I don't claim to personally know what happened, but I've read that almost every case related to fraud was dismissed due to lack of standing. (If that's wrong I'd LOVE to hear about it). I know the Hunter Biden laptop story was suppressed. The endless lawfare during his presidency and since is obvious. Finally, the Dems haven't run an honest primary since at least 2012. This time (2020) certainly looks different to me.
Bonus evidence? The rise of censorship. That's what you do when you can't win on the truth.
All that said, you may be right about this hurting his chances.
Perhaps a better way to state it is when you’re no longer able to manufacture consent, default to censorship to maintain control. I fear what happens now that the censorship is being found out. Right now, there is enormous pressure on YouTube to take down content critical of 2020 vote. Thankfully there is still X.
Second - the Hunter Biden Laptop Coverup as the last goalpost in the "stolen election" narrative relies on several assumptions and historical revisionism of what actually happened to believe that had this come out differently, that would have changed the election outcome in Trump's favor. The first is that there were votes to switch on even most negative spin of the facts of the laptop. I don't know how many voters there were by October 2020 that would have switched a Biden vote to Trump based on some maybe supposition that Biden's son was engaged in some shady foreign business dealings and that Joe Biden might have been sharing in some of his income - this is the basis of the Republican claims, and I'm not sure that even if those were proven at the time that would have been the electoral game changer Trump supporters wanted it to be at all, all else being equal. Trump was suffering from heavy public anger and dissatisfaction over COVID and he already had a low ceiling to overcome. The notion that Trump would have won if the media had reported more credulously on the laptop findings is shaky, at best. "Biden Crime Family" had been meat and potatoes of right wing media since Trump's first Impeachment over trying to strong arm Ukraine into putting up a show trial over it - it's not like the "whiffs" of this story didn't exist in the public, they did, but neither the laptop nor the subsequent Republican House investigations attempting to prove it ever came up with anything solid to begin with. That was certainly the case even with the "laptop" in October 2020, regardless of how the media covered it as "possible disinformation" or not.
Second, there seems to be a lot of historical revisionism about the circumstances of this story itself, circa October 2020. The data came from Rudy Giuliani, who was well on his downward slide of public trust and credibility and reputation at this point, who had been revealed as part of Impeachment #1 to have been in meetings with known Russian agents trying to sell him faked materials - and having been open to buying them on behalf of his boss. Rudy also refused to allow media outlets to view the materials directly or have them independently verified and reviewed. Instead, he wanted the media to credibly report on what amounted to screenshots solely on data in Rudy's possession. It would have been totally unethical of the media to have reported otherwise without viewing the data themselves. In fact, it was so suspect that even the NY Post that first ran the story refused to put its own reporters on the byline.
Last, there was an FBI investigation of Hunter Biden and it did have the original laptop in its possession at the time, yes, but it wasn't a public investigation at the time (and keep in mind, this was Trump's DOJ) and they had no obligation to reveal any facts of an investigation to back the Trump Campaign's efforts to leak third hand sourced data that may or may not have been legitimately sourced in the first place. Keep in mind that the "Rudy laptop" which is the source of the October 2020 reporting, was not the original laptop. It was a copy of a copy of a drive that had changed hands multiple times. That was another reason the media couldn't credibly report on this - it wasn't the actual laptop and had imprints of data manipulation on it after Hunter Biden's actual possession of the original laptop (this was discovered on subsequent review of the real laptop versus the many copies of the laptop originating from the "Rudy laptop").
So I'm sorry, the stories of 2020 "stolen election" still remain a lot of Trump's face saving BS, and how deeply this has infected his supporters because it's a self serving narrative there as well - Trump and his supporters weren't rejected in 2020, it was all this multi-faceted conspiracy that the goal posts of what the "conspiracy" is just keep shifting as each one falls. We went from literal vote switching by ballot machine hacking/purposeful programming, satellite hacking of elections machines, fake paper ballots, elections workers fraudulently counting ballots more than once, etc, to now if only the media had reported on Hunter Biden's laptop more credulously (despite it STILL not proving the "Biden Crime Family" nonsense) Trump would have won, so it's "election interference". This last is of course the weakest claim in terms of the assumption it was the vote changer you want it be, while also having the benefit of having some after the fact factuality so I see why it has stuck around.
This article makes an interesting and apparently valid point, but the author apparently starts from the position that there were no shenanigans in the 2020 election. Personally, I think that the establishment, aka: The Blob, engaged in massive behind the scenes efforts at all possible levels to put their candidate over the finish line. Many of those efforts fall into a gray zone between legal and illegal, such as censoring online speech. Others, like changing voting laws without proper authority and creating or losing ballots as needed seem pretty illegal to me. I think that anyone who wants to write about this weird episode in American history needs to acknowledge the Time Magazine article of February 4, 2021: "The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election."
The 2020 election will forever be tied to the reveal of industrial sized electoral censorship (thanks 3 letter agencies + Big Tech!), unveiled by Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger at the invite of Musk to clean house on Twitter/X. More recently, Zuck outright admitted the FBI leaned on him/Meta in a Joe Rogan interview to also hide info damaging to one candidate over another. That’s the Establishment at work! Several swing states went to Biden by very small number of votes. We’ll never know if voters would have cast against Biden if his ‘$ for government access’ corruption was not suppressed at that time. If Trump wins in ‘24, I know of at least 51 names that are gonna lose their security clearances on day 1 😂
Speaking of stolen elections, didn’t Hillary say this happened to her in 2016 and so you better watch out for 2020:
If that’s not enough, here’s 10 minutes of Democrats stating DJT stole the 2016 election, including Joe Biden, but gosh somehow the voters still elected him!
Trump’s refusal to accept the outcome of the 2020 election is comparable to Hillary Clinton‘s refusal to accept the outcome of 2016. The main difference is, the mainstream media reported on Trump’s denial and loudly labeled it a threat to democracy, and chose not to comment on Hillary’s election denial.
I wonder how much of this is also tied to how much it's played up? Meaning do candidates who not only refuse to say they lost but keep bringing it up pay a higher price? Trump talks about it non-stop so it's very me-me-me and makes him look worse. Stacey Abrahams doesn't really ever talk about it and tires to dodge the question about her first lost to Kemp so I don't know the voters still hold it against her to the same degree. It's a bad look either way and I am glad that there are clear repercussions for doing so, but I guess it's one thing to refuse to say you lost and another to keep saying over and over and over and over...
Trump is a centrist now? The needle has moved or I never really understood what a centrist is. We'll find out soon enough if being a sore loser ends his quest for power.
Until then, in my book, the sorest loser of them all remains Hillary Russiagate Clinton.
Hillary may be the sorest loser but us, the electorate remain the biggest losers. We are being played.
How incurious is our state media?
Pretty incurious, and why is that?
Consider that we still don’t know who’s on Epstein’s travel log. Nor do we know the motivation of Trump shooter. That is getting memory holed oh so quickly and it’s only right leaning sources still asking. In fact, what I’ve heard is there isn’t a shred of DNA left in house of Thomas Matthew Crooks (they even took the silverware), his body was cremated soon after death and dammit, the trusted FBI still can’t seem to break into phone.
On the other hand, show me a school shooter and you’ll get his social feed and motivations like a snap. And that’s because that issue feeds the divide & conquer strategy of our Establishment. The Blob thrives on chaos.
Think back on who else has been assassinated in this country since WW2 and you’ll notice all of them started to talk about class and economic a bit too loudly for Establishment’s taste. Malcolm X, MLK and Robert Kennedy all had lives cut short around this big issue.
I don't claim to personally know what happened, but I've read that almost every case related to fraud was dismissed due to lack of standing. (If that's wrong I'd LOVE to hear about it). I know the Hunter Biden laptop story was suppressed. The endless lawfare during his presidency and since is obvious. Finally, the Dems haven't run an honest primary since at least 2012. This time (2020) certainly looks different to me.
Bonus evidence? The rise of censorship. That's what you do when you can't win on the truth.
All that said, you may be right about this hurting his chances.
Perhaps a better way to state it is when you’re no longer able to manufacture consent, default to censorship to maintain control. I fear what happens now that the censorship is being found out. Right now, there is enormous pressure on YouTube to take down content critical of 2020 vote. Thankfully there is still X.
It is true that most of the cases were dismissed on standing, which wasn't some fake out as Trump supporters make it sound, but the legal rules that required them to be dismissed on those grounds. However, it is also true that judges in some of those cases did also review the "evidence" provided and deemed it.. lacking. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/oct/28/instagram-posts/trump-campaigns-evidence-of-fraud-was-reviewed-bef/
Second - the Hunter Biden Laptop Coverup as the last goalpost in the "stolen election" narrative relies on several assumptions and historical revisionism of what actually happened to believe that had this come out differently, that would have changed the election outcome in Trump's favor. The first is that there were votes to switch on even most negative spin of the facts of the laptop. I don't know how many voters there were by October 2020 that would have switched a Biden vote to Trump based on some maybe supposition that Biden's son was engaged in some shady foreign business dealings and that Joe Biden might have been sharing in some of his income - this is the basis of the Republican claims, and I'm not sure that even if those were proven at the time that would have been the electoral game changer Trump supporters wanted it to be at all, all else being equal. Trump was suffering from heavy public anger and dissatisfaction over COVID and he already had a low ceiling to overcome. The notion that Trump would have won if the media had reported more credulously on the laptop findings is shaky, at best. "Biden Crime Family" had been meat and potatoes of right wing media since Trump's first Impeachment over trying to strong arm Ukraine into putting up a show trial over it - it's not like the "whiffs" of this story didn't exist in the public, they did, but neither the laptop nor the subsequent Republican House investigations attempting to prove it ever came up with anything solid to begin with. That was certainly the case even with the "laptop" in October 2020, regardless of how the media covered it as "possible disinformation" or not.
Second, there seems to be a lot of historical revisionism about the circumstances of this story itself, circa October 2020. The data came from Rudy Giuliani, who was well on his downward slide of public trust and credibility and reputation at this point, who had been revealed as part of Impeachment #1 to have been in meetings with known Russian agents trying to sell him faked materials - and having been open to buying them on behalf of his boss. Rudy also refused to allow media outlets to view the materials directly or have them independently verified and reviewed. Instead, he wanted the media to credibly report on what amounted to screenshots solely on data in Rudy's possession. It would have been totally unethical of the media to have reported otherwise without viewing the data themselves. In fact, it was so suspect that even the NY Post that first ran the story refused to put its own reporters on the byline.
Last, there was an FBI investigation of Hunter Biden and it did have the original laptop in its possession at the time, yes, but it wasn't a public investigation at the time (and keep in mind, this was Trump's DOJ) and they had no obligation to reveal any facts of an investigation to back the Trump Campaign's efforts to leak third hand sourced data that may or may not have been legitimately sourced in the first place. Keep in mind that the "Rudy laptop" which is the source of the October 2020 reporting, was not the original laptop. It was a copy of a copy of a drive that had changed hands multiple times. That was another reason the media couldn't credibly report on this - it wasn't the actual laptop and had imprints of data manipulation on it after Hunter Biden's actual possession of the original laptop (this was discovered on subsequent review of the real laptop versus the many copies of the laptop originating from the "Rudy laptop").
So I'm sorry, the stories of 2020 "stolen election" still remain a lot of Trump's face saving BS, and how deeply this has infected his supporters because it's a self serving narrative there as well - Trump and his supporters weren't rejected in 2020, it was all this multi-faceted conspiracy that the goal posts of what the "conspiracy" is just keep shifting as each one falls. We went from literal vote switching by ballot machine hacking/purposeful programming, satellite hacking of elections machines, fake paper ballots, elections workers fraudulently counting ballots more than once, etc, to now if only the media had reported on Hunter Biden's laptop more credulously (despite it STILL not proving the "Biden Crime Family" nonsense) Trump would have won, so it's "election interference". This last is of course the weakest claim in terms of the assumption it was the vote changer you want it be, while also having the benefit of having some after the fact factuality so I see why it has stuck around.
Life is short. I'll respectfully agree to disagree.
lol ok.
This article makes an interesting and apparently valid point, but the author apparently starts from the position that there were no shenanigans in the 2020 election. Personally, I think that the establishment, aka: The Blob, engaged in massive behind the scenes efforts at all possible levels to put their candidate over the finish line. Many of those efforts fall into a gray zone between legal and illegal, such as censoring online speech. Others, like changing voting laws without proper authority and creating or losing ballots as needed seem pretty illegal to me. I think that anyone who wants to write about this weird episode in American history needs to acknowledge the Time Magazine article of February 4, 2021: "The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election."
The 2020 election will forever be tied to the reveal of industrial sized electoral censorship (thanks 3 letter agencies + Big Tech!), unveiled by Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger at the invite of Musk to clean house on Twitter/X. More recently, Zuck outright admitted the FBI leaned on him/Meta in a Joe Rogan interview to also hide info damaging to one candidate over another. That’s the Establishment at work! Several swing states went to Biden by very small number of votes. We’ll never know if voters would have cast against Biden if his ‘$ for government access’ corruption was not suppressed at that time. If Trump wins in ‘24, I know of at least 51 names that are gonna lose their security clearances on day 1 😂
Speaking of stolen elections, didn’t Hillary say this happened to her in 2016 and so you better watch out for 2020:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/05/06/hillary-clinton-warns-2020-democratic-candidates-stolen-election/1116477001/
If that’s not enough, here’s 10 minutes of Democrats stating DJT stole the 2016 election, including Joe Biden, but gosh somehow the voters still elected him!
https://x.com/ClayTravis/status/1540083271526236165
Trump’s refusal to accept the outcome of the 2020 election is comparable to Hillary Clinton‘s refusal to accept the outcome of 2016. The main difference is, the mainstream media reported on Trump’s denial and loudly labeled it a threat to democracy, and chose not to comment on Hillary’s election denial.
Republican sore losers bad. Democrat sore losers good. 🧐
I wonder how much of this is also tied to how much it's played up? Meaning do candidates who not only refuse to say they lost but keep bringing it up pay a higher price? Trump talks about it non-stop so it's very me-me-me and makes him look worse. Stacey Abrahams doesn't really ever talk about it and tires to dodge the question about her first lost to Kemp so I don't know the voters still hold it against her to the same degree. It's a bad look either way and I am glad that there are clear repercussions for doing so, but I guess it's one thing to refuse to say you lost and another to keep saying over and over and over and over...
Nothing can hurt Trump at this point
Trump is a centrist now? The needle has moved or I never really understood what a centrist is. We'll find out soon enough if being a sore loser ends his quest for power.
Until then, in my book, the sorest loser of them all remains Hillary Russiagate Clinton.
Hillary may be the sorest loser but us, the electorate remain the biggest losers. We are being played.
How incurious is our state media?
Pretty incurious, and why is that?
Consider that we still don’t know who’s on Epstein’s travel log. Nor do we know the motivation of Trump shooter. That is getting memory holed oh so quickly and it’s only right leaning sources still asking. In fact, what I’ve heard is there isn’t a shred of DNA left in house of Thomas Matthew Crooks (they even took the silverware), his body was cremated soon after death and dammit, the trusted FBI still can’t seem to break into phone.
On the other hand, show me a school shooter and you’ll get his social feed and motivations like a snap. And that’s because that issue feeds the divide & conquer strategy of our Establishment. The Blob thrives on chaos.
Think back on who else has been assassinated in this country since WW2 and you’ll notice all of them started to talk about class and economic a bit too loudly for Establishment’s taste. Malcolm X, MLK and Robert Kennedy all had lives cut short around this big issue.