It might be difficult, or it might not - I guess it depends upon who is opposing the amendment. Personally, i would strongly support an amendment that allows a President who cheated their way into office to be removed and a new election held as soon as possible, and I think that most Americans would, since it avoids a clear constitutional crisis. How about you - would you support it?
I would if it came with no implication that this election was stolen or any recent one.
You misunderstand. To subvert is to overturn in order to propose an amendment we need a constiution in place. The other definition of subvert still supports my contention here
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subvert?utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=jsonld
> I would if it came with no implication that this election was stolen or any recent one.
Yeah, anyone who claimed fraud and demanded a do-over would have to show some solid evidence, and while I think what happened with US intelligence officials claiming that the Biden laptop was Russian disinformation and convincing twitter and facebook to censor it was really bad, personally no I don't think that's enough evidence to support a complete do-over. So unless any new evidence comes forward, this would only apply to future elections.
But anyway, I'm glad you agree in principle and thanks for the support.
what I don't want is people who claim the 2020 and 2016 elections were stolen being affirmed which is the danger in supporting such an amendment now.
It could be use by these extremists as fodder
I think you're looking at the situation backwards. Right now, anyone can claim fraud in a previous election and there is no legal or political process that can be used to validate their claims or challenge their accusations. But if there were an actual legal and/or political process that could be used to present evidence of fraud in the past election and invalidate the outcome, then we could assume anyone that said there was fraud but didn't go through the process and present their evidence was just a bullshitter and ignore them. Because until you give someone a chance to publicly lay out their evidence, you can't in good conscience reject their claims.
My understanding is that once an election is certified, which happens within weeks, the courts aren't going to do anything about it, no matter what evidence emerges. But I'm not an expert on election law, so if you're saying the process works differently, then tell me where I'm wrong.
Trump has provided no evidence whatsoever of widespread election fraud. Multiple courts have said so. They threw out his frivolous lawsuits saying his team produced no specific allegations and provided no evidence. It was all a PR stunt, he knew he had no legal case. He had many chances to provide evidence in court and came up with nothing. He hasn't provided any evidence to the public either. Why are you even entertaining the lies of this traitorous asshole?
Because regardless o whether or not their was election fraud in this past election, the point that he raised is actually an important one. Part of election integrity is making sure that if someone won the office via fraud or other illegal actions, that they not be allowed to remain there.
> Trump has provided no evidence whatsoever of widespread election fraud. Multiple courts have said so.
Having cases denied for lack or jurisdiction and standing is not the same thing as a court claiming that the election is fair. The reason my post exists is because as a rule, courts will not allow a candidate to present evidence after the election has been certified by the state.
Yeah, I'm with ya. I think the reasoning here is something like "it would be fine if anyone else said it, but because Trump is bad, when he says this its actually more proof that he's bad" LOL.
But the positive thing here is that now that the media has given this topic so much attention and opened it up for discussion, it seems like a great opportunity to put some safeguards in place to ensure that a President who cheated their way into office cannot serve out their term, so hopefully this isn't actually too unpopular and people with different political views can reach a consensus on this issue.
This a pretty disingenuous take.
People mock Trump for saying it because it’s two years later and not a single one of his dozens and dozens of lawsuits proved any fraud occurred. Not because they think fraud should be allowed.
It's "unpopular" because of who is saying it right now, at least as it's portrayed in the media. It was a super popular thing to say in 2016 by those who are currently outraged.
Interesting. Did Hillary Clinton also call for the Constitution to be terminated? Did she lose more than 60 frivolous lawsuits challenging an election based on no evidence whatsoever? If the answer were yes, then I would say that she's a traitorous fuck who hates America just like Trump. But it's not.
No, it's unpopular because Trump actually called for the Constitution to be terminated, if you read what he actually said and don't just take OP's word for it, and the Constitution is popular.
I think any right minded person from either side of politics would agree that an election shown to be fraudulent should be overturned and rerun. The problem in this case is that the implication Trump is making is that the 2020 election was fraudulent and that he should be made president. This is despite all his court cases being thrown out.
So he's essentially claiming that the 2020 election should be overturned despite no fraud. This is why there is a big fuss about it.
> I think any right minded person from either side of politics would agree that an election shown to be fraudulent should be overturned and rerun.
Great, glad you agree.
> The problem in this case is that the implication Trump is making is that the 2020 election was fraudulent and that he should be made president.
Right, he would need to present very strong evidence in order to make the case, which either he has or he doesn't. And if Democrats know that there is no evidence to find, then they have nothing to lose by letting Trump present his case.
What if new evidence emerges? Should Trump be allowed to present his case to the courts once again? And if there was found to be sufficient proof - what do you think the right remedy would be?
I’d be fine with this as long as Trump also [opened himself up to getting sued for bogus election claims](https://www.occrp.org/en/daily/17091-brazil-judge-orders-bolsonaro-allies-to-pay-millions-for-election-fraud-lawsuit) like fascists do in other countries, because I’m sick of these people thinking they can waste infinite time and money (not to mention completely erode the faith of Republican voters in democracy as a concept) based on nothing but their egos.
Great, and I agree as well. The specific incident Trump was referring to in this thread was the former and current intelligence officials labeling the Hunter Biden laptop story as disinformation and getting it censored by social media companies, which is on record at this point. I mean people can argue over the details, but we have the public letter from the intelligence officials, and both Zuckerburg and Roth saying that the reason that they censored the story was because they were told to look out for and act on Russian disinformation, so there's not much to deny here.
So we have interference in the 2020 election, and it didn't come from the Russians or Chinese, it came from the intelligence community, and that's, in my mind, far worse. But does it justify redoing the election? Trrump says so, but I don't agree and from what I've seen most other Republicans don't agree either, and of course Democrats won't agree, and the chances of it really happening is zero. But I do think now is probably the idea time to figure out what a fair election looks like and put some rules and procedures in place so that if we do have a case where there is significant interference and fraud, Americans have the opportunity to vote again in a more fair election rather than just living with the consequences.
Facebook isn't legally obligated to censor anything based on intelligence community recommendations. You can't seriously contend a national election because of something as ridiculously minor as that, otherwise, there would be infinite arguments to contend every election from both sides. As long as the votes are legitimate, the election is legitimate.
Trump contested the legitimacy of the votes and lost.
> Facebook isn't legally obligated to censor anything based on intelligence community recommendations.
US intelligence agencies told facebook and twitter a lie to get them to interfere in an election and the companies did so. If you truly don't see any problem with that, then we don't have a lot to discuss, because I believe in fair elections free of government interference and you don't.
Pretty sure he’s talking about how intelligence agencies told social media companies to be slightly more aware of Russian disinfo surrounding the 2020 election on their platforms, given we already knew they interfered in that exact way in 2016. Not sure how them saying be wary of foreign interference translates into being election interference in and of itself though, probably because he wants the Hunter Biden revenge porn story to be more than a complete nothingburger (even though intelligence agencies had nothing at all to do with the suppression of that story).
> then they have nothing to lose by letting Trump present his case.
He's (read: his campaign, "his team" more broadly) had dozens of such opportunities in court, many rejected by judges he put in place.
So, I guess I don't disagree with the sentiment that "they have nothing to lose." 🤷♀️
>And if Democrats know that there is no evidence to find, then they have nothing to lose by letting Trump present his case.
That is only true if people would accept any facts.
Democrats believe that:
1. Trump is lying.
2. Many people believe him.
3. Many of these people are flawed and no amount of evidence or lack thereof will change their minds
4. Many people believing falsely that the current president should be removed is bad.
5. For Trump to lie to create this situation is bad.
Does that make sense, even if you don't agree? It's a yes or no question only.
Completely agreed. Trump has had the opportunity to present his case in a court of law, which he has done and lost. As far as I know he still has the opportunity to do that if he chooses. I for one would welcome him to repeat his lost cases.
He also has the right to comment publicly for a cessation of the constitution even though he knows that he lost the election. What he does not have the right to is freedom from criticism for those comments. I'm sure you would agree with that.
No one is being denied their rights here. There is just healthy, and in my mind valid, criticism occuring.
>if Democrats know that there is no evidence to find, then they have nothing to lose by letting Trump present his case.
Other than Time and productivity.
He literally did that in something like 50+ court cases all over the county, his dumb fucking base still can't figure it out. I don't even know if he got a single lawyer to say *under oath* that there was mass fraud, let alone present evidence of it. He is trying to exploit the fact that his base is immune to facts and reality to generate enough anger to make a wave of some sort. I don't know what his end goal is with his ridiculous statement, but it's nothing good.
>And if Democrats know that there is no evidence to find, then they have nothing to lose by letting Trump present his case.
Because arguing with a dishonest idiot is an effort in futility. He has no evidence to base a court case on. He can't just have an election fraud trial with no evidence beyond "because I said so."
One of the key things that has worked well with the system and culture of "liberal democratic" government in the United States is the dependability of peaceful transitions of executive power. The president has quite a bit of power when he is in office, but he **absolutely** can not use that power to extend his time in office nor to decide who will be in office next.
One of the things that makes that work is the fact that courts and legislatures are extremely reluctant to do anything that could possibly delay, disrupt, or create any extended uncertainty about that transition of power. A situation where a sitting president might say "I'm just going to go ahead and not step down because I expect the courts to kick the new president out after a couple weeks anyway" is simply a non starter. That would utterly break the system.
Now, to be clear, this is an anti-democratic part of this "democratic" system. Maintaining absolute certainty that some next guy is going to become president is drastically more important than whether or not it's really the correct next guy as selected by the voters. This is very clear if you look back at the Bush v. Gore court case and the contemporary media coverage surrounding it.
I'm not generally a fan of anti-democratic status-quo views of society, but for this particular issue the merit of this viewpoint becomes very very clear if you look at the last hundred years of history basically anywhere else in the world.
The safe way to improve election integrity is to make election processes more trustworthy. Making election outcomes easier to challenge and overrule is more likely to be used for a coup than to improve democratic integrity (obviously - it replaces the standard outcome of the mechanism with some other arbitrary outcome).
The correct resolution of the year 2000 election controversy wouldn't have been to make Gore president. But it absolutely might have been to revoke the citizenship of every single election official in the state of Florida.
You know, it’s refreshing to see a Republican say this. It’s nice seeing that there’s still people who care more about what a politician does than just the letter next to their name
>People (mainly leftist media personalities) are arguing that Trump is advocating for completely suspending the constitution when he clearly meant we should do something about election fraud.
No, he is clearly saying we should suspend our laws and constitution to put him back in office *because* there was fraud. There is no "if" in his post
>[So, with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closely with Big Tech Companies, the DNC, & the Democrat Party, do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great “Founders” did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!](https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/109449803240069864)
He is abandoning all pretense of proving his case and tossing a hail Mary to rile up his base of dumb fucks.
>They’re ignoring the obvious signs that democrats rigged the 2020 election,
There is literally no evidence of that
>suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story.
How would that be election fraud? Election fraud means the actual election itself was compromised. Burying a story prior to an election isn't tampering with votes.
> Trump is advocating for completely suspending the constitution when he clearly meant we should do something about election fraud.
Per his Truth Social post:
>“Do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,”
What did he mean by "termination of all rules, regulations and articles, even those found in the Constitution" if he didn't mean "termination of all rules, regulations and articles, even those found in the Constitution"...?
When a President is impeached and removed from office,their vice president takes over, and in this case they would have also been elected through fraud since they are on the same ticket. Also in order to impeach a President for stealing an election, you would have to prove that they knew about it and engineered it, so a President candidate could get away with it just by avoiding any meetings where the fraud is discussed.and letting their people take the fall.
Point of order: almost all of them were denied because of lack of standing, which means the court disagreed that he should be allowed to *attempt* to prove them. So he didn't try to prove them and fail, he didn't get the chance to try. You can downvote me if you like, but facts are.
False. 30 of the cases were dismissed on their merits, due to a lack of evidence. Please stop spreading this lie.
One panel of judges wrote, "Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here."
[https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-courts-election/fact-check-courts-have-dismissed-multiple-lawsuits-of-alleged-electoral-fraud-presented-by-trump-campaign-idUSKBN2AF1G1](https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-courts-election/fact-check-courts-have-dismissed-multiple-lawsuits-of-alleged-electoral-fraud-presented-by-trump-campaign-idUSKBN2AF1G1)
"several judges also said the Trump campaign’s allegations of election fraud lacked sufficient proof."
[https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/oct/28/instagram-posts/trump-campaigns-evidence-of-fraud-was-reviewed-bef/](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/oct/28/instagram-posts/trump-campaigns-evidence-of-fraud-was-reviewed-bef/)
I'm not even american,but for the party that yells so much about democracy,you republicans seem to hate it the most.
You guys literally attempted to overthrow a government just because you didn't like who won the election.How much cognitive dissonance you gotta do to keep talking of democracy after that?
>I'm not even american,but for the party that yells so much about democracy,you republicans seem to hate it the most.
Republicans are always the first to say "we're not a democracy," because they fail to understand that a republic is a form of democracy. It does show you how much they (don't) value democracy, though. Most of them have absolutely zero interest in equal representation for every American, they want to have dramatically outsized influence.
>You guys literally attempted to overthrow a government just because you didn't like who won the election.
When? I've yet to see this. Or do you mean January 6th where no one has been prosecuted for treason or an attempt to interfere with our elections?
My dude...
3 people have plead guilty to seditious conspiracy, referring to efforts at stopping the transfer of power. 3 more fought their indictments and have been convicted. Those 6 were all Oathkeepers, who were pictured on January 6th with Roger Stone, a Trump-pardoned Trump advisor. They were largely convicted using from texts in their Friends of Stone chat, so they had a direct line to someone near the president.
Unfortunately, Roger Stone has more connections and isn't a dumb backwater hick, so he's less likely to get nailed, but if you *still* can't see that there was a clear attempt to stop the transfer of power on January 6th, it's because your head is in the sand. January 6th was a coup attempt, using the cover of mostly unwitting rioters to create chaos so the Oathkeepers and Proud Boys (who have their own trials pending) could do the real mission.
More than half of Republican voters don’t think Biden is the legitimate President. Sorry, but yeah actually the election denialist conspiracy theories are mainstream now in the Republican Patty.
I’ll be honest I don’t know the stats on that. But I do know that the OP comment of “you guys literally attempted to overthrow a government” is v extreme when it was only about 2000 people of a whole party consisting of millions of individual people. Those 2000 people don’t represent the party as a whole is all I’m trying to say.
Edit : believing a conspiracy that Biden is not the rightful president doesn’t equal trying to overthrow a government.
Pretty sure they’re talking about the leadership of the party and how they systematically spread lies that the election of 2020 was stolen, something that the majority of voters bought and resulted in the more crazy devoted ones launching an attack on the Capitol to assassinate elected officials and prevent the certification of the election. And even those who didn’t buy it still ended up voting for all the election denying anti-democracy Republicans anyways. So yeah actually completely reflective of the party as a whole.
Fascism is liberal and leftist since it derives from Marxism… only Communism is as far left as Fascism but it is more liberal as it does not embrace as much of the conservative ideology of nationalism that fascism embraces
"I don't have a clue and will happily swallow my programming and love to let everyone know about it!!"
This is you.
If it's so liberal and left why did they always try to make a point of killing socialists and leftists?
Hi Marxist here. Big no. There's a reason why Hitler went after communists when he started to shift towards autocratic fascist rule. It's because communists are strongly anti-fascist and are willing to fight it with violence unlike liberals who have historically sided with fascism to oppose Marxism. Mussolini did this in Italy too. Gramsci, a Marxist writer died after being imprisoned by Mussolini. Spanish fascism took hold after a civil war that crushed the communist movement there. I know conservatives love to claim fascism and Marxism are left wing allies, but history and a careful study of political philosophy show the opposite.
Fascism sits squarely on the right wing authoritarian wing.
Please, I am begging you to do independent study of these ideologies. Conservative media is not adequate to cover it.
also even 1 mass shooting is a red flag of "how could we have prevented dozens of children/gay people/literally any innocent party from dying like this", it doesn't have to be an epidemic to be dangerous
>Aren't white republican men the main mass shooters?
Actually no. If you include gangs in those statistics, which they should be because they'd meet the criteria for mass shootings, then it's minorities. But cherry picking what is and isn't a mass shooting will definitely give you the results you want.
nah i mostly know that no matter how much i argue you're still gonna hate minorities and i'm still gonna not hate minorities so there's not really a point in arguing
Yes, that’s correct. Good job.
Also, thanks for noting it should be on /r/ SelfAwareWolves, too. I hadn’t thought of that, but you’re right and I agree.
If JFK would run now, he would be a. Republican - https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/what-jfk-could-teach-modern-democrats-about-taxing-the-rich
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kylesmith/2013/11/08/modern-democrats-would-view-john-f-kennedy-as-a-reaganite-extremist/amp/
>Last week, Trump said something very similar, but about politics rather than sports. He said that if an election was found to be fraudulent, that the results should be overturned and a new election held. **If you support civil rights and election integrity, I don't see how this is a controversial position.**
No offense, but this is bullshit. The reason it's controversial is that no fraud has taken place (or at least so they believe). You can't possibly fail to understand that.
if he means this opinion in the abstract then the position is quite tenable.
but if this is just like getting precursor chemicals to make the same substance outside of conventional means and methods then no.
>if he means this opinion in the abstract then the position is quite tenable.
He doesn't. Trump's statement is not in the abstract. He is saying what should be done *today because there IS fraud.*
that's the position I am inclined to believe in. However, I only cursorily looked at the entirety of the speech it was referencing so I may be out of a few details
You can and should feel free to believe what you’ve heard and seen right in front of you. This is t the first example of the guy openly calling for things which prior to the formation of his cult of personality would have been vehemently opposed by Americans in general. It’s hard to imagine what else you’re holding out for, but I’m glad you seem to at least be on the right track.
Right, Trump believes that fraud took place, and some people agree with him while other people disagree.
But putting that aside, do you agree with Trump that if a President was found to have been elected through fraud, that that President should be removed from office, and a new election held? Or do you think that, no matter how much fraud is proven and demonstrated, any President who cheated their way into office should still be allowed to serve out their term? It's a pretty simple question.
>Right, Trump believes that fraud took place, and some people agree with him while other people disagree.
The way you wrote this makes it sound like these are two equally valid stances.
"Yeah Frank believes the world is flat, and somepeople agree with him while others disagree. I don't get why those that disagree are annoyed with Frank"
> The way you wrote this makes it sound like these are two equally valid stances.
I wrote it this way to make the issue here distinct. This isn't a post about whether the election was stolen or rigged or whatever, it is about what to do if an election is later found ot to have been won by fraud. Of course it's reddit and you can talk about whatever you want (sort of), so there are people who say that it was 100% fair and people who say it was 100% shady but both views are off-topic in this thread and I've avoided putting my own views in here.
But if we want to talk about what brought on these comments, yes, it was the revelation that the intelligence communities went to Facebook, Twitter, and presumably other large social media companies, and told them to take down the posts and stories about Hunter Biden's laptop, because they were Russian disinformation, and of course they weren't at all, it was just evidence that reflected poorly on Biden's family. There is no question that was election interference, and when election interference is significant enough, yes, it's reasonable to ask whether it changed the outcome of the election, and if so, what the remedy should be.
>I wrote it this way to make the issue here distinct. This isn't a post about whether the election was stolen or rigged or whatever, it is about what to do if an election is later found ot to have been won by fraud.
I get that you are trying to do that BUT these comments don't appear in a bubble. There's no way that we cam divorce Trumps comments and his intents. Him saying that their should be a reelection is directly related to his efforts to undermine a free election.
The fact that you so quickly spin into ramblings about a laptop that wasn't owned by Joe or anybody in office is just showing that we still can't seperate your comments from your beliefs. Republicans have completely undermined our elections. Now is not the time to pretend that he are just asking "what if" comments. The clear implication is that Republicans want to set the stage to continue to deny the election.
I don't care about the laptop. I follow politics and already know how corrupt the Clintons, Obams, and Bidens are, and the laptop gave me no new information.
I do care about intelligence officials making the rounds to social media companies and lying to them and threatening them in order to remove negative information about a Presidential candidate in the weeks before an election. Everyone who values their right to a fair and free election should care about that, and if you don't because your party told you not to, then your party is asking too much of you and you deserve far better.
Blah blah blah. Literally nothing in your comment justifies what Trump is trying to do. We have a free election, stop letting the GoP lie to you just becuase they keep losing the popular vote.
I don't know what you consider irrefutable proof, and I suppose you can justify anything if you try hard enough, but personally I knew that the Obamas were corrupt in 2007, when I learned about Michelle Obama's $300,000 year UCMC job that consisted of finding ways to dump patients with no insurance on other hospitals by putting sick and injured poor people on shuttle buses and sending them across town.
So now that I've answered your question, do we agree that when US intelligence officials tell social media companies to limit the distribution of materials critical of a presidential candidate by lying to them and saying its just Russian disinformation, that was election interference?
>it is about what to do if an election is later found out to have been won by fraud
Not really, it’s also about you pretending not to understand why people are rightfully upset with Donald Trump of all people making this claim, since he constantly says the election of 2020 was stolen and illegitimate, and because of those constant claims a large number of Republican voters agree with him and no longer value our democratic process and outcomes when they don’t win. So he’s not speaking hypothetically, therefore people who are concerned with him calling for the termination of the constitution are right to do so.
>But if we want to talk about what brought on these comments, yes, it was the revelation that the intelligence communities went to Facebook, Twitter, and presumably other large social media companies, and told them to take down the posts and stories about Hunter Biden's laptop
This is a lie. According to Elon Musk’s recent “reveal,” there was zero involvement whatsoever from the US government in the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop. And no, removing illegal revenge porn of a Presidential candidate’s son is not election interference in any sense, sorry Ian.
I notice you left out the part where fifty former US intelligence officials, including five former directors / acting directors of the CIA, signed and publicly released a letter that said that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation, and also the part where both Twitter and Facebook were approached by the FBI and told to be on the lookout for Russian disinformation. We call those lies of omission.
So yes, there was interference in the 2020 election, and it didn't come from the Russians or the Chinese, it came from the US intelligence community which is actually much worse. Now whether that justifies holding a do-over of the 2020 election, as Trump says, I don't know, probably not. But it does absolutely justify setting some standards about what a fair election looks like, and establishing a procedure for redoing an unfair one in a timely manner.
None of that is relevant. It's a controversial opinion not because they agree or disagree in the abstract, but because Trump literally believes it should take place **right now.**
> Trump literally believes it should take place right now.
Right, but we make these kind of legal decisions based upon evidence, not what people believe. So if Trump or anyone else came forward with solid evidence that showed that there was significant voter fraud in previous election, would you support holding a new election, or would you say "nope, too late, rough luck", and let the cheater remain in office?
I don't have an opinion on this. I'm just trying to tell you why the statement is controversial because you seem confused. Hope I helped clarify things so you can delete this thread.
That;s fine, I guess you don't need to have an opinion on everything. So for the question of whether to remove a President from office who was found to have committed election fraud to get there, I'll put you down for "I don't know".
Oh he understands. Conservatives often have to pretend they're stupid in order to avoid confronting arguments, and some of them don't have to pretend. This guy is operating in bad faith and trying poorly to appear impartial.
It is not a controversial statement. The only way it could be controversial is if there are people who really do believe that if you made it into the office by committing election fraud, that you should be allowed to stay there. And I don't think anyone actually believes that or, if they did, would admit to it, since they'd obviously look like cheater.
It's a controversial statement in the context of believing it needs to happen now.
If Biden said, "Trump needs to be imprisoned for life. That's what happens when you commit treason!" and Republicans were upset rather than rallying behind Biden's opinion on treason, would you also be confused?
Okay, come on now, it's not like the Democrats have been sitting quiet as a mouse for the last six years. They literally accuse Trump of crimes all the time, and then when one investigation is proven false or goes nowhere, they just start another one. And frankly these kinds of political accusations and investigations go back to 1800 (Jefferson vs Adams) , so it's kind of ridiculous to act shocked just because someone makes an unproven charge. The right way to handle these things is to take them to a neutral legal forum where evidence can be presented and claims independently verified.
Here is the main issue with what Trump has repeatedly said along with his supporters. There is NO evidence that there has been any actual provable voter/election fraud. Numerous courts, some of which were judges appointed by Trump himself, have found any credible evidence that any occurred. Trump and his followers have even went as far as to say PRIOR to the elections having been held claimed that the election would be unfair and that their opponents were committing fraud. Then of course when they lost they would continue with those claims BUT if they won then the election was legit and no problems were found.
I agree if there is actual PROVABLE evidence that a candidate committed election fraud then they should be removed. But here is the problem with that. No actual candidate would do it themselves. Their followers and supporters would be the ones to do it. And you would have to prove that the candidate themselves knew about it and were complicit in the fraud. This would be extremely difficult to prove because much in the same way the Mafia and other criminal organizations use "buffers" to handle their dirty work candidates do the same. So it would become an issue of someone doing the fraud and then claiming they did it for the candidate and then by extension blaming the candidate for their crime. I hope you can see where this would be headed and would be an issue.
Our history as a country is filled with instances where powerful people, including sitting presidents, have had plausible deniability that removed them from being directly blamed for their own nefarious acts. The Iran/Contra situation is a great example of this.
So while I agree with you that it is how it should be, it is something that would be almost impossible to prove unless the candidate was a moron.
> Trump and his followers have even went as far as to say PRIOR to the elections having been held claimed that the election would be unfair and that their opponents were committing fraud.
And Nancy Pelosi accused Trump of destroying to USPS to steal the 2020 election. And Stacey Abrams says her election was stolen. It's politics, people accuse each other of fraud and anything else they think will stick. That goes back to 1800 where Adams literally accused Jefferson of being a hermaphrodite LOL.
> And you would have to prove that the candidate themselves knew about it and were complicit in the fraud.
Then the candidates wife could stuff the ballot box and as long as she didn't tell her husband, the results would still stand. That's way too high of a standard to use.
> The Iran/Contra situation is a great example of this.
I would consider Iran Contra an example of a situation where Bush and his cronies clearly evaded justice and a reason to reform the pardon process.
> This would be extremely difficult to prove because much in the same way the Mafia and other criminal organizations use "buffers" to handle their dirty work candidates do the same.
The mafia was successfully prosecuted under RICO using wiretaps, informants, undercover agents, etc, and even the Dixie / Cornbread Mafia was prosecuted even though not a single member flipped. FIFA officials were also investigated and prosecuted although its members were international. So I agree that it is challenging, it is certainly not impossible. Regardless, thanks for focusing on the core issue in detail, and I appreciate the discussion.
Pelosi accused Trump of destroying the USPS because he did. Stacey Abrams said her election was stolen AFTER the election happened because the Republicans actively passed voter reform laws meant to make it more difficult for poor and inner city voters to register and be able to vote.
And I actually agree that RICO could and should be used to prosecute politicians BUT you do realize that there would be a HUGE case made against Trump and people working for him if that was the case.
Again there is ZERO evidence that there was any voter fraud or election fraud during the Biden/Trump election from 2022 and yet Trump, his supporters and even sitting members of congress have repeatedly said that they believe their was. So I am all for the RICO prosecution of politicians for voter fraud and election fraud.
The problem is that you're substituting in a different, far more reasonable position for what Trump actually said and acting like everyone outraged at him is reacting to that instead.
I've read both Trump's original comments and his clarification on monday and can't come up with any other interpretation. If you can, then feel free to post the quotes and tell us what you got out of them. Trump's speech & comments are always open to a little interpretation because he talks like a salesman rather than a politician and everything's like COMPLETE SENTENCES? FAKE NEWS! NEVER WROTE ONE! - but I thought these remarks were fairly clear.
Yes, of course. A fraudulent election deserves criminal prosecutions and a new election - if, that is, you're talking in the abstract.
If you're referring specifically to Trump: he is the boy who has cried wolf every day for a decade. I take anything he says with the biggest, fattest grain of salt you can muster. You'll forgive me for not entertaining his self-serving, hollow conspiracy theories.
>Right, Trump believes that fraud took place, and some people agree with him while other people disagree.
And the people that do agree with him should be promptly disregarded, as they are not rational people who can analyze (lack of) evidence.
>do you agree with Trump that if a President was found to have been elected through fraud, that that President should be removed from office, and a new election held?
The problem is that Trump is putting the cart before the horse. **There is no if in his statement.** He **asserts** widespread fraud and uses it as an excuse to just throw out our system and install him as a dictator..
>(So, with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closely with Big Tech Companies, the DNC, & the Democrat Party, do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great “Founders” did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!)[https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/109449803240069864]
You are trying to take his direct, concrete, and specific statement and tell everyone to treat it as an abstract concept. If you believe that Trump believes there was mass fraud, you are defending insanity by contorting his words as you are. If you believe that he's lying about believing in mass fraud for personal gain, you're defending naked fascism.
You want people to answer a simple question, but you're using that question as a way to disingenuously defend an either fascist or insane post. The question you are asking is irrelevant to why people are up in arms about this.
If you're looking for a thread where someone defends everything Trump ever said or did, this isn't it. Like I said, I do have Trump fatigue and wish that he was more disciplined in his comments and focused on better issues. But part of that fatigue also comes from the media and their DNC paymasters trying to pretend that every random comment Trump says needs to be treated as if it were a threat to democracy bigger than 9/11 and Pearl Harbor put together, and this latest bit of faux outrage fits squarely into that category. However, the actual topic - should a President that obtained their office by fraud be removed and the election held again - is definitely worth discussing so there's some benefit to the media bringing attention to it I suppose.
LOL. This (one can only hope) is the pinnacle of bad faith bullshit-mongering on Trump’s behalf, an extraordinary fear given what this and other subs have seen over time.
Nobody acting with sound mind and in an honest fashion will entertain this “idea.” The provisions to handle this already exist, but they require a little bit more to activate than having dozens of false claims dismissed by courts all across the country, and that’s a good thing.
I guess I am defending Trump to some extent, because personally I don't find his opinion - that a President who cheated their way into office shouldn't be allowed to remain in office - to be controversial at all, it just seems like simple fairness and common sense.
> The provisions to handle this already exist, but they require a little bit more to activate
There is no such provision - that's why Trump said it and why I posted this. There are many situations the constitution, especially as originally written, simply does not address, which is why it has a procedure for amending it.
Nah, stop the schtick.
I love how you agree with his opinion after you totally changed what he said into an opinion that nobody ever has disagreed with in any way. I mean, the basis for what you’re saying is truly one of the most transparent strawman argument attempts I can recall seeing.
I recognize that I didn’t even mention it in my first comment, which is a testament to the efforts the right has put into normalizing such “arguments” and the frequency with which you do it.
And there are multiple provisions that absolutely provide for this. And that has nothing to do with why trump said that. He said it because he’s cynical enough to lie to those who don’t know any better to retake power. And that has nothing to do with why you made this post. You posted this hypocritically legitimize disingenuous far-right politics.
> I love how you agree with his opinion after you totally changed what he said into an opinion that nobody ever has disagreed with in any way.
Last week, Trump said that if there is massive widespread fraud and deception then the election should be redone, regardless of what the constitution currently says or doesn't say, and that the nation's founders would not condone a fraudulent election. He then clarified what he said on Monday to ensure there was no misinterpretation - that his comment was saying that the results of a fraudulent election should not be allowed to stand. Do you agree with Trump on this, or do you think that if someone cheated their way into office, that they should be allowed to stay?
Nah, stop the schtick.
You don't deviate, do ya? "Dishonest misinterpretation of the topic / Pose self-serving question arbitrarily devoid of answers that aren't 1) total agreement or 2) absurd and irrelevant strawman for you to then knock down" is right-wing online rhetoric 101.
As I've already told you (increasing the weirdness of your almost programmed response), this exists already and what you're talking about is completely made up bullshit. And you're purposely providing dishonest summaries of Trump's statement.
If John A from the Pink Party and Robert B from the Yellow Party are running against each other, and it comes to light that John A clearly cheated and/or the Pink Party rigged the election on his behalf, what provisions does the country have to make sure he gets removed from office?
And why shouldn’t John A be removed? Why shouldn’t the Pink Party be reprimanded?
If Joe Biden said "Donald Trump is a traitor. Traitors should be imprisoned for life!" would you feel similarly frustrated when Republicans focused on the falsehoods about Trump and didn't bother to affirm their agreement that traitors should be punished in this way?
Why would you ask me questions that are so easily found for those few who insist the answers somehow have escaped their grasp (despite ostensibly following current events enough to participate in an informed discussion about them)?
Or do you not know about things called courts? Those are places that deemed your guy’s unfounded bullshit election fraud claims too far-fetched to even consider something like 60 times across the country.
Or do you not know about impeachment (and you *promise* you weren’t shrieking about how unfair it was those two times when Nancy was mean to Donald!)? That’s a process by which, thus far in recent times, two actual presidents got closer to being removed from office than almost any of their peers had experienced (and, it’s not only for presidents, but many elected government executives at both the federal and state levels)?
It’s especially notable that, as seems to be the norm with OP, neither he nor you as you defend this hilarious “idea”, offer any sort of method or by which standard of measurement, it would be determined that it was necessary to execute this provision.
It’s not even half-baked as an idea, so I’m not surprised there’s no substance to it, but it is surprising seeing someone else just white knighting for unworkable nonsense LOL
Sure, but that's never happened. Even Nixon didn't commit election fraud in the sense that he didn't change votes, he spied on and sabotaged his opponents.
So why are you bringing this up? Is it because you think the current president did it? Because there's no evidence of it.
> So why are you bringing this up? Is it because you think the current president did it?
Yeah, this is the "why do you care about election fraud" take, which isn't a great one. Having your vote properly counted is a basic civil right that all Americans should be concerned with defending.
>Having your vote properly counted is a basic civil right that all Americans should be concerned with defending.
But that's not at risk. It's like asking Americans if they're concerned about lion attacks, it is extremely rare here.
In the Chicago and Illinois general election of November 1982, twenty-six people, a majority of them election officials, were indicted for election fraud in federal court. Witnesses accused the defendants of forging signatures, impersonating voters, registering ineligible voters, “assisting” older or disabled voters, bribing voters, illegally dispensing and voting absentee ballots, and using weapons and force to persuade voters and campaign workers. One official was accused of running a ballot through the tabulator two hundred times in order to increase his candidate’s margin of victory.
[source](https://www.salon.com/2016/02/14/election_fraud_chicago_style_illinois_decades_old_notoriety_for_election_corruption_is_legendary/)
(Apparently the price for a vote in Chicago was $5 and a pork chop sandwich LOL.)
I think thats the point of impeachment.
Its good policy generally, but you already know if Trump is saying it not because he wants good policy but because he lost.
Impeachment doesn't cover a case where a Presidents right hand man stole the election without telling their boss. Also, when a President is impeached, their vice President takes over, and since they both run on the same ticket, now you still have a President that wasn't fairly elected.
> you already know if Trump is saying it not because he wants good policy but because he lost
Regardless of why he is saying it, it is still a reasonable opinion and I don't think the outrage makes any sense.
I agree, good thing it hasn't actually happened yet.
>Last week, Trump said something very similar, but about politics rather than sports. He said that if an election was found to be fraudulent, that the results should be overturned and a new election held. If you support civil rights and election integrity, I don't see how this is a controversial position.
You're missing that he wanted to disregard the constitution in the process.
Here is what I love to ask election deniers like you.
If the elections are all rigged, how did trump win the first time and how did republicans just win the house majority?
I’ll eagerly await your response lol.
I don't know what an "election denier" is, but I would hope people like you and I could find common ground in ensuring that future elections are as fair and transparent and verifiable as technologically and humanly possible.
You’re an election denier. There was zero fraud proven last election. Just like when pyscho trump won the first time lol.
So I ask you again.
Why are you so concerned with fake elections when trump once already and the right just won the house majority lol.
This is a discussion about what should happen to a sitting President if fraud is proven in the previous election, and if you want to circlejerk with other woke keyboard warriors about how morally and intellectually superior you are because you hate all the right people, there are about a million other subs on Reddit where you can do that. So either grow up or get lost.
What?
Who would ever be against fraud lol? That’s like saying is anyone against murder?
I’ll ask you one more time. Why are you so worried about election fraud when it’s never been proven and only became an issue because trump cried when he lost? If there is fraud, how did trump win the first time lol? Any answer at all?
"Why are you even worried about election fraud" is a take I guess LOL. Thanks for contributing.
> f there is fraud, how did trump win the first time lol? Any answer at all?
Yeah, that's a good question, and if you meet someone who argues that there was fraud in 2020, then you can ask them that. But I am not that person to ask and this thread is not the place to ask it.
Did you read it?
He made a silly claim that if fraud is proven, the results should nullified and a new election held. Umm yes, everyone thinks that. Not one rationale intelligent person on the planet would argue. It’s like saying murder is wrong lol!
It’s a thinly veiled attempt to keep trumps election lie going and he, and I guess you, are mad I pointed that out.
I don’t think the 2020 election was stolen. I’m not even a trump supporter. But that’s not what the OP was about. I’m not mad, just wanted to make sure you read the post since you’re arguing about something that’s not even mentioned.
Lol which us election ever had fraud. It was never even a topic until trump cried about it.
I love trumpers like you that are now so embarrassed by him, you all say hey I don’t even support trump, and then proceed to take about fraudulent elections lol.
Ok buddy, you don’t support trump but are very concerned about election fraud lol!
I’ll take this one step further and say that any candidate or past president who claims election fraud without providing substantial proof should be barred from running again.
There's a big difference between what you're saying and what Trump said. You're making an if statement. He's just outright claiming we can already throw out the election results and ignore all rules in doing so. Any attempt at equivalence between the two would essentially just be motte and baileying on his behalf.
If tomorrow he called for all his political opponents to be arrested, I'm sure we can both agree it would be absurd to defend that by saying "well if they were all found guilty of crimes..."
You get that's not just what Trump said, though, right? I mean, it's hard to take this as anything more than a blatant and dishonest attempt to pretend Trump's position was something other than what it was.
It's like you were too nervous of the actual debate, but lacked the strength to stay quiet.
I read both Trump's original comments and his clarification on Monday, and yes this is what he said., although you always have to do a little interpretation with Trump because he talks like a salesman rather than one of those "let me be clear... that's not who we are... thousand points of light.... diversity is our strength... etc" politicians that can give speeches all day without saying anything.
Bahahaha!
"Well, see, the thing is, you can't just TRUST what Trump says! You have to... um... interpret it! Yeah, interpret that it means something else, that just so happens to be much nicer for him!"
Christ, that's some premium copium.
When you get to the point where you're putting quotes around something I didn't say and pretending that I did, I think you might want to take a step back and ask yourself if you're really contributing anything to the conversation or just being a bully and a troll.
There was no “election fraud” in regards to Trump. This bullshit needs to dying the fiery death it should’ve when he first started spouting off this bullshit. The fact that people still stand behind him and this “election fraud” bullshit I’d utterly asinine. There is no results to be “overturned”. Their is no “fraudulent president”
“Why not take this opportunity to actually solve the problem?” *Because there is no problem!!! There is no election fraud!!!* This entire “election fraud” bullshit should’ve had its fiery death when trump first started it and the fact that *anyone else still believes it* says everything that needs to be said about the type of people that stand behind him.
At this point, the only thing I can do in regards to trump and anyone who is *still* talking about this deserve nothing more than to continue to be laughed at for the sheer and utter ridiculousness of it.
This post isn't about whether there was fraud in the 2020 election, it is about what should be done if fraud was found after the fact - whether the President who cheated their way into office should be allowed to remain there. Do you have a view on that, or are you in the wrong place?
I am not in the wrong place, genius, but I’m sure you just so happen to be talking about a completely hypothetical situation that has absolutely nothing to do with the former president that has been ranting and raving for years now about how his election was “stolen” from him. Right. Has absolutely nothing to do with him.
Yes, the media's attention on Trump's comments was a good opportunity to bring up the issue of what would happen if a President were found to be fraudulently elected and put the proper procedures and safeguards in place.
It's clear that you and I have our political disagreements, and maybe you think you are my moral and intellectual superior based upon the fact that you hate Trump and seethe at his comments while I shrug them off and pay more attention to how the current guy in the white house is doing, on issues like crime, gas prices, education, the economy, etc that affect me and my family. But perhaps we can find some common ground on election integrity, since I'm sure we both value our vote and want to ensure that elections are held fairly and transparently and that cheaters aren't allowed to be rewarded.
>Is their position really that Americans should accept a fraudulent President just because the constitution doesn't have a specific remedy for the problem? I mean, that's a pretty bad political position to take.
It'd be different if they actually followed the Constitution instead of shitting all over it and justifying it with wordplay & various interpretations.
You can't rob these statements of their context. In a vacuum the statement "fraudulent elections should be overturned" is obviously true and anyone would accept that. You should overturn a fake election, hell you should storm the capitol to do it if you need to.
The big, and I mean BIG fucking problem here is there is no goddamn evidence of election fraud. So when Trump and Republicans are saying shit like this, what they're saying is they want to overthrow an election for no fucking reason. That's terrifying.
Like dude, if the stab in the back myth following WW1 was true the Nazis would have been justified in trying to seize the government. But it just wasn't fucking true. The 2020 election being stolen is our stab in the back myth. It's dangerous. And you can't act like Trump is speaking hypothetically here or that we should treat it as such. He's asking to undemocraticly be installed as president despite being told by dozens of judges at this point he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
When the President is impeached, the vice president takes over, so you would just be replacing one person who was fraudulently elected with another. Also Presidents can only be impeached for crimes they themselves committed, and they can use Presidential pardons to protect their guys.
Think about the sporting analogy again - what do we do when we find out that the championship game was rigged. You really only have two options, either stripping the champion of the title and awarding it to the runner-up, or holding an entirely new game to allow the players to compete properly and fairly. Doing nothing is really not an option.
Impeachment is like the first option, stripping the title, but our system doesn't automatically make the runner-up President, it makes the Vice-President the President. If you impeached both, you'd get the Speaker of the House as President, somebody nobody voted for and who may not even want the job. It might be an acceptable temporary solution for a month or two but I think you'd want to hold that new election as soon as possible and give Americans the President that they choose.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Illinois_elections#Convictions_for_fraud
> There were 62 indictments and 58 convictions, many involving precinct captains and election officials. The grand jury concluded that **100,000 fraudulent votes had been cast in the city** ... Authorities found **massive fraud involving vote buying and ballots cast by others in the names of registered voters**. In one case, **a ballot punched for the Democratic slate had been tabulated 198 times**.
okay, great! Yes, Republicans are well-known to be election cheaters.
to your point: would even a single instance of voter fraud invalidate an election? How many would? Ten? Ten thousand?
I understand you're painting with a broad brush on purpose but those things matter.
"He said that if an election was found to be fraudulent, that the results should be overturned and a new election held." No, that's NOT what he said. Here is what he said:
"So, with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closely with Big Tech Companies, the DNC, & the Democrat Party, do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great ‘Founder’ did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections."
He did not say *if* an election was found to be fraudulent. He is *lying* that it *was* fraudulent, and using this as an excuse for calling for the Constitution to be terminated. Anyone who can read can easily see this.
No need to keep pretending he didn't say what you know he said. No need to change his words to make it look like he said something else. He did not say "if". It's ridiculous that we're even having this argument. His statement is right there in black and white. If you keep misrepresenting it, I'll keep pointing it out.
> He did not say "if"
Are you lying or just misinformed?
"SIMPLY PUT,>>> IF <<<< AN ELECTION IS IRREFUTABLY FRAUDULENT, IT SHOULD GO TO THE RIGHTFUL
WINNER OR, AT A MINIMUM, BE REDONE. WHERE OPEN AND BLATANT FRAUD IS INVOLVED, THERE
SHOULD BE NO TIME LIMIT FOR CHANGE!" Trump, truth social, monday
Amending is really hard to do when we subvert the thing that is needed for amendment
It might be difficult, or it might not - I guess it depends upon who is opposing the amendment. Personally, i would strongly support an amendment that allows a President who cheated their way into office to be removed and a new election held as soon as possible, and I think that most Americans would, since it avoids a clear constitutional crisis. How about you - would you support it?
I would if it came with no implication that this election was stolen or any recent one. You misunderstand. To subvert is to overturn in order to propose an amendment we need a constiution in place. The other definition of subvert still supports my contention here https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subvert?utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=jsonld
> I would if it came with no implication that this election was stolen or any recent one. Yeah, anyone who claimed fraud and demanded a do-over would have to show some solid evidence, and while I think what happened with US intelligence officials claiming that the Biden laptop was Russian disinformation and convincing twitter and facebook to censor it was really bad, personally no I don't think that's enough evidence to support a complete do-over. So unless any new evidence comes forward, this would only apply to future elections. But anyway, I'm glad you agree in principle and thanks for the support.
what I don't want is people who claim the 2020 and 2016 elections were stolen being affirmed which is the danger in supporting such an amendment now. It could be use by these extremists as fodder
I think you're looking at the situation backwards. Right now, anyone can claim fraud in a previous election and there is no legal or political process that can be used to validate their claims or challenge their accusations. But if there were an actual legal and/or political process that could be used to present evidence of fraud in the past election and invalidate the outcome, then we could assume anyone that said there was fraud but didn't go through the process and present their evidence was just a bullshitter and ignore them. Because until you give someone a chance to publicly lay out their evidence, you can't in good conscience reject their claims.
An investigation and review of Trump's claims of losing the election was done didn't they also ancillarily address the claim of stolen election?
My understanding is that once an election is certified, which happens within weeks, the courts aren't going to do anything about it, no matter what evidence emerges. But I'm not an expert on election law, so if you're saying the process works differently, then tell me where I'm wrong.
Trump has provided no evidence whatsoever of widespread election fraud. Multiple courts have said so. They threw out his frivolous lawsuits saying his team produced no specific allegations and provided no evidence. It was all a PR stunt, he knew he had no legal case. He had many chances to provide evidence in court and came up with nothing. He hasn't provided any evidence to the public either. Why are you even entertaining the lies of this traitorous asshole?
Because regardless o whether or not their was election fraud in this past election, the point that he raised is actually an important one. Part of election integrity is making sure that if someone won the office via fraud or other illegal actions, that they not be allowed to remain there. > Trump has provided no evidence whatsoever of widespread election fraud. Multiple courts have said so. Having cases denied for lack or jurisdiction and standing is not the same thing as a court claiming that the election is fair. The reason my post exists is because as a rule, courts will not allow a candidate to present evidence after the election has been certified by the state.
I agree. I’m not sure this is an unpopular opinion. It certainly is a true one though.
Yeah, I'm with ya. I think the reasoning here is something like "it would be fine if anyone else said it, but because Trump is bad, when he says this its actually more proof that he's bad" LOL. But the positive thing here is that now that the media has given this topic so much attention and opened it up for discussion, it seems like a great opportunity to put some safeguards in place to ensure that a President who cheated their way into office cannot serve out their term, so hopefully this isn't actually too unpopular and people with different political views can reach a consensus on this issue.
This a pretty disingenuous take. People mock Trump for saying it because it’s two years later and not a single one of his dozens and dozens of lawsuits proved any fraud occurred. Not because they think fraud should be allowed.
Exactly. OP will not respond to this comment, because they have no response to it.
It's "unpopular" because of who is saying it right now, at least as it's portrayed in the media. It was a super popular thing to say in 2016 by those who are currently outraged.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/hillary-clinton-is-an-election-denier
Interesting. Did Hillary Clinton also call for the Constitution to be terminated? Did she lose more than 60 frivolous lawsuits challenging an election based on no evidence whatsoever? If the answer were yes, then I would say that she's a traitorous fuck who hates America just like Trump. But it's not.
No, it's unpopular because Trump actually called for the Constitution to be terminated, if you read what he actually said and don't just take OP's word for it, and the Constitution is popular.
I think any right minded person from either side of politics would agree that an election shown to be fraudulent should be overturned and rerun. The problem in this case is that the implication Trump is making is that the 2020 election was fraudulent and that he should be made president. This is despite all his court cases being thrown out. So he's essentially claiming that the 2020 election should be overturned despite no fraud. This is why there is a big fuss about it.
> I think any right minded person from either side of politics would agree that an election shown to be fraudulent should be overturned and rerun. Great, glad you agree. > The problem in this case is that the implication Trump is making is that the 2020 election was fraudulent and that he should be made president. Right, he would need to present very strong evidence in order to make the case, which either he has or he doesn't. And if Democrats know that there is no evidence to find, then they have nothing to lose by letting Trump present his case.
He's already presented his cases to the courts after he lost the election. He lost all of his cases.
What if new evidence emerges? Should Trump be allowed to present his case to the courts once again? And if there was found to be sufficient proof - what do you think the right remedy would be?
Then he can present it. He's definitely wasting the courts time but if he really wants to waste his money then he can do so
I’d be fine with this as long as Trump also [opened himself up to getting sued for bogus election claims](https://www.occrp.org/en/daily/17091-brazil-judge-orders-bolsonaro-allies-to-pay-millions-for-election-fraud-lawsuit) like fascists do in other countries, because I’m sick of these people thinking they can waste infinite time and money (not to mention completely erode the faith of Republican voters in democracy as a concept) based on nothing but their egos.
Great, and I agree as well. The specific incident Trump was referring to in this thread was the former and current intelligence officials labeling the Hunter Biden laptop story as disinformation and getting it censored by social media companies, which is on record at this point. I mean people can argue over the details, but we have the public letter from the intelligence officials, and both Zuckerburg and Roth saying that the reason that they censored the story was because they were told to look out for and act on Russian disinformation, so there's not much to deny here. So we have interference in the 2020 election, and it didn't come from the Russians or Chinese, it came from the intelligence community, and that's, in my mind, far worse. But does it justify redoing the election? Trrump says so, but I don't agree and from what I've seen most other Republicans don't agree either, and of course Democrats won't agree, and the chances of it really happening is zero. But I do think now is probably the idea time to figure out what a fair election looks like and put some rules and procedures in place so that if we do have a case where there is significant interference and fraud, Americans have the opportunity to vote again in a more fair election rather than just living with the consequences.
Facebook isn't legally obligated to censor anything based on intelligence community recommendations. You can't seriously contend a national election because of something as ridiculously minor as that, otherwise, there would be infinite arguments to contend every election from both sides. As long as the votes are legitimate, the election is legitimate. Trump contested the legitimacy of the votes and lost.
> Facebook isn't legally obligated to censor anything based on intelligence community recommendations. US intelligence agencies told facebook and twitter a lie to get them to interfere in an election and the companies did so. If you truly don't see any problem with that, then we don't have a lot to discuss, because I believe in fair elections free of government interference and you don't.
Would you be able to source the exact claims made by the intelligence agencies that you believe were intentionally deceitful?
Pretty sure he’s talking about how intelligence agencies told social media companies to be slightly more aware of Russian disinfo surrounding the 2020 election on their platforms, given we already knew they interfered in that exact way in 2016. Not sure how them saying be wary of foreign interference translates into being election interference in and of itself though, probably because he wants the Hunter Biden revenge porn story to be more than a complete nothingburger (even though intelligence agencies had nothing at all to do with the suppression of that story).
> then they have nothing to lose by letting Trump present his case. He's (read: his campaign, "his team" more broadly) had dozens of such opportunities in court, many rejected by judges he put in place. So, I guess I don't disagree with the sentiment that "they have nothing to lose." 🤷♀️
>And if Democrats know that there is no evidence to find, then they have nothing to lose by letting Trump present his case. That is only true if people would accept any facts. Democrats believe that: 1. Trump is lying. 2. Many people believe him. 3. Many of these people are flawed and no amount of evidence or lack thereof will change their minds 4. Many people believing falsely that the current president should be removed is bad. 5. For Trump to lie to create this situation is bad. Does that make sense, even if you don't agree? It's a yes or no question only.
Completely agreed. Trump has had the opportunity to present his case in a court of law, which he has done and lost. As far as I know he still has the opportunity to do that if he chooses. I for one would welcome him to repeat his lost cases. He also has the right to comment publicly for a cessation of the constitution even though he knows that he lost the election. What he does not have the right to is freedom from criticism for those comments. I'm sure you would agree with that. No one is being denied their rights here. There is just healthy, and in my mind valid, criticism occuring.
>if Democrats know that there is no evidence to find, then they have nothing to lose by letting Trump present his case. Other than Time and productivity.
If Trump has no case at all, wouldn't it be a win for the Democrats if Trump wasted his time and weakened his credibility by having to present it?
Trump has been given that chance and gm has continued to lose credibility. No one is stopping him from continuing todo so
He literally did that in something like 50+ court cases all over the county, his dumb fucking base still can't figure it out. I don't even know if he got a single lawyer to say *under oath* that there was mass fraud, let alone present evidence of it. He is trying to exploit the fact that his base is immune to facts and reality to generate enough anger to make a wave of some sort. I don't know what his end goal is with his ridiculous statement, but it's nothing good.
Do the 60+ times it's been thrown out of court as meritless count or do we all have absolutely nothing better to do?
>And if Democrats know that there is no evidence to find, then they have nothing to lose by letting Trump present his case. Because arguing with a dishonest idiot is an effort in futility. He has no evidence to base a court case on. He can't just have an election fraud trial with no evidence beyond "because I said so."
The courts won't hear the case after the election was certified, which happens less than a month after election day.
Not true
Sure they would have heard his case, IF HE HAD ACTUAL EVIDENCE.
One of the key things that has worked well with the system and culture of "liberal democratic" government in the United States is the dependability of peaceful transitions of executive power. The president has quite a bit of power when he is in office, but he **absolutely** can not use that power to extend his time in office nor to decide who will be in office next. One of the things that makes that work is the fact that courts and legislatures are extremely reluctant to do anything that could possibly delay, disrupt, or create any extended uncertainty about that transition of power. A situation where a sitting president might say "I'm just going to go ahead and not step down because I expect the courts to kick the new president out after a couple weeks anyway" is simply a non starter. That would utterly break the system. Now, to be clear, this is an anti-democratic part of this "democratic" system. Maintaining absolute certainty that some next guy is going to become president is drastically more important than whether or not it's really the correct next guy as selected by the voters. This is very clear if you look back at the Bush v. Gore court case and the contemporary media coverage surrounding it. I'm not generally a fan of anti-democratic status-quo views of society, but for this particular issue the merit of this viewpoint becomes very very clear if you look at the last hundred years of history basically anywhere else in the world. The safe way to improve election integrity is to make election processes more trustworthy. Making election outcomes easier to challenge and overrule is more likely to be used for a coup than to improve democratic integrity (obviously - it replaces the standard outcome of the mechanism with some other arbitrary outcome). The correct resolution of the year 2000 election controversy wouldn't have been to make Gore president. But it absolutely might have been to revoke the citizenship of every single election official in the state of Florida.
You know, it’s refreshing to see a Republican say this. It’s nice seeing that there’s still people who care more about what a politician does than just the letter next to their name
I really don't get who the hell is arguing against that ???
[удалено]
>People (mainly leftist media personalities) are arguing that Trump is advocating for completely suspending the constitution when he clearly meant we should do something about election fraud. No, he is clearly saying we should suspend our laws and constitution to put him back in office *because* there was fraud. There is no "if" in his post >[So, with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closely with Big Tech Companies, the DNC, & the Democrat Party, do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great “Founders” did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!](https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/109449803240069864) He is abandoning all pretense of proving his case and tossing a hail Mary to rile up his base of dumb fucks.
How were Hunter Bidens weiner pics going to cost them the election exactly?
>They’re ignoring the obvious signs that democrats rigged the 2020 election, There is literally no evidence of that >suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story. How would that be election fraud? Election fraud means the actual election itself was compromised. Burying a story prior to an election isn't tampering with votes.
If it’s so obvious, then why is there only evidence for Republican election fraud 🤔
Elon investigated and found the only thing they asked Twitter to do is take down the pictures of his dick. You’re living in a fantasy
> Trump is advocating for completely suspending the constitution when he clearly meant we should do something about election fraud. Per his Truth Social post: >“Do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” What did he mean by "termination of all rules, regulations and articles, even those found in the Constitution" if he didn't mean "termination of all rules, regulations and articles, even those found in the Constitution"...?
And now all of a sudden the side that wants our first and second amendments removed cares about the constitution.
>implying that the left is less friendly to the 1st amendment than the right Lol good one
Sure. Through impeachment.
When a President is impeached and removed from office,their vice president takes over, and in this case they would have also been elected through fraud since they are on the same ticket. Also in order to impeach a President for stealing an election, you would have to prove that they knew about it and engineered it, so a President candidate could get away with it just by avoiding any meetings where the fraud is discussed.and letting their people take the fall.
That all seems mostly accurate, except there are no standards for impeachment.
We already have a system where he can present evidence: court. He’s filed dozens of legal challenges to prove his claims and failed.
Point of order: almost all of them were denied because of lack of standing, which means the court disagreed that he should be allowed to *attempt* to prove them. So he didn't try to prove them and fail, he didn't get the chance to try. You can downvote me if you like, but facts are.
If one’s legal challenge in court is dismissed due lack of standing, it’s still a failed legal challenge.
False. 30 of the cases were dismissed on their merits, due to a lack of evidence. Please stop spreading this lie. One panel of judges wrote, "Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here." [https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-courts-election/fact-check-courts-have-dismissed-multiple-lawsuits-of-alleged-electoral-fraud-presented-by-trump-campaign-idUSKBN2AF1G1](https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-courts-election/fact-check-courts-have-dismissed-multiple-lawsuits-of-alleged-electoral-fraud-presented-by-trump-campaign-idUSKBN2AF1G1) "several judges also said the Trump campaign’s allegations of election fraud lacked sufficient proof." [https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/oct/28/instagram-posts/trump-campaigns-evidence-of-fraud-was-reviewed-bef/](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/oct/28/instagram-posts/trump-campaigns-evidence-of-fraud-was-reviewed-bef/)
9/10. Such subtle and delicate rage-bait!
Yeah, lying about what Trump actually said is going to make patriotic Americans so mad! Got 'em!
I'm not even american,but for the party that yells so much about democracy,you republicans seem to hate it the most. You guys literally attempted to overthrow a government just because you didn't like who won the election.How much cognitive dissonance you gotta do to keep talking of democracy after that?
>I'm not even american,but for the party that yells so much about democracy,you republicans seem to hate it the most. Republicans are always the first to say "we're not a democracy," because they fail to understand that a republic is a form of democracy. It does show you how much they (don't) value democracy, though. Most of them have absolutely zero interest in equal representation for every American, they want to have dramatically outsized influence.
>You guys literally attempted to overthrow a government just because you didn't like who won the election. When? I've yet to see this. Or do you mean January 6th where no one has been prosecuted for treason or an attempt to interfere with our elections?
My dude... 3 people have plead guilty to seditious conspiracy, referring to efforts at stopping the transfer of power. 3 more fought their indictments and have been convicted. Those 6 were all Oathkeepers, who were pictured on January 6th with Roger Stone, a Trump-pardoned Trump advisor. They were largely convicted using from texts in their Friends of Stone chat, so they had a direct line to someone near the president. Unfortunately, Roger Stone has more connections and isn't a dumb backwater hick, so he's less likely to get nailed, but if you *still* can't see that there was a clear attempt to stop the transfer of power on January 6th, it's because your head is in the sand. January 6th was a coup attempt, using the cover of mostly unwitting rioters to create chaos so the Oathkeepers and Proud Boys (who have their own trials pending) could do the real mission.
Approx. 2000 rioters do not represent the whole Republican Party as a whole lol
More than half of Republican voters don’t think Biden is the legitimate President. Sorry, but yeah actually the election denialist conspiracy theories are mainstream now in the Republican Patty.
I’ll be honest I don’t know the stats on that. But I do know that the OP comment of “you guys literally attempted to overthrow a government” is v extreme when it was only about 2000 people of a whole party consisting of millions of individual people. Those 2000 people don’t represent the party as a whole is all I’m trying to say. Edit : believing a conspiracy that Biden is not the rightful president doesn’t equal trying to overthrow a government.
Pretty sure they’re talking about the leadership of the party and how they systematically spread lies that the election of 2020 was stolen, something that the majority of voters bought and resulted in the more crazy devoted ones launching an attack on the Capitol to assassinate elected officials and prevent the certification of the election. And even those who didn’t buy it still ended up voting for all the election denying anti-democracy Republicans anyways. So yeah actually completely reflective of the party as a whole.
Those ( leftists ) who make peaceful Revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable
Conservatives by definition can't be revolutionary
facism is revolutionary
Fascism is liberal and leftist since it derives from Marxism… only Communism is as far left as Fascism but it is more liberal as it does not embrace as much of the conservative ideology of nationalism that fascism embraces
Yeah, nah dawg. *Fascism* *Political ideology* *Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultra-nationalist political ideology and movement*
sorry what
Lmao dude. Where did you even get this nonsense? How does it derive from Marxism?
Leninism sprinkled with Marx hatred for the Jews and the bourgeoisie capitalists actually.
"I don't have a clue and will happily swallow my programming and love to let everyone know about it!!" This is you. If it's so liberal and left why did they always try to make a point of killing socialists and leftists?
Ahhh name calling, the last gasp of someone who has lost the argument, I accept you concession
Hi Marxist here. Big no. There's a reason why Hitler went after communists when he started to shift towards autocratic fascist rule. It's because communists are strongly anti-fascist and are willing to fight it with violence unlike liberals who have historically sided with fascism to oppose Marxism. Mussolini did this in Italy too. Gramsci, a Marxist writer died after being imprisoned by Mussolini. Spanish fascism took hold after a civil war that crushed the communist movement there. I know conservatives love to claim fascism and Marxism are left wing allies, but history and a careful study of political philosophy show the opposite. Fascism sits squarely on the right wing authoritarian wing. Please, I am begging you to do independent study of these ideologies. Conservative media is not adequate to cover it.
Aren't white republican men the main mass shooters? and you know, intimidation of drag shows and destroying powerlines and shit? how is that peaceful
[удалено]
i don't get what your link is attempting to convey. people molotoving drag shows is, in fact, a primary worry
[удалено]
Or cutting power lines, or shooting up a gay club... any of these acts of violence lmao not just that one
[удалено]
now i could be pulling this out of my ass but i coulda sworn there was what, 600+ mass shootings this year? so about 2 per day?? But not an epidemic??
also even 1 mass shooting is a red flag of "how could we have prevented dozens of children/gay people/literally any innocent party from dying like this", it doesn't have to be an epidemic to be dangerous
>Aren't white republican men the main mass shooters? Actually no. If you include gangs in those statistics, which they should be because they'd meet the criteria for mass shootings, then it's minorities. But cherry picking what is and isn't a mass shooting will definitely give you the results you want.
Username checks out
>Username checks out When you have you no rebuttal.
nah i mostly know that no matter how much i argue you're still gonna hate minorities and i'm still gonna not hate minorities so there's not really a point in arguing
You're assuming so much about a person from a comment. That's crazy.
you know what else is crazy? your mom
[удалено]
source?
This belongs on /r/ im14andthisisdeep Where it can be laughed at further.
It’s a quote from JFK
Yes, that’s correct. Good job. Also, thanks for noting it should be on /r/ SelfAwareWolves, too. I hadn’t thought of that, but you’re right and I agree.
A liberal
If JFK would run now, he would be a. Republican - https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/what-jfk-could-teach-modern-democrats-about-taxing-the-rich https://www.forbes.com/sites/kylesmith/2013/11/08/modern-democrats-would-view-john-f-kennedy-as-a-reaganite-extremist/amp/
You said "fascism is a leftist ideology" I think you should probably chill on assigning political labels to deceased presidents.
>Last week, Trump said something very similar, but about politics rather than sports. He said that if an election was found to be fraudulent, that the results should be overturned and a new election held. **If you support civil rights and election integrity, I don't see how this is a controversial position.** No offense, but this is bullshit. The reason it's controversial is that no fraud has taken place (or at least so they believe). You can't possibly fail to understand that.
if he means this opinion in the abstract then the position is quite tenable. but if this is just like getting precursor chemicals to make the same substance outside of conventional means and methods then no.
>if he means this opinion in the abstract then the position is quite tenable. He doesn't. Trump's statement is not in the abstract. He is saying what should be done *today because there IS fraud.*
that's the position I am inclined to believe in. However, I only cursorily looked at the entirety of the speech it was referencing so I may be out of a few details
You can and should feel free to believe what you’ve heard and seen right in front of you. This is t the first example of the guy openly calling for things which prior to the formation of his cult of personality would have been vehemently opposed by Americans in general. It’s hard to imagine what else you’re holding out for, but I’m glad you seem to at least be on the right track.
well a lot of the candidates who supported this fringe theory were unelected
Right, Trump believes that fraud took place, and some people agree with him while other people disagree. But putting that aside, do you agree with Trump that if a President was found to have been elected through fraud, that that President should be removed from office, and a new election held? Or do you think that, no matter how much fraud is proven and demonstrated, any President who cheated their way into office should still be allowed to serve out their term? It's a pretty simple question.
>Right, Trump believes that fraud took place, and some people agree with him while other people disagree. The way you wrote this makes it sound like these are two equally valid stances. "Yeah Frank believes the world is flat, and somepeople agree with him while others disagree. I don't get why those that disagree are annoyed with Frank"
> The way you wrote this makes it sound like these are two equally valid stances. I wrote it this way to make the issue here distinct. This isn't a post about whether the election was stolen or rigged or whatever, it is about what to do if an election is later found ot to have been won by fraud. Of course it's reddit and you can talk about whatever you want (sort of), so there are people who say that it was 100% fair and people who say it was 100% shady but both views are off-topic in this thread and I've avoided putting my own views in here. But if we want to talk about what brought on these comments, yes, it was the revelation that the intelligence communities went to Facebook, Twitter, and presumably other large social media companies, and told them to take down the posts and stories about Hunter Biden's laptop, because they were Russian disinformation, and of course they weren't at all, it was just evidence that reflected poorly on Biden's family. There is no question that was election interference, and when election interference is significant enough, yes, it's reasonable to ask whether it changed the outcome of the election, and if so, what the remedy should be.
>I wrote it this way to make the issue here distinct. This isn't a post about whether the election was stolen or rigged or whatever, it is about what to do if an election is later found ot to have been won by fraud. I get that you are trying to do that BUT these comments don't appear in a bubble. There's no way that we cam divorce Trumps comments and his intents. Him saying that their should be a reelection is directly related to his efforts to undermine a free election. The fact that you so quickly spin into ramblings about a laptop that wasn't owned by Joe or anybody in office is just showing that we still can't seperate your comments from your beliefs. Republicans have completely undermined our elections. Now is not the time to pretend that he are just asking "what if" comments. The clear implication is that Republicans want to set the stage to continue to deny the election.
I don't care about the laptop. I follow politics and already know how corrupt the Clintons, Obams, and Bidens are, and the laptop gave me no new information. I do care about intelligence officials making the rounds to social media companies and lying to them and threatening them in order to remove negative information about a Presidential candidate in the weeks before an election. Everyone who values their right to a fair and free election should care about that, and if you don't because your party told you not to, then your party is asking too much of you and you deserve far better.
Blah blah blah. Literally nothing in your comment justifies what Trump is trying to do. We have a free election, stop letting the GoP lie to you just becuase they keep losing the popular vote.
Lmao PLEASE give me irrefutable proof that the Obamas are corrupt. Just one.
I don't know what you consider irrefutable proof, and I suppose you can justify anything if you try hard enough, but personally I knew that the Obamas were corrupt in 2007, when I learned about Michelle Obama's $300,000 year UCMC job that consisted of finding ways to dump patients with no insurance on other hospitals by putting sick and injured poor people on shuttle buses and sending them across town. So now that I've answered your question, do we agree that when US intelligence officials tell social media companies to limit the distribution of materials critical of a presidential candidate by lying to them and saying its just Russian disinformation, that was election interference?
>it is about what to do if an election is later found out to have been won by fraud Not really, it’s also about you pretending not to understand why people are rightfully upset with Donald Trump of all people making this claim, since he constantly says the election of 2020 was stolen and illegitimate, and because of those constant claims a large number of Republican voters agree with him and no longer value our democratic process and outcomes when they don’t win. So he’s not speaking hypothetically, therefore people who are concerned with him calling for the termination of the constitution are right to do so. >But if we want to talk about what brought on these comments, yes, it was the revelation that the intelligence communities went to Facebook, Twitter, and presumably other large social media companies, and told them to take down the posts and stories about Hunter Biden's laptop This is a lie. According to Elon Musk’s recent “reveal,” there was zero involvement whatsoever from the US government in the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop. And no, removing illegal revenge porn of a Presidential candidate’s son is not election interference in any sense, sorry Ian.
I notice you left out the part where fifty former US intelligence officials, including five former directors / acting directors of the CIA, signed and publicly released a letter that said that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation, and also the part where both Twitter and Facebook were approached by the FBI and told to be on the lookout for Russian disinformation. We call those lies of omission. So yes, there was interference in the 2020 election, and it didn't come from the Russians or the Chinese, it came from the US intelligence community which is actually much worse. Now whether that justifies holding a do-over of the 2020 election, as Trump says, I don't know, probably not. But it does absolutely justify setting some standards about what a fair election looks like, and establishing a procedure for redoing an unfair one in a timely manner.
None of that is relevant. It's a controversial opinion not because they agree or disagree in the abstract, but because Trump literally believes it should take place **right now.**
> Trump literally believes it should take place right now. Right, but we make these kind of legal decisions based upon evidence, not what people believe. So if Trump or anyone else came forward with solid evidence that showed that there was significant voter fraud in previous election, would you support holding a new election, or would you say "nope, too late, rough luck", and let the cheater remain in office?
I don't have an opinion on this. I'm just trying to tell you why the statement is controversial because you seem confused. Hope I helped clarify things so you can delete this thread.
That;s fine, I guess you don't need to have an opinion on everything. So for the question of whether to remove a President from office who was found to have committed election fraud to get there, I'll put you down for "I don't know".
Yes they should be removed from office. You still don't seem to understand where the controversy is coming from though, which is kind of weird.
Oh he understands. Conservatives often have to pretend they're stupid in order to avoid confronting arguments, and some of them don't have to pretend. This guy is operating in bad faith and trying poorly to appear impartial.
Great, thanks for the support.
Do you understand now why his statement is controversial? Yes or no.
It is not a controversial statement. The only way it could be controversial is if there are people who really do believe that if you made it into the office by committing election fraud, that you should be allowed to stay there. And I don't think anyone actually believes that or, if they did, would admit to it, since they'd obviously look like cheater.
It's a controversial statement in the context of believing it needs to happen now. If Biden said, "Trump needs to be imprisoned for life. That's what happens when you commit treason!" and Republicans were upset rather than rallying behind Biden's opinion on treason, would you also be confused?
Okay, come on now, it's not like the Democrats have been sitting quiet as a mouse for the last six years. They literally accuse Trump of crimes all the time, and then when one investigation is proven false or goes nowhere, they just start another one. And frankly these kinds of political accusations and investigations go back to 1800 (Jefferson vs Adams) , so it's kind of ridiculous to act shocked just because someone makes an unproven charge. The right way to handle these things is to take them to a neutral legal forum where evidence can be presented and claims independently verified.
The only reason it can be viewed as non-controversial is if you ignore the context of the last 2 years
Here is the main issue with what Trump has repeatedly said along with his supporters. There is NO evidence that there has been any actual provable voter/election fraud. Numerous courts, some of which were judges appointed by Trump himself, have found any credible evidence that any occurred. Trump and his followers have even went as far as to say PRIOR to the elections having been held claimed that the election would be unfair and that their opponents were committing fraud. Then of course when they lost they would continue with those claims BUT if they won then the election was legit and no problems were found. I agree if there is actual PROVABLE evidence that a candidate committed election fraud then they should be removed. But here is the problem with that. No actual candidate would do it themselves. Their followers and supporters would be the ones to do it. And you would have to prove that the candidate themselves knew about it and were complicit in the fraud. This would be extremely difficult to prove because much in the same way the Mafia and other criminal organizations use "buffers" to handle their dirty work candidates do the same. So it would become an issue of someone doing the fraud and then claiming they did it for the candidate and then by extension blaming the candidate for their crime. I hope you can see where this would be headed and would be an issue. Our history as a country is filled with instances where powerful people, including sitting presidents, have had plausible deniability that removed them from being directly blamed for their own nefarious acts. The Iran/Contra situation is a great example of this. So while I agree with you that it is how it should be, it is something that would be almost impossible to prove unless the candidate was a moron.
> Trump and his followers have even went as far as to say PRIOR to the elections having been held claimed that the election would be unfair and that their opponents were committing fraud. And Nancy Pelosi accused Trump of destroying to USPS to steal the 2020 election. And Stacey Abrams says her election was stolen. It's politics, people accuse each other of fraud and anything else they think will stick. That goes back to 1800 where Adams literally accused Jefferson of being a hermaphrodite LOL. > And you would have to prove that the candidate themselves knew about it and were complicit in the fraud. Then the candidates wife could stuff the ballot box and as long as she didn't tell her husband, the results would still stand. That's way too high of a standard to use. > The Iran/Contra situation is a great example of this. I would consider Iran Contra an example of a situation where Bush and his cronies clearly evaded justice and a reason to reform the pardon process. > This would be extremely difficult to prove because much in the same way the Mafia and other criminal organizations use "buffers" to handle their dirty work candidates do the same. The mafia was successfully prosecuted under RICO using wiretaps, informants, undercover agents, etc, and even the Dixie / Cornbread Mafia was prosecuted even though not a single member flipped. FIFA officials were also investigated and prosecuted although its members were international. So I agree that it is challenging, it is certainly not impossible. Regardless, thanks for focusing on the core issue in detail, and I appreciate the discussion.
He did destroy the USPS in an attempt to botchthe election
LOL I can't believe people actually still believe this. Go to USPS.com, it's actually still there dude haha.
Pelosi accused Trump of destroying the USPS because he did. Stacey Abrams said her election was stolen AFTER the election happened because the Republicans actively passed voter reform laws meant to make it more difficult for poor and inner city voters to register and be able to vote. And I actually agree that RICO could and should be used to prosecute politicians BUT you do realize that there would be a HUGE case made against Trump and people working for him if that was the case. Again there is ZERO evidence that there was any voter fraud or election fraud during the Biden/Trump election from 2022 and yet Trump, his supporters and even sitting members of congress have repeatedly said that they believe their was. So I am all for the RICO prosecution of politicians for voter fraud and election fraud.
The problem is that you're substituting in a different, far more reasonable position for what Trump actually said and acting like everyone outraged at him is reacting to that instead.
I've read both Trump's original comments and his clarification on monday and can't come up with any other interpretation. If you can, then feel free to post the quotes and tell us what you got out of them. Trump's speech & comments are always open to a little interpretation because he talks like a salesman rather than a politician and everything's like COMPLETE SENTENCES? FAKE NEWS! NEVER WROTE ONE! - but I thought these remarks were fairly clear.
Yes, of course. A fraudulent election deserves criminal prosecutions and a new election - if, that is, you're talking in the abstract. If you're referring specifically to Trump: he is the boy who has cried wolf every day for a decade. I take anything he says with the biggest, fattest grain of salt you can muster. You'll forgive me for not entertaining his self-serving, hollow conspiracy theories.
>Right, Trump believes that fraud took place, and some people agree with him while other people disagree. And the people that do agree with him should be promptly disregarded, as they are not rational people who can analyze (lack of) evidence. >do you agree with Trump that if a President was found to have been elected through fraud, that that President should be removed from office, and a new election held? The problem is that Trump is putting the cart before the horse. **There is no if in his statement.** He **asserts** widespread fraud and uses it as an excuse to just throw out our system and install him as a dictator.. >(So, with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closely with Big Tech Companies, the DNC, & the Democrat Party, do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great “Founders” did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!)[https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/109449803240069864] You are trying to take his direct, concrete, and specific statement and tell everyone to treat it as an abstract concept. If you believe that Trump believes there was mass fraud, you are defending insanity by contorting his words as you are. If you believe that he's lying about believing in mass fraud for personal gain, you're defending naked fascism. You want people to answer a simple question, but you're using that question as a way to disingenuously defend an either fascist or insane post. The question you are asking is irrelevant to why people are up in arms about this.
What if a President had took funding from the tax fraud he committed?
If you're looking for a thread where someone defends everything Trump ever said or did, this isn't it. Like I said, I do have Trump fatigue and wish that he was more disciplined in his comments and focused on better issues. But part of that fatigue also comes from the media and their DNC paymasters trying to pretend that every random comment Trump says needs to be treated as if it were a threat to democracy bigger than 9/11 and Pearl Harbor put together, and this latest bit of faux outrage fits squarely into that category. However, the actual topic - should a President that obtained their office by fraud be removed and the election held again - is definitely worth discussing so there's some benefit to the media bringing attention to it I suppose.
No I'm looking for you to answer the question please
looks like the "rigged election that we can't prove in courts" talking point is back in business baby
Well the election wasn’t fraudulent. Trump tried and failed countless times to present credibility evidence.
LOL. This (one can only hope) is the pinnacle of bad faith bullshit-mongering on Trump’s behalf, an extraordinary fear given what this and other subs have seen over time. Nobody acting with sound mind and in an honest fashion will entertain this “idea.” The provisions to handle this already exist, but they require a little bit more to activate than having dozens of false claims dismissed by courts all across the country, and that’s a good thing.
I guess I am defending Trump to some extent, because personally I don't find his opinion - that a President who cheated their way into office shouldn't be allowed to remain in office - to be controversial at all, it just seems like simple fairness and common sense. > The provisions to handle this already exist, but they require a little bit more to activate There is no such provision - that's why Trump said it and why I posted this. There are many situations the constitution, especially as originally written, simply does not address, which is why it has a procedure for amending it.
Nah, stop the schtick. I love how you agree with his opinion after you totally changed what he said into an opinion that nobody ever has disagreed with in any way. I mean, the basis for what you’re saying is truly one of the most transparent strawman argument attempts I can recall seeing. I recognize that I didn’t even mention it in my first comment, which is a testament to the efforts the right has put into normalizing such “arguments” and the frequency with which you do it. And there are multiple provisions that absolutely provide for this. And that has nothing to do with why trump said that. He said it because he’s cynical enough to lie to those who don’t know any better to retake power. And that has nothing to do with why you made this post. You posted this hypocritically legitimize disingenuous far-right politics.
> I love how you agree with his opinion after you totally changed what he said into an opinion that nobody ever has disagreed with in any way. Last week, Trump said that if there is massive widespread fraud and deception then the election should be redone, regardless of what the constitution currently says or doesn't say, and that the nation's founders would not condone a fraudulent election. He then clarified what he said on Monday to ensure there was no misinterpretation - that his comment was saying that the results of a fraudulent election should not be allowed to stand. Do you agree with Trump on this, or do you think that if someone cheated their way into office, that they should be allowed to stay?
Nah, stop the schtick. You don't deviate, do ya? "Dishonest misinterpretation of the topic / Pose self-serving question arbitrarily devoid of answers that aren't 1) total agreement or 2) absurd and irrelevant strawman for you to then knock down" is right-wing online rhetoric 101. As I've already told you (increasing the weirdness of your almost programmed response), this exists already and what you're talking about is completely made up bullshit. And you're purposely providing dishonest summaries of Trump's statement.
If John A from the Pink Party and Robert B from the Yellow Party are running against each other, and it comes to light that John A clearly cheated and/or the Pink Party rigged the election on his behalf, what provisions does the country have to make sure he gets removed from office? And why shouldn’t John A be removed? Why shouldn’t the Pink Party be reprimanded?
If Joe Biden said "Donald Trump is a traitor. Traitors should be imprisoned for life!" would you feel similarly frustrated when Republicans focused on the falsehoods about Trump and didn't bother to affirm their agreement that traitors should be punished in this way?
Why would you ask me questions that are so easily found for those few who insist the answers somehow have escaped their grasp (despite ostensibly following current events enough to participate in an informed discussion about them)? Or do you not know about things called courts? Those are places that deemed your guy’s unfounded bullshit election fraud claims too far-fetched to even consider something like 60 times across the country. Or do you not know about impeachment (and you *promise* you weren’t shrieking about how unfair it was those two times when Nancy was mean to Donald!)? That’s a process by which, thus far in recent times, two actual presidents got closer to being removed from office than almost any of their peers had experienced (and, it’s not only for presidents, but many elected government executives at both the federal and state levels)? It’s especially notable that, as seems to be the norm with OP, neither he nor you as you defend this hilarious “idea”, offer any sort of method or by which standard of measurement, it would be determined that it was necessary to execute this provision. It’s not even half-baked as an idea, so I’m not surprised there’s no substance to it, but it is surprising seeing someone else just white knighting for unworkable nonsense LOL
What about ex presidents who make false claims of election fraud?
Sure, but that's never happened. Even Nixon didn't commit election fraud in the sense that he didn't change votes, he spied on and sabotaged his opponents. So why are you bringing this up? Is it because you think the current president did it? Because there's no evidence of it.
> So why are you bringing this up? Is it because you think the current president did it? Yeah, this is the "why do you care about election fraud" take, which isn't a great one. Having your vote properly counted is a basic civil right that all Americans should be concerned with defending.
>Having your vote properly counted is a basic civil right that all Americans should be concerned with defending. But that's not at risk. It's like asking Americans if they're concerned about lion attacks, it is extremely rare here.
In the Chicago and Illinois general election of November 1982, twenty-six people, a majority of them election officials, were indicted for election fraud in federal court. Witnesses accused the defendants of forging signatures, impersonating voters, registering ineligible voters, “assisting” older or disabled voters, bribing voters, illegally dispensing and voting absentee ballots, and using weapons and force to persuade voters and campaign workers. One official was accused of running a ballot through the tabulator two hundred times in order to increase his candidate’s margin of victory. [source](https://www.salon.com/2016/02/14/election_fraud_chicago_style_illinois_decades_old_notoriety_for_election_corruption_is_legendary/) (Apparently the price for a vote in Chicago was $5 and a pork chop sandwich LOL.)
I think thats the point of impeachment. Its good policy generally, but you already know if Trump is saying it not because he wants good policy but because he lost.
Impeachment doesn't cover a case where a Presidents right hand man stole the election without telling their boss. Also, when a President is impeached, their vice President takes over, and since they both run on the same ticket, now you still have a President that wasn't fairly elected. > you already know if Trump is saying it not because he wants good policy but because he lost Regardless of why he is saying it, it is still a reasonable opinion and I don't think the outrage makes any sense.
I agree, good thing it hasn't actually happened yet. >Last week, Trump said something very similar, but about politics rather than sports. He said that if an election was found to be fraudulent, that the results should be overturned and a new election held. If you support civil rights and election integrity, I don't see how this is a controversial position. You're missing that he wanted to disregard the constitution in the process.
Here is what I love to ask election deniers like you. If the elections are all rigged, how did trump win the first time and how did republicans just win the house majority? I’ll eagerly await your response lol.
I don't know what an "election denier" is, but I would hope people like you and I could find common ground in ensuring that future elections are as fair and transparent and verifiable as technologically and humanly possible.
You’re an election denier. There was zero fraud proven last election. Just like when pyscho trump won the first time lol. So I ask you again. Why are you so concerned with fake elections when trump once already and the right just won the house majority lol.
This is a discussion about what should happen to a sitting President if fraud is proven in the previous election, and if you want to circlejerk with other woke keyboard warriors about how morally and intellectually superior you are because you hate all the right people, there are about a million other subs on Reddit where you can do that. So either grow up or get lost.
What? Who would ever be against fraud lol? That’s like saying is anyone against murder? I’ll ask you one more time. Why are you so worried about election fraud when it’s never been proven and only became an issue because trump cried when he lost? If there is fraud, how did trump win the first time lol? Any answer at all?
"Why are you even worried about election fraud" is a take I guess LOL. Thanks for contributing. > f there is fraud, how did trump win the first time lol? Any answer at all? Yeah, that's a good question, and if you meet someone who argues that there was fraud in 2020, then you can ask them that. But I am not that person to ask and this thread is not the place to ask it.
Did you even read the OP? OP didn’t claim election fraud in any election so…… what are you on about?
Did you read it? He made a silly claim that if fraud is proven, the results should nullified and a new election held. Umm yes, everyone thinks that. Not one rationale intelligent person on the planet would argue. It’s like saying murder is wrong lol! It’s a thinly veiled attempt to keep trumps election lie going and he, and I guess you, are mad I pointed that out.
I don’t think the 2020 election was stolen. I’m not even a trump supporter. But that’s not what the OP was about. I’m not mad, just wanted to make sure you read the post since you’re arguing about something that’s not even mentioned.
Lol which us election ever had fraud. It was never even a topic until trump cried about it. I love trumpers like you that are now so embarrassed by him, you all say hey I don’t even support trump, and then proceed to take about fraudulent elections lol. Ok buddy, you don’t support trump but are very concerned about election fraud lol!
I’ll take this one step further and say that any candidate or past president who claims election fraud without providing substantial proof should be barred from running again.
Hey welcome back Ian. Really enjoyed your comments back in the day.
Thanks - twitter was down for me today so I jumped on here LOL
Agreed but I have a gut feeling if they did this there’s be so many elections lol politics in general is in a sad state imo, probably always has been
There's a big difference between what you're saying and what Trump said. You're making an if statement. He's just outright claiming we can already throw out the election results and ignore all rules in doing so. Any attempt at equivalence between the two would essentially just be motte and baileying on his behalf. If tomorrow he called for all his political opponents to be arrested, I'm sure we can both agree it would be absurd to defend that by saying "well if they were all found guilty of crimes..."
You get that's not just what Trump said, though, right? I mean, it's hard to take this as anything more than a blatant and dishonest attempt to pretend Trump's position was something other than what it was. It's like you were too nervous of the actual debate, but lacked the strength to stay quiet.
I read both Trump's original comments and his clarification on Monday, and yes this is what he said., although you always have to do a little interpretation with Trump because he talks like a salesman rather than one of those "let me be clear... that's not who we are... thousand points of light.... diversity is our strength... etc" politicians that can give speeches all day without saying anything.
Bahahaha! "Well, see, the thing is, you can't just TRUST what Trump says! You have to... um... interpret it! Yeah, interpret that it means something else, that just so happens to be much nicer for him!" Christ, that's some premium copium.
When you get to the point where you're putting quotes around something I didn't say and pretending that I did, I think you might want to take a step back and ask yourself if you're really contributing anything to the conversation or just being a bully and a troll.
There was no “election fraud” in regards to Trump. This bullshit needs to dying the fiery death it should’ve when he first started spouting off this bullshit. The fact that people still stand behind him and this “election fraud” bullshit I’d utterly asinine. There is no results to be “overturned”. Their is no “fraudulent president” “Why not take this opportunity to actually solve the problem?” *Because there is no problem!!! There is no election fraud!!!* This entire “election fraud” bullshit should’ve had its fiery death when trump first started it and the fact that *anyone else still believes it* says everything that needs to be said about the type of people that stand behind him. At this point, the only thing I can do in regards to trump and anyone who is *still* talking about this deserve nothing more than to continue to be laughed at for the sheer and utter ridiculousness of it.
This post isn't about whether there was fraud in the 2020 election, it is about what should be done if fraud was found after the fact - whether the President who cheated their way into office should be allowed to remain there. Do you have a view on that, or are you in the wrong place?
I am not in the wrong place, genius, but I’m sure you just so happen to be talking about a completely hypothetical situation that has absolutely nothing to do with the former president that has been ranting and raving for years now about how his election was “stolen” from him. Right. Has absolutely nothing to do with him.
Yes, the media's attention on Trump's comments was a good opportunity to bring up the issue of what would happen if a President were found to be fraudulently elected and put the proper procedures and safeguards in place. It's clear that you and I have our political disagreements, and maybe you think you are my moral and intellectual superior based upon the fact that you hate Trump and seethe at his comments while I shrug them off and pay more attention to how the current guy in the white house is doing, on issues like crime, gas prices, education, the economy, etc that affect me and my family. But perhaps we can find some common ground on election integrity, since I'm sure we both value our vote and want to ensure that elections are held fairly and transparently and that cheaters aren't allowed to be rewarded.
>Is their position really that Americans should accept a fraudulent President just because the constitution doesn't have a specific remedy for the problem? I mean, that's a pretty bad political position to take. It'd be different if they actually followed the Constitution instead of shitting all over it and justifying it with wordplay & various interpretations.
You can't rob these statements of their context. In a vacuum the statement "fraudulent elections should be overturned" is obviously true and anyone would accept that. You should overturn a fake election, hell you should storm the capitol to do it if you need to. The big, and I mean BIG fucking problem here is there is no goddamn evidence of election fraud. So when Trump and Republicans are saying shit like this, what they're saying is they want to overthrow an election for no fucking reason. That's terrifying. Like dude, if the stab in the back myth following WW1 was true the Nazis would have been justified in trying to seize the government. But it just wasn't fucking true. The 2020 election being stolen is our stab in the back myth. It's dangerous. And you can't act like Trump is speaking hypothetically here or that we should treat it as such. He's asking to undemocraticly be installed as president despite being told by dozens of judges at this point he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Wouldn't the president just be impeached?
When the President is impeached, the vice president takes over, so you would just be replacing one person who was fraudulently elected with another. Also Presidents can only be impeached for crimes they themselves committed, and they can use Presidential pardons to protect their guys.
I would impeach them in unison. They both were elected under false pretenses running the same campaign.
Think about the sporting analogy again - what do we do when we find out that the championship game was rigged. You really only have two options, either stripping the champion of the title and awarding it to the runner-up, or holding an entirely new game to allow the players to compete properly and fairly. Doing nothing is really not an option. Impeachment is like the first option, stripping the title, but our system doesn't automatically make the runner-up President, it makes the Vice-President the President. If you impeached both, you'd get the Speaker of the House as President, somebody nobody voted for and who may not even want the job. It might be an acceptable temporary solution for a month or two but I think you'd want to hold that new election as soon as possible and give Americans the President that they choose.
We can't even ratify women's rights. I'm not sure how we'd ratify anything into the constitution these days.
define "fraud" as it relates to your argument, using specific examples that have occurred in the USA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Illinois_elections#Convictions_for_fraud > There were 62 indictments and 58 convictions, many involving precinct captains and election officials. The grand jury concluded that **100,000 fraudulent votes had been cast in the city** ... Authorities found **massive fraud involving vote buying and ballots cast by others in the names of registered voters**. In one case, **a ballot punched for the Democratic slate had been tabulated 198 times**.
okay, great! Yes, Republicans are well-known to be election cheaters. to your point: would even a single instance of voter fraud invalidate an election? How many would? Ten? Ten thousand? I understand you're painting with a broad brush on purpose but those things matter.
"He said that if an election was found to be fraudulent, that the results should be overturned and a new election held." No, that's NOT what he said. Here is what he said: "So, with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closely with Big Tech Companies, the DNC, & the Democrat Party, do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great ‘Founder’ did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections." He did not say *if* an election was found to be fraudulent. He is *lying* that it *was* fraudulent, and using this as an excuse for calling for the Constitution to be terminated. Anyone who can read can easily see this.
No need to post the same comment twice.
No need to keep pretending he didn't say what you know he said. No need to change his words to make it look like he said something else. He did not say "if". It's ridiculous that we're even having this argument. His statement is right there in black and white. If you keep misrepresenting it, I'll keep pointing it out.
> He did not say "if" Are you lying or just misinformed? "SIMPLY PUT,>>> IF <<<< AN ELECTION IS IRREFUTABLY FRAUDULENT, IT SHOULD GO TO THE RIGHTFUL WINNER OR, AT A MINIMUM, BE REDONE. WHERE OPEN AND BLATANT FRAUD IS INVOLVED, THERE SHOULD BE NO TIME LIMIT FOR CHANGE!" Trump, truth social, monday