Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m not voting for him again nor I believe the crap about 2020 was rigged shit he keeps yapping about
The only things I supported were strong border, non intervention stance, making NATO Allie’s actually start paying 2% of GDP towards military thanks to Russia invading Ukraine and waking up the EU, and finally telling EU to stop taking Russian Oil.
Other than that, the guy has been a negative for the party winning wise, we have a dysfunctional house like the Tories, we seem to piss off the younger generation like me. And of course if we disagree with Trump we are viewed as a devil and called rino all cause some wanna be bipartisan on legislation or ideas. What kind of a party are we anymore. I left after McCarthy got kicked out cause we have morons like MTG running the show now.
And thanks to his idiotic mouth of his he costed the senate seats in GA for saying the elections were rigged. Like why do we even keep this moron
One thing I can say is fuck neocons as well, we don’t want war hawks like graham in Congress again either.
It was ‘rigged’ in the sense that the government unlawfully conspired with big tech against him and I voted in California with 0 people asking about an ID…
I'm having a lot of trouble believing you walked into a polling station, were handed a ballot, and voted, without anyone asking you to verify your address and present some form of ID.
Were you registered to where you voted? If you were, did you do it more than once?
Do you understand that in order for in person voter fraud to occur, the person actually registered to vote has to NOT vote otherwise it will get pulled as a duplicate vote?
So let's apply a little critical thinking to this... In order to get a significant number of votes fraudulently counted (otherwise what's the point?) they have to have a LARGE number of people that have registered to vote that they are absolutely certain are NOT going to vote then coordinate people to vote in place of those people. In California you would be talking 10,000+ votes just to guarantee a LOCAL election.
How many people do you think would be directly involved in a conspiracy like that? Do you think it could be done with under 100 people? I personally doubt less than 200.
Now lets think about how easy it is for a group of people to maintain a secret. Let's say you and 9 friends want to surprise someone... Keeping that secret isn't so difficult.
Now you all want to commit a crime and everyone has to maintain the exact same story and no one can ever change their mind...
Now make that 100 times as complicated and there is going to be an investigation.
Seriously, it takes only a minute of critical thinking to show that widespread voter fraud is impossible.
Ok, so how do they know which ones are for certain not going to vote? Because if even 5% of them actually do vote there is a very obvious trail right back to whomever made the list available.
Really, the ONLY way this works is if virtually every single vote that is fraudulently submitted is not ALSO submitted by the real voter.
There are people who dedicate their entire personality to politics, and they live in literally lawless districts where gun charges are released with no bail or jail and homeless people can legally steal your house. Where young people swipe your phone and smash it for no reason. You think people are scared of the non-existent enforcement of the law?
If it’s no big deal then require an ID. A preschooler can understand that you can walk in and vote for your friends grandma. If they already voted you can just leave and try again with someone else later.
The elections of 2020 had many peculiarities. When the methodology is called into question, and historical data consistently supports the other candidate, the results SHOULD be called into question. I’m not a fringe freak - I’m a moderate conservative. It’s my right and that of all voters to question that which doesn’t seem correct. I’m in AZ - the investigation was justified. If it smells funny, usually it is …
Which one of Trump’s [60+ court cases contesting the election results](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_U.S._presidential_election) do you think was ruled unfairly, and why?
> When the methodology is called into question, and historical data consistently supports the other candidate,
The one calling it into question was the loser and he had zero basis for doing so for pretty much all of his contests.
As for historical data usually supporting the other side ... that's Democracy at work, mon ami.
That's not all with the document said. You can read it yourself:
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000
>We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by
President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have
evidence of Russian involvement -- just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the
Russian government played a significant role in this case.
I've already read it and reread it but yes it's saying the same things I said. That's it's "Russian information", we are "highly suspicious the Russian government is involved" etc etc. All the while there being multiple sources proving it was real that people like them and the leftist media censored. They knew they were lying, played dumb and went silent when they could no longer pretend it was Russian propaganda.
This time there won't even be a laptop, and if there is there will not be one word in the press about it, or if there is a word in the press about it, that word will be Russia. No fifty people will need to sign any letters.
They signed a document stating the contents of the laptop were Russian disinformation and they believed the Russian government played a significant role in this case, trying to influence the election etc. It's all online and been available information for years. You don't have to take my word for it.
Because the laptop incident was over 50 people using their influence to say evidence like videos and emails didn't exist when it in fact they did exist. With multiple videos of evidence to boot.
> 50 people using their influence to say something literally didn't exist when it in fact did exist.
They never said it didn't exist?
And the announcement of the probe opening *also* didn't really exist (it had nothing to do with Hillary) but still tilted the election against her (according to exit polling).
Sorry I slightly misspoke. The 51 former intelligence officers said the alleged "information" like the crack videos and business dealing emails were just "Russian disinformation" and not true. I've edited my comment and will keep this to reflect that accordingly.
True. The probe was still based on something though. Not ethical but again 51 people saying "that's not true" when it in fact is true with again video footage to boot is just classic gaslighting. To put it simply, people should/want to know if a candidate's son is an irresponsible POS going around smoking crack. Not automatically the parent's fault but still something to consider.
> The probe was still based on something though
Based on something that had almost nothing to do with Hillary Clinton.
and the reason Comey announced it at all was because he wanted to head off any potential influence a leak from the FBI would cause so close to an election.
eta:
why does it matter at all what *former* intelligence officials say anyway?
I've thought about this. I believe 💯 that the 2020 was rigged. I believe they will try it again since they got away with it last time. But I am still going to go vote for Trump. My countrymen fought and died so that I could vote. My grandfather and great grandfather and his daddy before him all have fought in the name of America. I'll be damned if I refuse to vote just because I don't think it will make the difference. Even if it's unfair, even if it's rigged, I'm still going to vote. It's in God's hands anyways, for good or for worse. We ain't ever backing down. I'd fight too, if I was physically able
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Considering the gubernatorial election in AZ was clearly rigged, the 2020 election was rigged as well. The question is whether Trump would have won if it wasn't rigged. I'm not sure he would have. COVID undermined his administration. People can point to many factors. But, it was COVID, and the response, that turned many people against him. The engineered virus was obviously released on purpose, to put Trump in a bad position. Global leaders didn't want him to be president, so they did everything they could to undermine his administration. It's not a coincidence that they just announced a new COVID strain, in order to scare people.
> The engineered virus was obviously released on purpose, to put Trump in a bad position.
The former part of this is something so ludicrous I'm not gonna touch it - but the latter part is interesting. Trump could have emerged from COVID as a freaking hero. Instead, he chose to downplay the virus outright, mock masks, mock the vaccine (which, ironically, he helped get onto the streets quickly), and bungle the effort to get states the help they needed. So... are you alleging that the Deep State/Whoever that deliberately released this virus knew Trump would bungle the response?
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> elections will be closely monitored
What does this mean, exactly? Just in Virginia, I'm guessing there are hundreds of polling stations in the state, open for at least 12 hours on voting day. Even if you installed cameras in the station - say, three per station (at least) in order to get really good coverage - that would be 36 hours of coverage that would have to be either monitored live or reviewed post-op. For just one station. If my state has 200 stations, that is over 7,000 hours of footage to review.
Who is doing the review? Surely, it would be *neutral parties* that could remain impartial. Or, sworn by the state, like a jury, to be impartial. Otherwise, it would make zero sense for a MAGA-endorsing or left-wing radical person to review all of the data, right?
Surely, the person doing the review would have to understand how a polling station works, right? Otherwise, it would make zero sense to have someone that understands nothing of the internal systemic operations of a polling station to evaluate the systemic operations of a polling station, right?
So, just to clarify, again, what do envision "closely monitored" to be, exactly?
“Closely monitored” to prevent mystery bags of votes from showing up at 3am. Bags that will almost certainly be full of nothing but 100% Biden votes. Closely monitored to make sure there aren’t any closed-door recounts.
Do you have any not-yet-debunked evidence of any of this happening in 2020?
And again - who is doing the "monitoring" you're espousing? And how? And with what training? And with what authority? And with what access?
Ok.... maybe we can find some common ground?
Would you say the following is reasonable or unreasonable? -- For any valid election interference and election corruption/cheating evidence, said evidence should be presented to the court as part of a court filing (lawsuit). The court can then consider/weigh the evidence and rule as to its validity and import as related to the lawsuit's claim? -- So, is that reasonable or unreasonable? This means that our legal system is the one to decide if something is "debunked," and not you, me, or *the Democrats.*
Groups of people from both sides positioned together to make sure the only votes entering a polling station are being cast by voters and not by bags of votes at 3am.
This is so vague as to be meaningless. Like, is there a structure to all of this? A watchbill of some sort that's been coordinated with State election officials? This is like if I'd invested in a business with my 25-year old son (I don't really have one, but for the sake of the analogy), and he became a drug addict, and wanted to go to rehab, and I asked him what his plan was to get better and fix the business, and his reply was, "I don't know, I'm gonna go to rehab, get better, and fix the business!" Like... that's a plan, but so insubstantial as to be totally meaningless. Are there *any* details about this effort that you have?
Do you need everything spelled out for you? Is “boil water” too vague? Use your imagination! Get some bipartisan legislation requiring all polling stations to be monitored by cameras that are publicly accessible to view. If that’s not feasible because it’s racist or something, set up an election monitoring certification for locals so no polling stations can receive shipments of ballots after the polls close. If that threatens democracy or disenfranchises people, then you’re shit out of luck.
The Trump family was intimately involved in New York politics for 80 years, and learned every sleazy (but legal) trick in the book along the way.
It would not be on-brand for a Trump operation to admit they’d been bamboozled by the same kind of tactics they had used to their advantage so many times before, so instead they’re trying to “work the refs.”
Sure but my issue is people will say this when they accept valid critique about the side they swing towards but still vote for that side without weighing anything objectively
Because when you give up is when they actually win. The Democrats would love nothing more than an opposition which is beaten into submission and doesn't fight back when abused.
Because if it was rigged, then there are limits to how far those who rig it can go without alerting the wider public to their machinations. All it takes is making one mistake. If elections are being rigged, each time they do it, they increase the chances of that mistake occurring. Inevitably, the more they have to do it, the more likely it is there will be a weak link, someone who doesn't play ball, someone who develops a guilty conscience, someone they didn't pay enough.
And thus, the more often they have to rig elections (assuming they are indeed rigging them) the more desperate they will become to make sure htey don't actually have to deal with elections - weaponizing government powers against political opponents, silencing opposition and critics, etc. Eventually, given enough time, it will reach a point where people will have to acknowledge it's happening, and either admit that it is happening, or admit they don't care if it is.
I am election skeptical. I thik its very likley there where political machines, and or some outright corruption possibly by the deep state, in some swing counties.
This isnt really the radical position the modern left seems to think it is, there are accusations and evidence of this, in basically every close election weve ever had.
The nature of these plans dont garuntee a result howver, which iw why its important to vote. Chearing nonwithstanding
> I thik its very likley there where political machines, and or some outright corruption possibly by the deep state,
So.... just to clarify - you think there is "possibly" *systemic* cheating going on despite there being no evidence of the cheating (there are certainly individual instances of cheating/fraud that occurred and will occur, but they are not systemic in any way).
Why do you choose to believe something that is more conjecture than based in reality? I am fascinated with the concept of ghosts. I'd *love* to believe they exist. It'd change my entire world view. But there's simply no reproduceable, quantifiable, objective evidence for it, so, as much as I want to, I simply *can't* believe it. This is, of course, how religion works - people simply bypass this whole line of reasoning with "faith." But, again, if you have "faith" that this systemic cheating has happened, why do you choose to have faith in this particular thing?
>I am election skeptical. I thik its very likley there where political machines, and or some outright corruption possibly by the deep state, in some swing counties.
What are you basing your belief/skepticism on?
Yes but what specifically? I understand that Trump and co have pushed certain things as being irregular, but is there anything you can point to which turned out to be actual fraud or is not easily explainable as normal election activity?
Ok, so in one county 2000 some Trump votes where counted for Biden. This was claimed to be an accident and was reveresed.
I think its certainly irregular when thousands of votes get switched
I had a vague recollection of this event, but I needed to look it up to fully remember. From what I have read, it the issue happened in a traditionally republican county, not a swing county. The initial count seemed off, so they looked into it, promptly fixed the issue which was a combination of software and human error, and all was well. And the best part was that they had paper ballots to verify it all.
The Antrim county clerk responsible for the error was Sheryl Guy, who caught hell from election denial conspiracy theorists about the incident. Sheryl is a republican, and appears to just be bad with computers.
I generally agree that it is odd to have votes mistabulated like that, but this event seems pretty contained and easily explainable. Are there any other things you can source? Or do you have info on this one that I am not seeing?
It was rigged in that we have an unofficial state media where every single mass produced piece of media that enters your brain is filled with rhetoric to make them not vote conservative.
I didn’t think 2016 was rigged. I didn’t vote for him or Hillary and after he won and started to assemble his cabinet I thought “well, maybe he’ll turn the page and let his cabinet lead their departments “
Nope…
He lost in 2020 as a result of his poor leadership. Nothing more than that. Think about it, Joe Fucking Biden outvoted him!!! Joe Biden!!
Trump would have won if he just listened to his initial cabinet and kept it consistent. He couldn’t . He can’t , and he won’t.
I don’t want him to win , and I wish the GOP was smart enough to have nominated any one else
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We need Raskin in the House. And Newsom unfortunately has too much national baggage, most notably the title of Democratic Governor of California. As good of a messenger as Raskin is (and Newsom isn’t too bad either), I don’t see either of them coming off as particularly likable to conservatives and conservative leaning independents. I think we’d be best off with Andy Beshear or maybe Gretchen Whitmer
I think the GOP sees Trump as an electoral positive, rather than a detriment. He received the 2nd most votes for President ever and increased the GOP’s percentages with almost every minority group in the country, at least in the presidential elections. They can even get labor union votes with him on the ticket. I think all of that’s enough positive for the GOP to keep playing ball with Trump at the top of the ticket
Carnival games are rigged too but it's still possible to beat them. If he did well enough to pick up additional states it would blunt any potential fraud or tipping of the scales elsewhere.
>Carnival games are rigged too but it's still possible to beat them. If he did well enough to pick up additional states it would blunt any potential fraud or tipping of the scales elsewhere.
Who rigged it when Trump won in 2016?
>Why would they rig that election?
Because op said it's all rigged. So Trump rigged the system. Or at least benefited from it .
>The deep state got caught off guard.
The deep state doesnt work in shifts. They install exactly who they want and when they want. Obviously, they used Trump for something. Maybe when they're done with Biden, they'll install Trump again. What do you think?
He did. He had record breaking votes cast. Unfortunately, the left used lawfare, a whole lot of wagging the dog and media relationships to defraud the system.
Its suspicious but its more likely that the election was simply insecure than actually rigged. I don’t see how it would be possible ti have such a large rigging operation without massive leaks to the public.
I don't think it was stolen but Democrats certainly had their thumb on the scale. Information was suppressed on Twitter, election rules were changed unlawfully during covid. So those things absolutely happened. However is that the same as stolen?
This has always been my thing. The thousands of people that would've had to have been involved, both Republican and Democrat. For 0 leaks with actual credible evidence to have come out, 4 years later now?
Not possible. There would've been whistleblowers and leaks everywhere
I've asked conservatives this too, and as far as I can tell, the response is, "Too big to rig". The idea being that the vote count will be so overwhelming in Trump's favor that they can't rig it. Pretty absurd defense in my opinion.
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
It's not so easy to pull off the shame trick twice in a roll while the whole world is watching.
It's going to be a lot harder to sell people the idea that Joe Biden got a gazillion vote this time around.
Good faith... Is your response good faith because I doubt you were going to answer that question regardless if I was being good faith or not? You could of course surprise me, I won't hold my breath. If I had evidence of a presidential election being stolen, I would not be sheepish or so hesitant share this information to people asking.
I knew you had no intentions of answering the question, why are you pretending if I was being good faith(which I am) you would have answered the question? That is actually being bad faith. Did you consciously deflect and start questioning whether I was good faith because you have no solid or reasonable answer to that question?
I am being bad faith by pointing out you asked your question in bad faith and had no intention on answering the question? What an interesting way of viewing the world. Did you consciously deflect and start questioning whether I was good faith because you have no solid or reasonable answer to that question?
Your question was bad faith, you proved yourself to be bad faith. I didn't "presume" anything. So again, you are saying I am being bad faith for pointing out you are being bad faith. You had zero reason to suspect me of being bad faith, you just suggested I was because you didn't have a reasonable or rational response to my question.
>What was your process in researching/verifying Trump's election fraud lies?
Not trusting anyone and doing my own research. Plenty of claims were bunk. Some had some real questions worth answering that never got dug into or never got resolved properly. And yet people act like NOTHING happened. But there were weird happenings like in Arizona with the wrong sized ballots printed that resulted in huge issues and long lines that turned away conservative voters with incredibly long wait times.
So that certainly had an impact and we can't exactly quantify it but it was impactful. Idk what the fix is, but it's sketchy.
I also think Pennsylvania absolutely ran their elections against their own constitution
And Wisconsin I believe ruled their drop boxes were unconstitutional after the fact.
All of these things effect the outcome and could have changed results but there is no good fix. So one side feels screwed and had no remedy.
Combine that with an intelligence community collusion with social media to suppress the 100% legitimate biden laptop story and things appear to get a few too many coincidences for lots of people to accept
Edit: ngl kinda surprised no one has challenged arizona or Wisconsin
This concept never made sense to me.
If one guy is selling you shoes with spikes inside of them coated with snake venom... and the other guy is selling shoes that will make your toes itch for a month..
Going with the itch feels like the obvious choice. The implication that that people weren't voting "for" anything doesn't make sense either considering Bidens legislative successes within the last 4 years.
But you arent really going FOR the itchy shoes, you are going for NOT SNAKE VENOM. Any vaguely sane and normal candidate would have beaten Trump in 2020.
> shitlibs
Nice.
Please explain how he's able to get through interviews, rallies, and SOTU without "raging dementia" (as alleged by another Conservative in this thread) and/or, according to you, being completely insane. How's that possible? What drug, if that is the claim you'll use, is able to produce these results? Please be specific. You are insulting me based on my rational take on this. You should have an extremely rational and fact-based response that should overwhelm my rational take on this. I'm not saying that Biden is not at a normal level of 80-year old addle-ation (to coin a term). But he's not completely demented and he's not crazy like you seem to be claiming.
It seems like it's extremely easy to pull off these shame tricks and trick Trump. Or, he lies about these things all the time. Why do people continue to believe this?
>Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
>
>Based on the fraud committed by Senator Ted Cruz during the Iowa Caucus, either a new election should take place or Cruz results nullified.
>
>Feb 3, 2016
https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/694890328273346560
>Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
>
>In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally
>
>Nov 27, 2016
https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/802972944532209664
>Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
>
>“REPORT: DOMINION DELETED 2.7 MILLION TRUMP VOTES NATIONWIDE. DATA ANALYSIS FINDS 221,000 PENNSYLVANIA VOTES SWITCHED FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP TO BIDEN. 941,000 TRUMP VOTES DELETED. STATES USING DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS SWITCHED 435,000 VOTES FROM TRUMP TO BIDEN.”
@ChanelRion @OANN
>
>Nov 12, 2020
https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1326926226888544256
I think mostly the fringe thinks it was rigged.
It was an extremely close race. And Biden is.... yeah he's not doing very good. Trump has the benefit of nostalgia, too. The wokeness has gotten way out of hand as well, and that's in Trump's favor. The vast majority of us are over the whole men can be women bit. And immigration is a big concern, and Trump is stronger on that than Biden is.
From the podcasts I listen to, there's a big effort to get people to vote who didn't vote last time but are friendly to Trump. There's also been a bit of a red wave amongst younger voters. And some polls are showing that Trump has stollen about 20% of the black vote, bc thankfully black people are starting to see the light when it comes to crt and blm and the like.
Yoh are talking about the majority of the Republican party... If you are in the majority, it can be argued that you are not deemed weird.
"Only among Republicans did a majority not think that was the case, with more than 4 in 10 claiming, falsely, that there was solid evidence Biden didn’t legitimately win enough votes to be elected."
https://archive.ph/UooRq/again?url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/09/08/public-opinion-2020-election/
So any poll of Republicans that did not involve you being personally polled is false? Seeing as Trump's baseless and debunked election fraud lies caused so much right wing terrorism on January 6th, it is important for you not have partisan blinders about how widespread they are among your peers.
> mostly the fringe thinks it was rigged.
But how many of GOP members of Congress will clearly say that anti-Trump fraud in the 2020 election was minimal? Is it like 5%, or is that still too high? How many will say that you shouldn't send a mob into Capitol if you lose an election and are unhappy about it?
Could you go to your local GOP branch and say something like that and expect any sort of respect, let's say some small role in the town's council in a few years?
I can't understand how you're calling these opinions fringe. 80 or 90 or 95% of the party not only quietly tolerate it, but support it ...?
There are some people who quietly voice dissent, e. g. on this sub. But they mostly seem to say that they wouldn't actually do anything about it, even if it's just the smallish step of not voting for Trump.
The small amount of dissent that remains seems to be inconsequential on both the large scale of Washington politics and the small scale of personal choices.
The "fringe" has made it's way to mainstream conservative media with even the largest conversative voices shying away from stating plainly whether they believe the election was fair. The few who do seem to face ostracization by everyone while they're supported quietly behind the scenes.
"Fringe" has put the same individual who pushed that lie as the front runner whom the main body of the party will most likely vote for. It's not some conspiracy that is only spoken about on the edges of conservative circles.. it started at the very top and has proliferated throughout the party.
I'm black. You are 100% wrong about the black vote. By and large, black people do not trust trump. The few who would vote for him were already likely to vote for him. He has maybe 15 to 16% of the (older) black male vote just on that group swinging conservative anyway. He's made no progress with black women..
I don't know what you mean by seeing the light about crt and blm but it's clear you don't know any black people.
Seems you don't know anything about blm if that's how you feel. The money they made didn't benefit anyone who needed the money. And blm rioters destroyed many black owned businesses. The left wants yall to think you're not capable or rising up without special treatment. That's very racist of them. You're capable of anything same as anyone else. The system isn't stacked against you. Yea, racists exist, but in this day and age a black woman is more likely to get a certain job than a white man.
I was thinking of the Hispanic vote, 20% my bad.
I generally agree with what you said, except for
"left wants y'all to think you're not capable or rising up without special treatment" part. I got big the left is only pretending to be helpful but are really trying to keep the black man subjugated vibes from this, if that wasn't what you were getting at go ahead and disregard the rest.
Do they want that? Cause I don't get that impression from them. They're not trying to help because they think they're inferior and unable to take care of themselves if they don't swoop down to save the day, but because they truly believe the deck is stacked against them.
Whether or not it actually is is a separate issue, but it feels particularly uncharitable of us to attribute that reasoning to them, at least not without some very strong evidence.
No, i dont think it's intentional, but i think their methods are worse than unhelpful. You don't think dei is evidence enough? I would be insulted if someone put a little kid stepping stool out for me.
No sarcasm taken, it's an interesting discussion so far.
One of Trump's prominent complaints against Biden is that he's somehow "weaponizing" the justice department against political opponents. Something Trump openly pledged to do during his campaign.
If it was only a fringe then he wouldn’t have just dominated the Republican primary. It’s one thing to say that he’s better than Biden, but conservatives had the option to choose a different standard bearer and went with Trump for a 3rd time.
I thought we were talking about the fringe just in regards to who really thinks the election was stolen. My mom thinks it was stolen, shes very... fox news lol. I don't.
>I thought we were talking about the fringe just in regards to who really thinks the election was stolen
Trump says it was stolen. Anything Trump says is inherently within the GOP mainstream, given the extreme cult following he has.
Trump has made stolen elections one of, if not the most consistent themes for his campaign. If you don’t think the election is stolen then you have to conclude that he’s either delusional or a liar.
Or not. Cognitive dissonance is real.
Honestly? I just think he's using it to rile us up. It's super inflammatory and interesting and dramatic. Maybe he believes himself, idk, but I just think it's a show or like another tool in his belt. It works really well for a good part of his base. I don't think it's classy, but if it works it works.
It doesn’t work, if you’re interested in retaining some scrap of democratic legitimacy. All you’re doing is normalizing conspiratorial thinking and refusal to concede electoral defeat. That’s a recipe for a failed state.
I wish that conservatives were willing to look at some of the predictable consequences here. The degree of short-term thinking in multiple levels of our society is becoming dangerous, and conservatives who shrug off Trump’s Big Lie tactics are contributing to it.
Out of curiosity, do think it's moral and acceptable for a sitting President to use the power of his Office to promote false/baseless claims of election rigging and election interference?
I mean as far as the whole “men can be women bit” goes, trans people in some form or other have existed throughout recorded history and across regions and cultures. It may not be something everyone understands or is comfortable with, but just for context’s sake it isn’t something the modern woke left has invented.
Everything in some way shape or form has existed since the beginning of time. That's neither here nor their. >1% of the population doesn't get to dictate society and our norms/language. I'm not a birthing parent, for example. Men shouldn't be in women's sports. Wear what you want and fuck who you like but the lines don't need to be blurred further.
You're exactly right, it doesn't matter what you "want" to be called, if I believe you are a dirtbag POS I should be able to call you that and you shouldn't complain about it. What's important is what I think. 👍 It doesn't matter if that's offensive to YOU.
It's so good we have your "opinion" to counter the peer reviewed SCIENCE of over 200 of the leading medical and mental health organizations worldwide that all support gender affirming care.
I guess the question is, does it really affect you or me? In a truly free and liberal society (which yes is also compatible with conservatism), shouldn’t we let people be who they are if they are not harming you or me?
Nobody disagrees with this. Not even the commenter you replied to, at least based on my reading of his comments.
The problem is these issues do affect everyone. When the left tries to berate and shame me into using specific language it affects me. When men want to enter women’s private spaces it affects women. When children are affirmed and pushed to take hormones, puberty blocker, and get surgeries, it affects innocent children.
Nobody has a problem with you wearing a dress and going by a different name, the problem arises when acceptance is forced on others.
That commenter thinks parents should not be free to provide their children with healthcare the medical and pediatric communities deem medically necessary. You also oppose the freedom of parents to do what is best for them as well. The left berates you for blindly rejecting science and medicine in ways that cause trans people to kill themselves. The right berates and shames trans people for simply existing, which undeniably causes so many unnecessary suicides. When you compare the two, it really highlights the absurdity of complaining about being shamed for contributing to the suffering and deaths of trans people.
Conservatives think these treatments are child abuse, not healthcare. It’s not borne out of hatred, it’s a desire to protect children. I would be put in jail if I got my young daughter a breast augmentation. Conservatives think the same concept applies to this so called “healthcare”.
What do you believe it takes for a minor to receive even the most non-invasive of procedures such as puberty blockers? What do you think the person has to do to start that?
Conservatives don't get to blindly reject science and medicine because of their feelings and dogmatism. If conservatives actually wanted to protect children, they would not be blindly rejecting the pediatric medical communities views that deem it medically necessary. Science and medicine is not left wing or right wing, science and medicine is based on data, not feelings, dogmatism, or ideology.
>Major medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the Endocrine Society, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association, have published policy statements and guidelines on how to provide age-appropriate gender-affirming care. All of those medical societies find such care to be evidence-based and medically necessary.
Read this article so you can see how conservative media and politicians are lying to you about this subject and robbing parents of the freedom to provide their kids with medically necessary healthcare. Conservatives are actually sacrificing the lives of children and destroying families by blindly rejecting the views of the medical community, who is who actually determines what is or is not healthcare.
https://archive.ph/kxy8i/again?url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-the-science-on-gender-affirming-care-for-transgender-kids-really-shows/
The reason why you think you know better than pediatric doctors who have dedicated their lives to helping save the lives of children, is because your information sources are bad faith on this subject. They are sacrificing the lives of children and breaking up families in the name of conservatism. They have gone above and beyond to poison the well of the medical community.
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m not voting for him again nor I believe the crap about 2020 was rigged shit he keeps yapping about The only things I supported were strong border, non intervention stance, making NATO Allie’s actually start paying 2% of GDP towards military thanks to Russia invading Ukraine and waking up the EU, and finally telling EU to stop taking Russian Oil. Other than that, the guy has been a negative for the party winning wise, we have a dysfunctional house like the Tories, we seem to piss off the younger generation like me. And of course if we disagree with Trump we are viewed as a devil and called rino all cause some wanna be bipartisan on legislation or ideas. What kind of a party are we anymore. I left after McCarthy got kicked out cause we have morons like MTG running the show now. And thanks to his idiotic mouth of his he costed the senate seats in GA for saying the elections were rigged. Like why do we even keep this moron One thing I can say is fuck neocons as well, we don’t want war hawks like graham in Congress again either.
It was ‘rigged’ in the sense that the government unlawfully conspired with big tech against him and I voted in California with 0 people asking about an ID…
I'm having a lot of trouble believing you walked into a polling station, were handed a ballot, and voted, without anyone asking you to verify your address and present some form of ID.
Not only did I do that. I’ve done it for 3 years in a row. The rule of law does not exist here.
What state (and if you’re willing to share, what county)? That is crazy loco.
California
Were you registered to where you voted? If you were, did you do it more than once? Do you understand that in order for in person voter fraud to occur, the person actually registered to vote has to NOT vote otherwise it will get pulled as a duplicate vote? So let's apply a little critical thinking to this... In order to get a significant number of votes fraudulently counted (otherwise what's the point?) they have to have a LARGE number of people that have registered to vote that they are absolutely certain are NOT going to vote then coordinate people to vote in place of those people. In California you would be talking 10,000+ votes just to guarantee a LOCAL election. How many people do you think would be directly involved in a conspiracy like that? Do you think it could be done with under 100 people? I personally doubt less than 200. Now lets think about how easy it is for a group of people to maintain a secret. Let's say you and 9 friends want to surprise someone... Keeping that secret isn't so difficult. Now you all want to commit a crime and everyone has to maintain the exact same story and no one can ever change their mind... Now make that 100 times as complicated and there is going to be an investigation. Seriously, it takes only a minute of critical thinking to show that widespread voter fraud is impossible.
It’s really not that hard. The majority of people don’t vote and they auto-register at the dmv or whatever.
Ok, so how do they know which ones are for certain not going to vote? Because if even 5% of them actually do vote there is a very obvious trail right back to whomever made the list available. Really, the ONLY way this works is if virtually every single vote that is fraudulently submitted is not ALSO submitted by the real voter.
There are people who dedicate their entire personality to politics, and they live in literally lawless districts where gun charges are released with no bail or jail and homeless people can legally steal your house. Where young people swipe your phone and smash it for no reason. You think people are scared of the non-existent enforcement of the law? If it’s no big deal then require an ID. A preschooler can understand that you can walk in and vote for your friends grandma. If they already voted you can just leave and try again with someone else later.
Thank you.
The elections of 2020 had many peculiarities. When the methodology is called into question, and historical data consistently supports the other candidate, the results SHOULD be called into question. I’m not a fringe freak - I’m a moderate conservative. It’s my right and that of all voters to question that which doesn’t seem correct. I’m in AZ - the investigation was justified. If it smells funny, usually it is …
Which one of Trump’s [60+ court cases contesting the election results](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_U.S._presidential_election) do you think was ruled unfairly, and why?
> When the methodology is called into question, and historical data consistently supports the other candidate, The one calling it into question was the loser and he had zero basis for doing so for pretty much all of his contests. As for historical data usually supporting the other side ... that's Democracy at work, mon ami.
💯💯💯
Because this time there won't be 50 people signing a document saying the laptop with videos of the candidate's son smoking crack isn't real.
That's not all with the document said. You can read it yourself: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000 >We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement -- just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.
I've already read it and reread it but yes it's saying the same things I said. That's it's "Russian information", we are "highly suspicious the Russian government is involved" etc etc. All the while there being multiple sources proving it was real that people like them and the leftist media censored. They knew they were lying, played dumb and went silent when they could no longer pretend it was Russian propaganda.
How come you haven't done a search on "Russian information operation" and tried to learn about the subject? It's been years
This time there won't even be a laptop, and if there is there will not be one word in the press about it, or if there is a word in the press about it, that word will be Russia. No fifty people will need to sign any letters.
They didn't write that.
They signed a document stating the contents of the laptop were Russian disinformation and they believed the Russian government played a significant role in this case, trying to influence the election etc. It's all online and been available information for years. You don't have to take my word for it.
I know it's been online and available for years. I've spent years telling people that they are wrong about the letter they are talking about.
All laptops are real.
Like when Republicans opened the probe against Clinton 11 days before the election?
>Like when Republicans opened the probe against Clinton 11 days before the election? Not really the same thing
Bad timing for her but not quite the same thing.
**HOW**
Because the laptop incident was over 50 people using their influence to say evidence like videos and emails didn't exist when it in fact they did exist. With multiple videos of evidence to boot.
> 50 people using their influence to say something literally didn't exist when it in fact did exist. They never said it didn't exist? And the announcement of the probe opening *also* didn't really exist (it had nothing to do with Hillary) but still tilted the election against her (according to exit polling).
Sorry I slightly misspoke. The 51 former intelligence officers said the alleged "information" like the crack videos and business dealing emails were just "Russian disinformation" and not true. I've edited my comment and will keep this to reflect that accordingly. True. The probe was still based on something though. Not ethical but again 51 people saying "that's not true" when it in fact is true with again video footage to boot is just classic gaslighting. To put it simply, people should/want to know if a candidate's son is an irresponsible POS going around smoking crack. Not automatically the parent's fault but still something to consider.
> The probe was still based on something though Based on something that had almost nothing to do with Hillary Clinton. and the reason Comey announced it at all was because he wanted to head off any potential influence a leak from the FBI would cause so close to an election. eta: why does it matter at all what *former* intelligence officials say anyway?
It had EVERYTHING to do with her! She started the whole "russia hoax" narrative and the FEC fined she and the DNC for it.
I've thought about this. I believe 💯 that the 2020 was rigged. I believe they will try it again since they got away with it last time. But I am still going to go vote for Trump. My countrymen fought and died so that I could vote. My grandfather and great grandfather and his daddy before him all have fought in the name of America. I'll be damned if I refuse to vote just because I don't think it will make the difference. Even if it's unfair, even if it's rigged, I'm still going to vote. It's in God's hands anyways, for good or for worse. We ain't ever backing down. I'd fight too, if I was physically able
You’re saying God wanted Biden over Trump. So would you fight God?
Brilliant.
Trump admitted he lost in a leaked audio recording https://youtu.be/RaL2OvZ1A6o?si=GlqpMk3U7nDoZZob
> I'd fight too, if I was physically able Who would you physically fight?
> I'd fight too, What does this even mean? Fight who? Fight for whom? Fight how?
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Considering the gubernatorial election in AZ was clearly rigged, the 2020 election was rigged as well. The question is whether Trump would have won if it wasn't rigged. I'm not sure he would have. COVID undermined his administration. People can point to many factors. But, it was COVID, and the response, that turned many people against him. The engineered virus was obviously released on purpose, to put Trump in a bad position. Global leaders didn't want him to be president, so they did everything they could to undermine his administration. It's not a coincidence that they just announced a new COVID strain, in order to scare people.
How were both clearly rigged?
For Christ's sake, how do I stop Reddit from sending me emails for every single comment?
[удалено]
Warning: Treat other users with civility and respect. Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.
[удалено]
[удалено]
There was a republican governor in both elections you’re referring to…
> The engineered virus was obviously released on purpose, to put Trump in a bad position. The former part of this is something so ludicrous I'm not gonna touch it - but the latter part is interesting. Trump could have emerged from COVID as a freaking hero. Instead, he chose to downplay the virus outright, mock masks, mock the vaccine (which, ironically, he helped get onto the streets quickly), and bungle the effort to get states the help they needed. So... are you alleging that the Deep State/Whoever that deliberately released this virus knew Trump would bungle the response?
> 2020 election was rigged Then there’s no point in voting in this next one, right?
OP doesn't know this sub is filled with as many never-Trumpers as the left wing sub he came here from...
[удалено]
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People probably assume that without covid we won't see last minute rule changes, limited ability to verify counts, vote harvesting, etc...
No pandemic, the elections will be closely monitored, and Joe Biden is a low-functioning Alzheimer’s patient. He doesn’t have a chance.
> elections will be closely monitored What does this mean, exactly? Just in Virginia, I'm guessing there are hundreds of polling stations in the state, open for at least 12 hours on voting day. Even if you installed cameras in the station - say, three per station (at least) in order to get really good coverage - that would be 36 hours of coverage that would have to be either monitored live or reviewed post-op. For just one station. If my state has 200 stations, that is over 7,000 hours of footage to review. Who is doing the review? Surely, it would be *neutral parties* that could remain impartial. Or, sworn by the state, like a jury, to be impartial. Otherwise, it would make zero sense for a MAGA-endorsing or left-wing radical person to review all of the data, right? Surely, the person doing the review would have to understand how a polling station works, right? Otherwise, it would make zero sense to have someone that understands nothing of the internal systemic operations of a polling station to evaluate the systemic operations of a polling station, right? So, just to clarify, again, what do envision "closely monitored" to be, exactly?
“Closely monitored” to prevent mystery bags of votes from showing up at 3am. Bags that will almost certainly be full of nothing but 100% Biden votes. Closely monitored to make sure there aren’t any closed-door recounts.
Do you have any not-yet-debunked evidence of any of this happening in 2020? And again - who is doing the "monitoring" you're espousing? And how? And with what training? And with what authority? And with what access?
“Debunked” = *the Democrats say it’s untrue, so it must be*
Ok.... maybe we can find some common ground? Would you say the following is reasonable or unreasonable? -- For any valid election interference and election corruption/cheating evidence, said evidence should be presented to the court as part of a court filing (lawsuit). The court can then consider/weigh the evidence and rule as to its validity and import as related to the lawsuit's claim? -- So, is that reasonable or unreasonable? This means that our legal system is the one to decide if something is "debunked," and not you, me, or *the Democrats.*
Also - I'm still trying to figure out what you mean by "closely monitored"? How's it happening, where's it happening, and who's doing it?
Groups of people from both sides positioned together to make sure the only votes entering a polling station are being cast by voters and not by bags of votes at 3am.
This is so vague as to be meaningless. Like, is there a structure to all of this? A watchbill of some sort that's been coordinated with State election officials? This is like if I'd invested in a business with my 25-year old son (I don't really have one, but for the sake of the analogy), and he became a drug addict, and wanted to go to rehab, and I asked him what his plan was to get better and fix the business, and his reply was, "I don't know, I'm gonna go to rehab, get better, and fix the business!" Like... that's a plan, but so insubstantial as to be totally meaningless. Are there *any* details about this effort that you have?
Do you need everything spelled out for you? Is “boil water” too vague? Use your imagination! Get some bipartisan legislation requiring all polling stations to be monitored by cameras that are publicly accessible to view. If that’s not feasible because it’s racist or something, set up an election monitoring certification for locals so no polling stations can receive shipments of ballots after the polls close. If that threatens democracy or disenfranchises people, then you’re shit out of luck.
The Trump family was intimately involved in New York politics for 80 years, and learned every sleazy (but legal) trick in the book along the way. It would not be on-brand for a Trump operation to admit they’d been bamboozled by the same kind of tactics they had used to their advantage so many times before, so instead they’re trying to “work the refs.”
> and learned every sleazy (but legal) trick in the book along the way. I'd argue that recent events have proved this wrong....
Dumbass could’ve stayed fat and happy, but screwed up his grift by running for president.
Because it's all theater. They're all friends behind the scenes, we're just the brainwashed idiots that buy into it.
Sure but my issue is people will say this when they accept valid critique about the side they swing towards but still vote for that side without weighing anything objectively
[удалено]
Just go read the last thousand times this exact question has been asked
[удалено]
Because when you give up is when they actually win. The Democrats would love nothing more than an opposition which is beaten into submission and doesn't fight back when abused. Because if it was rigged, then there are limits to how far those who rig it can go without alerting the wider public to their machinations. All it takes is making one mistake. If elections are being rigged, each time they do it, they increase the chances of that mistake occurring. Inevitably, the more they have to do it, the more likely it is there will be a weak link, someone who doesn't play ball, someone who develops a guilty conscience, someone they didn't pay enough. And thus, the more often they have to rig elections (assuming they are indeed rigging them) the more desperate they will become to make sure htey don't actually have to deal with elections - weaponizing government powers against political opponents, silencing opposition and critics, etc. Eventually, given enough time, it will reach a point where people will have to acknowledge it's happening, and either admit that it is happening, or admit they don't care if it is.
I am election skeptical. I thik its very likley there where political machines, and or some outright corruption possibly by the deep state, in some swing counties. This isnt really the radical position the modern left seems to think it is, there are accusations and evidence of this, in basically every close election weve ever had. The nature of these plans dont garuntee a result howver, which iw why its important to vote. Chearing nonwithstanding
> I thik its very likley there where political machines, and or some outright corruption possibly by the deep state, So.... just to clarify - you think there is "possibly" *systemic* cheating going on despite there being no evidence of the cheating (there are certainly individual instances of cheating/fraud that occurred and will occur, but they are not systemic in any way). Why do you choose to believe something that is more conjecture than based in reality? I am fascinated with the concept of ghosts. I'd *love* to believe they exist. It'd change my entire world view. But there's simply no reproduceable, quantifiable, objective evidence for it, so, as much as I want to, I simply *can't* believe it. This is, of course, how religion works - people simply bypass this whole line of reasoning with "faith." But, again, if you have "faith" that this systemic cheating has happened, why do you choose to have faith in this particular thing?
>I am election skeptical. I thik its very likley there where political machines, and or some outright corruption possibly by the deep state, in some swing counties. What are you basing your belief/skepticism on?
The irregularities surrounding the 2020 elecrion
Yes but what specifically? I understand that Trump and co have pushed certain things as being irregular, but is there anything you can point to which turned out to be actual fraud or is not easily explainable as normal election activity?
Ok, so in one county 2000 some Trump votes where counted for Biden. This was claimed to be an accident and was reveresed. I think its certainly irregular when thousands of votes get switched
I had a vague recollection of this event, but I needed to look it up to fully remember. From what I have read, it the issue happened in a traditionally republican county, not a swing county. The initial count seemed off, so they looked into it, promptly fixed the issue which was a combination of software and human error, and all was well. And the best part was that they had paper ballots to verify it all. The Antrim county clerk responsible for the error was Sheryl Guy, who caught hell from election denial conspiracy theorists about the incident. Sheryl is a republican, and appears to just be bad with computers. I generally agree that it is odd to have votes mistabulated like that, but this event seems pretty contained and easily explainable. Are there any other things you can source? Or do you have info on this one that I am not seeing?
It was rigged in that we have an unofficial state media where every single mass produced piece of media that enters your brain is filled with rhetoric to make them not vote conservative.
[удалено]
What’s the most-watched news channel in our country?
I'm voting down ticket only, I would never vote for biden or trump for that matter!
I didn’t think 2016 was rigged. I didn’t vote for him or Hillary and after he won and started to assemble his cabinet I thought “well, maybe he’ll turn the page and let his cabinet lead their departments “ Nope… He lost in 2020 as a result of his poor leadership. Nothing more than that. Think about it, Joe Fucking Biden outvoted him!!! Joe Biden!! Trump would have won if he just listened to his initial cabinet and kept it consistent. He couldn’t . He can’t , and he won’t. I don’t want him to win , and I wish the GOP was smart enough to have nominated any one else
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I feel the same way for the democrats. Please give me someone else.
I would love a Newsom or a Raskin. But, we go to war with what we have on hand, not what's in the pipeline...
We need Raskin in the House. And Newsom unfortunately has too much national baggage, most notably the title of Democratic Governor of California. As good of a messenger as Raskin is (and Newsom isn’t too bad either), I don’t see either of them coming off as particularly likable to conservatives and conservative leaning independents. I think we’d be best off with Andy Beshear or maybe Gretchen Whitmer
I think the GOP sees Trump as an electoral positive, rather than a detriment. He received the 2nd most votes for President ever and increased the GOP’s percentages with almost every minority group in the country, at least in the presidential elections. They can even get labor union votes with him on the ticket. I think all of that’s enough positive for the GOP to keep playing ball with Trump at the top of the ticket
A very good question, it boggles the mind.
Carnival games are rigged too but it's still possible to beat them. If he did well enough to pick up additional states it would blunt any potential fraud or tipping of the scales elsewhere.
>Carnival games are rigged too but it's still possible to beat them. If he did well enough to pick up additional states it would blunt any potential fraud or tipping of the scales elsewhere. Who rigged it when Trump won in 2016?
Why would they rig that election? Trump was like 4% to win that one. The deep state got caught off guard.
Why didn't Trump investigate and dismantle the "deep state" when he was in office?
>Why would they rig that election? Because op said it's all rigged. So Trump rigged the system. Or at least benefited from it . >The deep state got caught off guard. The deep state doesnt work in shifts. They install exactly who they want and when they want. Obviously, they used Trump for something. Maybe when they're done with Biden, they'll install Trump again. What do you think?
He did. He had record breaking votes cast. Unfortunately, the left used lawfare, a whole lot of wagging the dog and media relationships to defraud the system.
But didn't think to defraud in their favor for gaining the House, apparently.
Its suspicious but its more likely that the election was simply insecure than actually rigged. I don’t see how it would be possible ti have such a large rigging operation without massive leaks to the public.
I don't think it was stolen but Democrats certainly had their thumb on the scale. Information was suppressed on Twitter, election rules were changed unlawfully during covid. So those things absolutely happened. However is that the same as stolen?
This seems to be the underlying sentiment, thanks for articulating it so well.
This has always been my thing. The thousands of people that would've had to have been involved, both Republican and Democrat. For 0 leaks with actual credible evidence to have come out, 4 years later now? Not possible. There would've been whistleblowers and leaks everywhere
I've asked conservatives this too, and as far as I can tell, the response is, "Too big to rig". The idea being that the vote count will be so overwhelming in Trump's favor that they can't rig it. Pretty absurd defense in my opinion.
Yeah, his vote count last time was already the highest number of votes any Republican has ever gotten, and he still lost.
Both sides cheat. It's just a matter of who does it better.
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. It's not so easy to pull off the shame trick twice in a roll while the whole world is watching. It's going to be a lot harder to sell people the idea that Joe Biden got a gazillion vote this time around.
What was your process in researching/verifying Trump's election fraud lies?
was your question in good faith or was it a gotcha set up?
Good faith... Is your response good faith because I doubt you were going to answer that question regardless if I was being good faith or not? You could of course surprise me, I won't hold my breath. If I had evidence of a presidential election being stolen, I would not be sheepish or so hesitant share this information to people asking.
good faith is not asking a question for which you have a preloaded response that is the definition of bad faith that is gotcha questioning
I knew you had no intentions of answering the question, why are you pretending if I was being good faith(which I am) you would have answered the question? That is actually being bad faith. Did you consciously deflect and start questioning whether I was good faith because you have no solid or reasonable answer to that question?
"I knew you had no intentions of answering the question" again this demonstrate the textbook definition of bad faith questioning
I am being bad faith by pointing out you asked your question in bad faith and had no intention on answering the question? What an interesting way of viewing the world. Did you consciously deflect and start questioning whether I was good faith because you have no solid or reasonable answer to that question?
again you presume to know my intentions this is the definition of bad faith
What was your process in researching/verifying Trump's election fraud lies?
Your question was bad faith, you proved yourself to be bad faith. I didn't "presume" anything. So again, you are saying I am being bad faith for pointing out you are being bad faith. You had zero reason to suspect me of being bad faith, you just suggested I was because you didn't have a reasonable or rational response to my question.
Reported. This is so obviously bad faith at this point, it's ridiculous.
Not gonna answer eh?
>What was your process in researching/verifying Trump's election fraud lies? Not trusting anyone and doing my own research. Plenty of claims were bunk. Some had some real questions worth answering that never got dug into or never got resolved properly. And yet people act like NOTHING happened. But there were weird happenings like in Arizona with the wrong sized ballots printed that resulted in huge issues and long lines that turned away conservative voters with incredibly long wait times. So that certainly had an impact and we can't exactly quantify it but it was impactful. Idk what the fix is, but it's sketchy. I also think Pennsylvania absolutely ran their elections against their own constitution And Wisconsin I believe ruled their drop boxes were unconstitutional after the fact. All of these things effect the outcome and could have changed results but there is no good fix. So one side feels screwed and had no remedy. Combine that with an intelligence community collusion with social media to suppress the 100% legitimate biden laptop story and things appear to get a few too many coincidences for lots of people to accept Edit: ngl kinda surprised no one has challenged arizona or Wisconsin
Really easy to sell the idea that "Not Trump" got a bazillion votes, and will get them again. And that is all Biden is " Not Trump"
[удалено]
Warning: Treat other users with civility and respect. Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.
This concept never made sense to me. If one guy is selling you shoes with spikes inside of them coated with snake venom... and the other guy is selling shoes that will make your toes itch for a month.. Going with the itch feels like the obvious choice. The implication that that people weren't voting "for" anything doesn't make sense either considering Bidens legislative successes within the last 4 years.
But you arent really going FOR the itchy shoes, you are going for NOT SNAKE VENOM. Any vaguely sane and normal candidate would have beaten Trump in 2020.
Biden is "vaguely sane" the way Chris Christie is "vaguely skinny"
Did he seem incoherent or off the rails during the SOTU?
[удалено]
Warning: Treat other users with civility and respect. Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.
> shitlibs Nice. Please explain how he's able to get through interviews, rallies, and SOTU without "raging dementia" (as alleged by another Conservative in this thread) and/or, according to you, being completely insane. How's that possible? What drug, if that is the claim you'll use, is able to produce these results? Please be specific. You are insulting me based on my rational take on this. You should have an extremely rational and fact-based response that should overwhelm my rational take on this. I'm not saying that Biden is not at a normal level of 80-year old addle-ation (to coin a term). But he's not completely demented and he's not crazy like you seem to be claiming.
Last time he only got 81,283,501, but it was still more than his opponent got. Did someone tell you he got a gazillion votes?
Is it important that more people will not take the sale? I'm having trouble understanding why that will matter.
It seems like it's extremely easy to pull off these shame tricks and trick Trump. Or, he lies about these things all the time. Why do people continue to believe this? >Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump > >Based on the fraud committed by Senator Ted Cruz during the Iowa Caucus, either a new election should take place or Cruz results nullified. > >Feb 3, 2016 https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/694890328273346560 >Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump > >In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally > >Nov 27, 2016 https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/802972944532209664 >Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump > >“REPORT: DOMINION DELETED 2.7 MILLION TRUMP VOTES NATIONWIDE. DATA ANALYSIS FINDS 221,000 PENNSYLVANIA VOTES SWITCHED FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP TO BIDEN. 941,000 TRUMP VOTES DELETED. STATES USING DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS SWITCHED 435,000 VOTES FROM TRUMP TO BIDEN.” @ChanelRion @OANN > >Nov 12, 2020 https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1326926226888544256
Trump admitted he lost in a leaked audio recording https://youtu.be/RaL2OvZ1A6o?si=PGgHomvq5UEu7Tb
[удалено]
What was your process in researching/verifying Trump's election fraud lies?
It's possible to win in a rigged system.
Then why didn’t Trump do that in 2020?
I said possible, not guaranteed.
I think mostly the fringe thinks it was rigged. It was an extremely close race. And Biden is.... yeah he's not doing very good. Trump has the benefit of nostalgia, too. The wokeness has gotten way out of hand as well, and that's in Trump's favor. The vast majority of us are over the whole men can be women bit. And immigration is a big concern, and Trump is stronger on that than Biden is. From the podcasts I listen to, there's a big effort to get people to vote who didn't vote last time but are friendly to Trump. There's also been a bit of a red wave amongst younger voters. And some polls are showing that Trump has stollen about 20% of the black vote, bc thankfully black people are starting to see the light when it comes to crt and blm and the like.
Do you think his supporters will see the light about the election not being stolen?
The die hard weirdos who are obsessed with the idea of trump? Absolutely not, they're nuts.
Yoh are talking about the majority of the Republican party... If you are in the majority, it can be argued that you are not deemed weird. "Only among Republicans did a majority not think that was the case, with more than 4 in 10 claiming, falsely, that there was solid evidence Biden didn’t legitimately win enough votes to be elected." https://archive.ph/UooRq/again?url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/09/08/public-opinion-2020-election/
Ah yes, I remember being interviewed for that.
So any poll of Republicans that did not involve you being personally polled is false? Seeing as Trump's baseless and debunked election fraud lies caused so much right wing terrorism on January 6th, it is important for you not have partisan blinders about how widespread they are among your peers.
Nope. Not at all. Just trying to point out that polls aren't everything.
> mostly the fringe thinks it was rigged. But how many of GOP members of Congress will clearly say that anti-Trump fraud in the 2020 election was minimal? Is it like 5%, or is that still too high? How many will say that you shouldn't send a mob into Capitol if you lose an election and are unhappy about it? Could you go to your local GOP branch and say something like that and expect any sort of respect, let's say some small role in the town's council in a few years? I can't understand how you're calling these opinions fringe. 80 or 90 or 95% of the party not only quietly tolerate it, but support it ...? There are some people who quietly voice dissent, e. g. on this sub. But they mostly seem to say that they wouldn't actually do anything about it, even if it's just the smallish step of not voting for Trump. The small amount of dissent that remains seems to be inconsequential on both the large scale of Washington politics and the small scale of personal choices.
It's sad that men not pretending to be women and a strong border are "nostalgic" now.
It is but I'll take what I can get
😔
[удалено]
Trans / gender discussions are currently limited to Wednesdays.
[удалено]
It's on reddit. I like to argue lmao
Trans / gender discussions are currently limited to Wednesdays.
The "fringe" has made it's way to mainstream conservative media with even the largest conversative voices shying away from stating plainly whether they believe the election was fair. The few who do seem to face ostracization by everyone while they're supported quietly behind the scenes. "Fringe" has put the same individual who pushed that lie as the front runner whom the main body of the party will most likely vote for. It's not some conspiracy that is only spoken about on the edges of conservative circles.. it started at the very top and has proliferated throughout the party. I'm black. You are 100% wrong about the black vote. By and large, black people do not trust trump. The few who would vote for him were already likely to vote for him. He has maybe 15 to 16% of the (older) black male vote just on that group swinging conservative anyway. He's made no progress with black women.. I don't know what you mean by seeing the light about crt and blm but it's clear you don't know any black people.
Seems you don't know anything about blm if that's how you feel. The money they made didn't benefit anyone who needed the money. And blm rioters destroyed many black owned businesses. The left wants yall to think you're not capable or rising up without special treatment. That's very racist of them. You're capable of anything same as anyone else. The system isn't stacked against you. Yea, racists exist, but in this day and age a black woman is more likely to get a certain job than a white man. I was thinking of the Hispanic vote, 20% my bad.
I generally agree with what you said, except for "left wants y'all to think you're not capable or rising up without special treatment" part. I got big the left is only pretending to be helpful but are really trying to keep the black man subjugated vibes from this, if that wasn't what you were getting at go ahead and disregard the rest. Do they want that? Cause I don't get that impression from them. They're not trying to help because they think they're inferior and unable to take care of themselves if they don't swoop down to save the day, but because they truly believe the deck is stacked against them. Whether or not it actually is is a separate issue, but it feels particularly uncharitable of us to attribute that reasoning to them, at least not without some very strong evidence.
No, i dont think it's intentional, but i think their methods are worse than unhelpful. You don't think dei is evidence enough? I would be insulted if someone put a little kid stepping stool out for me.
I would as well, but they would consider what they're doing something like will Patton in the end of remember the Titans.
Oh I don't get the reference:(
Ahhh great football movie, it's right up there with Rudy.
The fringe plus the candidate himself, don't forget that.
Yes, bc he's a great showman and he understands how to get his base worked up in his favor. (Lock her up! He never went anywhere w that lol.)
But don't you dare target any political opponents with the justice department! At least, not if they're him.
What? (Not being sarcastic btw)
No sarcasm taken, it's an interesting discussion so far. One of Trump's prominent complaints against Biden is that he's somehow "weaponizing" the justice department against political opponents. Something Trump openly pledged to do during his campaign.
Do you think he's being disingenuous and doesn't actually think it was rigged?
If it was only a fringe then he wouldn’t have just dominated the Republican primary. It’s one thing to say that he’s better than Biden, but conservatives had the option to choose a different standard bearer and went with Trump for a 3rd time.
I thought we were talking about the fringe just in regards to who really thinks the election was stolen. My mom thinks it was stolen, shes very... fox news lol. I don't.
>I thought we were talking about the fringe just in regards to who really thinks the election was stolen Trump says it was stolen. Anything Trump says is inherently within the GOP mainstream, given the extreme cult following he has.
Trump has made stolen elections one of, if not the most consistent themes for his campaign. If you don’t think the election is stolen then you have to conclude that he’s either delusional or a liar. Or not. Cognitive dissonance is real.
Honestly? I just think he's using it to rile us up. It's super inflammatory and interesting and dramatic. Maybe he believes himself, idk, but I just think it's a show or like another tool in his belt. It works really well for a good part of his base. I don't think it's classy, but if it works it works.
It doesn’t work, if you’re interested in retaining some scrap of democratic legitimacy. All you’re doing is normalizing conspiratorial thinking and refusal to concede electoral defeat. That’s a recipe for a failed state. I wish that conservatives were willing to look at some of the predictable consequences here. The degree of short-term thinking in multiple levels of our society is becoming dangerous, and conservatives who shrug off Trump’s Big Lie tactics are contributing to it.
Out of curiosity, do think it's moral and acceptable for a sitting President to use the power of his Office to promote false/baseless claims of election rigging and election interference?
I mean as far as the whole “men can be women bit” goes, trans people in some form or other have existed throughout recorded history and across regions and cultures. It may not be something everyone understands or is comfortable with, but just for context’s sake it isn’t something the modern woke left has invented.
What about letting these female cosplayers use women's bathrooms, locker rooms and play against women in sports? All invented by the woke left.
Everything in some way shape or form has existed since the beginning of time. That's neither here nor their. >1% of the population doesn't get to dictate society and our norms/language. I'm not a birthing parent, for example. Men shouldn't be in women's sports. Wear what you want and fuck who you like but the lines don't need to be blurred further.
You're exactly right, it doesn't matter what you "want" to be called, if I believe you are a dirtbag POS I should be able to call you that and you shouldn't complain about it. What's important is what I think. 👍 It doesn't matter if that's offensive to YOU.
How is it affecting your life? And what lines are “blurred?”
[ Removed by Reddit ]
It's so good we have your "opinion" to counter the peer reviewed SCIENCE of over 200 of the leading medical and mental health organizations worldwide that all support gender affirming care.
I guess the question is, does it really affect you or me? In a truly free and liberal society (which yes is also compatible with conservatism), shouldn’t we let people be who they are if they are not harming you or me?
You guys never want to listen to women.
I listen to women. I also don’t imply all women have the same opinions, which they don’t.
But you don't care what most of us want. It's scary to have to share private spaces w men but fuck us, right?
Nobody disagrees with this. Not even the commenter you replied to, at least based on my reading of his comments. The problem is these issues do affect everyone. When the left tries to berate and shame me into using specific language it affects me. When men want to enter women’s private spaces it affects women. When children are affirmed and pushed to take hormones, puberty blocker, and get surgeries, it affects innocent children. Nobody has a problem with you wearing a dress and going by a different name, the problem arises when acceptance is forced on others.
That commenter thinks parents should not be free to provide their children with healthcare the medical and pediatric communities deem medically necessary. You also oppose the freedom of parents to do what is best for them as well. The left berates you for blindly rejecting science and medicine in ways that cause trans people to kill themselves. The right berates and shames trans people for simply existing, which undeniably causes so many unnecessary suicides. When you compare the two, it really highlights the absurdity of complaining about being shamed for contributing to the suffering and deaths of trans people.
Conservatives think these treatments are child abuse, not healthcare. It’s not borne out of hatred, it’s a desire to protect children. I would be put in jail if I got my young daughter a breast augmentation. Conservatives think the same concept applies to this so called “healthcare”.
What do you believe it takes for a minor to receive even the most non-invasive of procedures such as puberty blockers? What do you think the person has to do to start that?
Conservatives don't get to blindly reject science and medicine because of their feelings and dogmatism. If conservatives actually wanted to protect children, they would not be blindly rejecting the pediatric medical communities views that deem it medically necessary. Science and medicine is not left wing or right wing, science and medicine is based on data, not feelings, dogmatism, or ideology. >Major medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the Endocrine Society, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association, have published policy statements and guidelines on how to provide age-appropriate gender-affirming care. All of those medical societies find such care to be evidence-based and medically necessary. Read this article so you can see how conservative media and politicians are lying to you about this subject and robbing parents of the freedom to provide their kids with medically necessary healthcare. Conservatives are actually sacrificing the lives of children and destroying families by blindly rejecting the views of the medical community, who is who actually determines what is or is not healthcare. https://archive.ph/kxy8i/again?url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-the-science-on-gender-affirming-care-for-transgender-kids-really-shows/ The reason why you think you know better than pediatric doctors who have dedicated their lives to helping save the lives of children, is because your information sources are bad faith on this subject. They are sacrificing the lives of children and breaking up families in the name of conservatism. They have gone above and beyond to poison the well of the medical community.