Tucker Carlson Lends Credence to the Stolen-Election Story He Dismissed As a Lie
Eager for the adulation of Trump supporters, the former Fox News host suggests that rigged election software delivered a phony victory to Joe Biden.

Based on his private statements to colleagues, we know that former Fox News personality Tucker Carlson did not believe Trump lawyer Sidney Powell's wild claims about systematic fraud in the 2020 presidential election. "Sidney Powell is lying," Carlson flatly stated in a November 16, 2020, text message to fellow Fox News host Laura Ingraham that came to light as a result of the defamation lawsuit that Dominion Voting Systems filed against the channel. Ingraham agreed that Powell could not be trusted: "Sidney is a complete nut. No one will work with her. Ditto with Rudy [Giuliani]."
We also know, again thanks to discovery in the Dominion lawsuit, that Carlson had a low opinion of Donald Trump. In a November 10, 2020, text message, he called Trump's decision not to attend Biden's inauguration "hard to believe," "so destructive," and "disgusting." He was more broadly critical in a January 4, 2021, text message to his staff. "There isn't really an upside to Trump," he said, describing "the last four years" as "a disaster." Carlson was eager for a change: "We are very, very close to being able to ignore Trump most nights. I truly can't wait. I hate him passionately." The day after the January 6 Capitol riot by Trump supporters, Carlson privately called him "a demonic force" and "a destroyer."
Carlson, who launched a new show on Twitter after Fox News fired him in April, was singing a different tune yesterday at the Turning Point Action Conference in West Palm Beach, Florida. "Why were they so mad?" he said during a giddy, meandering 44-minute speech at the pro-Trump gathering, referring to the Capitol rioters. "Why do they take the bus from Tennessee to go jump up and down in front of the Capitol?" The answer, he said, is that they were frustrated by the patronizing, dismissive response to their legitimate concerns about how the presidential election had been conducted.
Carlson suggested it was laughably implausible that Joe Biden had received "81 million votes"—"15 million more than Barack Obama," which "seems like a lot"—especially "considering [that] he didn't campaign and he can't talk." But instead of taking that reaction seriously, Carlson said, the political and journalistic establishment told Trump's supporters to "settle down," saying, "We have the source code in the voting machine software, and we've looked at it, and it's totally on the level. We've double-checked. We wouldn't let an electronic voting [company] hide their software from us."
The unfounded claim that deliberately corrupted Dominion software enabled Biden to steal the election, of course, was the central issue in the company's lawsuit against Fox, which the parties settled for a jaw-dropping $788 million shortly before Carlson got the boot. It was also the claim that Carlson privately dismissed as dangerous nonsense. "It's unbelievably offensive to me," he told Ingraham. "Our viewers are good people and they believe it."
The next day, Carlson made his doubts public, albeit in less categorical terms. If what Powell said were true, he said on his show, it would be "the single greatest crime in American history." But he noted that Powell, despite repeated requests from his staff, had declined to back up her claims with evidence.
Yet now Carlson, who was transparently craving the adulation of the Trump supporters in West Palm Beach, is reinforcing their conviction that Biden could have won the election only through a vast criminal conspiracy that Carlson publicly called unsubstantiated and privately called a lie. He apparently has swallowed any disgust he once felt at Powell et al.'s deception of "good people."
What about the politician who persistently promoted that conspiracy theory and embraces it to this day? "Republicans elected a guy basically on the promise to blow up the Republican Party," Carlson said, which should have been cause for reflection within the GOP establishment. But mainstream Republican politicians did not take the lessons of Trump's victory to heart, he complained, and today they are abetting Biden's "perversion of leadership" vis-à-vis the war in Ukraine, a failure that Carlson said is "disgusting" because it fosters "chaos."
In the immediate aftermath of the Capitol riot, Carlson privately viewed Trump as an agent of chaos, and not in a good way. The sooner the GOP was rid of Trump's influence, Carlson thought, the better. "Trump has two weeks left," he told his staff the day after the riot. "Once he's out, he becomes incalculably less powerful, even in the minds of his supporters."
That is not quite the way things worked out. Trump currently is by far the leading contender for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, about 30 points ahead of his closest competitor. And so Carlson, like the Republican politicians whose phoniness he detests, has adjusted to the reality that Trump continues to dominate the GOP. "Whatever you think of Trump," Carlson said, "he's pretty clear on this [i.e., the need for decisive leadership in foreign affairs], and they hate him for it actually. They hate him for it."
Carlson's attempt to have it both ways regarding Trump's stolen-election fantasy was apparent from the January 26, 2021, show in which he gave MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell a forum to regurgitate that story. More than two months after Carlson had publicly rebuked Powell for making unsubstantiated claims about machine-facilitated election fraud, he interviewed Lindell, ostensibly on the subject of "cancel culture." Lindell predictably seized the opportunity to repeat the charge that Carlson had dismissed—the same charge that would eventually cost Fox $788 million.
Lindell said "we have all the evidence" to show Dominion's complicity in election fraud and complained that "they just say, 'Oh, you're wrong.'" Instead of asking Lindell to elaborate on that "evidence," Carlson sympathized with his complaint. "They're not making conspiracy theories go away by doing that," Carlson said. "You…don't make people kind of calm down and get reasonable and moderate by censoring them. You make them get crazier, of course. This is…ridiculous."
That comment, Fox argued, implied skepticism by referring to "conspiracy theories." Dominion argued that "a regular viewer of Carlson's would likely have thought Carlson changed his mind on the subject, given how differently he treated Lindell than he had treated Powell."
Now Carlson is doubling down on the position he took during that interview. The real scandal, he claims to think, is not that the president of the United States refused to accept an electoral loss and instead promoted one specious claim after another in an effort to overturn, or at least cast doubt on, the outcome. The real scandal, Carlson says, is that those claims were not taken seriously enough.
Carlson positions himself as a bold truth teller who is unafraid to tell it like it is. But his slippery handling of Trump's tall tale shows he is no more trustworthy than the politicians he despises.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The 2020s version of the “Big Lie” that the Trump Nazi Cult is invested in is not going away so Tucker is going to hop on that boner and cowgirl it all the way to a few million in profit.
So sorry that this is happening to you and Jacob's Democratic Party narrative, Shrike.
Thoughts and prayers.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,100 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,100 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.OnlineCash1.Com
Why were the hard copies, the paper votes fed into the optical machines and the paper printouts from DRE machines the only safeguard against either computer glitch or tampering, destroyed?
Who believes that NOBODY recognized the need to have them and keep them secure?
Why is all the information relating to this scrubbed from the internet?
The answer.
“WHO CONTROLS THE PAST
CONTROLS THE FUTURE
WHO CONTROLS THE PRESENT CONTROLS THE PAST”
Orwell, 1984
A well managed, controlled, lie effectively controls the past regardless of how it achieves maintaining the deception. It changes what people perceive as facts, reality.
Humans, and every other successful living organism make good future decisions based on its perception of facts, reality. Emotions require no facts.
Between lies and emotion, propaganda manipulates people to make future decisions in the liars, propagandists, interests, giving them control over the future.
Inevitability this control of the future becomes control over the present. It’s time.
Observe how those who control the present, lie and manipulate laws to secure that the truth that exposes them is criminalized and doesn’t gain traction with successful organisms needing to recognize it. They control the past.
Shadow governments, deep state organizations, the CIA, basically all secrets depend on these lies.
Unless you do everything you can to successfully discern truth from lies using correctly applied logic and science you will fall victim to this cycle.
There is one way to break the cycle. Criminalize lying.
If we do, you go away for life, as you are a Holocaust denier. It must be difficult for you to maintain your delusions. So much easier to take your own life.
Hey, maybe after you slit your wrists, you can paint a swastika next to yourself as you bleed out.
You’ll need to refute something I say to demonstrate that I’ve lied.
You feeble fuckwits never have.
Don’t feel bad about that though because the truth can’t be refuted.
You should feel bad about grovelling every time that you demonstrate that you don’t refute what you deny or prove what you claim.
But by your own admission you’re a coward, Elmer Fudd.
The Dominion machines - the hard copies are the actual ballots.
As for missing or destroyed documents - each state has different voting requirements - often each county. What they keep is up to their policy.
The code for the machines were reviewed by a 3rd party.
The code was certified for each election area.
The fact that you can randomly dump a test case of 1000 ballots and get the expected results suggest the machines are accurate.
Remember VW and diesel gate? - VW cheated because they could tell (or so they thought) when the car was on the road vs. when it was being tested. They got caught when someone placed their car on a 4wd dyno.... Only if you know the exact protocol for each voting district can you safely cheat the vote. You must also anticipate recounts (future examinations.... right Lance Armstrong?)
Then you have the recount in Arizona - flawed, but shows very similar numbers to the machine count. 99.9978% accurate if I recall. Recount done by nothing but Republicans....
Finally, to tamper with your voting machines is to risk your career and most likely the entire company. Your not going to do it for chicken feed. Find the Dominion engineer that has gotten unexplained wealth. Follow the money right? Where is the money?
Reason = CNN
Reason = MSNBC
Bam. Nuff said.
EVERYBODY, with the brainwashed left being the exception, knows that Joe Biden was never that popular! No way he got 81 million votes! You have to be blind, deaf, and dumb to think the democrats didn't steal the elections. You go to bed and wake up to find that just about every vote not counted belonged to Biden? Please, I some rocks to sell you!
You're right, he was never that popular.
He got 81 million votes not because people loved Joe Biden, but because people hated Trump.
Explain the results in Florida, Iowa, and Ohio.
You might want to look up the term "bellwether" to provide the explanation.
Wasted breath, Jeffy will never give up the con, I mean narrative.
Then why did Biden win just 25% of counties in the US?
If "everybody hated Trump" was a legit explanation, the numbers would be more widely distributed.
Or did only people in cities hate Trump, but at a rate of 99.9%?
Then why did Biden win just 25% of counties in the US?
You mean the 25% of counties where 60% of voters live?
Dirt gets a vote too.
Don't try and confuse them with math.
Why would you expect the numbers to be evenly distributed? You're already staring off with a logical fallacy. Of course, the whole red/blue thing is something of a fallacy. There are large minorities of "red" voters in "blue" states and vice versa. Most places have only a small majority and rely on gerrymandering to retain control.
Because we're talking ratio, not gross.
But hey, go on defending corruption.
Government won't save you when the time for justice comes.
I dunno, why did Trump win a majority of counties in '16 but lose the popular vote? Here's a crazy idea, maybe because counties vary tremendously in both population and demographics.
Illegals? Ballot fraud?
Yep. Biden didn't win, Trump lost. His victory in '16 was arguably a fluke for that matter. The Dems insisted on running a candidate who did more to stir up the GOP base than their own. She then ran a lackluster campaign that did little to energize that base and ended with some big strategic mistakes. After years of whining, lies and incompetence by Trump, only the True Believers were still swallowing his bullshit. The Dems could have nominated a potted plant and won.
I agree in part; Hillary was the most amazing combination of political skill and negative charisma imaginable; Nobody less skilled could have secured the nomination despite being so unlikable, and having such a longstanding reputation for corruption. Nobody more likable could have lost the general election with those skills. Had the Democrats run somebody less bizarre, Trump would have been crushed. As it was, he barely pulled it off.
That said, he was a fairly decent President, and in the ordinary course of events would likely have comfortably won reelection despite his own party establishment's tepid support. He was undone by Covid; The lock downs unnecessarily tanked the economy ahead of the election, and Covid was used as an excuse to overturn long standing election laws in favor of practices that favored Democrats.
The former is the luck of the draw, though a more adroit President might have fought the lock downs and preserved a healthier economy. The latter he had a genuine complaint about, it was not unreasonable for him to think he'd been cheated of a second term, because he likely WOULD have been reelected if those extra legal changes to election practices hadn't been in place in several close states. It was also pretty shocking the way his devastating "October surprise" got neutralized by online platform censorship. This was the first election that had seen that pulled off, though I doubt it will be the last.
Lot of crazy talk about fraud going on, when the real problem was illegal election practices. So much of it could fairly easily be proven wrong that I wondered at the time if there wasn't a deliberate disinformation campaign going on intended to delegitimize all complaints about the election by flooding the zone with easily dismissable ones.
Still, he continued contesting the election beyond all reason. Being willing to fight is a good thing, but in the end you need to know when to turn it off.
I agree 100%. Nice post.
“That said, he was a fairly decent President…”
Woah, stop right there. He was a clown:
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-wanted-cows-climb-ladders-border-wall-ex-staffer-1813402
saying.
"Give the ranchers ladders. They can use ladders to get [their cattle{ to the other side, but not doors. You could use small fire trucks. Call the local fire stations, and use the ladders on their trucks to help them get over."
He brought down illegal immigration, he started no optional wars, managed the Abraham accords... There's quite a list of things he did right, and wrong things he simply didn't do.
He was a pretty good President. His predilection for blue skying in front of a live mike not withstanding.
He brought down illegal immigration
Not an admirable goal in my value system, and he sometimes achieved it with great cruelty to his fellow humans. (As the Biden Administration has continued to do.)
he started no optional wars
He took actions which could have ignited "optional" wars, but he lucked out. I'm not going to give a bumbler credit for lucky bumbling.
And the Abraham Accords were a mixed bag.
Of course you don’t Ike him. You’re a global Marxist. Just like demons don’t like Jesus. You probably hate Jesus too.
This.
Most people don't really understand the difference between stealing an election and rigging one. Any halfway honest person has to admit the latter. The democrats 'played by the rules', they just managed to change the rules to give them an outsized advantage. They are basically Lia Thomas.
I am starting to agree that the 'stolen' narrative seems to have taken hold in a way that makes it seem like it is getting outsized importance - although I blame self-interest of both parties over conspiracy. One party wants the outrage to drive allegiance and the other wants to be able to dismiss anyone who points out the rigging as either a loon, a grifter, or an insurrectionist (or all 3).
Trump's mytical party lost the Popular Vote in 2016 and 2020, when his minions _also_ lost the Electoral Vote. Three outta four is pretty bad. The American system of counting up votes and checking them twice is a brilliant way to enable democratic choice. Outright fraud, such as in 1876 (to preserve Comstock and protectionism) and in 2000 (to restore Comstockism and protectionism), make the usurpations Pyrrhic at best.
"Everybody knows...Joe Biden was never that popular! No way he got 81 million votes!"
That is it. That is the evidence. Biden didn't have throngs of demitards and halfwits showing their tits in appreciation, ergo, Trump won. It's really funny that we are stuck in the same mindless loop of victimhood we have been in for the past two and a half years. Still no evidence, but with faith that strong, who needs evidence? What are you going to demand next? Reason?
It is undeniable that the censoring and lies, by supporters of Biden, about the Hunter laptop influenced the election, intentionally so.
You cannot claim it wasn't stolen, once confronted with the proven, and admitted, evidence of what was done in the days leading up to the election.
There was mountains of circumstantial evidence, of "irregularities" to back up the theft, but keeping that information from the public had sufficient, polling-backed alteration of voting choices to have changed the outcome.
It was stolen, you thieves just can't admit it.
It is doubtful a significant number of voters would have been swayed by the Hunter Biden laptop story.
Polling has indicated it would.
https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/poll-majority-of-americans-say-big-tech-censorship-of-hunter-laptop-story-interfered-with-election/
The Media Research Center survey found that the ban on the Hunter Biden story also shaped voters' perceptions of Joe Biden. Almost 30 percent of respondents said they would have been less likely to vote for Biden if they had been aware of evidence Biden lied about "knowledge of his son Hunter's overseas business dealings."
Let's dig a little deeper. Just how much less likely? And how many would have switched to Trump? I suspect a handful might have switched to Trump, some wouldn't have voted at all, and most would have held their noses and voted for "Not Trump".
And what if Trump hadn't paid the National Enquirer to bury the porn star stories? And what if he hadn't paid the women? You can't bitch about the Hunter (who, may I remind people is not the president and never ran for the office) laptop and and ig nore an actual candidate paying hundreds of thousands of dollars illegally to silence stories about his own behavior.
Trump's womanizing was known for years.
And the issue with the laptop is the evidence that JOE was corrupt. Let him explain why they SHARED bank accounts (making Hunter's earnings, illegal as they were, Joe's as well), phone numbers, etc.
If Joe was covering up the laptop story it would be fair game. The fact that it was the FBI doing the covering is what makes it so problematic.
Edit: meant to be a reply to Freethinksman
Then again, the fact that Texas is now a warren for the commercial hunting of fertilized women--thanks to Grabber-Of-Pussy appointments to the courts--is demonstrably a swayer of a very large number of votes.
Derp da derp da tiddly terp.
All those "extra votes" were Republicans who were disgusted by Trump and could not stomach another 4 years of lies and clownish behavior.
All those normal Republicans in... Atlanta, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and Detroit.
Strange how these Republicans didn't exist in Indianapolis, Miami, Dallas, Cleveland, New Orleans, etc.
Nope, just in those cities where motive and opportunity to rig the election aligned...
Look, Joe Biden just happened to be immensely popular in places with mysterious, timely, and self-repairing plumbing leaks. He was also a big draw where courts rewrote election laws, and anywhere the GOP election observers were hustled out of rooms. If you take that to mean that this wasn't the absolute most securest of elections in the entire history of mankind, it means you're a domestic terrorist and a traitor.
There, I said it.
Hey, get it right. In Michigan it was the Secretary of State that changed election laws. Got a President Medal for her trouble and everything. Don’t minimize her achievement.
Joe Biden was not immensely popular anywhere. Trump was immensely *unpopular* in a lot of places. Patriots did not vote *for* Joe Biden. They voted *against* Trump. Why can't Republicans understand that? It's simple.
They voted *against* Trump.
Except that Trump got more votes than any candidate ever. Both in the primaries and in the election.
People who use the 'people were voting against Trump' line always seem to over look that fact.
On election day, Trump got more votes than anyone ever......and then, AFTER election day, AFTER the polls were closed, AFTER the poll watchers were barred or sent home, Biden ALSO got more votes than anyone ever--while winning fewer counties that Hillary Clinton.
Somehow, both Hillary and Obama --who won the same densely populated counties as Biden- and considerably MORE, both got fewer votes than Biden, who won LESS.
Because it was the most secure election ever. Right?
It's really apparent why the left is pushing math classes in which 2+2 equals whatever the hell it needs to equal at the moment, no?
"On election day, Trump got more votes than anyone ever…"
So? Who was ahead at the end of the first day of a multi-day count is irrelevant.
Even Trump himself acknowledged, for months ahead of the election, there would be a Democratic surge when mail-in votes were counted.
Correct. Trump won, because he wasn't Hillary. Biden won, because he wasn't Trump. In my "circle" were four former Trump businessfolk. They swore they wouldn't vote R until Trump was gone. This sort of thing happened everywhere.
It was like 1970. To vote against the Democratic faction one had to implicitly endorse the literal enslavement of women as reproducers of youth malleable enough to be indoctrinated into mystical surrender of reason to racial collectivism. A vote against the Republican faction quite practically reinforced the altruistic rightness of extorting earned wealth and retasking it into totalitarianism no less ruthless and brutal. The end-product of both factions is cannon-fodder and inquisitorial police combining in a contest for the time derivative of the capacity to kill.
Whatever beliefs you need to cling to.
It is a lie that Republicans abandoned him, because of "clownish behavior" and "mean tweets".
For every one that did, they were replaced, and augmented by the 11.2 million more votes Trump received in 2020, than in 2016.
Evidence?
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/compare.php?type=national&year=2012&f=0&off=0&elect=0
This information has been provided to him several times. That’s why I call him Mike Liarson.
Mike, for fuck's sake, you're unable to google fucking ELECTION RESULTS?
Stop being a damned meme.
Burden isn’t on me. I’m not the one making a factual claim.
Anyone can look up the numbers. It was retiredfire’s interpretation of the numbers that has no evidence.
He’s not ‘interpreting anything’.
Because Trump ADDED votes to his totals it means that anyone who abandoned him because of ‘mean tweets’ or ‘clownish behavior’ was replaced completely in the overall.
For them to have NOT been replaced, Trump would have had to lose votes. But he didn’t--- he gained them.
If you ignore across-the-board growth in the number of voters, and don’t normalize when comparing 2016 and 2020.
'...augmented by the 11.2 million more votes Trump received in 2020, than in 2016.'
both parties received many more votes in 2020 than in 2016 due to the paucity of third party influence and the immense turnout of 159 million voters...Gary Johnson siphoned both Trump and Clinton's tallies, and Jill Stein really hurt Clinton in a few toss up states.
Thank you for explaining this better than I did.
Before Gary ran her under the bus, Hillary poo-pooed the very idea that repeal was preferable to robbing, jailing and killing hippies, blacks and latinos over plant leaves. SINCE then, the Dems are acting like repeal was their idea and the Grabbers Of Pussy have dredged the swamps of Alabama for AfD nazis to turn the LP into a harder and angrier Gee-Oh-Pee.
I think lies and clownish behavior is an apt description of our current prez and his administration. Add a bad economy, the southern border, bad foreign policy, a foolish prez, worse division, etc..... I'm not sure this was the lesser of 2 evils. Lord, I hate the corruption or 2 party system is mired in now. It's gonna be interesting to see how a dem, any dem, can pull off a victory
And, can we agree that more than one President, more than one party, can be clownish and awful?
Yes
All it takes is understanding the definition of freedom, and that looters are looters, ESPECIALLY when they try to pretend there is only one dimension to reality.
Funny, GOP election officials who had every reason to find this supposedly massive fraud overwhelmingly agreed there was no evidence. Were they massively incompetent? If so, they should be replaced. (In fairness, some of them did seem to have a bit of an amateur hour feeling, but not nearly enough to overlook blatant, massive fraud.) Or are you actually accusing them of actively throwing the election for some bizarre reason?
As for the big swing late in the vote counting, it's easy enough to explain that without invoking some vast conspiracy. These states had laws that required in-person votes to be counted before mail-in ballots. Trump spent months shoveling around lies and panic and specifically urged voters not to vote by mail. A whole lot of his supporters bought into this bullshit, so it's hardly surprising that mail-in votes skewed heavily Dem. If you count the votes that skew one way first and then count votes that skewed the other way, there's nothing inherently suspicious about a big swing.
You have to be "deaf, blind, and dumb" to believe the lies of people who repeatedly fail to back up their charges with the slightest wisp of evidence. Deniers keep promising massive evidence, yet they either completely fail to do so or else they turn in "evidence" that's utterly laughable.
"Were they massively incompetent? "
Yes.
You have to be deaf and dumb as a post to not understand that looters and liars are the same Kleptocracy. Only Americans and Canadians had an LP to vote for in 2016. Then anarco-communists and anarco-fascists began teaming up in earnest to wreck the LP platform and queer our clout. A genuine reset to the 1972 model oughtta fix all that--and bring women voters back into the fold!
Biden won because Trump and the bat shit crazy Republicans were even less popular.
Biden will win by an even larger margin this time around now that the Republicans have outed themselves as the Party of Fascism and a death cult.
In 2016, many democrats were complacent. No way Trump would win. Even Trump didn't think he would win (he wasn't ready to nominated etc. and got to a slow start).
2020 was the "never again" election with huge voter turn out by the Democrats and haters of Trump.... And yes, there are at least 81Million eligible voters that HATE Trump.
Leave it to Buttplug to endorse Nazi talking points.
Leftard projection 101. Only someone dumb enough to support the [Na]tional So[zi]alist platform is dumb enough to call Trump and his De-Regulation administration the Nazi's.
The only thing left in the leftards bag of tricks - Projection.
Republican Party = Nazi death cult.
Yeah, because there is no such thing as a good regulation.
Clean water, no lead in paint, eatable foods etc. etc.
What about regulations governing who can join the military (Republicans love those).
Is this what you come up with when you’re not raping little boys?
"Tucker is going to hop on that boner and cowgirl it all the way to a few million in profit."
I give you credit for that evocative phrase. The rest of your post is loony.
100% Safe, Effective, AND Clean elections!
I'm so very, very glad that your state has a Democratic governor and Democratic Attorney General.
Yeah. She's doing a bang-up job of being the authoritarian all you leftists love. AG ordering every state prosecutor to ignore passed laws. Governor giving away free money not funded by the legislature.
You leftists love your dictators for sure.
You don't know what you don't know.
Republicans don't know they are the laughing stock of the entire world.
Yes, believed only by people who care about little things like facts and evidence. Just search your feelings and you know Trump and MAGA nutbars won by a billion votes.
Blatant Ignorance = facts and evidence to leftards.
Kinda like how their "science" is established by unicorn farts and fairy-tales.
Hey, that is what Russia has.
You forgot "free"
https://twitter.com/pepesgrandma/status/1681023794859614210?t=bzpMDzN340PK5T_HPtmkPQ&s=19
Ray Epps attorney is on the 65 Project.
The 65 Project are the group that went after attorneys trying to get to the bottom of what happened on January 6, attorneys that represented Jan 6 defendants, and attorneys that fought election results.
[Thred]
https://twitter.com/ThaWoodChipper/status/1681015921710886914?t=rzd1z0Zn89IZ7ye6-XWBvA&s=19
Who is Ray Epps’ attorney? You can’t make this up, Michael Teter. Yes an attorney on the 65 Project. Who works under David Brock.
Who is the 65 Project? Well let them tell you for themselves. The group that went after attorneys trying to sue and get to the bottom of what happened on J6 and any attorney looking to represent J6 Defendants.
David Brock started Media Matters. The fake fact checking org designed to counter truth with false or misleading “fact checks”. Check out his plan for the midterms and 2020 elections
[Links]
In a move that shocked Media Matters, Buttplug swore Media Matters was nonpartisan the other day.
Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2 5 months ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Media Matters is non-partisan.
Well of course he is.
Can't spell "Illegal establishment collusion" without "collusion".
The 65 Group should be targeted. All their lives should be ruined, and they should be bankrupted.
We are at war. Destroy the democrats before they do the same to us.
Lets put the IQ test back as a requirement to vote. That would keep the Trump supporters out of the polls.
Racist.
You mean they went after attorneys that sullied the legal profession by giving documents that were false or they should have known were false to courts?
Lawyers are the only ones that don't have to swear to tell the truth in court - because entering the bar already does that!
Along comes the Kraken talking about aliens ate her homework..... well she better have evidence that the aliens existed.
https://twitter.com/SirajAHashmi/status/1681020193680629761?t=e0jaI6gbC2UtpBq1oLVcZA&s=19
tHe aDuLtS aRe bAcK iN cHaRgE
[Pics]
This is a dumb picture.
That's not how email works. The emails would have been likely bounced as undeliverable unless the other side happened to setup email aliases to catch everything sent to that domain. That's not technically or practically feasible - there's no way to discern signal from noise in a system like that.
For anyone doubting me - tell me, how do MX records function in the DNS system? Specifically, what happens in SMTP mail delivery if I were to email badguys@blah.mil instead of badguys@blah.ml ?
All major new outlets covering the story and they identify specific emails that were cached by the person overseeing the domain.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/17/politics/email-typos-mali-military-emails/index.html
Going the direction you have inverted the example to be, the email will get rejected unless the sender has configured DKIM.
Going the other way, if someone in Mali has set up "af.ml" and "army.ml" and "navy.ml", "marines.ml", "tricare.ml" for just a few examples, it would depend on how the inbound server was configured.
That’s not technically or practically feasible – there’s no way to discern signal from noise in a system like that.
If someone were intentionally setting those domains up as mistype domains, (like "wakmart.com", for example), it'd be easy enough to accept all the inbound traffic, and then run spam filtering over it. Obviously, you'd keep anything from a legit .mil or .gov address, and be a bit more skeptical of anything else.
And to claim that it's not "technically feasible" is absurd. You don't have to literally duplicate every address as an alias, you just accept anything from *@*.gov and move on. It'd take me about five minutes in postfix. You certainly wouldn't generate a bounce for phish that were throwing themselves into your boat.
Any further questions?
Now that Tucker has his own outlet, folks should get a better sense of his opinions and analysis on events.
I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h.I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.
Here’s what I do……………..>>> http://www.Richcash1.com
I still don't think he is going to say things like "I hate Trump" publicly. He saves the candor for times when he isn't trying to make himself look as angry as his audience.
Tucker Carlson is a manipulative sociopath
I can see where a leftist like you needs to believe things like that. Otherwise, how could you continue to live with yourself after the things you’ve supported?
You don't need to believe anything without proof. Tuckers text messages showing him saying manipulative and sociopathic things to his co-workers are publicly available for you to read.
Why read when reading contradicts the Republican political ideology?
Just deny every fact that is printed.
Leftard projection exhibit #5.
Why it's as predictable as the sun rising every morning.
"Tucker Carlson is a manipulative sociopath"
It is an essential characteristic - along with a low IQ - if you are to be a Libertarian.
do you ever add anything of value to the conversations here?
Pucker Tarleyton would rather bitch than fight!
.. and he is shocked and dismayed when a restaurant refuses to serve him....
Eager for the adulation of Trump supporters, the former Fox News host suggests that rigged election software delivered a phony victory to Joe Biden.
Eager to punch himself, his principles, and the rest of libertarianism in the dick, Reason writer who couldn't dream of Tucker Carlson's career suggests that talking about how proprietary election software shouldn't be proprietary is contributing to fraud.
Build your own vote counting empire.
" Reason writer who couldn’t dream of Tucker Carlson’s career "
There was a time when Reason writers wouldn't dream of a PBS reject turned Fox buffoon as a role model.
Ah, right, they would've dreamed about the much more honest, intelligent, and accomplished Brian Williams. My bad.
I don't know if I want Walter Conkrite to rise from the grave and school the whole lot of you ... or to remain dead so that he doesn't have to view this mockery of a sham of a shell of what passes for journalism in these modern times.
Cronkite was an asshole liar too.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/66890686@N02/51100055747/
Cronkite refused to cover Ed Clark campaign in 1980 because he considered Libertarians to be "evil."
Or Dan Rather.
Or Katie Couric
Charlie Rose
Why are you such an evil piece of shit? Really, I would like to know. Have you really deluded yourself into believing your bullshit? Or are you just sadistic?
But that's not what's happening. They're not discussing the dangers of proprietary software, they're utilizing Carlson's bad faith inquiry "I'm just asking questions" nonsense to pretend there was fraud when there was none.
The 2020 election wasn't one of the most secure elections in history because people said so. It was one of the most secure elections in history because we've been conducting national elections for going on 250 years. Look how much ACTUAL fraud was caught. It wasn't enough to influence the outcome of any elections, thank goodness, but it was readily apparent and not just because the people involved were bad at fraud.
And that fraud was on the ultra GQP side. Nuff said.
Largely, yes. But I do think there were some Democrats who were busted as well. Bad actors don't have a lock on any one party.
So what you are trying to say is whomever has done it the longest is best?
It’s ok to not have to be contrary on all points others try to make.
LOL. Coming from you, that's rich. You must be trolling - no one can be this thick.
I’m quoting MT-Man’s own words back to him.
They’re not discussing the dangers of proprietary software, they’re utilizing Carlson’s bad faith inquiry “I’m just asking questions” nonsense to pretend there was fraud when there was none.
You aren’t discussing the dangers of proprietary software either. You’re discussing your own, seemingly wholly fabricated, narrative about Carlson.
Matter of fact, you’re pretty much flatly saying that in the 250 yrs. this country has been holding elections you are either unaware of the multiple cases of actual fraud resulting in no-shit electoral crises or that you’re just a socialist or nihilist dumbass who doesn’t give a shit.
Either way, you’re only validating Carlson’s point, “Just trust us.” only goes so far.
The same people making this claim also claim that the Russians®™ stole the 2016 election by buying a few hundred thousand dollars worth of Facebook ads.
It's cute how you assume that when something is done repeatedly over the course of many years, people get progressively better at it. Elections aren't weight lifting.
You're an absolute fucking moron
There was ACTUAL, and ADMITTED, fraud in the way the Hunter Biden laptop was censored, and had "intelligence experts" claim it was Russian disinformation, when it was known not to be.
The initiator of that letter has stated it was purely to influence the election.
Polling has shown that enough Biden voters, to have changed the outcome, would not have voted for him, if they had known.
Polling did not show that. MAGA misstatements of what the poll actually said show that.
https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/poll-majority-of-americans-say-big-tech-censorship-of-hunter-laptop-story-interfered-with-election/
The Media Research Center survey found that the ban on the Hunter Biden story also shaped voters’ perceptions of Joe Biden. Almost 30 percent of respondents said they would have been less likely to vote for Biden if they had been aware of evidence Biden lied about “knowledge of his son Hunter’s overseas business dealings.”
He’s not going to read that, then next time the topic comes up he’s going to ask for it again.
OK, now take the next step and look who the respondents were.
Utter bullshit. You’re not worth listening to.
Why does the Dominion software store votes in floating point format?
Cite?
Tucker Carlsons' great success comes from fooling and manipulating Trump supporters and his ilk. Wow, what a career!
And being able to fool the fools is proof of what?
Tucker has left no doubt as to the basis of his analysis:
“200 people died because of vaccine disinformation
from Bobby Kennedy and people like him?
Hmmm.how do we know that? Is that really science ?
No, it’s not science, Because we don’t know that.
We can’t know that, There is no way to know that.”
I don't know what you think this says or shows, but I don't think it's what you intended for it to convey.
Yeah. Almost refuted himself.
What part of ignoramus don't you guys understand?
He's the everTrumper answer to Sargent Schultz.
When was the last time you climate change imbeciles got either prediction or analysis right?
Never. Not even once.
They should kill themselves if they think people need to die to save the planet.
When they said Obama's beach house was in less danger of inundation than Carlson's:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2022/09/pride-goeth-before-squall.html
Nobody falls for your bs spoof site
soon Obama will have a summer cottage on Crete…
[Boris is standing, looking at Napoleon, who’s lying unconcious on the floor] Boris: If I don’t kill him he’ll make war all through Europe. But murder… the most foul of all crimes. What would Socrates say?
All those Greeks were homosexuals. Boy, they must have had some wild parties. I bet they all took a house together in Crete for the summer.
A: Socrates is a man. B: All men are mortal. C: All men are Socrates. That means all men are homosexuals. Heh… I’m not a homosexual. Once, some cossacks whistled at me. I happen to have the kind of body that excites both persuasions. You know, some men are heterosexual and some men are bisexual and some men don’t think about sex at all, you know… they become lawyers.
Imperfect models don't change the observed facts. Observed temperatures have been climbing as predicted since the late 19th century.
Imperfect models don’t change the observed facts.
Tell me about it. Every time I think you can't possibly get any more stupid, you go and prove me wrong. I guess the old "Past performance is no indication of future gains or losses." adage is true.
No, but models that fail to make accurate predictions mean that they don't know what is going on. Models are not theories, they are hypotheses. When the model fails to tell us anything useful, it has been disproven. Anyone can fine tune a model so it looks like the past.
Here is an easy one.
Find one scientific study, complete with how they gathered the data, the data, and analysis of the data that disputes man-made climate change. Surely this is an easy one.
We know full well what an ignoramus is. We’re reading your posts aren’t we?
For sound economic perspective go to https://honesteconomics.substack.com/
Tucker is a reporter, his opinions don't matter and if he expresses them they should change as the facts come in.
We have been cheated out of more than just an election, we have been cheated out of a fair hearing of the evidence. The question still remains who won the election and was the counting fair? This question will not go away till there is a fair hearing in front of the whole world and all evidence is heard.
"as the facts come in"?
New facts about the 2024 election have come in recently?
Tucker is not a reporter. He has made that clear in court. He is an entertainer. He entertains.
So how is that any different from pretty much any other reporter out there, particularly in this day and age?
He hosts an opinion show. He’s never said otherwise. It’s not like the democrat filth on CNN prime time who pretend to host actual news shows.
We've heard the evidence, and it ranges all the way from non-existent to utterly laughable. There's zero doubt who won and nobody with actual knowledge of the process questions the fairness of the counting. The question will not go away because butthurt losers refuse to accept reality.
Yes, but enough about 2016. What do you think about the massive fraud of 2020 that worked so well, that the White House had to be surrounded by barbed wire and National Guardsmen, reinforced by a comic-book-villain dictator speech given by the current occupant of the White House, attempting to tell us how evil their opponents are?
The so called "evidence" are a bunch of affidavits that say things like, "I saw poll workers roll their eyes every time they saw a Trump ballot - I'm sure they under counted Trump ballots."
There is zero evidence election fraud of the scale necessary to have defeated Trump. Case after case was thrown out as either being improper (no standing) or for lack of evidence.
Everytime someone tries to put forth evidence with specificity - it gets easily disproven - like dead people voting..... that in actuality are still alive (because someone didn't understand the social security data)
Fox news paid $hundreds of millions of dollars rather than go to court.... We shall see how badly OANN gets stomped.
I don't want to hash out the evidence yet again, but if the evidence was so easy to disprove, why did Government (with the somewhat willing aid of Big Tech) put so much effort into censoring anyone who wanted to discuss this "evidence", rather than debunk it as it came up?
Censorship isn't something that innocent people do.
The real scandal, Carlson says, is that those claims were not taken seriously enough.
Fist, there is room in the world for more than one real scandal. And this should be one. As I've said many times, when near half of the voting public thinks there was something fishy about the election, you cannot just dismiss it. You need to address those people's concerns. Carlson was absolutely right here.
Further, the part of his claims that Sullum ascribes to allegations of fraud are actually or indistinguishable from basic skepticism. Everything about Biden's numbers under normal circumstances would be completely incredible. The bellwethers, the counties, the (lack of) campaign, the (lack of) debate, people locked in their homes, election rules changed and suspended to keep/support people being locked in their homes, the popularity in excess of Obama, and, now, the disapproval on par with, if not below, Trump.
Even with zero fraud it's an astounding piece of social engineering, even just large pieces of which should absolutely frighten the fuck out of everyone.
What I find most frightening is the resistance to reason and common sense that has subsumed Trump's party. He literally said he was going to allege fraud if he lost (like he did after losing Iowa to Ted Cruz, and like he did with the popular vote when he he lost that to Clinton in 2016), and then he did. Was it crazy to be shocked at the turnout? Sure. Did it warrant a closer look? Sure. Did it receive one? Absolutely. And then it got another look, and another and another and another. And then the court cases, and then the Fox/ Dominion lawsuit. And on and on.
It is logically impossible to prove a negative. I can't prove I won't be hit by a meteor on my way to work tomorrow. All I can do is look at what data suggests is the likelihood and take the rest on faith. It's all anyone can do. Yet in effect, a third of the country is scared to go outside because they *could* be struck by a meteor. At a certain point reasonable people get fed up with the incessant bullshit. If they seem dismissive it's because they have been pushed to that point.
None of your supposed "looks" amounted to anything but asking the counters if they perpetrated the fraud they were accused of.
Just counting, again, what was supposedly a legitimate count, without addressing the accusations of why it wasn't, don't prove a thing. Neither do courts' decisions, mostly based on "lack of standing", or a failure to look at those same accusations.
Except that included GOP election officials who had every incentive to expose this allegedly massive and obvious fraud. Are they part of it too? Did they effectively throw the game for some inexplicable reason? Even monkeys such as the Cyber Ninjas who were explicitly hired to find this fraud couldn't do it. Some plaintiffs were laughed out of court because their "evidence" was ludicrous. Others quietly mumbled "never mind" when given the chance to show their evidence, probably because their lawyers explained things like perjury to them.
I really couldn't care less what President Trump has to say about the issue. I saw the fraud for myself the night it happened. Trump could come out and say this is the most secure election in the history of the world, but it won't change the fact that I've seen the multitudes of red flags indicating cheating.
Heck, Time even published an article where they bragged about how they "fortified" the election!
You "saw" the fraud. My god. Why haven't you signed an affidavit and given it to Krakenlady or TV Rudy or Mr. Pillow? They are all in worlds of hurt because they couldn't find anyone to back up their allegations. Or are you also just punking them?
And the election was "fortified". It was overseen to be the safest and most secure in U.S. election history.
And the election was “fortified”. It was overseen to be the safest and most secure in U.S. election history.
You've never read the article, have you?
They literally describe how to 'legally' undermine the legitimate count in the article.
Every word in the article screams that the 2020 election was the most insecure, manipulated election in the history --possibly-- of elections themselves.
There were plenty of affidivits to go around, along with plenty of video -- one telling example was of poll workers putting cardboard over the windows of a room where votes were being counted, which is very indicative of attempting to hide wrongdoing -- but it fell on deaf ears, with courts dismissing them not on their merits, but on "mootness", "lack of standing", and "latches".
The very fact that the response to people discussing these things was to censor them rather than to allow the world to figure out why these things aren't as bad as they look is also telling -- it tells us that these things can't be refuted, without making the refuter look silly.
And as another commenter pointed out, the "fortifications" didn't make the election safer -- the "fortifications" made it easier to cheat. And, frankly, I'm sick and tired of gaslighters like you who insist that this was the "most secure ever" when this election relied so heavily relied on "vote by mail", which is among the least secure ways to run an election, by a long shot! The broken chain of custody of ballots alone makes vote by mail a security nightmare!
There's good reasons why so many Republicans think the election was stolen -- but a good portion of Democrats believe it as well.
I must ask you this, though: how many people believed Trump to be literally Hitler? If you could stop literally Hitler from winning re-election by resorting to just a bit of voter fraud, even if it's ham-fisted and obvious to anyone paying attention, would you do it? If you would do it, then why is it unreasonable to believe that others in places where they could do it, went and did it?
It is logically impossible to prove a negative.
Sure but, as you demonstrate, it's trivially easy to refute a known positive or several of them.
What is with you people and your fascination with Trump? Why do you just assume that everyone will wallow in the self-pity pool of TDS with you forever?
Was it crazy to be shocked at the turnout? Sure.
Did you read this sentence? Did it make sense in the context of the other sentences? Because you seem to think I'm talking strictly about votes and I'm not.
I didn't mention Trump. The point is rather specifically *not* about Trump. I didn't even say anything specifically about counting votes or Dominion. My point is that it's historical or contextually-removed from that. Bush's vote was contested, Clinton contested her loss. A contested vote is not new. What is new and will be factually recorded in human history is the pandemic lockdowns, the change in the voting procedures (both legally followed and not) specifically to accommodate the lockdowns, the noted and plainly-stated-as-unprecedented collusion among media and tech industries to produce a desired election outcome, the then-denied-and-now-known-as-fact DNC and government collusion between all of it.
It doesn't matter if you don't want to see gays, trannies, Jews, Muslims, Christians, black people, Asians, men, women, or other beaten in the street. Whomever the enlightened folk heroes are that make up your future conception of a free and equitable society are, they will and should be wary of if not openly hostile to situations like the 2020 election because the relative Nazi parties are sure as hell going to be looking at as an example as to how to openly kick more foreigners or other undesirables out of the country, how to propose dissolving/packing SCOTUS, how go about locking people in cages for not having the correct papers, how to force women and children to serve their political agenda, how to use a disease of their own making to cover up for the corruption of your own regime, and how to do all of it and more while conducting, if only by their own claim that not even their own people believe, the free-est and fairest elections.
A third of the country is dismissive because, like you, they want to pretend that all the facts conform to their most wild confabulations of the most irrelevant facts. They're certain a meteor won't hit them but they're certain COVID would have and when it didn't, they're certain they did the right thing anyway. Meanwhile, two thirds of the public at large, recognizes that for the oppressive religion that is every bit as insane as The Inquisition or the absurdity in Ukraine as nonsensical as any one of untold religious and/or ego wars.
I don't see him addressing concerns. I see him setting concerns on fire and fanning the flames. He's already been busted for spreading lies in order to get ratings. "Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me."
*shrug*
"when near half of the voting public thinks there was something fishy about the election, you cannot just dismiss it. You need to address those people’s concerns."
Why?
Because a very large portion of the populace doesn't believe in the systems that we are supposed to live by.
When the social contract is believed to have been violated, you might actually get the insurrection the traitors claim happened on Jan6, only this time with the weapons that the Founders said we should be able to keep, for just such an eventuality.
Honest brokers would be concerned about that.
The (illegitimate) powers that be have no fear of insurrection.
They prove that daily.
Of course, the problem with that approach is that the buildup leading to the insurrection is always gradual ... until it's sudden.
I'm not saying that the (illegitimate) powers that be are stupid. They are just playing with fire, and they don't know where the dynamite is. They don't even think there's dynamite to worry about!
Are you asking because they seem to have gotten away with it? Without, as Zeb put it, "addressing those people's concerns"? It's not a terrible question. It's not like anyone is going to "rise up" after they saw what happened to the folks at the Jan 6th FBI op.
This is what I'm asking.
There have been no consequences whatsoever for anybody involved in rigging the election. The illegitimate government is continuing to do whatever it wants to do. Trillions of dollars have been taken from the American people and redistributed to leftist patrons and clients. The middle class is being crushed.
And they have no fear whatsoever of any real resistance.
So what motivation do they have to care whether or not people believe in elections when people will be obedient regardless of the government's lack of legitimacy?
There's really only one way to solve that problem, and the regime clearly doesn't think the American people have the balls to even attempt it.
Amd it must be prevented.
I mean if you want people to have confidence in elections. As you say, they likely don't care about that.
Election process transparency is a threat to democracy!!!!
No way should election results be verifiable or the processes leading to a vote be auditable.
It's sad to see Tucker Carlson degrade himself these past few years. What had been a distinguished career has been destroyed by his emotionally-driven flip-flops and conspiracy voyages.
Yeah. He is broke and on the streets now.
Think he’ll start a turf war with sarc over who gets to panhandle on the busiest afternoon commute intersection?
Jesse is right here. His career is doing just fine. He knows exactly what he is doing. He is cashing in by selling whatever principles he may have had at one point. He is now a complete populist demagogue. It is so utterly transparent. And the saddest part is that he is being rewarded handsomely for it.
It is so utterly transparent.
Like that dick on Storage Wars would say "YUUUP!"
Hey pussy, palling around with the morbidly obese groomer isn’t a good luck. So why don’t you go fuck off back to your trash can? You cowardly piece of shit.
LOL
I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h.I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.
Here’s what I do……………..>>> http://www.Richcash1.com
There are “wild claims” that machines switched votes, and there are troubling documented facts, like election laws being changed by judges or county officials, ballet harvesting on tape, ballot curing on tape, ballot destruction on tape, ultra high participation with ultra low ballot disqualification, double votes, etc,etc that should lead an honest person to question the “cleanest security election ever” narrative
This is a really common "debunking" tactic. Focus on the craziest claims you can find and then present them as if they discredit all of the less crazy claims about the same topic.
This shows up a lot with news organizations claiming to cover "both sides" of an issue. Hotly debated issues almost never have only 2 sides. But if you pretend that they do, you can find some idiot to represent the side you don't like and just ignore all of the better arguments and nuance.
So when people talk about possible election problems the reaction is always "there's no proof of widespread fraud". Even though many of the questions (and undisputed facts, like illegal changes to election procedures) have nothing to do with fraudulent counting of votes or fraudulent ballots.
The reason that the media presents nutjobs representing the election fraud side is that is because that is all they have. Can you name a solid reasoned person that can articulate how fraud happened? Most of the Republicans who are not afraid of the MAGA voters admit that Trump lost. This included many White House staffers and Trump's family. Other Republicans who are afraid of the MAGA's use weasel words to avoid lying but not willing to say Trump lost. They say Joe Biden is the President but are not willing to say the duly elected President.
Can you name a solid reasoned person that can articulate how fraud happened?
The concerns I see come in some form of "This could have caused fraud, prove it didn't." Which is asking to prove a negative. Maybe I missed something, but that's what I see.
Exactly: Most of the problem revolves around election changes that opened the door to fraud by making sure that if it DID happen, you wouldn't be able to prove it. Breaking chain of custody on ballots, for instance.
I keep saying: "You can't refuse to let the cards be cut, and expect the loser to not believe the deck was stacked."
But I think at this point they don't care if people think the deck is being stacked, they think they've gotten past people disbelieving election results mattering.
“Breaking chain of custody on ballots, for instance.”
Where? When? Can we discuss specific instances, please?
Sure, ballot harvesting would be a good example of that.
Ballot harvesting under which state's rules? Let's discuss a specific place.
Can we discuss specific instances, please?
We can.
We have.
But not with you.
Because you're a disingenuous piece of shit.
People respond with facts and cites and you ignore them. So now we don't bother --except to call you what you are.
You had a chance. You blew it.
LOL, what a copout.
Now list Democrats who were against the whole "Trump Colluded with the Russians®™ to Steal the 2016 Election" propaganda campaign.
https://mtracey.medium.com/i-wouldnt-gloat-if-i-were-you-49b2692feb59
"Can you name a solid reasoned person that can articulate how fraud happened?"
Why, yes. By one of the fraudsters, in Congressional testimony, when he admitted pushing a bunch of "intelligence experts" to make a false claim that the Hunter Biden Laptop was "Russian disinformation", when they knew it wasn't.
That, coupled with the FIB "informing" media companies that there was going to be some "Russian disinformation" immediately prior to the election - something else they knew to be fraudulent - so that the media sites, and newspapers censored, and deplatformed the story, entirely.
That is an undeniable effort of fraud, and one that polling has indicated was enough to have changed the outcome.
Whenever someone says “there’s nothing reasonable that can be pointed to that indicates there’s been fraud”, I always think of this:
https://monsterhunternation.com/2020/11/09/election-2020-the-more-fuckery-update/
There’s a fun follow-up post where that accountant-turned-author asks fellow accountants and fraud investigators what they thought of the red flags — and basically, they haven’t seen so many in their lives!
And here you are doing the same thing I just described.
Even then, I don't recall hearing that Dominion was ever required to prove the claims were false.
The electronic voting machines was always the weakest, most convoluted theory to explain what looks like a strange election. Even then, we never got anything solid about how they could/couldn't have been used to provide false votes.
I will say in general that the democrats do have a lot of aspects in their favor to rig elections. My experience is that most poll workers are democrat acrivists. How difficult is it for those managing the ballots to check in a bunch of people and pump through fraudulent ballots? There are a lot of precincts and a lot of opportunities for individuals to pass through fake votes indepently. Worth noting is that there was big money being pumped into getting left wing activists planted all over the election system.
Anyone pretending that the mail in voting process wasn't ripe for fraud is an abject liar. The way they were sent out and adjudicated removes any confidence that they are accurate and/or submitted by an eligible voter.
The shame of it all is that the methods that seem to have been employed are untraceable unless people rat themselves out (though there are suggestions to be found in the anomalies.) There doesn't seem to be any way to audit the vote. It is bullshit to throw the old "republicans claim without evidence" out there when the counter claims and debunking provides no evidence.
"I don’t recall hearing that Dominion was ever required to prove the claims were false."
It is logically impossible to prove a negative. Could you prove you never committed murder? Of course not. Does that mean you should be treated as one? Come on, man!
The crap that passes for evidence is nothing but people who are ignorant of how processes work questioning the processes. That is not evidence. It is ignorance.
Incorrect in the specific case, even if true in a general sense. I may not be able to prove that I have never committed murder. But it very well may be possible to prove that I did not commit "this" murder or "that" murder. Alibis are a thing.
It would be impossible for me to have committed murder in my hometown a few weeks ago when I can prove I was out of the country. That is, in essence, proving a negative (proving that I did NOT commit murder).
But more accurately it would be falsifying a positive claim. Those supporting "this" election should be able to, and logically could if they are right (I am not making a claim to that here... just about your "logoc") be able to falsify the claim of "you positively cheated in 'this' election or in 'this' way."
No need to prove a negative.
You can't prove a negative, but you CAN prove the software is insecure.
The very fact that they're freaking out about anybody having a copy of it is proof it's insecure; You can't crack secure software just by having a copy of it!
“they’re freaking out about anybody having a copy of it”
Cite?
“Advocates seek federal investigation of multistate effort to copy voting software”
“An effort by supporters of former president Donald Trump to copy sensitive voting software in multiple states after the 2020 election deserves attention from the federal government, including a criminal investigation and assessment of the risk posed to election security, according to election-security advocates.”
As I said, if the software were actually secure, this would not pose a risk. It ‘poses a risk’ because it’s NOT secure. Not remotely secure.
Expert report fuels election doubts as Georgia waits to update voting software
““The known breaches in Georgia would be sufficient to uncover and exploit every vulnerability we found — and likely others we missed,” he wrote in a tweet.
A group of more than 20 researchers in cybersecurity and elections agreed with him, penning a letter to MITRE calling for the analysis to be retracted.
“MITRE’s entire analysis is predicated on an assumption known to be wrong,” they said in an open letter. “MITRE’s analysis isn’t simply wrong — it is dangerous, since it will surely lead states like Georgia to postpone installing Dominion’s software updates and implementing other important mitigations.””
And, in fact, Georgia DID decide that they can put off any updates until after the 2024 election.
This voting software essentially relies on security by obscurity: Security which is critically dependent on black hats not having seen the code. Once you’ve seen the code, the actual hacks you find are very easy to pull off.
But the idea that the code isn’t out there is absurd, and not just because Trump’s people got it. That’s the “assumption known to be wrong” they referred to.
Your first link has nothing about Dominion doing anything, let alone "freaking out". It doesn't even mention Dominion.
My first link literally was demonstrating the freak out.
"They wrote that by copying voting software and circulating it “in the wild,” partisan election deniers have created a digital road map that could help hackers alter results or disrupt voting."
If the software was actually secure, it wouldn't matter who had copies of it! They're as much as admitting the software is full of weak points, and relies on nobody knowing what they are.
Except that it isn't possible for nobody to know what they are. The software is distributed too widely to be a genuine secret. Two can keep a secret if one of them is dead, but ten thousand?
The second link was documenting the insecurity of the software, as determined by people who'd actually examined it.
If the software was actually secure, it wouldn’t matter who had copies of it!
Ridiculous. No lock, security system, or software is so secure that its makers wouldn't care who knows how it works. It is obvious that people trying to defeat security have an easier job if they know all of the details of the security's design.
Your first link described a freak out by some random group of people nobody has heard of, not by Dominion.
Your second link jumps topics. A reminder that what I asked for specifically was a cite to back up your claim that "[Dominion Voting Systems are] freaking out about anybody having a copy of [their voting software]."
You can't empirically prove a universal negative statement (though you can provide evidence supporting such a statement). You can prove many specific negative statements.
Dominions cto said their machines were "were riddled with bugs" "didn't calculate votes correctly"
They were willing to:
-invent a wholly fictional story then spy on the president
-coordinate race riots across the country
-destroy millions of people's lives and literally kill tens of thousands of people with ventilators to make a mild flu scarier
-cover up the incriminating laptop
-change election rules without regard for the law
-block election observers from observing counts
-lie about reasons to "stop counting" only to continue counting after witnesses left
-simultaneously pause counts across multiple disconnected swing states
-continue counting votes for more than a week past election day
(note that this is just a brief list of the things they were willing to do)...
but the idea they'd change votes in election machines which nobody was allowed to later examine is crazy?
This is a really common “debunking” tactic.
Actually, what he wrote is a really common tactic of conspiracy theorists, creationists, climate change ‘skeptics’, and so on. It was so commonly used by a particular creationist in debate-type settings, that it got named after him. The Gish Gallop
The goal is to present so many reasons to doubt the claim (in this case, that Biden legitimately won the election), that the other side would struggle to refute them all with verifiable evidence. The person using this tactic usually frames it as if only a few or even one of their claims needs to be true. When one of their claims is disputed effectively, they simply jump to the next one.
Here, the effective burden of proof is being reversed. In a very real sense, each person making a factual claim needs to back that up with facts, so no one ever escapes the burden of proof entirely. But in practice, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
No federal or statewide election in at least a few decades has been proven to have been affected by fraud* on the scale of thousands of votes. Every election has verification procedures, canvasing boards, and opportunities for candidates of all sides to dispute or challenge the results legally if they can find evidence of fraud or failure to follow procedures. That puts the burden to prove that there was fraud on those claiming that there was fraud. No one on the Trump was cheated side has presented verifiable evidence that specific ballots were actually fraudulent or that named people committed fraud. Tons of accusations that motivated reasoning can work to convince Trump supporters that are eager to believe their guy was cheated, but nothing that has held up to any significant scrutiny.
*Voting fraud and election fraud are crimes. Adequate proof of significant fraud should take the form of prosecutions. Saying, “Well, the fraudsters aren’t being prosecuted because Democrats control everything!” doesn’t cut it as a response to that, either. That would just make the fraud claim unfalsifiable and thus useless. “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”
So, what you're saying is you don't need to provide counter evidence because there's too much proof of fraud? I accept that. It's not like these things were asserted without evidence. You are just unable or unwilling to give reasons why.
"No federal or statewide election in at least a few decades has been proven..."
Define "proven". We do know that various legislatures send investigators to research these things and they determine that laws were broken and fraud did happen ...then they recommend no charges.
You aren't thinking in terms of incentives. While the GOP might be the Washington Nationals, they are at least in the game. If the GOP proves that the game is rigged (and it has been for longer than my lifetime, though not necessarily in terms of actual voter fraud), then "the jig is up". When people lose faith in the democratic process, then the GOP loses their power too!
The State exists to increase or protect its own power. Would prosecuting these things increase or protect the GOP's power? Would it increase or protect the judicial system's power?
Do the GOP (establishment) even really want to protect Trump from voter fraud, assuming it happened?
The answers to these questions are fairly obvious, and explain the actions of the various State actors really well.
After all, the Times article freely admitted to all the (reasonable) "Conspiracy Theories" that were not *obviously* illegal. And I've yet to see anyone argue that Leftists were interested in truth and fair play in any manner. Therefore, can you blame people for thinking that amoral power-hungry cultists (who hate the US and all its traditions) such as the Left would dare go over the line and commit voter fraud? I'd be more shocked if they didn't.
Maybe it's just an upper Great Lakes thing, but I've been hearing jokes about dead people voting in Chicago for my entire life (not without proof), so why would it be shocking that such things would happen in other Leftist controlled places?
So, what you’re saying is you don’t need to provide counter evidence because there’s too much proof of fraud? I accept that.
Funny, but no. There are too many unsubstantiated claims of fraud to counter in a reasonable time frame in normal formats that people will pay attention to.
It’s not like these things were asserted without evidence. You are just unable or unwilling to give reasons why.
Right. Understanding the "evidence" that accompanied the assertions of fraud and explaining why it doesn't show what they were claiming it showed takes much longer than talking about "suitcases" hidden under tables and workers passing around thumb drives like "vials of crack". Giuliani, for instance, has admitted that he did next to nothing to vet the claims he was making. He "just repeated what [he] was told."
So many of the claims thrown out there had such little behind them that it is absolutely reasonable to insist that all such claims be subjected to a lot of scrutiny before being taken seriously.
Define “proven”. We do know that various legislatures send investigators to research these things and they determine that laws were broken and fraud did happen …then they recommend no charges.
I use the word proven in fairly standard way. Something is "proven" to be true when multiple, verifiable, independent lines of evidence point to the same objective conclusion with no evidence that would contradict the claim. Of course, you might say that fraud in 2020 was thus proven to your satisfaction under that definition, but the requirement that the evidence is sufficient to draw an objective conclusion can't be hand-waved away. For criminal acts, the evidence has to be evaluated by a neutral jury of one's peers, for instance. I can believe that O.J. was guilty all I want, but he doesn't get thrown in jail because of how many people in the general public believe it. A jury acquitted him, so he remained free. Elections can't be tossed aside because partisans in legislatures believe their hand-picked investigators conclusions. No legislature is going to be remotely neutral in investigating claims of fraud in an election where many, if not most of them, were on the same ballot.
The State exists to increase or protect its own power. Would prosecuting these things increase or protect the GOP’s power? Would it increase or protect the judicial system’s power?
I don't agree with the vague assertion in that premise, but sure, political parties have incentives to apply or not apply rules in ways that increase their power. Prosecuting fraud claims made by Trump and his allies successfully would certainly have given the GOP a lot of ammunition against Democrats in future elections, so there was plenty of incentive if the evidence was really there.
The whole point of elections is to make sure that political power remains where it belongs, with the people. Messing with voter perceptions about the security and accuracy of elections by making claims that don't hold up in court, or as happened in regards to the vast majority of fraud claims for 2020, never even get evaluated in a neutral forum like a court, is dangerous and irresponsible. Trump and other MAGA Republicans have repeated these weak or baseless claims in an attempt to shore up their support among the segment of the voter base that wants to believe that fraud cost Trump the White House. But appealing to people's motivated reasoning is a poor way to serve them as political leaders. These people are the opposite of patriots. They are self-serving performance artists.
“There are too many unsubstantiated claims of fraud to counter in a reasonable time frame in normal formats that people will pay attention to.” You have time. The Gish Gallop only works in debates where time is limited.
“Giuliani, for instance, has admitted that he did next to nothing to vet the claims he was making.”
Yeah, I don’t believe anything he said. For whatever reason, the Trump camp decided to pursue the things that were the most crack-pot. None of this shows the evidence, some of it being the thousands of sworn affidavits of election irregularities and outright fraud, are incorrect.
“For criminal acts, the evidence has to be evaluated by a neutral jury of one’s peers” I haven’t seen a jury trial of any (large) election fraud. I could have missed it. “I don’t agree with the vague assertion in that premise,”
I don’t see it as vague at all. They want power. It’s hard to find any evidence that they have ever acted in a way contrary to that. It’s considered an “Iron Law” in libertarianism that the State always seeks to consolidate power.
“Prosecuting fraud claims made by Trump and his allies successfully would certainly have given the GOP a lot of ammunition against Democrats in future elections, so there was plenty of incentive if the evidence was really there.”
That’s somewhat true, but mostly false.
1. The voters are stupid and don’t remember the past. That’s why they vote for the Ds and Rs.
2. The establishment of the GOP hates Trump more than the Dems. The Dems are not an existential threat to their power.
3. Again, anything that causes the people to question the democratic process is bad for people whose only power is that process.
“Messing with voter perceptions about the security and accuracy of elections by making claims that don’t hold up in court, or as happened in regards to the vast majority of fraud claims for 2020, never even get evaluated in a neutral forum like a court, is dangerous and irresponsible.”
Maybe it’s “dangerous and irresponsible” to the ruling elites, but the hell with them anyway. What matters is the truth, and if the truth is bad for the State (and it almost always is), then the State will suppress that truth. That’s why its not important to think about “dangerous and irresponsible” things like truth and freedom, but to accept that life can be “dangerous and irresponsible” and to do the right thing anyhow. That being said, it’s why it’s more important to actually have the trial, both in court and in public opinion, so that if there is evidence against the evidence of fraud, then we can all see it and come to the true conclusion!
One shouldn’t make false claims about fraud in elections, yes, so much of what Trump specifically claimed is wrong and bad. But, given we know the incentives and behaviors of the Left, the conclusion (and most of the evidence) fits the fraud narrative precisely.
And no, I wouldn’t have voted for the man with a gun to my head. I hope Dave Smith runs in 24.
For all this "but all the conspiracy theories were debunked" nonsense, I have yet to hear why, if it's so easy to debunk these theories, the censorship of them was so crucial.
If someone is censoring something, I can't help but give extra credence to what is being censored as something that's potentially true.
Once again, Trump did not lose the election by 7,059,526 votes. He lost the election by 37 electoral college votes. If fewer than 100,000 votes in five close states had gone the other way it would have flipped the election. Although I doubt that "massive" fraud played any role in the 2020 Presidential election, it didn't take massive fraud - only a few thousand votes in a few key blue city electoral districts. When you put it that way it doesn't sound quite as implausible.
I have noted your comment on other stories and agree that the actual number of votes that determined the election was smaller than the popular difference. I also pointed out that even trying to slip in or slip out a few thousand votes is difficult. This election was under a tremendous amount of scrutiny and trying to get the votes needed for a change is impossible. Was there fraud, yes there always is but it is a very small fraction and likely individual actions. Like voting you dead mother's ballot. AG Bill Barr noted this and also said that what fraud occurred was insignificant.
"I also pointed out that even trying to slip in or slip out a few thousand votes is difficult. This election was under a tremendous amount of scrutiny and trying to get the votes needed for a change is impossible."
------------
Not with drop boxes.
Votes dropped in drop boxes still have to trace back to real, registered voters.
Not if they don't verify signatures.
Which is impossible once the envelope is separated from the ballot.
The rejection rate for mailed-in ballots, in an election where the vast majority were doing it for the first time, went from something like 5% to .005%.
You don't get that much of a boost in accurate compliance under normal statistical circumstances, unless the verification process was made more lenient.
But the envelopes are saved and anyone challenging the signatures could do an after the fact check of signature to prove fraud exists. You don't see that being done because it isn't going to find anything, because nothing happened.
Again, you don't really know the process for voting and counting and you are just throwing out nonsense.
No, they “mysteriously” disappeared, and finding fraudulent signatures can’t be matched up with the ballot therein, so that the known fact that they were all LieCheatSteal party votes couldn’t be verified. The thieves have all the bases covered.
I've seen "the process" for my entire voting life, where any late decided vote always goes one way - the the LieCheatSteal party.
Wisconsin law requires all opened envelopes be returned to the municipal clerks under seal and retained for a designated period of time. That is 30 days following the canvassing of the vote and 22 months for a federal election.
So, who lost the ballot envelopes?
What the law requires and what actually happens are two very different things. Also it's not hard to "slip in" a few thousand votes in perennially corrupt inner-city districts. "Intense scrutiny" of over 155,507,476 votes nationwide seems unlikely to me but some people will buy into anything if it supports their bias.
How many inner-city districts notorious for past corruption are located in swing states, as opposed to solidly blue states?
Even in swing states, or solidly red states, it's quite common for urban centers to be solidly Democratic, and have a history of dubious election administration.
And it would make no practical difference in a "solidly red state".
Yes, but it does make a world of a difference in a purple State.
The very fact that fraud doesn't make a difference in massively blue or red States is actually a major reason why the Electoral College is so helpful: it means that anyone who wishes to steal a Presidential election has to focus on a handful of States they hope will be close, rather than spread their fraud all across the country (which would be far harder to notice, and which would also matter far more in a popular vote).
In Georgia the signature rejection rate dropped from a 2.0% average over the previous 6 elections to 0.2% in 2020
Louder with crowder disproved that where they went to voters addresses and it was empty lots
You have no idea how voting actually works. Take some time an learn.
It's not hard to "slip out" a few thousand ballots from overseas military voters, which has been done and caught a few times. How many times was that particular dodge not caught? I said I doubted that massive fraud played a role and I don't think the election was stolen. I'm not a fan of Trump and think Biden is a terrible President. My point was that a stolen election is not that difficult to "put credence in" to justify Trump's petty tantrum. Unless he committed an actual crime, they should just let the matter drop legally instead of feeding the political trolls.
I live in a state where the last close governor's election (over 20 years ago) was essentially decided by less than a thousand votes found in the back of a storeroom.
A heavily populated city (that invariably leans in one political direction) is a gold mine for 'finding' votes if you are looking. Why do you think something like the Soros backed 'Secretary of State Project' even existed?
Black dude kills four white people in Georgia:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/officials-id-all-four-victims-in-georgia-mass-shooting-as-suspect-andre-longmore-killed-by-police/ar-AA1dYZnv?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=31eb7b1ab38e49e58a62569b38561644&ei=33
He was a victim of white supremacy.
It’s too bad those white peoples are dead. Now they can’t be charged with a hate crime for throwing themselves at the bullets he was innocently firing in a mostly peaceful way.
Your lack of the usual color commentary must mean you are just trolling for racist comments. Well, fuck you. It is just sad when people kill other people because they have received the message that this is what will get you notoriety loud and clear.
Spree killers need to be shamed. Drag out every dirty secret about them or make some up if if they are not gross or embarrassing enough. When every killer is reported to be hoarding his mother's dirty panties or having stored gallons of his own semen in his freezer because he is convinced drinking it makes him immortal, maybe this shit will stop.
I had plenty of commentary when the black thugs shot up birthday party in Alabama a month or so ago.
It would be the same on this. The media ignores this type of crime.
So you are wrong.
I doubt it. Spree killers are almost always insane and - by definition - irrational. They don't care about being shamed because they intend to commit suicide by cop. They're angry at the universe and trying to go out with a bang, taking the people they blame with them as they go.
If the four white Georgians were traders of cp, I’ll offer you condolences over the loss pf your friends.
Carlson positions himself as a bold truth teller who is unafraid to tell it like it is. But his slippery handling of Trump’s tall tale shows he is no more trustworthy than the politicians he despises.
Breaking news : False weasel, weasels falsely. This and other shocking facts at 11:00.
He's the mustelid who got there fustist with the mustist !
Yes, Sullum is a lying POS, much like you.
Carlson and most other people know why Biden won, because people did not want Trump. The fact is that the 2020 election was good for Republicans. They likely would have gotten the Senate had Trump not poisoned voter pool after he lost. What Trump did was under perform other Republican candidates. Republicans, Raffensberger, GA and Johnson, WI, have noted that many ballots were marked straight ticket for Republicans with the exception of the Presidency. The story here is not some conspiracy, just the simple fact that people did not like Trump.
Republicans, Raffensberger, GA and Johnson, WI, have noted that many ballots were marked straight ticket for Republicans with the exception of the Presidency. The story here is not some conspiracy, just the simple fact that people did not like Trump.
No no no. It cannot be that there were real Republicans who voted straight Republican except for Trump. The only possible explanation is that Zombie Hugo Chavez hacked into Dominion voting machines and changed those votes from Trump to Biden. That is the only possible explanation.
Explain the results in Florida, Iowa, and Ohio.
Wait, Zombie Hugo Chavez hacked into voting machines in Florida, Iowa and Ohio too?
The fraud is even more massive than we previously thought!
None of them are willing to address all the court findings regarding illegal election changes. Not a single one. Or the legal issues identified in multiple venues not investigated in various voting districts.
They all have to believe this was the first fraud free election in history.
You'll notice this article has brought out all the "freest and fairest election evah" crowd.
The narrative must be supported, at all costs.
11,780 Zombie Chavezistas fled there from Georgia , and got out the dead vote, just like in Chicago.
I would say that is partly true….and due not just to Trump himself (he runs at the mouth too much) but the media really goes out of its way to disparage Trump any way they can. Then there was the media manipulation such as the killing of the Hunter B laptop story which the media NOW concedes was entirely true and accurate. I think had the pandemic not happened, Trump would be enjoying a second term in office.
And then there is this piece by Time Mag’s Molly Ball. She frames her story as “saving” the election but what she inadvertently does is expose how the establishment of media, corp America , public employee unions and liberal groups came together for the sole purpose to gang up on Trump. And what she describes as “fortifying” the election included some very legally dubious actions: making election law by executive fiat, ballot harvesting, injecting money into key local voter registrars, private drop boxes for ballots. All these changes to voting such as now being able to vote up to 60 days in front of an election, the proliferation of mail in voting and the like is eroding voter confidence in the system but the Dems don’t care becasue right now the changes are redounding to the benefit of the Dems.
This is an interesting read on how exactly, IMO, the election on some level WAS indeed rigged. Just not the way Trump (or now Carlson) thought is was.
https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
Yea, I'm sure they'd totes limit "fortification" to only what they felt comfortable publishing in that article...
the media really goes out of its way to disparage Trump any way they can
LOL, and vice versa.
I have heard this whine over and over again about how badly Trump was treated. Learn some history, most Presidents catch a lot of flak. But most President are big boys, and they just deal with it and do their job.
President Kennedy said, ““Even though we never like it, and even though we wish they didn’t write it, and even though we disapprove, there isn’t any doubt that we could not do the job at all in a free society without a very, very active press,” .
There can be a difference in degree. Someone calling you a meany head isn't quite the same as swearing upon all of the trust you have garnered from others that you are, in fact, an actual serial killer.
Not quite really a "vice versa" then, is it?
It’s hard to say if Trump was overly criticized since his rate of stupid and egregious behavior was very high.
https://mtracey.medium.com/the-most-predictable-election-fraud-backlash-ever-4187ba31d430
Michael Tracey wrote this in November 26, 2020.
The Durham Report revealed much more.
Or, like reasonable and inquisitive people are supposed to do, he was swayed by the evidence.
Not as if election fraud is rare or unheard of. Plenty of reasons to be skeptical of what happened 2 ½ years ago.
If you know anything about the law, and Jacob sullum absolutely does, then you would know that fox settling that case was at the very least perplexing.
What new evidence has there been to suddenly sway Tucker Carlson?
He needed a new job.
Have to disagree with this author, and say how disappointed I am in this editor. Everyone witnessed the election fraud. Only in Democrat States. Only where Ballot harvesting occurred, All stopped their count at the same time around 1 a.m., when one candidate had overwhelming leads, only to open up hours latter with "new found" votes that caused the other candidate to "pull it out". A Hockey Stick graph of votes was created, the same hockey stick graph that the CIA uses to call stolen elections in other countries (but not for us?). The Democrat/propaganda media immediately stuck their heads in the hole, shouting we see nothing! we see nothing!. This editor still hasn't pulled his head out! Worthy of Sgt Schultz of Hogans Heros. The election was so overwhelmingly corrupted, from ballot harvesting to Democrat State breaking thei own election laws toballot harvest, to FBI false and corrupt investigations, to a media that could not tell the truth about anything, to a non-electable candidate who ran from his basement getting over 81 million votes (17 million more than Obama), to covering up treason from that Candidate in bribes accepted from foreign countries. This editor stuck his head way deep in that hole. But he keeps yelling I see Nothing! I see nothing! Maybe Mr. Sullum should rename himself Sgt Schultz.
I haven't the slightest doubt that those who are unequivocally convinced that the 2020 election was "rigged", "stolen" whatever are just as unequivocally convinced of the absolutism of the "orthodox" narrative of the alleged Holocaust.
Not that this is a poll, or anything, but I'm someone who would not deny the Holocaust -- and I am thoroughly convinced that the election was rigged. Seeing poll watchers cast out, and several Counties in several States suddenly shut down at the same time, reading articles about how the election was "fortified" against Trump, and seeing Big Tech (now known to be acting on behalf of Big Gov) censor anyone who questions the election, are all major factors in that.
Having said that, I'm also pretty sure that all the people who assure us there's "nothing to see" about the election, that it was all on the up-and-up, are also the same people who deny that the Holodomor happened.
They are also the people who wanted the results they now justify.
Jake's attack isn't about the election but likely due to Carlson's attack on "trans" mutilation of kids by groomers and the push by certain elements to normalize pedophilia. Along with questioning the never ending shipment of weapons for the neocon/neolib's hero Zelinsky who is the second coming of Trotsky to them. Be honest..this is what upsets you about Carlson...
1) EVERYONE except Nazi-fanboys who don’t care about fair elections (principle-less) is suspicious of the last election. It’s not normal for *REAL* people In-person to run in such complete contrast to anonymous mail-ballots. And the VERY F'EN validation used to enable mail voting was it's consistency with in-person voting.
2) Powell and Trump were just public figures of that EVERYONE. Yet neither offered clear absolute proof of fraud; just the obviousness of it that EVERYONE saw.
3) Mike Lindell’s IP logs are different. They have not been shown to be made up by pulling on contradictory log or actually doubted in anyway short of calling names at it. IT SHOWS foreign nations accessing ballot counting arena’s during the election. It shows ILLEGAL fingerprints and UN-authorized access.
Course there’s the Reason writers who also think calling kindergarten names at it will just make it disappear too. So far; ALL the illegal parts of the election are STILL UN-defeatable thus making it a STOLEN/FRAUDULENT election that should NEVER happen again. They got away with it this time; ignoring that will just make it a common practice.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2023/07/17/lisa-murkowski-threatens-to-leave-republican-party-and-join-democrats-several-republican-senators-including-thune-romney-cornyn-and-young-agree/
“There are an astonishing number of people in my state who believe the election was stolen,” said one Republican senator who requested anonymity to talk about the growing popularity of conservative conspiracy theories at home.
[…] Republican senators say they are alarmed at how many Republicans, including those with higher levels of education and income, buy the unsubstantiated claims that the last presidential election was stolen.
A second Republican senator who spoke with The Hill said the growing strength of radical populism “makes it a lot more difficult to govern, it makes it difficult to talk to constituents.”
“There are people who surprise me — I’m surprised they have those views. It’s amazing to me the number of people, the kind of people who think the election was stolen,” the lawmaker said. “I don’t want to use this word but it’s not just a ‘red-neck’ thing. It’s people in business, the president of a bank, a doctor.”
[…] Senate Republican Whip John Thune (S.D.) pushed back on calls to defund the Justice Department, telling reporters: “Are we going to get rid of the Justice Department? No. I think defunding is a really bad idea.”
But he said “that stuff comes and goes and it’s built around personalities,” alluding to the broadly held view that Trump’s election to the presidency in 2016 and his lasting influence over the party has put his brand of populism at the forefront.
[…] Senate Republicans tried to wave off their House colleagues from advancing articles of impeachment authored by Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) against President Biden and rolled their eyes at Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s (R-Ga.) attempt to expunge Trump’s impeachment record.
shut down most federal agencies created after 1932, liberty would be restored.
As a mathematician who's spend a few years "pretending" to be a software engineer, I have a funny notion about how much we should trust computers when it comes to voting:
Computers should never be used for recording or counting votes. Period. Full stop.
I don't care what company produces the computers. I don't even care if the software on those computers are open source. It's too easy to create binaries that take valid source code and produce invalid results.
And that's even before we consider just how awful modern computer security is!
Look up "Trusting Trust" -- and then realize that recording and counting of votes should never be entrusted to a Turing Complete device ever again!
(And for the record, I don't particularly trust mechanical devices either. All it takes to tinker with the count is a screwdriver and a few minutes -- and there's no paper to audit against to confirm that nothing has been changed.)
Computers should never be used for recording or counting votes. Period. Full stop.
Well, if we can't trust them to count votes, then I think we'd be really, really stupid to trust them to keep track of our money!
If something goes wrong with money, we lose a portion of our possessions. When something goes wrong with a vote, we can very well lose our freedoms.
That’s why most states keep paper ballots so that they can do hand recounts.
I still think using open source voting software would be a very good idea.
Trump got elected in no small part due to Fox News giving him hours and hours of free air time that none of the other candidates could come close to receiving. (Counts of his air time put him more than double the candidate with the next highest total in 2015 until the end of that year before the first primaries.) And a fair amount of that free air time was in the form of calls to Fox and Friends or being on Hannity or the like where the hosts were not journalists that specialize in asking policy questions of politicians and candidates in anything like a skeptical way. (Some, like Hannity, have explicitly denied being "journalists" with a duty to be skeptical of politicians and push back on what they claim to be facts.) Then, the prime time hosts, Tucker, Hannity, Ingram and others like Jeannine Pirro gave him a lot of deference or were even blatantly in his corner. ("Unofficial" advisor Sean Hannity)
Tucker, like all of Fox, raked in the profits off of Trump. They all want to continue to make money off of those viewers, so they will continue to bow to Trump to some degree. And that keeps those Trump supporters from seeing or hearing much that is critical of Trump that they can't dismiss as part of the conspiracy against
Trumpthem.Had Trump been treated by every corner of the media the same as any other candidate, he might not have won the nomination. But both left and right media saw the ratings bonanza they got from making the 2016 campaign all about Trump and couldn't get enough.
People aren't stupid. We know that junk food and fast food are unhealthy, yet we still crave it and buy it. Make whether we drink Coke or Pepsi part of our identity rather than a nutrition choice and they can get us to spend ridiculous amounts of money for sugar water. They can even get us to buy water in a bottle for more than 500 times the cost of tap water for questionable differences in taste and safety.
News media outlets over the last few decades have just caught on to the same marketing tactics that food conglomerates use to get us buying food with high profit margins that are unhealthy. Only now they get us to pay attention to politics only to the extent that it feeds into our sense of identity and need for entertainment rather than the fact that we are picking those that will run our government.
He got more air time on NBC and properties .... ever wonder why?
He was on the Today show a lot. They hyped him in the primary, and then tried to play gotcha for the general.
Anyone remember what the DNC and Podesta emails revealed?
It wasn't any single instance of fraud that stole the election from Trump and installed Biden in the White House. It was a number of different types and instances of fraud that combined to do so. That way when any one instance of fraud is pointed to, it can be answered with, "Well, there might have been fraud there, but it was minor and unavoidable fraud that totally didn't change the election results at all."
Trump’s lawyers, when in court, never alleged fraud and explicitly denied they were alleging fraud.
And the Trump campaign never joined the Texas SC suit – instead, they filed an amicus brief merely claiming that the process made fraud more difficult to discover.
What people alleged outside court is largely irrelevant.
At best, all you can claim is that the way in which the voting process was changed in some states due to Covid was biased in favour of the Democrats, but as the number of votes by ineligible voters was vanishingly small, and there is no evidence that stood up in court of votes being switched, all you can whine about is that more citizens were able to vote, which is so unfair, etc etc
That theory doesn’t hold up. There were about 10 swing states (depending on who you ask), and the votes in any that had close results were heavily contested, audited, and recounted.
What good is it to audit and recount votes that were illegally cast? How do you tell the difference from a bad ballot and a good one?
And as for those audits, the jurisdictions where cheating had been alleged did not do them -- and in fact resisted them. Some even destroyed ballots that were legally required to be kept for a couple of years.
Trump spent 4 years driving away independent voters and going out of his way to motivate lefty voters to get off their lazy butts and vote for Joe Biden. Yet, America First Trumpkins can't figure out why he lost.
Yup. It's "Biden didn't have rallies and campaigned from a bunker, so how did he get 81 million votes, it must have been fruad (sic)!?" never, "Trump put off independents and motivated anti-Trump voters by his rallies and his campaign, no wonder so many people voted against him".
Or maybe some believe in America First instead of building a Nazi-Empire instead.
While Tucker does present some very interesting things that the headlines ignore, I can't pay attention to him because I have to fact-check the hell out of anything he says. It's hard to tell when he's being revealing or just demagoguing. Ain't nobody got time for that.
Yeah because you don't have to fact check ABC, MSNBC, CNN, etc. No I don't watch any of them right? They preach to what you want to hear.
do you do the same for WaPo (Jennifer neocon Rubin really blew it this week didn't she)? NYT? (WMD in Iraq? Covid death rates?) Or Bloomberg who employes a movie critic who is communications director of a group advocating that pedophia isn't that bad. Or all the networks who are reporting daily how Trotsky..sorry Zelinsky's freedom fighters are on the gates of Moscow?
Seriously man...the corporate media is the enemy of the people..
Trump had to fight not just the democrat party but they media dogs. Go look at coverage of events. Republicans get the negative but Democrats get asked what kind of ice cream they like.
But the democrats are soooo smart. I'm going to elect someone that has been in government for 40 years. I'm sure he isn't the problem.
If AOC, Bernie, Hillary, and Brandon got covered a little like a republican, they wouldn't win. But yes, Brandon won. So did Fetterman because the media covers for them. Blacks, who are not racist vote 95% for democrats. Geez, and nothing gets better for them. Trump did turn off suburbs.
Even with all that said, it came down to a few thousand votes in a few states. Trump as a person - horrible. Trump's polices were good. Biden is horrible as a person, yet it's covered up, and his polices are horrible.
Cool! An actual disinformation piece!
Who told you what to write?
You know, you don't actually have to look to Carlson's private conversations.... he actually called Powell out on the air. So... that was kid of a lie, right?
And he didn't peddle any conspiracy theories at Turning Point.... he pointed out the dangers of not letting people talk about things.... things that make no sense.... things like Biden getting so many more votes than Barak Obama despite not campaigning at all and not being able to draw 500 people to a rally when Trump was drawing 20k and more in random placed like Tulsa.
He talked about the obvious security steps one would take in an election.... like making sure the source code on voting machines was secure, or maintaining a chain of custody.
"Hey, shut up!" is the lampooned response to serious questions.
You know.... the exact response Sullum has in this article.
Yes, Jacob, he is talking about you. You and your ilk, spouting nonsense and telling anyone who asks questions about it to shut up.
You are not the voice of reason speaking truth to power in this situation. You are the propagandist trying to silence those who are a threat to unbridled power.
Well done.
Tucker put his finger directly on the problem. If you silence the people and do not allow discussion of important issues, the people get angry.
The first clue was Trump. People were getting frustrated with the establishment, and a populist was the response.
"Hey, shut up!"
The FBI tried to rig the election in at least one way when Biden won. Who knows what else they did, and who else was doing the same things?
"Hey, shut up!"
You think gaslighting people about populist voices is going to be the answer?
You think explaining how Tucker Carleson and Meghan Kelly and Joe Rogan and Stephen Crowder and all the other "outsider" voices are crazy is going to work?
People who watch Savannah Guthrie on Today can be lead around by the nose and can be trusted to believe anything they are told.
But there is a growing Cadre of Americans who can remember things for more than 2 weeks. They are not going to believe that child sex trafficking is OK. They are not going to say that men can menstruate. And they are going to know they are being lied to when serious questions are answered with "hey, shut up!"
Also, why the dishonesty about Powell and Lindel?
They did, in fact, have evidence. They had a former military official who was voiced for by people at the CIA and in the military, who said that he was personally involved in using dominion machines to rig elections in foreign countries.
Some people warned them that he could not be trusted. Robert Barnes made that warning public, during the recounts. He warned that they were being distracted from the real issues by a red herring.
He turned out to be right. As soon as the complaints were filed. The guy flaked out and all of those vouching for him magically disappeared. Barnes recorder many "I told you so" interviews and podcasts.
It was all very public.
So why leave that out? Powell didn't make up the dominion stuff out of whole cloth. People came to her with all sorts of testimonials and claims... And then disappeared just as quickly. She had no experience as an election litigator, so she had no frame of reference to know when she was being sold a bill of goods.
Others spotted it immediately, because they know how elections work.
Leaving this as "they made it up" propogates misinformation that prevents the true understanding of what happened.
And doing that is exactly what Tucker was warning about.
Eager for the adulation of Trump supporters
You know it's going to be quality journalism when it immediately kicks off with a display of mind-reading.
oh Jake "Cuties" is at it again.
Sound of Freedom movie attacked by a Noah Berlatsky who is a Bloomberg movie critic. Turns out he is the communications director of Protasia, a group that hopes to normalize sexual attraction to kids.
Anyone surprised..Bloomberg and the Guardian would pay this guy? Anyone surprised Reason is not reviewing this movie? I think we know who is calling the shots here, there is a degeneracy in the cosmo woke and libertarian crowd...time Nick and Matt repudiate this mainstreaming immorality.
This is a worthy story about politics, media censorship/supression/messaging and personal bias.
After the opening week over at Rottentomatoes.com, Sound of Freedom had a 99% rating from verified ticket buyers..... and 33% from the top critics. But only 3 top critics bothered to review it.
This was the number 2 movie in the US, and only 3 "top critics" reviewed it. I read all 3 reviews. The 2 negative reviews were entirely about politics. One was all about Christians and marketing and an anti-conservative screed. The other was a DNC partisan screed that seemed to be entirely based on Q-anon being a conspiracy theory that says democrats are pedophiles, therefore anything talking about pedophiles must be a republican lie.
A week later, this small movie is approaching $100 million and has been #2 in the box office for 2 weeka and has actually grown in audience.... and yet only 6 "Top Critics" have reviewed the film, and it still has a rotten 33% top critic rating.... with politics featuring heavily in all the reviews.
Meanwhile, with 15,000 reviews from verified ticket purchasers, the user review sits at 100%.
Even overall critics are positive at 73% (take out the top critics and it is even higher)
I don't have to speculate as to what is driving this. The negative reviews state it outright- they think this movie is political and that it hurts democrats in DC. So they are working to supress it.
Disney had the rights to publish this before covid... and they sat on it. It was produced under 20th century Fox, and Disney killed it, finally selling it to a crowd funded effort from Angel studios.
Disney is losing money at an historic clip on their blockbusters. This little $15 million movie will almost definitely net Angel studios over $100 million. With Disney's muscle, how much bigger might it have been? Without the politically motivated hit pieces, how much bigger might it be?
There is a big story here, not about child trafficking in Central America or pizza delivery code words in DNC emails, but about how extensive the political-entertainment-press propaganda machine is, how easily activated they are, and how they manage to be disciplined and stay on message..... even if that message is so morally repugnant that it means defending sex trafficking if little kids.
Mail in voting ,ballot harvesting dead people voting . Social media suppression of news . State election laws ignored 95 percent of the “news media” print online and TV openly for Biden . Search results manipulated. Fraud maybe not fair definitely not .
It's quite possible to think the election was stolen and Sidney Powell was an idiot propounding a ridiculous theory of how it was stolen. She was claiming that Trump's votes were stolen, which is not supported by voting statistics. The election may have been stolen in the old-fashioned way by bringing in boxes of fake ballots for Biden into election counting centers in big cities the middle of the night, but not by Dominion voting machines stealing Trump's votes in small towns.
Biden getting more votes than any previous Democratic candidate, while barely campaigning and while his party lost seats in the House, looks pretty suspicious. His vote totals in several large Democratic cities showed statistical signs of tampering, and the way many votes were counted - closing up and sending observers home, then re-opening in the middle of the night - is highly suspicious.
The biggest problem with our election procedures is that the courts put the burden of proof on those challenging the count, not those who counted them. If an audit fails - for instance when 26% of the ballot boxes in Detroit had missing or invalid seals in 2016 - votes aren't thrown out, and the election officials aren't even fired. If thousands of Republican voters are blocked from voting by Democrat election officials fouling up, the courts do nothing because it can't be proved it was deliberate. In practice, the only way to get a fraudulent election overturned is with a confession or video, and shady election officials can make sure no one can take a video.
I suspect that if the burden of proof went the other way, Michigan and several other half-red states would have had many fewer Democrats elected to statewide offices and the Senate.
I earn 200 dollars per hour working from home on an online job. I never thought I could accomplish it, but my best friend makes $10,000 per month doing this profession and that I learn more about it.
.
.
.
Here’s how she did it…………… https://Www.Coins71.Com