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

Tuur · Tuesday at 6:16 PM

Bradskii said:
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.

Conveniently overlooking that the difference between flat earth and fraud is that the earth has never been flat and election fraud is known to happen. Just as the fellow I know who did time for it. What seems to be going on here is that since Trump claimed fraud, fraud must not exist. Unless someone can say with 100% certainty that there is nothing hinky happening in California, that's a possibility, particularly given how the count is taking so long. Like a wife finding an earing that isn't hers in her husband's car, it might be completely innocent, but it sure doesn't look good.

Bradskii · Tuesday at 6:36 PM

Valletta said:
Actually she kept with the line about "no evidence" which has been debunked.

Whoever told you that is lying to you. Just as Trump was lying to you. There is zero evidence. I'm not even sure if anyone has been asked to even investigate any supposed claims. People are constantly repeating things that are not true. People are being treated like fools by Trump who expects them to believe everything he says. Actually, I should correct that: he knows that people will believe everything he says. He knows that people will consider everything he says and does to be correct.

I'm actually concerned about the mental health of those who refuse to confront reality. They are living in a fantasy word of Trump's making. It's borderline clinical paranoia *. You'd think that after the debacle of the 'stolen election' when there were so many cases that Giuliani and his minions lost that reality would actually impose itself on these people. That they would have to admit that there was no evidence. But we now have to go through this again? Is this madness going to be part of every election?

* Paranoia

'Clinical paranoia is more severe. It’s a rare mental health condition in which you believe that others are unfair, lying, or actively trying to harm you even when there’s no proof. Paranoid thoughts can turn into delusions if the irrational beliefs become so fixed that nothing can change them.

The people who wrote that definition might have to edit it. It's very far from being a rare condition.

Tuur · Tuesday at 6:39 PM

FreeinChrist said:
Nixon and Republicans questioned the results in Chicago which Kennedy won by a lot and it involved paper ballots, and not mail in voting. Paper ballots had issues too. Remember Florida and the hanging chads in 2000?
I suspect there were election irregularities in the South during Jim Crow that had nothing to do with mail in ballots.

Indeed there were. Note that this has to do with politics and not simply Jim Crow. Such as the story told to me about a county that always just happened to cast it's vote for the winning governor, then go to the governor and say how they county supported them. Wouldn't you know it, that county always turned it its results after the race was decided. Until a close race came up and an adjacent county held back their returns, supposedly just to force that county in question to go before them.

Then there was the aforementioned instance of votes supporting Eugene Talmadge of Georgia showing up at just the right moment to help him, and the voters all just happened to cast their votes in alphabetical order.

The televised incident with a mechanical reading machine back in the 1970s involved paper ballots, though that was past the Jim Crow era.

The problem with paper ballots is why there were pressure in some counties to adopt mechanical voting machines. That's the old flip the toggles and pull the lever and it recorded the ballot in a tally. The interesting thing is that when it happened, then the shenanigans moves to the absentee ballots. The instance I recall where someone was convicted of voter fraud involved registering prisoners and casting absentee ballots in their name. Then there was the rumored instance of someone in a county election going to shut-ins and helping them with their absentee ballots. Maybe that was on the up and up; maybe not, but since it was the candidate, it sure raised questions.

Note that absentee ballots are essentially mail-in, and once it's out of the sight of poll workers, anything can happen. Such as people voting in someone else's name (as with the case of voter fraud mentioned above). Bad ol' fashioned ballot box stuffing can happen that way.

Tuur · Tuesday at 6:41 PM

Bradskii said:
* Paranoia

It's not paranoia to suspect an email from a Nigeran prince wanting help to move funds out of his country might not be on the up and up. Unless the question isn't whether we're paranoid, but if we're paranoid enough.

Bradskii · Tuesday at 6:49 PM

Tuur said:
What seems to be going on here is that since Trump claimed fraud, fraud must not exist.

No! What is being said is that Trump is not suggesting that there could be or might have been fraud in the California elections, he says that there has been fraud and that there is evidence of it.

Tuur said:
Unless someone can say with 100% certainty that there is nothing hinky happening in California, that's a possibility...

That is the most facile of arguments. I guess that if you have no proof that Trump isn't the leader of the Lizard People who are planning on conquering the planet (and you most definitely have no evidence whatsoever that he isn't), then gee, it's a possibility.

Get real, please. He says there's evidence. There is no evidence. He is lying. We know he's lying and we know why he's lying. The question that has most people banging their head on their keyboards is why so many people feel the need to believe him.

essentialsaltes · Tuesday at 6:54 PM

Tuur said:
it sure doesn't look good.

What doesn't look good? The state is following its rules, and no one has produced any evidence, other than their feelings, that anything is hinky.

FreeinChrist · Tuesday at 8:43 PM

Tuur said:
Note that absentee ballots are essentially mail-in, and once it's out of the sight of poll workers, anything can happen. Such as people voting in someone else's name (as with the case of voter fraud mentioned above). Bad ol' fashioned ballot box stuffing can happen that way.

One has to register to get an absentee ballot, and there are email notifications that it is being mailed. In Texas, I had to give a lot of information and the same in AZ. I don't think it is so easy to vote on the ballot of another, and it seems that those who do it, get caught. Plus they check signatures.

Bradskii · Tuesday at 10:05 PM

Tuur said:
It's not paranoia to suspect an email from a Nigeran prince...

Just...what? We are talking about Trump saying that he had evidence of fraud. I'm going to repeat that again, and excuse the shouting:

TRUMP SAID HE HAD EVIDENCE OF FRAUD.

Getting evidence of fraud from your friendly Nigerian Prince is monstrously easy. Trust me. I used to hang around this web site a lot back in the day and I know how to actually scam the scammers: 419 Eater - The World's Largest Scambaiting Community.

Getting evidence of fraud in an election is likewise not difficult. Especially when you have the full weight of the administration at your disposal. So where is the evidence of which Trump speaks?

It. Does. Not. Exist. He lied. And he doesn't like being questioned on it. Because all he has available to him as a response is to repeat the lie. Ad nauseum.

I'm past the point where I say that he says things like that because he thinks that if he says them often enough then people will start to believe him. He doesn't think that. He knows it. As a fact. You only have to read this thread to see that.

So you're right. In that it's not paranoid to think that you might being lied to by someone pretending to be a Nigerian Prince. But if someone truly believes that a person is telling them the truth and that person has absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back it up, then that someone needs to have a long hard look at themselves and think about why they might be so gullible. Yeah...gullible. They won't have reached the level of paranoia yet. But if there are cases where that same person is producing zero evidence for multiple claims and multiple cases have shown that there actually is none - and by multiple I mean dozens and dozens, then anyone still believing the claims is seriously in need of some expert help.

Tuur · Wednesday at 11:10 AM

essentialsaltes said:
What doesn't look good? The state is following its rules, and no one has produced any evidence, other than their feelings, that anything is hinky.

And the count just happens to proceed at a glacial pace…

Tuur · Wednesday at 11:26 AM

Bradskii said:
TRUMP SAID HE HAD EVIDENCE OF FRAUD

And in calling him a liar you are claiming he hasn’t. Really, the manta here has been a categorical statement that there is no evidence at all and that there is nothing hinkey going on. Having been aware of shady election shenanigans for much of my life, I wouldn’t say that’s not possible. But you do you.

FreeinChrist · Wednesday at 11:32 AM

It was the same in 2020, Trump and his lawyers (Giuliani, Powell, etc) claimed there was all this evidence of fraud in the election but then they get into court, and have to admit there was no evidence because if they claimed they had it in court, and didn't, they would get in trouble. They did eventually get into trouble.

Trump will lie and claim evidence but when asked for it, as he was in the Meet the Press interview, he couldn't produce.
Same old, same old.

Tuur · Wednesday at 11:37 AM

FreeinChrist said:
One has to register to get an absentee ballot, and there are email notifications that it is being mailed. In Texas, I had to give a lot of information and the same in AZ. I don't think it is so easy to vote on the ballot of another, and it seems that those who do it, get caught. Plus they check signatures.

Yes, and registering those who wouldn’t likely show up at the polls is an old dodge. How well signatures are verified depends on who’s doing the verifying. That’s in the same category as the infamous hanging chads.

Recently, received a notice sent to the estate of a deceased family member notifying us that they had been removed from voter registration due to being deceased. Was glad to see that, as the graveyard vote had a long history there. Death didn’t use to be sufficient reason to remove someone from voter registration.

essentialsaltes · Wednesday at 11:41 AM

Tuur said:
And the count just happens to proceed at a glacial pace…

How so? As you noted, the last ballots were only received yesterday, and these races are at 90%+ counted.

essentialsaltes · Wednesday at 11:42 AM

Tuur said:
And in calling him a liar you are claiming he hasn’t.

He has the DOJ at his beck and call. If he's not doing anything, he's bluffing.

Tuur · Wednesday at 11:45 AM

FreeinChrist said:
Trump will lie and claim evidence but when asked for it, as he was in the Meet the Press interview, he couldn't produce.
Same old, same old.

Couldn’t or wouldn’t. Either way, that doesn’t mean that things out there are above suspicion, which some here are claiming.

Maybe there’s nothing to statements made by some LA homeless that they were paid to vote. Not exactly an unimpeachable source. Kind of a dated practice, too. Still, that’s something that surfaced yesterday.

Akita Suggagaki · Wednesday at 12:02 PM

Tuur said:
Couldn’t or wouldn’t. Either way, that doesn’t mean that things out there are above suspicion, which some here are claiming.

Maybe there’s nothing to statements made by some LA homeless that they were paid to vote. Not exactly an unimpeachable source. Kind of a dated practice, too. Still, that’s something that surfaced yesterday.

Why is there never suspicion when Republicans win?

iluvatar5150 · Wednesday at 12:11 PM

Akita Suggagaki said:
Why is there never suspicion when Republicans win?

Yeah, I love hearing how folks left the Democratic party because they felt abandoned by it, only to see them repeat a bunch of right-wing propaganda that's totally divorced from any ideology that could've had them in the Dem camp years ago. Apparently switching parties also means abopting all of the new tribe's bad stuff, too.

FreeinChrist · Wednesday at 12:13 PM

Tuur said:
Yes, and registering those who wouldn’t likely show up at the polls is an old dodge. How well signatures are verified depends on who’s doing the verifying. That’s in the same category as the infamous hanging chads.

Recently, received a notice sent to the estate of a deceased family member notifying us that they had been removed from voter registration due to being deceased. Was glad to see that, as the graveyard vote had a long history there. Death didn’t use to be sufficient reason to remove someone from voter registration.

I don't think a graveyard vote is as likely as some fear. To register, I needed to provide my SS number. When people die, the SS number is then in a list of those who have passed away. It would get tagged when those doing the registration check the SS number.

Registering "those who wouldn't likely show up at the polls is an old dodge"?? To register, you would need the SS number and other information.

Tuur · Wednesday at 12:14 PM

essentialsaltes said:
He has the DOJ at his beck and call. If he's not doing anything, he's bluffing.

But would you, knowing something of accounts of election fraud in US history, state that there is no fraud taking place in California?

FreeinChrist · Wednesday at 12:14 PM

Akita Suggagaki said:
Why is there never suspicion when Republicans win?

I noticed that two. Perhaps one sideParty handles loss poorly? Not all members.

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

Well-Known Member

Under the Southern Cross I stand...

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Under the Southern Cross I stand...

Fact-Based Lifeform

CF Advisory team

Under the Southern Cross I stand...

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CF Advisory team

Well-Known Member

Fact-Based Lifeform

Fact-Based Lifeform

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CF Advisory team

Well-Known Member

CF Advisory team

Similar threads