Why Believe Trump About The Election?

[Electric Skeptic]

A few facts with which, I think, all will agree:
- Trump does not like losing. He's admitted this.
- The last public loss he had was in the 2016 election when he lost the popular vote by about three million (I am not saying that he therefore lost, or should have lost, the election: I'm just noting that it was a loss, and that he took it as one).
- He protested that loss, stating repeatedly (while providing no supporting evidence) that if there had been no cheating/fraud, he would have won the popular vote.
- After he took office, he created a special commission to investigate the cheating/fraud during the 2016 election. That commission quietly dissolved a year after its creation when they were unable to find any evidence for any cheating/fraud.
- Several months before the 2020 election, he began to cast doubt on its integrity, particularly on the mail-in ballots process. Election experts uniformly said that there was no basis for such doubt and that the mail-in ballot process was sound, secure and had been for decades.
- In the immediate lead up to the 2020 election, he refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power, repeatedly mentioning that if the election was fair, he would win.

In the light of the above, why would anyone believe his claims of cheating/fraud in the 2020 election, particularly when:
a) those claims are made without supporting evidence,
b) a number of international organisations observing the election have stated that it was fair, even and that there was no evidence of cheating or fraud,
c) those claims are made in a way that exhibits an appalling lack of knowledge of general election processes and the realities of this election in particular,
d) across the board, virtually all officials, Democrat and Republican, agree that the election was honest and more secure than any in recent memory,
e) across the board, judges, both Democrat and Republican, have thrown out court cases created by his legal team about the election due to the non-existence of evidence for his claims,
f) virtually the only people who have come out to agree with him are those with a history of acceding to his claims/decrees,
g) he has a long, well-documented history of lying, usually for his own aggrandisement,
h) if he is correct, the Democrats organised a fraud/cheating effort that spanned the country without a single defector confessing to their crimes and
i) if he is correct, the Democrats managed to subvert the entire electoral process by 'stealing' at least three (3) states from the rightful victor but were at the same time happy to lose seats in the house and make no gains in the senate?

[shunyadragon]

Without Trump who will be the savior of QAnon?

[Mountain Man]

23 Voter Fraud Cases from 2016 and Beyond

[seanD]

A few facts with which, I think, all will agree:
- Trump does not like losing. He's admitted this.
- The last public loss he had was in the 2016 election when he lost the popular vote by about three million (I am not saying that he therefore lost, or should have lost, the election: I'm just noting that it was a loss, and that he took it as one).
- He protested that loss, stating repeatedly (while providing no supporting evidence) that if there had been no cheating/fraud, he would have won the popular vote.
- After he took office, he created a special commission to investigate the cheating/fraud during the 2016 election. That commission quietly dissolved a year after its creation when they were unable to find any evidence for any cheating/fraud.
- Several months before the 2020 election, he began to cast doubt on its integrity, particularly on the mail-in ballots process. Election experts uniformly said that there was no basis for such doubt and that the mail-in ballot process was sound, secure and had been for decades.
- In the immediate lead up to the 2020 election, he refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power, repeatedly mentioning that if the election was fair, he would win.

In the light of the above, why would anyone believe his claims of cheating/fraud in the 2020 election, particularly when:
a) those claims are made without supporting evidence,
b) a number of international organisations observing the election have stated that it was fair, even and that there was no evidence of cheating or fraud,
c) those claims are made in a way that exhibits an appalling lack of knowledge of general election processes and the realities of this election in particular,
d) across the board, virtually all officials, Democrat and Republican, agree that the election was honest and more secure than any in recent memory,
e) across the board, judges, both Democrat and Republican, have thrown out court cases created by his legal team about the election due to the non-existence of evidence for his claims,
f) virtually the only people who have come out to agree with him are those with a history of acceding to his claims/decrees,
g) he has a long, well-documented history of lying, usually for his own aggrandisement,
h) if he is correct, the Democrats organised a fraud/cheating effort that spanned the country without a single defector confessing to their crimes and
i) if he is correct, the Democrats managed to subvert the entire electoral process by 'stealing' at least three (3) states from the rightful victor but were at the same time happy to lose seats in the house and make no gains in the senate?

I personally believe it because of four years of TDS and bogus investigations to try and remove him from office at all cost. The evidence of election impropriety is just the icing on the cake, but I can take it or leave it.

[Stoic]

I can think of one reason one might believe Trump.

One might be a member of his cult.

[Mountain Man]

More evidence of election fraud in 2016:

• Michigan recount reveals error, but not the one Jill Stein wanted
• FBI Investigating Voter Fraud in Va. Using Dead People's Names
• New Report Exposes Thousands of Illegal Votes in 2016 Election
• Report: 5500+ Noncitizens Discovered on Voter Rolls in Virginia

Which is to say that President Trump was right in 2016, and he's right today.

But let's think about this logically: on the one hand, you have Joe Biden, a candidate who spent the majority of the campaign hiding in his basement, had trouble speaking coherently when he gave the occasional interview, and was lucky to draw ten people to a rally in a Walmart parking lot; on the other hand, you have President Trump who is popular and successful with a long list of notable accomplishments, the backing of a strong economy, and can draw tens of thousands of supporters to a rally on short notice. Now, does anybody really believe that China Joe won the election legitimately, earning more votes than even Barack Obama who was arguably the most popular president since Ronald Reagan?

[EvoUK]

More evidence of election fraud in 2016:

• Michigan recount reveals error, but not the one Jill Stein wanted
• FBI Investigating Voter Fraud in Va. Using Dead People's Names
• New Report Exposes Thousands of Illegal Votes in 2016 Election
• Report: 5500+ Noncitizens Discovered on Voter Rolls in Virginia

Which is to say that President Trump was right in 2016, and he's right today.

But let's think about this logically: on the one hand, you have Joe Biden, a candidate who spent the majority of the campaign hiding in his basement, had trouble speaking coherently when he gave the occasional interview, and was lucky to draw ten people to a rally in a Walmart parking lot; on the other hand, you have President Trump who is popular and successful with a long list of notable accomplishments, the backing of a strong economy, and can draw tens of thousands of supporters to a rally on short notice. Now, does anybody really believe that China Joe won the election legitimately, earning more votes than even Barack Obama who was arguably the most popular president since Ronald Reagan?

Forgetting for a moment your normal baseless conspiracies, a few minor points:

1) Biden- and by extension Democrats- take the virus seriously, so it is no wonder the rallies weren't well attended - sensible people do not do such things during a pandemic, explaining why they were so popular with the Trumpets.
2) Trump is not well liked (minor understatement) by those outside of his base. It is of no surprise at all (I'm even surprised you're mentioning it as even in your fake-news bubble you must be aware of it) that a lot of people would turn out to give him the boot.

[Maranatha]

A few facts with which, I think, all will agree:
- Trump does not like losing. He's admitted this.
- The last public loss he had was in the 2016 election when he lost the popular vote by about three million (I am not saying that he therefore lost, or should have lost, the election: I'm just noting that it was a loss, and that he took it as one).
- He protested that loss, stating repeatedly (while providing no supporting evidence) that if there had been no cheating/fraud, he would have won the popular vote.
- After he took office, he created a special commission to investigate the cheating/fraud during the 2016 election. That commission quietly dissolved a year after its creation when they were unable to find any evidence for any cheating/fraud.
- Several months before the 2020 election, he began to cast doubt on its integrity, particularly on the mail-in ballots process. Election experts uniformly said that there was no basis for such doubt and that the mail-in ballot process was sound, secure and had been for decades.
- In the immediate lead up to the 2020 election, he refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power, repeatedly mentioning that if the election was fair, he would win.

In the light of the above, why would anyone believe his claims of cheating/fraud in the 2020 election, particularly when:
a) those claims are made without supporting evidence,
b) a number of international organisations observing the election have stated that it was fair, even and that there was no evidence of cheating or fraud,
c) those claims are made in a way that exhibits an appalling lack of knowledge of general election processes and the realities of this election in particular,
d) across the board, virtually all officials, Democrat and Republican, agree that the election was honest and more secure than any in recent memory,
e) across the board, judges, both Democrat and Republican, have thrown out court cases created by his legal team about the election due to the non-existence of evidence for his claims,
f) virtually the only people who have come out to agree with him are those with a history of acceding to his claims/decrees,
g) he has a long, well-documented history of lying, usually for his own aggrandisement,
h) if he is correct, the Democrats organised a fraud/cheating effort that spanned the country without a single defector confessing to their crimes and
i) if he is correct, the Democrats managed to subvert the entire electoral process by 'stealing' at least three (3) states from the rightful victor but were at the same time happy to lose seats in the house and make no gains in the senate?

Because believing a liberal would be improper.

[Stoic]

More evidence of election fraud in 2016:

• Michigan recount reveals error, but not the one Jill Stein wanted
• FBI Investigating Voter Fraud in Va. Using Dead People's Names
• New Report Exposes Thousands of Illegal Votes in 2016 Election
• Report: 5500+ Noncitizens Discovered on Voter Rolls in Virginia

Which is to say that President Trump was right in 2016, and he's right today.

Your first claim has been debunked here. It turns out that the "issue was about inaccurate head counts taken by poll workers rather than fraud."

Your second claim turns out to be one person caught turning in registration applications for 20 dead people, and he got caught before the election, so no illegal votes resulted from it.

Your third claim was debunked here. Basically, the study can't be trusted because of its methodology. If someone goes out and checks the results, you could have something. But I wouldn't count on it.

Your fourth claim was debunked here. The problem is, they didn't actually check to see whether or not the people they "outed" were citizens. This didn't stop them from accusing people of committing felonies, and publishing their names, addresses, and in some cases social security numbers.

You really ought to do some more research before you post such nonsense, or at least use more reliable sources.

[Mountain Man]

Your first claim has been debunked here. It turns out that the "issue was about inaccurate head counts taken by poll workers rather than fraud."

Your second claim turns out to be one person caught turning in registration applications for 20 dead people, and he got caught before the election, so no illegal votes resulted from it.

Your third claim was debunked here. Basically, the study can't be trusted because of its methodology. If someone goes out and checks the results, you could have something. But I wouldn't count on it.

Your fourth claim was debunked here. The problem is, they didn't actually check to see whether or not the people they "outed" were citizens. This didn't stop them from accusing people of committing felonies, and publishing their names, addresses, and in some cases social security numbers.

You really ought to do some more research before you post such nonsense, or at least use more reliable sources.

And what a coincidence that all these "errors" only ever benefit Democrats, right? "Our poll workers made a perfectly innocent mistake, but only in every county that Hillary won, and not in any of the counties that Trump won. Oops." And it just so happens that according to Michigan law, when there is a discrepancy between what is recorded in the poll books and the number of ballots counted, that district becomes ineligible for a recount, and the original count stands. Convenient, right? Poll workers also fed ballots into machines multiple times in a row, claiming that the machines didn't properly read the ballot the first half-a-dozen times. But only Hillary votes, it seems. The machines apparently recorded Trump votes correctly the first time. What a coincidence.

Yes, they caught the guy registering dead people, which begs the question: how many other people have done the same thing and haven't been caught?

Washington Post articles are blocked by a pay wall, so I can't have the displeasure of reading whatever screed you linked to.

The last attempted "debunking" is more of a smear against the research organization than anything else and isn't worth the time to read even though the length of the editorial and number of embedded links gives the false appearance that it is more substantive than it really is. Quite an impressive example of elephant hurling.

Snopes and Washington Post are not reliable fact checkers, and so nothing has been debunked. Perhaps try going with more credible sources in the future.

[Electric Skeptic]

I personally believe it because of four years of TDS and bogus investigations to try and remove him from office at all cost. The evidence of election impropriety is just the icing on the cake, but I can take it or leave it.

That's no reason at all. There is no "evidence of election impropriety", as every official (except for Trump and his sycophants) agrees.

[Stoic]

And what a coincidence that all these "errors" only ever benefit Democrats, right?

A coincidence you pulled out of your backside, I take it.

"Our poll workers made a perfectly innocent mistake, but only in every county that Hillary won, and not in any of the counties that Trump won. Oops."

More from your backside?

And it just so happens that according to Michigan law, when there is a discrepancy between what is recorded in the poll books and the number of ballots counted, that district becomes ineligible for a recount, and the original count stands. Convenient, right?

Convenient for whom? I don't recall Trump wanting a recount.

Poll workers also fed ballots into machines multiple times in a row, claiming that the machines didn't properly read the ballot the first half-a-dozen times. But only Hillary votes, it seems. The machines apparently recorded Trump votes correctly the first time. What a coincidence.

Where are you getting this garbage?

Yes, they caught the guy registering dead people, which begs the question: how many other people have done the same thing and haven't been caught?

I guess the first step in catching people would be comparing who voted with who is dead. Didn't Trump have a commission on this, which disbanded without finding evidence of widespread voter fraud?

Washington Post articles are blocked by a pay wall, so I can't have the displeasure of reading whatever screed you linked to.

Max Hailperin, a professor emeritus of mathematics, computer science and statistics at Gustavus Adolphus College in Minnesota who has worked with government officials on the state’s electoral system for years, said that the study suffered from a glaring vulnerability that can result from large data sets.

“Whenever you test a large volume of data for some rare occurrence, you wind up with two things that happen at low rates: one is finding what you’re looking for; and the other is finding artifacts in the data that mimic what you’re looking for,” he said.

Gronke pointed out that even if the 8,400 instances were taken as true, “those are beyond minuscule.”

“You need a scientific calculator to display that many significant digits,” he said. “Yet this is what a presidential commission focuses on, when we have the reality of foreign governments interfering in our election process?”

Hailperin explained how rare instances of human error in a large set of numbers — millions of data points that grow exponentially when multiplied against one another — could manifest as what might appear to be a significant number of matches, if not examined closely. Small mistakes, like people signing the wrong line of a voting roster, or errors as paper sign-ins are computerized later, are a part of the voting system, he said, and out of 75 million voters, the errors could add up.

“So there’s some very small rate of error that results in some small number of false appearances of double-voting,” Hailperin said. “There’s a lot of sloppiness in the records, and that’s unfortunate. But sloppy records are not the same thing as rampant fraud.”

For a study to be credible, it would need to account for this by calculating a rate of which these type of false positives were occurring and then adjusting the results accordingly, he said.

“You would have to randomly sample some of those and go out and do the investigation and get the on the ground truth,” he said.

Hailperin said he had a word for these type of studies about voting fraud: vigilante matching.

“This is very much of a genre,” he said. “When other vigilante-matching projects akin to this one have been followed up on by law-enforcement authorities, generally what they find is that a very, very small proportion of these apparent red flags actually turn out to be anything real.”

The last attempted "debunking" is more of a smear against the research organization

They aren't a research organization, and "smearing" is too good for them.

They KNEW that their data couldn't be used to determine who was a citizen and who was not, yet they accused people of felonies without conclusive evidence, and posted their addresses and other personal information.

[seanD]

That's no reason at all. There is no "evidence of election impropriety", as every official (except for Trump and his sycophants) agrees.

Congrats in luring me into your clickbait troll thread, since it was you, I should have known better. You asked our opinion and I shared mine. Take it or leave it.

[firstfloor]

This thread is a nutter festival.

[Electric Skeptic]

Congrats in luring me into your clickbait troll thread, since it was you, I should have known better. You asked our opinion and I shared mine. Take it or leave it.

I'm not interested in your childish insults.