The Dems claim the 2016 Election was Hacked/Stolen and here is claim after claim to prove it.

[pensacolatiger 313]

18 minutes ago, homersapien said:

 

So awesome - you are asked for facts and you post bullet points of your thoughts.  No links, no summaries, just your mentally inferior version of the events.  Maybe you and fiddy should start your own smack talk section where you two can post ridiculous opinion pieces, and soak in your collective racist thoughts together

[homersapien 11,498]

9 minutes ago, pensacolatiger said:

So awesome - you are asked for facts and you post bullet points of your thoughts.  No links, no summaries, just your mentally inferior version of the events.  Maybe you and fiddy should start your own smack talk section where you two can post ridiculous opinion pieces, and soak in your collective racist thoughts together

These are facts:

(And since you apparently didn't know, the numbers in parentheses after each one is the supporting reference.)

https://www.acslaw.org/projects/the-presidential-investigation-education-project/other-resources/key-findings-of-the-mueller-report/

The Special Counsel investigation uncovered extensive criminal activity

• The investigation produced 37 indictments; seven guilty pleas or convictions; and compelling evidence that the president obstructed justice on multiple occasions. Mueller also uncovered and referred 14 criminal matters to other components of the Department of Justice.
• Trump associates repeatedly lied to investigators about their contacts with Russians, and President Trump refused to answer questions about his efforts to impede federal proceedings and influence the testimony of witnesses.
• A statement signed by over 1,000 former federal prosecutors concluded that if any other American engaged in the same efforts to impede federal proceedings the way Trump did, they would likely be indicted for multiple charges of obstruction of justice.

 

Russia engaged in extensive attacks on the U.S. election system in 2016

• Russian interference in the 2016 election was “sweeping and systemic.”[1]
• Major attack avenues included a social media “information warfare” campaign that “favored” candidate Trump[2] and the hacking of Clinton campaign-related databases and release of stolen materials through Russian-created entities and Wikileaks.[3]
• Russia also targeted databases in many states related to administering elections gaining access to information for millions of registered voters.[4]

 

The investigation “identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign” and established that the Trump Campaign “showed interest in WikiLeaks's releases of documents and welcomed their potential to damage candidate Clinton” 

• In 2015 and 2016, Michael Cohen pursued a hotel/residence project in Moscow on behalf of Trump while he was campaigning for President.^[5] Then-candidate Trump personally signed a letter of intent.
• Senior members of the Trump campaign, including Paul Manafort, Donald Trump, Jr., and Jared Kushner took a June 9, 2016, meeting with Russian nationals at Trump Tower, New York, after outreach from an intermediary informed Trump, Jr., that the Russians had derogatory information on Clinton that was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”^[6]
• Beginning in June 2016, a Trump associate “forecast to senior [Trump] Campaign officials that WikiLeaks would release information damaging to candidate Clinton.”[7] A section of the Report that remains heavily redacted suggests that Roger Stone was this associate and that he had significant contacts with the campaign about Wikileaks.[8]
• The Report described multiple occasions where Trump associates lied to investigators about Trump associate contacts with Russia. Trump associates George Papadopoulos, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, and Michael Cohen all admitted that they made false statements to federal investigators or to Congress about their contacts. In addition, Roger Stone faces trial this fall for obstruction of justice, five counts of making false statements, and one count of witness tampering.
• The Report contains no evidence that any Trump campaign official reported their contacts with Russia or WikiLeaks to U.S. law enforcement authorities during the campaign or presidential transition, despite public reports on Russian hacking starting in June 2016 and candidate Trump’s August 2016 intelligence briefing warning him that Russia was seeking to interfere in the election.
• The Report raised questions about why Trump associates and then-candidate Trump repeatedly asserted Trump had no connections to Russia.[9]

 

Special Counsel Mueller declined to exonerate President Trump and instead detailed multiple episodes in which he engaged in obstructive conduct

• The Mueller Report states that if the Special Counsel’s Office felt they could clear the president of wrongdoing, they would have said so. Instead, the Report explicitly states that it “does not exonerate” the President[10] and explains that the Office of Special Counsel “accepted” the Department of Justice policy that a sitting President cannot be indicted.[11]
• The Mueller report details multiple episodes in which there is evidence that the President obstructed justice. The pattern of conduct and the manner in which the President sought to impede investigations—including through one-on-one meetings with senior officials—is damning to the President.
• Five episodes of obstructive conduct stand out as being particularly serious:
  • In June 2017 President Trump directed White House Counsel Don McGahn to order the firing of the Special Counsel after press reports that Mueller was investigating the President for obstruction of justice;[12] months later Trump asked McGahn to falsely refute press accounts reporting this directive and create a false paper record on this issue – all of which McGahn refused to do.[13]
  • After National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was fired in February 2017 for lying to FBI investigators about his contacts with Russian Ambassador Kislyak, Trump cleared his office for a one-on-one meeting with then-FBI Director James Comey and asked Comey to “let [Flynn] go;” he also asked then-Deputy National Security Advisor K.T. McFarland to draft an internal memo saying Trump did not direct Flynn to call Kislyak, which McFarland did not do because she did not know whether that was true.[14]
  • In July 2017, the President directed former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski to instruct the Attorney General to limit Mueller’s investigation, a step the Report asserted “was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”[15]
  • In 2017 and 2018, the President asked the Attorney General to “un-recuse” himself from the Mueller inquiry, actions from which a “reasonable inference” could be made that “the President believed that an unrecused Attorney General would play a protective role and could shield the President from the ongoing Russia Investigation.”[16]
  • The Report raises questions about whether the President, by and through his private attorneys, floated the possibility of pardons for the purpose of influencing the cooperation of Flynn, Manafort, and an unnamed person with law enforcement.[17]

 

Congress needs to continue investigating and assessing elements of the Mueller Report

• The redactions of the Mueller Report appear to conceal the extent to which the Trump campaign had advance knowledge of the release of hacked emails by WikiLeaks. For instance, redactions conceal content of discussions that the Report states occurred between Trump, Cohen, and Manafort in July 2016 shortly after Wikileaks released hacked emails;[18] the Report further notes, “Trump told Gates that more releases of damaging information would be coming,” but redacts the contextual information around that statement.[19]
• A second issue the Report does not examine is the fact that the President was involved in conduct that was the subject of a case the Special Counsel referred to the Southern District of New York – which the Report notes “ultimately led to the conviction of Cohen in the Southern District of New York for campaign-finance offenses related to payments he said he made at the direction of the President.”[20]
• The Report also redacts in entirety its discussion of 12 of the 14 matters Mueller referred to other law enforcement authorities.[21]
• Further, the Report details non-cooperation with the inquiry by the President, including refusing requests by the Special Counsel for an interview; providing written responses that the Office of the Special Counsel considered “incomplete” and “imprecise” and that involved the President stating on “more than 30 occasions that he ‘does not recall’ or ‘remember’ or ‘have an independent recollection.’”[22]

 

And posting such facts doesn't preclude offering my opinion, whereas, your opinion resides on being blind to the facts.

[pensacolatiger 313]

Lol - you keep circling, this is just obstruction crap.  Look, I’m sorry the witch hunt by the left sucked you in and gave you a nothing burger.  You weren’t the only one that got duped.  But hey - if you send the DNC $29.95 right now, they are going to put something together that will finally take OMB down!🤣🤣🤣

[DKW 86 7,479]

21 hours ago, homersapien said:

These are facts:

(And since you apparently didn't know, the numbers in parentheses after each one is the supporting reference.)

https://www.acslaw.org/projects/the-presidential-investigation-education-project/other-resources/key-findings-of-the-mueller-report/

The Special Counsel investigation uncovered extensive criminal activity

• The investigation produced 37 indictments; seven guilty pleas or convictions; and compelling evidence that the president obstructed justice on multiple occasions. Mueller also uncovered and referred 14 criminal matters to other components of the Department of Justice.
• Trump associates repeatedly lied to investigators about their contacts with Russians, and President Trump refused to answer questions about his efforts to impede federal proceedings and influence the testimony of witnesses.
• A statement signed by over 1,000 former federal prosecutors concluded that if any other American engaged in the same efforts to impede federal proceedings the way Trump did, they would likely be indicted for multiple charges of obstruction of justice.

 

Russia engaged in extensive attacks on the U.S. election system in 2016

• Russian interference in the 2016 election was “sweeping and systemic.”[1]
• Major attack avenues included a social media “information warfare” campaign that “favored” candidate Trump[2] and the hacking of Clinton campaign-related databases and release of stolen materials through Russian-created entities and Wikileaks.[3]
• Russia also targeted databases in many states related to administering elections gaining access to information for millions of registered voters.[4]

 

The investigation “identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign” and established that the Trump Campaign “showed interest in WikiLeaks's releases of documents and welcomed their potential to damage candidate Clinton” 

• In 2015 and 2016, Michael Cohen pursued a hotel/residence project in Moscow on behalf of Trump while he was campaigning for President.^[5] Then-candidate Trump personally signed a letter of intent.
• Senior members of the Trump campaign, including Paul Manafort, Donald Trump, Jr., and Jared Kushner took a June 9, 2016, meeting with Russian nationals at Trump Tower, New York, after outreach from an intermediary informed Trump, Jr., that the Russians had derogatory information on Clinton that was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”^[6]
• Beginning in June 2016, a Trump associate “forecast to senior [Trump] Campaign officials that WikiLeaks would release information damaging to candidate Clinton.”[7] A section of the Report that remains heavily redacted suggests that Roger Stone was this associate and that he had significant contacts with the campaign about Wikileaks.[8]
• The Report described multiple occasions where Trump associates lied to investigators about Trump associate contacts with Russia. Trump associates George Papadopoulos, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, and Michael Cohen all admitted that they made false statements to federal investigators or to Congress about their contacts. In addition, Roger Stone faces trial this fall for obstruction of justice, five counts of making false statements, and one count of witness tampering.
• The Report contains no evidence that any Trump campaign official reported their contacts with Russia or WikiLeaks to U.S. law enforcement authorities during the campaign or presidential transition, despite public reports on Russian hacking starting in June 2016 and candidate Trump’s August 2016 intelligence briefing warning him that Russia was seeking to interfere in the election.
• The Report raised questions about why Trump associates and then-candidate Trump repeatedly asserted Trump had no connections to Russia.[9]

 

Special Counsel Mueller declined to exonerate President Trump and instead detailed multiple episodes in which he engaged in obstructive conduct

• The Mueller Report states that if the Special Counsel’s Office felt they could clear the president of wrongdoing, they would have said so. Instead, the Report explicitly states that it “does not exonerate” the President[10] and explains that the Office of Special Counsel “accepted” the Department of Justice policy that a sitting President cannot be indicted.[11]
• The Mueller report details multiple episodes in which there is evidence that the President obstructed justice. The pattern of conduct and the manner in which the President sought to impede investigations—including through one-on-one meetings with senior officials—is damning to the President.
• Five episodes of obstructive conduct stand out as being particularly serious:
  • In June 2017 President Trump directed White House Counsel Don McGahn to order the firing of the Special Counsel after press reports that Mueller was investigating the President for obstruction of justice;[12] months later Trump asked McGahn to falsely refute press accounts reporting this directive and create a false paper record on this issue – all of which McGahn refused to do.[13]
  • After National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was fired in February 2017 for lying to FBI investigators about his contacts with Russian Ambassador Kislyak, Trump cleared his office for a one-on-one meeting with then-FBI Director James Comey and asked Comey to “let [Flynn] go;” he also asked then-Deputy National Security Advisor K.T. McFarland to draft an internal memo saying Trump did not direct Flynn to call Kislyak, which McFarland did not do because she did not know whether that was true.[14]
  • In July 2017, the President directed former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski to instruct the Attorney General to limit Mueller’s investigation, a step the Report asserted “was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”[15]
  • In 2017 and 2018, the President asked the Attorney General to “un-recuse” himself from the Mueller inquiry, actions from which a “reasonable inference” could be made that “the President believed that an unrecused Attorney General would play a protective role and could shield the President from the ongoing Russia Investigation.”[16]
  • The Report raises questions about whether the President, by and through his private attorneys, floated the possibility of pardons for the purpose of influencing the cooperation of Flynn, Manafort, and an unnamed person with law enforcement.[17]

 

Congress needs to continue investigating and assessing elements of the Mueller Report

• The redactions of the Mueller Report appear to conceal the extent to which the Trump campaign had advance knowledge of the release of hacked emails by WikiLeaks. For instance, redactions conceal content of discussions that the Report states occurred between Trump, Cohen, and Manafort in July 2016 shortly after Wikileaks released hacked emails;[18] the Report further notes, “Trump told Gates that more releases of damaging information would be coming,” but redacts the contextual information around that statement.[19]
• A second issue the Report does not examine is the fact that the President was involved in conduct that was the subject of a case the Special Counsel referred to the Southern District of New York – which the Report notes “ultimately led to the conviction of Cohen in the Southern District of New York for campaign-finance offenses related to payments he said he made at the direction of the President.”[20]
• The Report also redacts in entirety its discussion of 12 of the 14 matters Mueller referred to other law enforcement authorities.[21]
• Further, the Report details non-cooperation with the inquiry by the President, including refusing requests by the Special Counsel for an interview; providing written responses that the Office of the Special Counsel considered “incomplete” and “imprecise” and that involved the President stating on “more than 30 occasions that he ‘does not recall’ or ‘remember’ or ‘have an independent recollection.’”[22]

 

And posting such facts doesn't preclude offering my opinion, whereas, your opinion resides on being blind to the facts.

If anyone wanted to see just how slanted the Whataboutism on this forum truly is, this thread is a monument. Most of this thread has now become long post after long post of Whataboutism about trump. The thread was about 2016 Election and Democrats screaming that it was stolen. That should have been the whole topic for discussion. Instead, AS ******* USUAL, we get mile after mile of Whataboutism and not one Mod doing their ******* job.

[keywest 138]

On 10/3/2022 at 10:03 AM, icanthearyou said:

Trump won.  Trump is the legitimate president.  STORM THE CAPITOL.

Sponsored by: MyPillow

 

 

[homersapien 11,498]

8 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

If anyone wanted to see just how slanted the Whataboutism on this forum truly is, this thread is a monument. Most of this thread has now become long post after long post of Whataboutism about trump. The thread was about 2016 Election and Democrats screaming that it was stolen. That should have been the whole topic for discussion. Instead, AS ******* USUAL, we get mile after mile of Whataboutism and not one Mod doing their ******* job.

This thread is based on the lie that Democrats "screaming the 2016 election was stolen.

My post was in response to this absurd statement:

"left wingers found perfectly sane when they scream “muh Russia” because “muh cnn said”

It refutes the idea that Democrats acceptance of the truth relies not on "muh cnn"  but on Mueller's investigation. It also refuted the accusation I was posting "opinion" instead of "facts".

So what's the "what" in your "whataboutism" DKW.  You seriously think Democrats are equally bad as Republicans regarding election denial? 

Isn't  that your actual point? Equivalence between the two parties?

I suggest you get of this indulgent fantasy of yours regarding just how bad - and equivalent the Democratic Party is - and shift your focus to the real threat our democracy is facing.

Otherwise, you are just a culpable as the worst Trump sucking MAGA on this forum.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/10/06/elections-deniers-midterm-elections-2022/

A majority of GOP nominees — 299 in all — deny the 2020 election results

Experts say their dominance in the party poses a threat to the country’s democratic principles and jeopardizes the integrity of future votes

A majority of Republican nominees on the ballot this November for the House, Senate and key statewide offices — 299 in all — have denied or questioned the outcome of the last presidential election, according to a Washington Post analysis.

Candidates who have challenged or refused to accept Joe Biden’s victory are running in every region of the country and in nearly every state. Republican voters in four states nominated election deniers in all federal and statewide races The Post examined.

Although some are running in heavily Democratic areas and are expected to lose, most of the election deniers nominated are likely to win: Of the nearly 300 on the ballot, 174 are running for safely Republican seats. Another 51 will appear on the ballot in tightly contested races.....

The implications will be lasting: If Republicans take control of the House, as many political forecasters predict, election deniers would hold enormous sway over the choice of the nation’s next speaker, who in turn could preside over the House in a future contested presidential election. The winners of all the races examined by The Post — those for governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, attorney general, Senate and House — will hold some measure of power overseeing American elections.

Many of these candidates echo the false claims of former president Donald Trump — claims that have been thoroughly investigated and dismissed by myriad officials and courts. Experts said the insistence on such claims, despite the lack of evidence, reflects a willingness among election-denying candidates to undermine democratic institutions when it benefits their side.

The Post’s count — assembled from public statements, social media posts, and actions taken by the candidates to deny the legitimacy of the last presidential vote — shows how the movement arising from Trump’s thwarted plot to overturn the 2020 election is, in many respects, even stronger two years later. Far from repudiating candidates who embrace Trump’s false fraud claims, GOP primary voters have empowered them.

A Washington Post analysis found that in races for Congress and key statewide jobs, a majority of GOP nominees have denied the results of the 2020 vote.

I don’t believe we’ll ever have a fair election again,” Trump told the crowd. “I don’t believe it.”

Scholars said the predominance of election deniers in the GOP bears alarming similarities to authoritarian movements in other countries, which often begin with efforts to delegitimize elections. Many of those promoting the stolen-election narrative, they said, know that it is false and are using it to gain power.

“Election denialism is a form of corruption,” said Ruth Ben-Ghiat, the author of “Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present” and a historian at New York University. “The party has now institutionalized this form of lying, this form of rejection of results. So it’s institutionalized illegal activity. These politicians are essentially conspiring to make party dogma the idea that it’s possible to reject certified results.”

In the short term, scholars said, that party dogma is likely to produce multiple election challenges this fall from deniers who lose. It could poison the 2024 presidential race, as well.

“It’s quite possible in 2022 we’re going to have a serious set of challenges before the new Congress is seated, and then this will escalate as we move toward 2024 and another presidential election, in which the candidates, again, almost required by the Trumpians, will be challenging election outcomes,” said Larry Jacobs, a politics professor at the University of Minnesota whose areas of study include legislative politics.

 

In the longer term, Jacobs said, the country’s democratic foundations are at risk.

“It is a disease that is spreading through our political process, and its implications are very profound,” Jacobs said. “This is no longer about Donald Trump. This is about the entire electoral system and what constitutes legitimate elections. All of that is now up in the air.”

The Post has identified candidates as election deniers if they directly questioned Biden’s victory, opposed the counting of Biden’s electoral college votes, expressed support for a partisan post-election ballot review, signed on to lawsuits seeking to overturn the 2020 result, or attended or expressed support for the Jan. 6, 2021, “Stop the Steal” rally in Washington that preceded the riot at the U.S. Capitol.

Among the 299 are GOP candidates vying to take over from Republicans who, despite overall support for Trump, have refrained from embracing his false narrative of fraud.

For instance, Eric Schmitt, the Missouri attorney general on the ballot for U.S. Senate this fall, was one of 18 Republican attorneys general and 126 House members who signed on to a lawsuit seeking to overturn the popular vote in Pennsylvania. He would replace Roy Blunt, a retiring GOP senator who voted to certify the 2020 election. In a statement explaining the vote at the time, Blunt cited the “more than 90 judges — many of them Republican-appointed, including several nominated by President Trump,” who dismissed attempts by Trump and his allies to prove the 2020 vote was marred by fraud.

Also among the 2022 crop of election-denying candidates are those who actively promoted misinformation. Anna Paulina Luna, the GOP nominee in Florida’s 13th Congressional District, spread unfounded accusations on social media that Dominion Voting Systems equipment rigged the 2020 outcome and expressed support for decertifying Arizona’s result even after a partisan post-election audit found that Biden had indeed won the state.

Some of the election deniers are themselves in line to oversee elections. Diego Morales, the nominee for Indiana secretary of state, declared on Facebook in 2021: “If we count every legal vote, President Trump won this election.” In Indiana, the secretary of state certifies results.

All three of those candidates, and many more like them, are expected to win their November elections, barring major upsets.

“My position is very clear,” Luna said in a statement provided to The Post. “We need to restore faith in the election process and that starts by asking questions on how we can improve election integrity.”

Morales, when asked through a spokesperson whether he continues to view the 2020 result as rigged, offered this statement: “Joe Biden is the legitimate president. He is doing a horrible job, but he is the president.”

Schmitt did not respond to requests for comment. A Trump spokesman also declined to comment. Enter to skip to end of carousel

The Republican fervor to elevate election deniers this midterm cycle comes at a time when pro-Trump allies and activists are continuing to doubt the administration of elections in the United States, demanding investigations of voter fraud and accusing state and local election officials of rigging races or using fraudulent voting equipment.

The convergence of those forces as the November elections draw near raises the chances that some of the candidates who don’t win, along with their allies, are likely to question their defeats. A dozen Republican candidates in competitive races for governor and Senate queried last month by The Post declined to say whether they would accept the results of their contests.

That, in turn, means that another close presidential contest in 2024 could produce even more chaos than what the country lived through in the aftermath of the 2020 vote, when pro-Trump rioters ransacked the Capitol. More officials may be willing to try to thwart the popular vote, potentially delaying results, undermining confidence in the democratic system and sowing the seeds of civil strife.

The proportion of election deniers on the November ballot is particularly high in three of the battleground states where Trump contested his defeat in 2020: Arizona, Georgia and Michigan. Election deniers have targeted offices in each of those states — as well as in other battleground states, including Wisconsin, Nevada and Pennsylvania — potentially giving Republicans a platform from which to challenge a popular vote they do not agree with in 2024.

The proportion is also higher among candidates for Congress, which holds the power to finalize — or contest — the electoral college count every four years. Among 419 Republican nominees for the U.S. House, 235, or 56 percent, are election deniers. And the vast majority of those, 148, are running in safely Republican districts, with another 28 in competitive races, according to ratings as of Oct. 5 by the Cook Political Report.

There are already scores of election deniers in the House; 139 of them voted against the electoral college count after the violence of Jan. 6, 2021, had finally abated. But with 37 election deniers who are not incumbents running in safely Republican or competitive House districts, that number will almost certainly rise after November.

Several scholars said one of the gravest implications of these candidates dominating the House majority caucus relates to their loyalty to Trump, who has steered the party toward near-universal fealty.

“One of the questions about the Republican conference will be, who is the real leader?” said Steven Smith, a political science professor with a focus on Congress at Washington University in St. Louis. “If the party wins a majority and it seems to be due to the success of the deniers, it’s hard to imagine Trump not taking advantage of this by using his public power to press the conference to follow his wishes.”

That could mean Trump demanding investigations into the administration, determining the GOP’s pick for speaker or dictating whether the House votes to impeach Biden, Smith said. Trump, who has never acknowledged Biden as the legitimate president, was twice impeached.

Trump has amply demonstrated his penchant for driving Republican legislative action, including this past weekend, when he excoriated Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) for supporting a stopgap spending bill that included aid for Ukraine. Republicans who won their primaries thanks to a Trump endorsement may be reluctant to defy him.

Smith noted, however, that there is also peril for Republicans in this moment. Although election deniers are on course to win in reliably Republican districts and states, it’s also possible that the party will lose more competitive races because of its focus on the issue. And those who do win could push for a more extreme agenda that could backfire.

The only states where the GOP nominated a clean slate of election deniers are Montana, Tennessee, West Virginia and Wyoming, all of which are reliably Republican. But even in closely divided states where Democrats have been gaining in recent years, candidates who refuse to accept the 2020 result dominate within the GOP.

Among the Republican nominees for Arizona’s nine House seats, all but one are election deniers, according to The Post’s analysis. Four of those are incumbents who voted against the electoral college count on Jan. 6, 2021. The four election-denying newcomers include candidates who promoted false claims that a partisan audit of the Arizona result proved that Trump really won, called for the “decertification” of the Arizona result or endorsed the unfounded findings of the documentary film “2000 Mules,” which claimed that thousands of Democratic activists stuffed ballot boxes with forged votes in 2020.

Just two states — Rhode Island and North Dakota — did not nominate an election denier for any of the offices The Post examined.

The Post’s count covers offices with direct supervision over election certification, such as secretaries of state. Lieutenant governors and attorneys general are also included, with each playing a role in shaping election law, investigating alleged fraud or filing lawsuits to influence electoral outcomes.

It is not certain that all who embraced Trump’s false statements about 2020 would try to undermine a certified result in 2024. Indeed, several election-denying candidates who avidly parroted some of Trump’s unfounded accusations as they sought the former president’s endorsement during their primary races have begun walking back those positions as they focus on trying to win in November.

Don Bolduc, a retired brigadier general who won the Republican Senate primary in New Hampshire in early September, declared during an August primary debate: “I signed a letter with 120 other generals and admirals saying that Trump won the election, and, damn it, I stand by my letter. I’m not switching horses, baby. This is it.”

But days after his win, Bolduc shifted his attention to the general election against Sen. Maggie Hassan (D), who is favored to win her bid for reelection. As he did so, his position on whether Biden had won two years ago shifted, too.

“I’ve done a lot of research on this, and I’ve spent the past couple weeks talking to Granite Staters all over the state from every party, and I have come to the conclusion — and I want to be definitive on this — the election was not stolen,” Bolduc said in an interview on Fox News.

Days later, he suggested to a podcast aligned with the QAnon extremist ideology that he had simply bowed to political reality, and that “the narrative that the election was stolen, it does not fly up here in New Hampshire.”

Then he repeated a sentiment that has become common among GOP candidates who stop short of denying the 2020 outcome but continue to cast doubt on the integrity of U.S. elections, even though experts and election officials say their claims are not true.

“What does fly,” Bolduc said, “is that there was significant fraud and it needs to be fixed.”

Alexander Fernandez, Hayden Godfrey, Solène Guarinos, Eva Herscowitz, Audrey Hill, Audrey Morales, Lalini Pedris, Alexandra Rivera and Ron Simon III with the American University-Washington Post practicum program and Vanessa Montalbano, Nick Mourtoupalas, Tobi Raji and

 

Edited October 6, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,498]

6 hours ago, keywest said:

 

Well let me explain since you don't get it.

The BLM riots resulted from a few grass root demonstrations - of which there were thousands - got out of hand.  It's nothing new to this country there have been many such violent reactions in the past.  

And even though most of the country had empathy for justifiable reaction against blatant racially-motivated violence, particularly from LEOs, very few people supported any consequential violence. (So that part of your little chart is a blatant lie.)

On the other hand,  The Jan 6. riot was perpetuated by hundreds - if not thousands - of hard core Trump supporters accepting and reacting to his lie that the election was stolen from him.  It was a clearly illegal and seditious act of violence against our legislature for the express purpose of preventing the lawful transfer of power, a tradition that is the foundation of our - and any other - democracy.

It was a direct attack on our democracy and our country.

To make a direct comparison between such disparate events only illustrates just how thoughtless and ignorant you are.

Edited October 6, 2022 by homersapien

[keywest 138]

12 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Well let me explain since you don't get it.

The BLM riots resulted from a few grass root demonstrations - of which there were thousands - got out of hand.  It's nothing new to this country there have been many such violent reactions in the past.  

And even though most of the country had empathy for justifiable reaction against blatant racially-motivated violence, particularly from LEOs, very few people supported any consequential violence. (So that part of your little chart is a blatant lie.)

On the other hand,  The Jan 6. riot was perpetuated by hundreds - if not thousands - of hard core Trump supporters accepting and reacting to his lie that the election was stolen from him.  It was a clearly illegal and seditious act of violence against our legislature for the express purpose of preventing the lawful transfer of power, a tradition that is the foundation of our - and any other - democracy.

It was a direct attack or our democracy and our country.

To make a direct comparison between such disparate events only illustrates just how thoughtless and ignorant you are.

Typical deflection of the FACTS!!!!! The BLM was 100% coordinated, organized and supported by radical leftist and Democrats, the loss of life and destruction was CLEARLY pointed out! Most of the country was outraged by the nightly destruction witness and the complete lawlessness, you are living in a very small bubble

[Leftfield 2,702]

5 minutes ago, keywest said:

Typical deflection of the FACTS!!!!! The BLM was 100% coordinated, organized and supported by radical leftist and Democrats, the loss of life and destruction was CLEARLY pointed out! 

If they're facts, then certainly you'll have evidence you can post here to show them.

[homersapien 11,498]

57 minutes ago, keywest said:

Typical deflection of the FACTS!!!!! The BLM was 100% coordinated, organized and supported by radical leftist and Democrats, the loss of life and destruction was CLEARLY pointed out! Most of the country was outraged by the nightly destruction witness and the complete lawlessness, you are living in a very small bubble

That's insane. You are a cultist.

No doubt there may have been some radical "leftists" or anarchist, or racists, or whatever involved. 

But to extrapolate that to "Democrats" just illustrates how radically wacko you are.  You might as well blame black people.

And don't tell me what the majority of the country thinks.  You are clearly in the minority.  A small minority. 

Edited October 6, 2022 by homersapien

[DKW 86 7,479]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Well let me explain since you don't get it.

The BLM riots resulted from a few grass root demonstrations - of which there were thousands - got out of hand.  It's nothing new to this country there have been many such violent reactions in the past.  

And even though most of the country had empathy for justifiable reaction against blatant racially-motivated violence, particularly from LEOs, very few people supported any consequential violence. (So that part of your little chart is a blatant lie.)

On the other hand,  The Jan 6. riot was perpetuated by hundreds - if not thousands - of hard core Trump supporters accepting and reacting to his lie that the election was stolen from him.  It was a clearly illegal and seditious act of violence against our legislature for the express purpose of preventing the lawful transfer of power, a tradition that is the foundation of our - and any other - democracy.

It was a direct attack or our democracy and our country.

To make a direct comparison between such disparate events only illustrates just how thoughtless and ignorant you are.

So your answer to my point about Whataboutism is yet another Whataboutism AND a Strawman to boot?

i have never said the two parties were exactly as bad. Never. Read my post on fiddys thread from today. I actually say that I am more Democrat than Republican but I still think both are owned by Wall Street. 
 

 

[homersapien 11,498]

37 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

So your answer to my point about Whataboutism is yet another Whataboutism AND a Strawman to boot?

i have never said the two parties were exactly as bad. Never. Read my post on fiddys thread from today. I actually say that I am more Democrat than Republican but I still think both are owned by Wall Street.

 

 

You DO understand my post was not in response to you, or directed to you, don't you?

But the "little man" dig was cute, even if a little tired.  But it comes across as projection.  Your general pattern and themes of posting looks to me like an attempt to project yourself as an iconoclast who considers themselves above the common fray.

You are just too honest and have too much integrity to actually support one of the (binary) choices that American politics currently offers. 

No matter that one of those parties is organized around a madman who is determined to establish an authoritarian regime.  Republicans don't even try to hide their intentions to achieve absolute power, even at the expense of our democracy.

My impression is that you'd rather polish your iconoclastic image even if it means attacking the Democratic party and endangering our democracy. 

This thread is a perfect example.  You are making a bull**** case to imply Democrats are as guilty as Republicans in attacking our electoral system by denying the legal outcome of an election.  If you really think that, then you are crazier than I thought you were.

 

 

 

 

 

[DKW 86 7,479]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

 

You DO understand my post was not in response to you, or directed to you, don't you?

But the "little man" dig was cute, even if a little tired.  But it comes across as projection.  Your general pattern and themes of posting looks to me like an attempt to project yourself as an iconoclast who considers themselves above the common fray.

You are just too honest and have too much integrity to actually support one of the (binary) choices that American politics currently offers. 

No matter that one of those parties is organized around a madman who is determined to establish an authoritarian regime.  Republicans don't even try to hide their intentions to achieve absolute power, even at the expense of our democracy.

My impression is that you'd rather polish your iconoclastic image even if it means attacking the Democratic party and endangering our democracy. 

This thread is a perfect example.  You are making a bull**** case to imply Democrats are as guilty as Republicans in attacking our electoral system by denying the legal outcome of an election.  If you really think that, then you are crazier than I thought you were.

So your Whataboutisms arent fair game if they are Whataboutisms directed at others? Is that really your point? 

[DKW 86 7,479]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

You are just too honest and have too much integrity to actually support one of the (binary) choices that American politics currently offers. 

Yes, you got me, you bigot. I am a nonbinary political troll... Deal with it... 

Edited October 7, 2022 by DKW 86

[homersapien 11,498]

19 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

So your Whataboutisms arent fair game if they are Whataboutisms directed at others? Is that really your point? 

You are the one who is trying to establish equivalence between the Democratic party and the Republican party regarding election denialism.

So, I think it is highly relevant to introduce a quantitative examination of that denialism for both parties is that's the comparison you want to make.  That's what I presented.d

So you can hide behind the charge "whataboutism" all you want, but presenting such quantitative evidence from Republicans is highly relevant to your thesis that both parties are the same. 

That should be obvious to anyone with as high of a (totally objective) intellect as yours.

So suck it. 

 

[homersapien 11,498]

19 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Yes, you got me, you bigot. I am a nonbinary political troll... Deal with it... 

So does that make you a trans-conservative or trans-liberal? 

[DKW 86 7,479]

15 hours ago, homersapien said:

So does that make you a trans-conservative or trans-liberal? 

Transformative, Open-minded, Read and have empathy for both sides, at least the good parts of both sides.

[DKW 86 7,479]

Once again, we have 5,000 threads on here about trump and denying the 2020 election. We have another 5,000 threads on here about Russians!!!! Russians!!!! Russians!!!!

I start one thread about FACTS concerning Dems and their claims about 2016 and the thread get completely dominated by Whataboutisms. Over half the thread is off topic now. 

AND NOT ONE MOD DOING THEIR JOB...

[homersapien 11,498]

6 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Once again, we have 5,000 threads on here about trump and denying the 2020 election. We have another 5,000 threads on here about Russians!!!! Russians!!!! Russians!!!!

I start one thread about FACTS concerning Dems and their claims about 2016 and the thread get completely dominated by Whataboutisms. Over half the thread is off topic now. 

AND NOT ONE MOD DOING THEIR JOB...

The title of this thread is a lie.  You said THE Democrats, which is a generalized statement implying all or most of them.  Why did you do that?

How many Democrats claimed the 2016 election was stolen?

Edited October 8, 2022 by homersapien

[DKW 86 7,479]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

The title of this thread is a lie.  You said THE Democrats, which is a generalized statement implying all or most of them.  Why did you do that?

How many Democrats claimed the 2016 election was stolen?

Everyone in the video I posted. 
BTW, I used the authors name for the video. 
i didn’t say s*** 

[DKW 86 7,479]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

The title of this thread is a lie.  You said THE Democrats, which is a generalized statement implying all or most of them.  Why did you do that?

How many Democrats claimed the 2016 election was stolen?

Again the topic is what was on the video, Dems in their own words claiming that the 2016 Election was stolen.