4 ms·

Please, some reasonable Trump voter explain how this is acceptable. How can the sitting president still be openly claiming that a previous election was fraudule

Please, some reasonable Trump voter explain how this is acceptable. How can the sitting president still be openly claiming that a previous election was fraudulent after all this time?

wakawaka28 2y ago
[flagged]
- ripe 2y ago
  > The margins were extremely thin in 2020, and there were many sketchy things going on around mail-in ballots and stuff. These allegations from Trump supporters have been disproved in court many times. What will iy take for you to admit that he's misusing his power to target people who disagree with his election lies?
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    Considering how ill-treated Trump and his supporters have been and still are by courts, it is no wonder that they don't trust the courts. Regardless of what you or I think, he is going after people he believes are corrupt. The exact same people who targetted him unfairly for years, in some cases. I'm not losing sleep over this.
    - FireBeyond 2y ago
      It's not ill treatment. In many of those cases they openly said they didn't have any "specific evidence", but "belief". That's not how courts work, and it's not unfair of them to hold you to an evidentiary standard.
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      Will you trust the courts that have Republican-appointed judges? Trump lost in those, too.
    - const_cast 2y ago
      It's not ill treatment, they're being targeted by courts because they're doing illegal shit. It's not that libs are avoiding courts because they're favored, it's just that there's nothing to, you know, try them with. They didn't pull an insurrection. They don't constantly make up lies about everything. So...
- titaphraz 2y ago
  > He is a self-made multi-billionaire HAHAHA! No he's not. He inherited his dad's empire. Tanked it and the Russians bailed him out. He's a charlatan, fraudster and a con artist.
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    Prove that Russians bailed him out, please. I've got to hear this. He did inherit money, like $10M if I recall correctly. But he made the rest of his money. Even if not literally a rags-to-riches case (I never said he was, either), he does not need money. Compare that to, say, AOC who is suddenly worth millions of dollars after a few years on a salary of $180k. Who is more suspicious?
    - UmGuys 2y ago
      He inherited money, ran through it, went back and fleeced his dad and siblings of their money. Ran through that. Racked up hundreds of millions of debt, then ran for president. Now he bastardizes public office and exploits his position to generate wealth.
    - FireBeyond 2y ago
      He inherited a lot more than $10M from his father's death. He got given a $10M ($85M in 2025 dollars) "loan" to start his first solo enterprise.
    - tstrimple 2y ago
      Why do you speak so confidently around something you clearly know nothing about? https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/12/21/how-russian-money-helped-save-trumps-business/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/12/21/how-russian-money-helpe... > But Trump eventually made a comeback, and according to several sources with knowledge of Trump’s business, foreign money played a large role in reviving his fortunes, in particular investment by wealthy people from Russia and the former Soviet republics. This conclusion is buttressed by a growing body of evidence amassed by news organizations, as well as what is reportedly being investigated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller and the Southern District of New York. It is a conclusion that even Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., has appeared to confirm, saying in 2008—after the Trump Organization was prospering again—that “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets.” https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/aoc-is-multi-millionaire/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/aoc-is-multi-millionaire/ > According to the most recent disclosure from 2023, Ocasio-Cortez had documented that she had no more than between $1,001 and $15,000 in each of three different bank accounts. The total for these three accounts would land somewhere between $3,003 and $45,000. She also recorded in the disclosure having between $1,001 and $15,000 in additional funds in a fourth account for a 401k plan. Further, she noted in the disclosure that she was still paying off student loans, with an "amount of liability" landing somewhere between $15,001 and $50,000. In other words, Ocasio-Cortez was at least $940,000 short of being a millionaire, with the maximum possible amount of the four accounts totaling $60,000, and that's before even factoring in her student loan debt. Do you get your information from anywhere other than random twitter posts?
- grumio 2y ago
  > there were many sketchy things going on around mail-in ballots and stuff. Just because Fox News repeats false claims over and over doesn't make them true. Do you have sources? 2000 mules was debunked. Fox News settled for their false claims against Dominion. Court awarded damages to that one victim who was accused of smuggling a flash drive of "fraudulent votes" or whatever. Don't fall for the firehose of bullshit. Please share what specifically convinced you of this. >By the way, Hillary and her cronies never accepted the 2016 election. She conceded. Trump did not concede when he lost the 2020 election. These are facts. Get real.
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    >She conceded. Trump did not concede when he lost the 2020 election. These are facts. Get real. She "conceded" then continued smearing Trump for years and literally called him illegitimate. Not just her but the entire Democrat media machine that backed Hillary over other plausible candidates. The smearing and denial cancel out any good will she gained by "conceding". Shall we talk about the Russiagate hoax that went on for years, that Hillary herself started by commissioning the Steele Dossier? I suggest you go educate yourself on all of that and how she paid a fine for election interference (and how Trump did not).
    - grumio 2y ago
      Given up being a debunked 2020 election conspiracy apologist? The Steele Dossier was commissioned in 2016, before the election. Trump is claiming the 2020 election was "stolen" well after. Both bad. But not the same. Trump's allies challenged the election results after losing, 60 times. (edit to add: Challenging, and getting their day in court, is fine! However,) No credible, election-result-changing fraud found. (edit to add: Despite losing in court, they continued to spread debunked conspiracies, and still claimed it was "stolen" without evidence. And still tried to hold on to power, Trump asked Pence to "do the right thing", and declare Trump the winner despite losing. This is the bad part.) Clinton did not challenge the election results after losing. Not the same. Not even close.
      - 2y ago
- tzs 2y ago
  > But ask yourself: "Which party supports actual election integrity more? The one that insists on US citizens voting in person with valid id (nothing special, just the id that we all need to get by in society), You mean the ID that around 21 million US citizens who are eligible to vote do not have and don't have the time and/or money to get that ID? Here's a comment that contains links to a whole bunch of articles covering this, many of which contain extensive links to sources [1]. It is cute how some people can simultaneously believe that (1) you need the type of ID that Republican voter ID laws require for voting in order to get by in society (and so everyone already has the ID they need), and (2) there are tens of millions of illegal aliens who have been living in this country long term (and hence are obviously getting by). This implies either that you don't actually need such ID to get by or that illegal aliens can easily obtain such ID (which makes the ID law ineffective at preventing fraud). [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42116609 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42116609
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    >You mean the ID that around 21 million US citizens who are eligible to vote do not have and don't have the time and/or money to get that ID? Here's a comment that contains links to a whole bunch of articles covering this, many of which contain extensive links to sources [1]. That is all a bunch of hogwash. Most people can get ID for like $20 from their state. Even if I accept it, the answer is not to lower standards. It is to actually help these people get the ID that they need. Anything else permits rampant fraud. This is so obvious that I have to assume people like you are malicious actors, with all due respect. >you need the type of ID that Republican voter ID laws require for voting in order to get by in society (and so everyone already has the ID they need), Is there any case where a state ID such as a driver's license is not adequate? I don't even care. Go try to open a bank account or cash a check without ID. Everyone will tell you GTFO if you don't have the same type of ID needed to vote. >there are tens of millions of illegal aliens who have been living in this country long term (and hence are obviously getting by) These people are issued ID, and besides that they often work for cash or in other ways that dodge the law. >This implies either that you don't actually need such ID to get by or that illegal aliens can easily obtain such ID (which makes the ID law ineffective at preventing fraud). If there is simply a field on your ID that says if you are a citizen, and that shit is verified at the time you register to vote or at the time you actually vote, it would be as effective as the enforcement. We have Democrat precincts where poll workers have been forbidden from asking for ID. It is pure insanity, so egregious that it seems engineered to outrage everyone with a shred of common sense. I keep having to mention all of these things on this site amid a flurry of downvotes because too many "hackers" have drank the Kool-Aid.
- UmGuys 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - UmGuys 2y ago
      [flagged]
    - UmGuys 2y ago
      [flagged]
tastyface 2y ago
I mean, this is very obviously retribution. But nobody's going to reply to you saying "yes, I want those who have wronged my beloved president to be annihilated." So I'm not sure what you're expecting here. There's no good faith explanation for these events save for whatever vague spin Fox News can come up with.
pas 2y ago
> reasonable ...
sershe 2y ago
Not a trump voter or supporter by any means, but you can reflect on what made this action possible from the pr perspective (even considering the above quoted unnecessary own goal - they could have done the same thing with even more plausible deniability) There was indeed a campaign to fight "misinformation", with active cooperation between the previous administration and social media companies. There was an official effort to establish a disinformation fighting team within the government. Some of the stories like Hunter biden's laptop and COVID origin stuff blew up as what looks like potential partisan censorship cases. And frankly while I'd attribute the latter, and most of these efforts, to stupidity, the former looks like malice even to me. So now one sides idiotic authoritarian self own can be used by the other side to justify even more idiotic even more authoritarian "corrective" action.

Please, some reasonable Trump voter explain how this is acceptable. How can the sitting president still be openly claiming that a previous election was fraudulent after all this time?

wakawaka28 2y ago

[flagged]

ripe 2y ago
> The margins were extremely thin in 2020, and there were many sketchy things going on around mail-in ballots and stuff. These allegations from Trump supporters have been disproved in court many times. What will iy take for you to admit that he's misusing his power to target people who disagree with his election lies?
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  Considering how ill-treated Trump and his supporters have been and still are by courts, it is no wonder that they don't trust the courts. Regardless of what you or I think, he is going after people he believes are corrupt. The exact same people who targetted him unfairly for years, in some cases. I'm not losing sleep over this.
  - FireBeyond 2y ago
    It's not ill treatment. In many of those cases they openly said they didn't have any "specific evidence", but "belief". That's not how courts work, and it's not unfair of them to hold you to an evidentiary standard.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    Will you trust the courts that have Republican-appointed judges? Trump lost in those, too.
  - const_cast 2y ago
    It's not ill treatment, they're being targeted by courts because they're doing illegal shit. It's not that libs are avoiding courts because they're favored, it's just that there's nothing to, you know, try them with. They didn't pull an insurrection. They don't constantly make up lies about everything. So...
titaphraz 2y ago
> He is a self-made multi-billionaire HAHAHA! No he's not. He inherited his dad's empire. Tanked it and the Russians bailed him out. He's a charlatan, fraudster and a con artist.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  Prove that Russians bailed him out, please. I've got to hear this. He did inherit money, like $10M if I recall correctly. But he made the rest of his money. Even if not literally a rags-to-riches case (I never said he was, either), he does not need money. Compare that to, say, AOC who is suddenly worth millions of dollars after a few years on a salary of $180k. Who is more suspicious?
  - UmGuys 2y ago
    He inherited money, ran through it, went back and fleeced his dad and siblings of their money. Ran through that. Racked up hundreds of millions of debt, then ran for president. Now he bastardizes public office and exploits his position to generate wealth.
  - FireBeyond 2y ago
    He inherited a lot more than $10M from his father's death. He got given a $10M ($85M in 2025 dollars) "loan" to start his first solo enterprise.
  - tstrimple 2y ago
    Why do you speak so confidently around something you clearly know nothing about? https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/12/21/how-russian-money-helped-save-trumps-business/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/12/21/how-russian-money-helpe... > But Trump eventually made a comeback, and according to several sources with knowledge of Trump’s business, foreign money played a large role in reviving his fortunes, in particular investment by wealthy people from Russia and the former Soviet republics. This conclusion is buttressed by a growing body of evidence amassed by news organizations, as well as what is reportedly being investigated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller and the Southern District of New York. It is a conclusion that even Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., has appeared to confirm, saying in 2008—after the Trump Organization was prospering again—that “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets.” https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/aoc-is-multi-millionaire/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/aoc-is-multi-millionaire/ > According to the most recent disclosure from 2023, Ocasio-Cortez had documented that she had no more than between $1,001 and $15,000 in each of three different bank accounts. The total for these three accounts would land somewhere between $3,003 and $45,000. She also recorded in the disclosure having between $1,001 and $15,000 in additional funds in a fourth account for a 401k plan. Further, she noted in the disclosure that she was still paying off student loans, with an "amount of liability" landing somewhere between $15,001 and $50,000. In other words, Ocasio-Cortez was at least $940,000 short of being a millionaire, with the maximum possible amount of the four accounts totaling $60,000, and that's before even factoring in her student loan debt. Do you get your information from anywhere other than random twitter posts?
grumio 2y ago
> there were many sketchy things going on around mail-in ballots and stuff. Just because Fox News repeats false claims over and over doesn't make them true. Do you have sources? 2000 mules was debunked. Fox News settled for their false claims against Dominion. Court awarded damages to that one victim who was accused of smuggling a flash drive of "fraudulent votes" or whatever. Don't fall for the firehose of bullshit. Please share what specifically convinced you of this. >By the way, Hillary and her cronies never accepted the 2016 election. She conceded. Trump did not concede when he lost the 2020 election. These are facts. Get real.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  >She conceded. Trump did not concede when he lost the 2020 election. These are facts. Get real. She "conceded" then continued smearing Trump for years and literally called him illegitimate. Not just her but the entire Democrat media machine that backed Hillary over other plausible candidates. The smearing and denial cancel out any good will she gained by "conceding". Shall we talk about the Russiagate hoax that went on for years, that Hillary herself started by commissioning the Steele Dossier? I suggest you go educate yourself on all of that and how she paid a fine for election interference (and how Trump did not).
  - grumio 2y ago
    Given up being a debunked 2020 election conspiracy apologist? The Steele Dossier was commissioned in 2016, before the election. Trump is claiming the 2020 election was "stolen" well after. Both bad. But not the same. Trump's allies challenged the election results after losing, 60 times. (edit to add: Challenging, and getting their day in court, is fine! However,) No credible, election-result-changing fraud found. (edit to add: Despite losing in court, they continued to spread debunked conspiracies, and still claimed it was "stolen" without evidence. And still tried to hold on to power, Trump asked Pence to "do the right thing", and declare Trump the winner despite losing. This is the bad part.) Clinton did not challenge the election results after losing. Not the same. Not even close.
    - 2y ago
tzs 2y ago
> But ask yourself: "Which party supports actual election integrity more? The one that insists on US citizens voting in person with valid id (nothing special, just the id that we all need to get by in society), You mean the ID that around 21 million US citizens who are eligible to vote do not have and don't have the time and/or money to get that ID? Here's a comment that contains links to a whole bunch of articles covering this, many of which contain extensive links to sources [1]. It is cute how some people can simultaneously believe that (1) you need the type of ID that Republican voter ID laws require for voting in order to get by in society (and so everyone already has the ID they need), and (2) there are tens of millions of illegal aliens who have been living in this country long term (and hence are obviously getting by). This implies either that you don't actually need such ID to get by or that illegal aliens can easily obtain such ID (which makes the ID law ineffective at preventing fraud). [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42116609 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42116609
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  >You mean the ID that around 21 million US citizens who are eligible to vote do not have and don't have the time and/or money to get that ID? Here's a comment that contains links to a whole bunch of articles covering this, many of which contain extensive links to sources [1]. That is all a bunch of hogwash. Most people can get ID for like $20 from their state. Even if I accept it, the answer is not to lower standards. It is to actually help these people get the ID that they need. Anything else permits rampant fraud. This is so obvious that I have to assume people like you are malicious actors, with all due respect. >you need the type of ID that Republican voter ID laws require for voting in order to get by in society (and so everyone already has the ID they need), Is there any case where a state ID such as a driver's license is not adequate? I don't even care. Go try to open a bank account or cash a check without ID. Everyone will tell you GTFO if you don't have the same type of ID needed to vote. >there are tens of millions of illegal aliens who have been living in this country long term (and hence are obviously getting by) These people are issued ID, and besides that they often work for cash or in other ways that dodge the law. >This implies either that you don't actually need such ID to get by or that illegal aliens can easily obtain such ID (which makes the ID law ineffective at preventing fraud). If there is simply a field on your ID that says if you are a citizen, and that shit is verified at the time you register to vote or at the time you actually vote, it would be as effective as the enforcement. We have Democrat precincts where poll workers have been forbidden from asking for ID. It is pure insanity, so egregious that it seems engineered to outrage everyone with a shred of common sense. I keep having to mention all of these things on this site amid a flurry of downvotes because too many "hackers" have drank the Kool-Aid.
UmGuys 2y ago
[flagged]
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - UmGuys 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - UmGuys 2y ago
    [flagged]

tastyface 2y ago

I mean, this is very obviously retribution. But nobody's going to reply to you saying "yes, I want those who have wronged my beloved president to be annihilated." So I'm not sure what you're expecting here. There's no good faith explanation for these events save for whatever vague spin Fox News can come up with.

pas 2y ago

> reasonable ...

sershe 2y ago

Not a trump voter or supporter by any means, but you can reflect on what made this action possible from the pr perspective (even considering the above quoted unnecessary own goal - they could have done the same thing with even more plausible deniability) There was indeed a campaign to fight "misinformation", with active cooperation between the previous administration and social media companies. There was an official effort to establish a disinformation fighting team within the government. Some of the stories like Hunter biden's laptop and COVID origin stuff blew up as what looks like potential partisan censorship cases. And frankly while I'd attribute the latter, and most of these efforts, to stupidity, the former looks like malice even to me. So now one sides idiotic authoritarian self own can be used by the other side to justify even more idiotic even more authoritarian "corrective" action.