Trump claims Voter fraud in PA GOP Primary

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
54,631
18,192
1,743
#22
Trump is FAR from the only, and certainly not the first, politician to question the validity of our elections.

That being said, I really wish he'd shut the hell up and go away.
Exactly! Both parties and politicians of every kind have made claims of voter fraud, etc. It has a pretty high correlation to losing an election. What's amazing are the number of people who seem to be surprised by it.
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
37,430
10,872
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#23
Trump is FAR from the only, and certainly not the first, politician to question the validity of our elections.

That being said, I really wish he'd shut the hell up and go away.
Well IIRC..the last time he did this, there was a riot at our Capitol Building

Now he is doing it to a State Election within his Own Party. We good if this ends in a riot at the PA Capitol building too?

We've seen these exact voter fraud claims from the same person lead to riots in our streets and seen those same claims that led to those very riots disproved time and time and time and time again in courts of law

Now we are cool if the same guy, starts making the same claims, but this time about his own party, and at a state level and just shrug it off?
 

UrbanCowboy1

Some cowboys gots smarts real good like me.
Aug 8, 2006
4,175
2,039
1,743
Phoenix, AZ
#24
Maybe I just don't get into the weeds on this as much as other people, but where Trump seems to differ is in calling it outright fraud whereas others use language of disenfranchisement (democrats) and preventing improper voting (Republicans). Both sow distrust in an election, but differ in the degree and kind of distrust in that they don't directly state that vote counts aren't accurate. People defending Gore did claim fraud, but I don't remember him saying that, though my memory is fuzzy. Stacey Abrams came the closest that I recall for any major election, but her statement was more that standards were applied too strictly and prevented people from being able to vote or their ballot being returned, which is different from a hidden conspiracy to toss votes such that even ballots that were accepted didn't get counted or that software systematically changed votes. The implications for those two lines of logic are different. One is that even if you get your vote in, you'll be cheated. The other is that you need to do what you can to make sure your vote gets in. I'm happy to be shown I'm wrong though.
This is such a well thought-out and clear post. It's really a shame it was wasted on a response to Cim. Sad to say, but there is absolutely no point in debating or responding to his posts because he doesn't care about the responses. He only wants to generate controversy and disdains anything anything even remotely 'liberal'.
 
Oct 7, 2008
1,761
433
1,713
#25
This is such a well thought-out and clear post. It's really a shame it was wasted on a response to Cim. Sad to say, but there is absolutely no point in debating or responding to his posts because he doesn't care about the responses. He only wants to generate controversy and disdains anything anything even remotely 'liberal'.
I'm fairly certain when anyone responds to Cim it's so other posters can read the response, not so Cim can read it.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
19,916
21,090
1,743
#26
This is such a well thought-out and clear post. It's really a shame it was wasted on a response to Cim. Sad to say, but there is absolutely no point in debating or responding to his posts because he doesn't care about the responses. He only wants to generate controversy and disdains anything anything even remotely 'liberal'.
And for him remotely liberal = anything non-adoring of Trump.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
17,006
17,403
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#27
Well IIRC..the last time he did this, there was a riot at our Capitol Building

Now he is doing it to a State Election within his Own Party. We good if this ends in a riot at the PA Capitol building too?

We've seen these exact voter fraud claims from the same person lead to riots in our streets and seen those same claims that led to those very riots disproved time and time and time and time again in courts of law

Now we are cool if the same guy, starts making the same claims, but this time about his own party, and at a state level and just shrug it off?
For the record, I did say I wish he'd shut the hell up.....so to answer your question, no we are not ok with riots. We should strive to have everyone treated the same though. If we are ok with most politicians questioning elections, and we seem to be, then it's ok for all. If on the other hand, we have decided it is too dangerous because it could lead to riots, then we should berate ALL politicians who do it. This is pretty simple, either it's ok or it's not.
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
37,430
10,872
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#28
And for him remotely liberal = anything non-adoring of Trump.
It is literally Trump going after GOP candidates in a GOP Primary election with GOP VOTERS ONLY

and we get multiple responses from people.

Well the Dems complain too....

About themselves? They attack themselves over this in their own primaries ?

This guy is destroying the foundation of the GOP by his actions and words and has for years...to the point when he fully turns on his own party in this case and starts blaming them of cheating we shrug it off as normal?
 

gundysburner

Territorial Marshal
Jul 25, 2018
5,638
1,395
243
51
Boulder, CO
#29
Well IIRC..the last time he did this, there was a riot at our Capitol Building

Now he is doing it to a State Election within his Own Party. We good if this ends in a riot at the PA Capitol building too?

We've seen these exact voter fraud claims from the same person lead to riots in our streets and seen those same claims that led to those very riots disproved time and time and time and time again in courts of law

Now we are cool if the same guy, starts making the same claims, but this time about his own party, and at a state level and just shrug it off?
Lol, what is your suggest that we should do about it? Tweet something?
 

gundysburner

Territorial Marshal
Jul 25, 2018
5,638
1,395
243
51
Boulder, CO
#30
It is literally Trump going after GOP candidates in a GOP Primary election with GOP VOTERS ONLY

and we get multiple responses from people.

Well the Dems complain too....

About themselves? They attack themselves over this in their own primaries ?

This guy is destroying the foundation of the GOP by his actions and words and has for years...to the point when he fully turns on his own party in this case and starts blaming them of cheating we shrug it off as normal?
How would you classify rigging Presidential debates, within your own party? Is that not an attack on the process? It's at the very least, compromising the process.
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
37,430
10,872
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#32
Lol, what is your suggest that we should do about it? Tweet something?
Why not elect some good strong GOP Leadership that will call this clown out for what he is, put him in his place, rally the party behind separating themselves from the moron and Refocus the GOP agenda and put out some solid candidates to vote for.

That is what I want the GOP to do about it. Yet the Leadership has FAILED every opportunity to rebuke and move beyond Trump. He wouldn't have the influence he does today if they did what they needed to do.

Reagan would have laughed Trump out of the building would have strengthened the party against such foolery and NOT dwelled on letting him hang around. He would have showed him the door, booted him out and made sure the GOP stood behind the decision and supported it all the way.

Where we are now, the clown is the most powerful man in the Party.
 
Last edited:

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
19,916
21,090
1,743
#33
It is literally Trump going after GOP candidates in a GOP Primary election with GOP VOTERS ONLY

and we get multiple responses from people.

Well the Dems complain too....

About themselves? They attack themselves over this in their own primaries ?

This guy is destroying the foundation of the GOP by his actions and words and has for years...to the point when he fully turns on his own party in this case and starts blaming them of cheating we shrug it off as normal?
The responses from the Trumpets have been pretty funny in this thread.

Trump's a big ole baby that is willing to tear down anything that doesn't kowtow to his whims.

That's a Republican problem of their own making. It will be interesting to see the end result. I wish them luck.
 
May 4, 2011
3,605
1,625
1,743
Charleston, SC
#34
This is such a well thought-out and clear post. It's really a shame it was wasted on a response to Cim. Sad to say, but there is absolutely no point in debating or responding to his posts because he doesn't care about the responses. He only wants to generate controversy and disdains anything anything even remotely 'liberal'.
I appreciate the kind words. I try to refrain from saying anything negative about other posters. At the same time, I try to be mindful that my replies are read by more than the person I responded to, whether that's someone I agree with or not.
 
May 4, 2011
3,605
1,625
1,743
Charleston, SC
#35
The responses from the Trumpets have been pretty funny in this thread.

Trump's a big ole baby that is willing to tear down anything that doesn't kowtow to his whims.

That's a Republican problem of their own making. It will be interesting to see the end result. I wish them luck.
It's still sad for those of us who used to vote across party lines more often.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
33,025
33,268
1,743
oklahoma city
#36
I think you may be confusing Fair Fight and Fair Fight Action. While Fair Fight does have a separate leadership group, Fair Fight Action (which is originator of the tweet) is a group founded in 2014, and then renamed in 2018, by Stacey Abrams.
Fair Fight is the PAC that mostly serves Fair Fight Action. This tweet was not from the PAC.

Abrams was not only the founder of Fair Fight Action, but she was paid an annual salary and is currently the board chairperson. A title she held when this tweet was sent.

I am not making any comparison to Trump. But a statement implied that Abrams claims were just about election rules blocking or curtailing minority votes. While she also has made those claims, she has repeatedly made claims, without evidence, that the vote count was wrong.
But she was brought up in this Trump thread as a direct comparison to Trump.
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/586015-the-pioneer-of-election-disinformation/amp/

it appears from this article that she began with claims of fraud, then has backed away and hit more on suppression. But, for political purposes, not because of honor or seeing the light.

I still think Trumps claims reach another level for his persistence and attempts to pressure officials to commit fraud. The fact that he is doubling down on the current elections would be surprising if it were anyone else.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
19,916
21,090
1,743
#37
It's still sad for those of us who used to vote across party lines more often.
I've recently gone from registered Libertarian back to officially registered as "Independent/Unaffiliated".

I don't get to vote in partisan primaries anymore (except the Libertarian party allows independents to vote in their primaries) and I don't have "party lines" to vote across. I vote for the candidate I think is most qualified and reasonable in the general regardless of party line. Always have.

As far as I'm concerned, the more the organized parties destroy themselves from within, the better. I hope the moderates in the Republican party win the fight for the parties soul, but the second best outcome to me is that it gets burned from within and has to basically start all over reconstructing itself.
 
May 4, 2011
3,605
1,625
1,743
Charleston, SC
#38
I've recently gone from registered Libertarian back to officially registered as "Independent/Unaffiliated".

I don't get to vote in partisan primaries anymore (except the Libertarian party allows independents to vote in their primaries) and I don't have "party lines" to vote across. I vote for the candidate I think is most qualified and reasonable in the general regardless of party line. Always have.

As far as I'm concerned, the more the organized parties destroy themselves from within, the better. I hope the moderates in the Republican party win the fight for the parties soul, but the second best outcome to me is that it gets burned from within and has to basically start all over reconstructing itself.
I don't fully disagree, but would add a couple points. 1. I'm also independent. What I mean by party lines is just that I'll vote multiple parties. I used to vote Libertarian and both major parties. 2. I'm not convinced that a war among Republicans is a good thing. The last time a major party dissolved, we had a civil war with Republicans emerging from the ashes of the Whig party and geographic realignment. If the republican party eats itself in this way, chaos likely ensues. I'd rather Trump continue reshaping the Republican party such that a third option can be more viable in red states where trumpism is not super popular, like Utah. That would seem like a feasible option for a third party to grow because I think other states would potentially jump on board if an appealing enough leader came on board. Nebraska, where I live, is one example where the local Republican party often separates itself from trumpism, but it's not quite enough to fully fracture it. I realize I'm talking about the third party pipe dream that others have discussed for decades, but that seems like a semi plausible route to it.