Trump clashes with ‘Meet the Press’ interviewer, calls outlet ‘crooked’ before ending segment

Valletta · 2026-06-09T02:10:43-0500

Bradskii said:
Look! A pigeon!

I'm really not interested in what you think about Jan 6. If you want to believe it was all wine and roses and just some honest God fearin' folk who called in to the Capitol checking to see if anyone needed a hand to certify the election results then that is on you. You'll be judged on that. We all saw what happened live on TV. But you are again ignoring the reason why Trump walked out of that interview. It was because he claimed that the elections in California were rigged and he was challenged on it. He was asked what his evidence was.

Shock! Horror! Someone making a claim about election fraud being asked as to what evidence he had for that claim! And, again, I will point out that no-one has any evidence of that whatsoever. Literally none. A big fat nada. So that means that I know he was lying. It means that the interviewer knew he was lying. But most of all, it means that you knew that Trump was lying. It really looks monstrously idiotic for anyone to suggest otherwise.

What possible reason could you have for not accepting that? Is it because you think that if he keeps repeating a lie therefore it must be true? Does the greater frequency with which he lies make the lies more truthful? How doers this work? Can you explain it to us?

California has it set up so it is easy to cheat. Even mail in observers are not allowed to challenge a signature based on the fact it does not look like the registered signature of the voter. They have resisted election reforms, such as making sure that registered voters are current and legal. They have resisted so that people can cheat. With all of the money for elections does it have to take so long to count the votes. The truth is it does not. It is deliberate so that there is an opportunity to make sure the vote ends up according to the wishes of those in control. The Washington Post editorial board characterized the slow counting in the California election system as "a national embarrassment and a damning indictment of blue-state governance."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/06/04/californias-glacial-vote-counting-undermines-faith-elections/

Servus · 2026-06-09T02:44:34-0500

Valletta said:
California has it set up so it is easy to cheat. Even mail in observers are not allowed to challenge a signature based on the fact it does not look like the registered signature of the voter. They have resisted election reforms, such as making sure that registered voters are current and legal. They have resisted so that people can cheat. With all of the money for elections does it have to take so long to count the votes. The truth is it does not. It is deliberate so that there is an opportunity to make sure the vote ends up according to the wishes of those in control. The Washington Post editorial board characterized the slow counting in the California election system as "a national embarrassment and a damning indictment of blue-state governance."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/06/04/californias-glacial-vote-counting-undermines-faith-elections/

California with a population 39.4 million takes weeks to count votes.

Texas with a population of 31.7 million counts most/all votes within 48 hours.

Conclusion: there's something quite fishy about the inordinately long amount of time it takes to count votes in California.

Tuur · 2026-06-09T05:43:51-0500

Bradskii said:
What possible reason could you have for not accepting that? Is it because you think that if he keeps repeating a lie therefore it must be true? Does the greater frequency with which he lies make the lies more truthful? How doers this work? Can you explain it to us?

Meanwhile, we're to accept on faith that there's absolutely no shenanigans because they said they aren't? Just like that time in Georgia where ballots surfaced that put a gubernatorial candidate over the top and, per the voting list, everyone cast their ballots in alphabetical order? (Candidate's name was Gene Talmadge, if you care to look into that). No charges were ever filed in that, BTW, so by the measure seen here, we can't accept that something funny was going in. They were filed in another case where people were doing what we're told people never do, and there were convictions in that.

Can't vouch for the story of irregularities in Chicago that helped in Nixon's defeat in 1960. Nixon decided not to pursue it. Just like I can't vouch for a couple of scandalous accounts of other shenanigans as they would be categorized as hearsay. When you have some relatives in politics, you grow up hearing the most interesting stories.

I did see the video footage, on a news broadcast, of a mechanical vote counting machine that gave different results each time the ballots ran through it. That was back in the 1970s.

Bottom line is that, while it may not be visible far away in Australia, the election process in the US isn't squeaky clean. which is why we had court ordered FBI poll observers in some places some years ago. This goes back long before Trump even thought about running.

Is this proof of fraud in California? No, although I suspect any proof wouldn't be considered proof enough in some circles. What it does mean is that fraud is possible. Just because Trump says there is doesn't mean there isn't, which seems to be the main thing going on in this thread.

Servus · 2026-06-09T06:40:30-0500

I propose a new state flag design:

Bradskii · 2026-06-09T07:13:30-0500

Valletta said:
California has it set up so it is easy to cheat.

I'm not the slightest bit interested in what you think can happen, or might happen or could happen. But we'll note that we've already slid from 'Trump lied when he said he had evidence' to you not denying that he said it or that there is no evidence (you can't, because he did and there isn't) but saying 'But hey, they could rig the election. They might, you know, rig it'.

Guess what. He didn't throw a hissy fit because he was asked about his opinion about what he thought might be the possibility of rigged elections. He was asked about the evidence he said he had that it had been rigged. And he's got a big fat nothing. He's batting 63-zip on the federal election, so don't you be putting any of your hard earned on any chance that he's going to reverse that absolutely abysmal record.

Which is actually beside the point. He said he has evidence. He is lying. And he didn't like being asked to back up his lies.

Bradskii · 2026-06-09T07:41:41-0500

Tuur said:
Is this proof of fraud in California? No, although I suspect any proof wouldn't be considered proof enough in some circles. What it does mean is that fraud is possible. Just because Trump says there is doesn't mean there isn't, which seems to be the main thing going on in this thread.

That is a real pretzel of an argument. He says there's fraud so...that doesn't mean there isn't? Hey, let's meet up in the flat earth discussion over in the conspiracy section. We could try this new line of yours.

'Just because you say it's flat doesn't mean it isn't'.

QED I'd say. Except that despite the fact that it is a facile argument, it isn't what's being discussed. What is being discussed is Trump saying that he had evidence of fraud. Which he doesn't. Because of the simple, practical reason that it doesn't exist. So it's an indisputable fact that he lied. And he got all petulant when asked to back up what he'd just said.

Apparently he doesn't like that. He thinks it makes him look stupid. Imagine.

7thKeeper · 2026-06-09T07:59:05-0500

Servus said:
California with a population 39.4 million takes weeks to count votes.

Texas with a population of 31.7 million counts most/all votes within 48 hours.

Conclusion: there's something quite fishy about the inordinately long amount of time it takes to count votes in California.

What are you basing that conclusion on? Because those do not logically follow at all. Because there are a lot of factors going in to how long a count takes. What are the resources, what are the checks being done, what machinery, how centralised is the counting?

I mean, I could take the first two parts of your post and just say that the conclusion is that Texas is way too fast in it's count and therefore their elections are fishy. And I would have the same amount of logical evidence as your statement.

It's a worthless one, because the statements before don't indicate anything.

NxNW · 2026-06-09T08:12:12-0500

Valletta said:
People walked in an entrance peacefully where they were many officers but none told them not to enter.

Totally false. They attacked the cops, though a few cops seemed to be in on it.

Valletta said:
Such people ended up with prison sentences, whereas the left-wing mob that entered a church and frightened children in St. Paul were told time and time again by the pastor to leave but they refused.

If only you had evidence of that.

Valletta said:
Kristen is no neutral journalist, they hate it when Trump calls them out.

She did her job, calling out his lies.

Akita Suggagaki · 2026-06-09T08:41:14-0500

Servus said:
Not really when it appears that pretty much any form of alpha masculinity is described as toxic.

“Alpha masculinity”? Is that what you want to call it? In trump’s case “toxic” is right on target. I have been saying that for a while now. He is despicable. Sows doubt on any element result he dies not line. Makes up his own false reality’s. And now we are beginning to see the toxic results of his incompetence.

ThatRobGuy · 2026-06-09T08:44:24-0500

iluvatar5150 said:
The college thing is way less common than you seem to think it is.

Regardless, the right claims to have God on their side. Find me a bigger appeal to authority than that.

While one could argue that's the biggest appeal to authority, there are guardrails around that appeal (constitutionally speaking) where if someone tries pass a policy purely based on "because my God says so", courts can, will, and have struck them down.

Whereas no such guardrail exists for other institutional appeals to authority.

durangodawood · 2026-06-09T08:53:27-0500

7thKeeper said:
.....I mean, I could take the first two parts of your post and just say that the conclusion is that Texas is way too fast in it's count and therefore their elections are fishy. And I would have the same amount of logical evidence as your statement......

Totally. Anything can be "evidence" for whatever you want if you dont think it through.

Servus · 2026-06-09T08:54:26-0500

7thKeeper said:
What are you basing that conclusion on? Because those do not logically follow at all. Because there are a lot of factors going in to how long a count takes. What are the resources, what are the checks being done, what machinery, how centralised is the counting?

I mean, I could take the first two parts of your post and just say that the conclusion is that Texas is way too fast in it's count and therefore their elections are fishy. And I would have the same amount of logical evidence as your statement.

It's a worthless one, because the statements before don't indicate anything.

Surely there's all kinds of excuses for why it takes California a month to do what Texas can do in a day.

iluvatar5150 · 2026-06-09T08:55:49-0500

ThatRobGuy said:
While one could argue that's the biggest appeal to authority, there are guardrails around that appeal (constitutionally speaking) where if someone tries pass a policy purely based on "because my God says so", courts can, will, and have struck them down.

Whereas no such guardrail exists for other institutional appeals to authority.

That isn't true, either. Executive branch agencies (where all the experts live) are limited in their ability to interpret statutes to their liking. To go beyond that, you have to go through Congress.

Hans Blaster · 2026-06-09T08:57:31-0500

Valletta said:
Actually the mainstream press has withheld crucial video from the American people. People were motioned toward the Capitol by a guard. People walked in an entrance peacefully where they were many officers but none told them not to enter. Such people ended up with prison sentences, whereas the left-wing mob that entered a church and frightened children in St. Paul were told time and time again by the pastor to leave but they refused. And the local attorney would not even charge them for trespass, not even a $10 fine! This gets to the heart of the matter. Kristen is no neutral journalist, they hate it when Trump calls them out.

SMH. Sigh. No.

I've seen that "wave them in video" many times. I saw it before the Trumpist propagandists saw it. Like the "escort" videos it is all about misunderstood context and camera angles. There are also videos where one or two cops are overwhelmed by the people already streaming past them and don't try to stop the crowd as there is nothing they can do.

This notion was rejected by judges, who did not use it to dismiss cases or minimize sentences, and juries who convicted anyway.

Yarddog · 2026-06-09T09:02:35-0500

Valletta said:
That's a false statement. One might think that due to the dishonest media coverage, but if you look at the numbers for yourself, do some research on your own, you will find it is untrue.

I have done the research. Anyone who breached the first line of barricades was illegally on the Capital grounds. They knew this. Those that chose to leave before this, did the right thing. they were nonviolent protesters. None were arrested.

Those that chose to approach the Capital building, were participating in a violent riot. All of these people were subject to arrest, though only a small percentage were.

essentialsaltes · 2026-06-09T09:04:14-0500

Servus said:
Surely there's all kinds of excuses for why it takes California a month to do what Texas can do in a day.

For one thing, mail in ballots have 7 days to come in, if postmarked by election day. There's a week right there before they even have all valid ballots. You may not like the rule, but there's nothing fishy about it. It's a rule. And the state makes the rules.

FreeinChrist · 2026-06-09T10:16:05-0500

Servus said:
I've never seen any other President interviewed in a manner that appeared to be so impolite, disrespectful, and provocative. Perhaps the prevailing attitude that he's a liar and trying to prove it was the driving force. And it seems to me like the complaint against him is that he didn't just sit there and submissively take it. That instead he got annoyed at being badgered and interrupted to the point where he called it quits. Personally think quite a few respectable people would have gotten red-faced and walked out on an interview being conducted the way that one was.

I have seen it but it didn't keep going because the presidents interviewed had support for their comments and they spoke intelligently and didn't spout off crazy claims like 'the FBI was waving them [J6ers] in' and 'Comey is crooked' etc. Trump fabricates stores and claims and responds with insults to any questioning the truthfulness at all.

Say it aint so · 2026-06-09T10:25:53-0500

essentialsaltes said:
For one thing, mail in ballots have 7 days to come in, if postmarked by election day. There's a week right there before they even have all valid ballots. You may not like the rule, but there's nothing fishy about it. It's a rule. And the state makes the rules.

Correct. In Texas they cut off 'in time post marked mail in ballots' at 5pm the next day. So of course if you lives in a state where that state legislative branch is active in suppressing the vote, there will be less votes to count.

FreeinChrist · 2026-06-09T10:26:32-0500

Servus said:
California with a population 39.4 million takes weeks to count votes.

Texas with a population of 31.7 million counts most/all votes within 48 hours.

Conclusion: there's something quite fishy about the inordinately long amount of time it takes to count votes in California.

Nope. California took 6 days, not weeks.
Texas elections usually have results in 48 hours but they are not completely counted till the military, provisional and late mail votes are counted and that takes several more days. Texas allows mail in ballots but one needs to give a reason for it. I lived in Texas for 4 years or so and had to do a mail in ballot for the 2016 election. Unlike Arizona, they did not have a way to check the status of that ballot, like did it arrive, was the signature approved, was it counted?

Say it aint so · 2026-06-09T10:36:16-0500

FreeinChrist said:
Nope. California took 6 days, not weeks.
Texas elections usually have results in 48 hours but they are not completely counted till the military, provisional and late mail votes are counted and that takes several more days. Texas allows mail in ballots but one needs to give a reason for it. I lived in Texas for 4 years or so and had to do a mail in ballot for the 2016 election. Unlike Arizona, they did not have a way to check the status of that ballot, like did it arrive, was the signature approved, was it counted?

Yes. 24 hours later in Texas, and just like every other state, they are projections not official results.

Trump clashes with ‘Meet the Press’ interviewer, calls outlet ‘crooked’ before ending segment

Well-Known Member

<><

Well-Known Member

<><

Under the Southern Cross I stand...

Under the Southern Cross I stand...

Venture life, Burn your Dread

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

re Member

<><

Well-Known Member

Reconstruction 3 will come

Senior Contributor

Fact-Based Lifeform

CF Advisory team

Well-Known Member

CF Advisory team

Well-Known Member

Similar threads