Thursday, August 03, 2023

Stop Using the Words "Trump Tried to Overturn the 2020 Election"; It Is Akin to Asking "When Did You Stop Beating Your Wife?"

Why do conservative media feel the need to kowtow to the Democrat Party's biased and partisan (not to mention self-serving and … hateful) rhetoric? Have the many troubling events of election night already been forgotten?

Once and for all, fellow journalists and fellow citizens, conservative and liberal alike (although I hardly expect the latter to follow this piece of — friendly — advice), stop saying "Trump tried to overturn the 2020 election" and stop referring matter-of-factly to "the election that Trump lost", to "Trump's defeat" and "false claims", and to "Trump tried to change the results" of "Joe Biden's victory" and to "swing the election in his favor".

The way that even conservative outlets like Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, not to mention RINOs like Mike Pence, buy into and repeat the drama queens' (the leftists' and the mainstream media's) "talking points" (not to call those double standards a language of hate) is unconscionable and deeply troubling (see Tuesday's WSJ editorial defending Donald Trump while calling his "post-election behavior" in 2020 "deceitful and destructive" and referring to his "disgraceful" "malfeasance").

As for National Review (thanks to Glenn Reynolds), which also pushes back against the Trump indictment, the magazine feels the need t point out that it "condemned Trump’s appalling actions in the aftermath of the 2020 election" as well as "Trump’s deceptions": "Mendacious rhetoric in seeking to retain political office is damnable." (Thanks for the hyperlink, Sarah Hoyt.)

Phrases like “baseless fraud claims”, “sham election investigations”, and “false claims of election fraud” come straight from the Democratic Party.

Where are the "allegedlys," the "reportedlys," and  the "accused ofs"?

Meanwhile, Joe Biden's — far worse — shenanigans, both as senator and as occupant of the White House, are duly opposed but never with such vitriolic wording. The opposition is quite restrained and, even if principled, almost of the "Ho-hum" variety (rarely, if ever, loaded words like "disgrace(ful)", "appalling",  or "malfeasance").

Again: Why do conservative media feel the need to kowtow to the Democrat Party's biased and partisan (not to mention self-serving and … hateful) rhetoric? Have the many troubling events of election night already been forgotten? 

Back to "Trump's attempt to overturn the election":
• the wording is not neutral,
• the wording is not objective, and 
• the wording is not non-partisan.

Far from it.

Remember that Donald Trump's whole message is exactly, or almost exactly the same, i.e., that it was the Democrats who tried to overturn (and succeeded in overturning) the 2020 election. We could even use similar wordings: "the election that Biden lost", "Joe's defeat", "false claims", and "the Democrats tried to change (and succeeded in changing) the results". Indeed, the 45th President called it "stealing the election" and thus… undermining democracy.

Given that the charges are basically the same, shouldn't a media that was neutral, objective, and independent give equal space to both charges?

And if a reporter, or a common citizen, were to examine the rival charges independently and dispassionately, wouldn't an intellectually honest person (journalist or other) conclude that there is more evidence in Trump's favor?

The MSM — even conservative outlets — profess to claim that, in two and a half years, they "have seen no evidence that the election was stolen." 

Isn't it "evidence" of a stolen election — evidence that is "appalling" — that election offices in a handful of states in which Trump was leading after voting ended closed at midnight — a move that was absolutely unprecedented — and when they re-opened the next morning, several hours later, Joe Biden was suddenly ahead? Is that sentence a "deception" or "mendacious rhetoric"?

There are several pieces of evidence, WSJ, but, besides the one just mentioned, let two stand above the rest.

• Does it make sense, how conceivable is it, that a doddering professional politician with nary a history of a gift for gab or one of national popularity (unlike, say, deservedly or not, Ted Kennedy) would not only beat the Republican Party's rock star (Donald Trump) in votes, but also the Democrat Party's rock star (Barack Obama) — especially since his (rare) campaign speeches and (rare) campaign appearances hardly attracted any significant number of individuals, let alone crowds, and since, indeed (upon the strange advice of VIPs like Nancy Pelosi), he hardly left his basement to campaign?

• One of the main reasons many of us are skeptical do not pertain to the (long) list of evidence which follows below, but to the very fact that the mainstream media has been trying to stifle all debate on the subject, and that from the earliest hours of November 4, 2020. It simply won't do to simply repeat that it is a lie (or "the big lie") and a "baseless" or an "unfounded" claim without ever giving, at least once in a while, some evidence thereof. Actually, no, scratch that. Just giving one in-depth single article or news story in which every one of Trump's claims is meticulously debunked would be enough, and the New York Times and the Washington Post could refer to it by linking the word "unfounded" or "lie" to it in every every other subsequent news story, but that "ur-article" does not seem to exist in any editorial office.

As far as lies (big or otherwise) are concerned, in all honesty, most of the lies seem to be coming from the Left and the Democrat Party.

For instance,  the five police officers killed during the January 6 "riots", as mentioned by one politician after another. Why don't we know the names of said police officers? Why don't we know the exact times on January 6 each one was allegedly murdered? Why, for goodness sake, don't we know the name of… the assassins? Why don't we know their fate? Shouldn't the alleged cop killers have been in the forefront of the "insurrectionists" judged for the "attack on (our) democracy"? Shouldn't we all agree that those cop killers (if they exist) should be given life or the death penalty?

As mentioned, the pieces of evidence regarding the 2020 election were known immediately, and for the past two and a half years, they have only been adding up.

As early as January 2021, a gentle giant like Dennis Prager posted a list of common-sense reasons as why to be skeptical of the results of the 2020 Election, otherwise known as "an election that violated every anti-fraud protocol and that resulted in statistically impossible numbers".

The anomalies:

In 132 years, no president has received more votes in his run for reelection and lost. Yet Donald Trump received 10 million more votes in 2020 than in 2016 -- and lost.

Trump won 18 of the 19 counties both Democrats and Republicans regard as the "bellwether" counties that virtually always go with the outcome of presidential elections. Yet he lost.

He won four bellwether states -- Florida, Ohio, Iowa and North Carolina. Yet he lost.

Republicans held onto all the House seats they were defending and gained another 13 seats. Yet, Trump lost.

Add the following to the anomalies:

Unprecedented efforts were made in some states to change election laws.

Mostly Democratic states sent out tens of millions of ballots or applications for absentee ballots to people who never requested them.

Voting began in some states six weeks before Election Day.

People have submitted sworn affidavits at great personal cost and with possible perjury charges that they witnessed ballot tampering on election night.

But all these things would matter little if Democrats involved in ballot-counting felt morally compelled to count votes honestly.

So, then, there is one question I have never heard posed that trumps all other considerations: Would moral considerations prevent Democrats from cheating to oust Trump? Or, to put the question in the positive: Would Democrats deem it morally obligatory to cheat on behalf of Joe Biden?

The answer to the first question is no: Moral considerations would not prevent decent Democrats from cheating to prevent Trump's reelection. The answer to the second question is yes: Decent Democrats would deem it morally obligatory to cheat on behalf of Biden.

For four years, the media and their party, the Democrats, told us every day that Trump is a fascist, a dictator, a racist and a white supremacist; that he was an agent of the Russian government -- a real-life Manchurian candidate. We were also repeatedly told by the lying media (Trump's accurate description of the mainstream media) that in Charlottesville, Virginia, Trump said there are "very fine" Nazis (see the PragerU video, "The Charlottesville Lie"). Yes, the media told us with a straight face that a man with a Jewish daughter, Jewish son-in-law and Jewish grandchildren said there are fine Nazis. Biden said he decided to run for president because of this lie.

So, then, here is the question: Why would anyone who sincerely believed Trump is a white-supremacist fascist dictator not cheat if he or she could prevent such a person from becoming or remaining president of the United States?

Let me sharpen this question: Isn't someone who could prevent a fascist, white-supremacist, Nazi-defending dictator morally obligated to cheat if he or she could prevent such a person from becoming president?

I certainly would. If I were in a position to cheat in order to prevent a fascist from becoming president, why would I not cheat?

Breaching the U.S. Capitol a month later "was the worst offense against democracy," continues Tuesday's WSJ editorial, adding approvingly, "and more than 1,000 people have been prosecuted in connection with it." The Wall Street Journal's editorial

columns have been clear from Election Day that we have seen no evidence that the election was stolen, and that Mr. Trump should have resigned in disgrace after the events of Jan. 6. But the good news of that day, and of all four Trump years as President, is that America’s institutions held up under great stress. If there was a conspiracy, it was by a gang of misfits.

Since the long list of evidence produced by Dennis Prager as early as January 2021 (most of which were known already in November 2020), we have had (among many other things):
• the Twitter Files,
• the definitive debunking of the 51 "experts" who called Hunter's laptop a hoax,
• Tucker Carlson's release of Capitol videos which the Democrats wouldn't release during their "committee" and which the mainstream media showed no interest in sharing.

And yet, the MSM — even conservative outlets — still profess to claim that they "have seen no evidence that the election was stolen."

Any single one of the above pieces of evidence, even alone, could, would, and should feature in Trump's declaration that fraud caused him to lose the 2020 vote.

What is appalling is the degree to which even hardcore conservatives seem to be way led by the Left's lies and fairy tales as well as the degree to which they forget how they were snookered by the progressive scammers who have nothing for them but hate and contempt.

: • The January 6 Protest Summarized in One Single Sentence
The Central Absurd Inconsistency of the Ray Epps Conundrum Described in Two Sentences
• Kabuki Theater: the "top 12 strange, stand-out moments" of the January 6th Committee's interview with Ray Epps
• Déjà Vu All Over Again in the Banana Republic of iden: No, the Democrats did not run better campaigns in 2022; they cheated, as usual
• Isn’t it strange that in Florida, with all those strict rules against cheating, the GOP red tsunami happened as predicted? The Democrats have again fixed, rigged, and stolen an election
• Let’s dispense with the myth that liberals are really against voter fraud; Voter fraud is actually an essential part of their election strategy
• If the Democrats learned anything from their 2016 debacle it’s that they didn’t cheat nearly enough
• What the January 6th protest actually reveals is the criminal determination of the Democrats to establish a one-party state at whatever the cost
• Democrats don't support voter fraud; they just worry about disenfranchising the deceased
• Voter ID: Apparently not allowing minorities to cheat is a form of racial oppression
• Of the 47 countries in Europe today — the nations and the continent that the Democrats are always telling us to emulate — 46 of them currently require government-issued photo IDs to vote
Joe Biden, Why Are You Calling Denmark a White Supremacist Country? And You, Barack Obama: Why Are You Calling Africa a Racist Continent?
• 2020: an almost totalitarian effort by the national political and social media to suppress and ridicule any doubt of the accuracy of the election result
The DOJ and the FBI "have no conscience or soul": “There is a fervor to attack the J6 protesters, ruin their lives, and bankrupt them”
• "I believed a farrago of lies" Writes VIP Whose Leftist Half of the American Electorate was "Taken in By Full-Spectrum Propaganda" Regarding the Jan. 6 (Non-)Riots
• Our élites constantly lecture everyone about "disinformation," about "big lies", etc; They're the biggest liars of all, with zero accountability
Isn't America Being Governed by a Mafia Family Dynasty, setting things up so that there will always be Democrats in power?
• Inside of a month, Democrats have redefined riots and election challenges from the highest form of patriotism to an attack on democracy — And by “democracy”, they mean the Democrat Party
• Voter Fraud: A Note to Leftists Who Claim that "Not a shred of hard evidence has been produced"
Dennis Prager: The Numerous (and Sweeping) Anomalies Regarding the 2020 Election That Cannot Be Ignored