"Based on a brand new court filing, Trump has abruptly dropped his “voter fraud” defense to a “I was just trying to get to the bottom of whether the Russians were making people vote for BIDEN” defense." - Eyeroll -
Proving yet AGAIN that every right-wing accusation is a confession. ; )
https://youtu.be/XoJpQTPiQKs?si=sJfo1f9670SZjOLa
How come Russia didn't hijack the 2020? Joe said he was going to lose by chicanery, was there any chicanery and why wasn't the 2020 election investigated?
Hillary is now saying that Russia will hijack the 2024 election. 🤦♂️
I don't even get the weird logic on play here. So because Biden said that if he lost, it could be due to meddling, that he didn't meant there was meddling - but from the Democrats?
shareWe dont know if there was any meddling because the 2020 election was never officially investigated. You cant say you are going to lose by cheating and then say there was no cheating after you win. It would be like the Lions saying that every time they lost it was because the other team cheated.
Precedence was set by the Dems in 2016 when they claimed that the election was stolen. Anyone with Pre-Law knowledge should be aware of this.
>We dont know if there was any meddling because the 2020 election was never officially investigated.
Should all elections, by default, just be investigated?
>You cant say you are going to lose by cheating and then say there was no cheating after you win.
Isn't this also literally what Trump claimed? So if Trump did win, obviously it would've been fine?
>Precedence was set by the Dems in 2016 when they claimed that the election was stolen. Anyone with Pre-Law knowledge should be aware of this.
Provide evidence that the Democrats claimed they lost in 2016 due to voter fraud.
Only if Trump is in the race.
If Trump won, then the election would have been investigated.
Dems said the election was stolen. I didn't say how.
>Only if Trump is in the race.
Why?
>If Trump won, then the election would have been investigated.
No reason to believe this.
>Dems said the election was stolen. I didn't say how.
Investigating an election for foreign meddling =/= claiming that voter fraud happened. Still no evidence for this.
>If Trump won, then the election would have been investigated.
No reason to believe this.
That was a different election, and wasn't based in investigating election fraud.
shareThe point he made was that when Trump wins, it will be falsely investigated again.
There was no fraud in 2016, but the dems insisted and fabricated a report.
>The point he made was that when Trump wins, it will be falsely investigated again.
This is yet more speculation, and would depend on how the electoral campaign went. And who even controls the Senate and House.
>There was no fraud in 2016, but the dems insisted and fabricated a report.
When did the Democrats "insist" there was fraud in 2016? Evidence please.
That is not speculation, it is a fact.
When did the Democrats "insist" there was fraud in 2016? Evidence please.
>That is not speculation, it is a fact.
No, it's speculation. It is just a claim. Also there were countless cases launched by Trumps campaign that went absolutely nowhere in challenging the 2020 election.
https://campaignlegal.org/results-lawsuits-regarding-2020-elections
>The Mueller Report.
Sorry, where does it allege voter fraud at the ballot box?
No, it's speculation. It is just a claim. Also there were countless cases launched by Trumps campaign that went absolutely nowhere in challenging the 2020 election.
where does it allege voter fraud at the ballot box?
>Except for 23 of them.
And what happened to them?
>Where did I say at the ballot box? who says that only a ballot box counts as fraud?
What fraud are you alleging then? Postal? When did Dems claim that?
Because thats how it works.
Ok
There was no evidence in 2016 yet the election was still investigated for 2 years.
That's not an argument. Just more claims.
>There was no evidence in 2016 yet the election was still investigated for 2 years.
For completely different things.
For completely different things.
I am still waiting for sources where they specifically describe it in those terms, and allege fraud.
sharefraudulent. adjective. fraud·u·lent. : characterized by, based on, or done by fraud compare deceptive, false, misleading.share
What is the meaning of fraudulence?
Fraudulence is the action or quality of cheating, lying, or deceiving someone.
Right, I didn't ask for a definition of fraud. I asked for evidence that the Dems claimed voter (ballot box or postal) fraud.
shareOnce again, where did I mention "ballot box or postal?"
shareSo what type of fraud where they alleging?
shareAny and/or all that falls under: cheating, lying, or deceiving.
shareI want specifics please. Who did they claim cheated, lied and deceived?
And I'll note that this is very different than claiming actual voter fraud.
Fraud is Fraud, eg. Fraudulent.
You want specifics, read the Mueller Report and the Durham Report.
>Fraud is Fraud, eg. Fraudulent.
By your logic there's no difference claiming tax evasion to voter fraud.
So you won't provide any evidence. Got it. Those two docs are not remotely similar to the claims that the Republicans are making about the 2020 election.
I never mentioned tax.
This is about fraudulent elections regardless of what method was used to cheat, lie, or deceive.
I finally pointed you to evidence and you reject/dismiss them.
Thanks for confirming that you don't care about evidence and that providing it will always be futile.
>I never mentioned tax.
I know. But you're suggesting all types of fraud are essentially the same thing.
>This is about fraudulent elections regardless of what method was used to cheat, lie, or deceive.
I don't recall them ever calling it "fraudulent".
>I finally pointed you to evidence and you reject/dismiss them.
No, you just referred to a document that had nothing to do with alleging fraud, and is completely different than the Republicans allegation regarding 2020.
I know. But you're suggesting all types of fraud are essentially the same thing.
>So if you knew than why did you make that assertion?!
According to you they are *equivalent* concepts. This is just absurd.
>Both of those documents are about what they alleged as a fraudulent election from 2016.
You asked for specifics even though they are unnecessary and you still dismissed them.
And now you are redirecting to 2020.
The data mentions nothing about the election being "fraudulent".
According to you they are *equivalent* concepts.
The data mentions nothing about the election being "fraudulent".
>How do you know if haven't read them?!
The Mueller Report is about Russian interference and meddling in the US election, and partially about the potential collaboration and money from Russia to US figures in that. It mentions nothing specifically about fraud and nor would it have undone the 2016 election.
Interference, collaboration, colluding and meddling fall under fraudulent: cheating, lying, or deceiving.
shareI fundamentally disagree with this definition you're pushing here, but this is getting into pointless semantics.
The Mueller report had nothing to do with the allegations lobbed after the 2020 election. They were fundamentally different things. The Mueller Report would not have undone the 2016 election.
You can disagree all you want, but facts are facts.
You want the word to be specifically “fraudulent”, otherwise, from your pov, it doesn’t qualify….that is you arguing about pointless semantics. Thanks for pointing out your projection and denial.
Those reports were about the 2016 election not the 2020 which you continue to reference.
I never said anything about undoing.
>You can disagree all you want, but facts are facts.
What "facts"? You stretching the definition of "interference" to be a form of fraud?
>You want the word to be specifically “fraudulent”, otherwise, from your pov, it doesn’t qualify….that is you arguing about pointless semantics. Thanks for pointing out your projection and denial.
Yes, it doesn't. The Mueller Report was not about it.
>Those reports were about the 2016 election not the 2020 which you continue to reference.
I know. I am contrasting it with the claims about the 2020 election.
>I never said anything about undoing.
The Republicans literally attempted to undo the 2020 election. The Mueller Report, what you're comparing that to - did not attempt to undo the 2016 election.
Which part do you not understand about cheating, lying, or deceiving that falls under the definition of fraudulent?
Don't contrast it, this is about 2016.
Again, I never said anything about undoing, besides, if the findings turned out to be true, how do you know that it would not have been undone?!
>Which part do you not understand about cheating, lying, or deceiving that falls under the definition of fraudulent?
Where are those words specifically mentioned, and who are they attributed towards in the Mueller Report?
>Don't contrast it, this is about 2016.
*I* didn't. You did. As did the other guy.
>Again, I never said anything about undoing, besides, if the findings turned out to be true, how do you know that it would not have been undone?!
How could it have been? On what precedent? Perhaps Trump would've been removed but that would've just meant President Pence.
Claims is all the Dems had.
Why was the election investigated then?
To see the level of Russian interference, financing and potential collaboration from within in 2016. It wasn't going to overturn the election. It would have led to President Pence at worst.
shareAt least the 2016 election was investigated for all these things. We still don't know if these same things happened in 2020.
shareSo you're after an investigation for *Russian interference* or 2020 election fraud?
shareWhat happens if the Dems win? Could the Republicans use Hillary's own claim of Russian interference against them?
shareThey could try but it will be ignored because Dems will say that its ludicrous to suggest that elections can be interfered with or stolen. Republicans will never be able to win this game because 90% of media is democrat leaning. If you had 10 news stations all proclaiming the election was or wasn't stolen and 1 news station that disagreed. Who is the general public going to believe?
share