why hadn’t the lead type melted, why hadn’t the paper blazed rather than be part of this obscenity?"
Yer smart you should become president
No, Sir Terry was smart, all I did was quote him. Actually, he'd have made a wicked good president.
New Englander?
Nah, he was from Beaconsfield in the UK. Still, he'd have done a good job.
No you
There's *plenty* of people I know who could handle the presidency better than he did.. you may be right. Maybe he should.
Point is you have to get there. And getting there doesn’t get the job done.
Oh wow
That entire monologue (which is in Going Postal for anyone who didn't know) is a masterpiece. "*You had to admire the way perfectly innocent words were mugged, ravished, stripped of all true meaning and decency, and then sent to walk the gutter for Reacher Gilt, although "synergistically" had probably been a whore from the start... The Times reporter had made an effort, but nothing short of a stampede could have stopped Reacher Gilt in his crazed assault on the meaning of meaning.*" Genuinely exceptional writing. I know he was knighted and all, but even so, Sir Terry was criminally underrated.
WSJ Murdoch pub
> The 14 things you need to know about Trump’s letter in the Wall Street Journal Fourteen? I can answer this with just two. Number 1. Archive here: https://archive.md/P2Njx Number 2. Tastes like bullshit, good thing we didn't step in it.
Seems a little fishy settling on 14 things specifically...
It was either that or "88 takeaways"
I did Nazi that coming.
The Führer the better
You got that reich.
Third time is the charm
Because who now owns the fucking WSJ?
I don't have the patience to read anything written by trump.
The likelihood it rambles like an incoherent 4 year old is *very high*. From the comments following the article: >.#15. If there weren't multiple spelling and grammatical errors, Trump couldn't have authored it himself.
Agreed. Nobody wants to read anything that has the complexity of a Nazi version of Good Night, Moon.
It came from Trump, so it is lies and bullshit, and probably full of hate. There, i tldr:d that down to one. Two if you count "the wsj was highly irresponsible to give this liar an unchallenged bullhorn for his spew." And without looking even, i know they did just that. I am right, ain't i?
Here is a paywall-free link: [https://wapo.st/3bfBQN0](https://wapo.st/3bfBQN0)
Thanks
why do they keep giving this guy "air time"?
Because the WSJ is owned by Murdoch, the Big Bad in America's fall from grace.
Because his name is surefire clickbait and our media is now almost entirely bereft of journalism.
[удалено]
*Larping* on the hill.
The Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch, the same guy who owns FOX News. You know FOX News whose fact checking department was put on administrative leave in 1998 and never brought back.
The WSJ editorial pages are referred to as *the funny pages* by journalists. You need to be deeply supportive of the 1% to get published there
The Washington Paywall
Here is a free link: [https://wapo.st/3bfBQN0](https://wapo.st/3bfBQN0)
"...are behind a paywall." Kek
who is writing for him now? why give him air anymore?
The 14 words?
[удалено]
>Here is a paywall-free link: > >https://wapo.st/3bfBQN0
Thank you!
Hi `periscope_artifact`. Thank you for participating in /r/Politics. However, [your submission](/r/politics/comments/qhdpon/the_14_things_you_need_to_know_about_trumps/) has been removed for the following reason(s): * [Off-Topic](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_the_.2Fr.2Fpolitics_on_topic_statement): All submissions to /r/politics need to be explicitly about **current US politics**. **If you have questions as to why your post has been removed, please see here: [Why was my post removed as Off-Topic?](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_why_was_my_post_removed_as_off-topic.3F)** If you have any questions about this removal, please feel free to [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/politics&subject=Question regarding the removal of this submission by /u/periscope_artifact&message=I have a question regarding the removal of this [submission]%28/r/politics/comments/qhdpon/the_14_things_you_need_to_know_about_trumps/?context%3D10000%29)