it’s not fraud when their side does it.
So those respondents are saying when a Democratic president is in power, election results are fair, and when a Republican president is in power, the election results are suspect?
They’re saying the opposite.
Because trump kept lying about losing in 2020 and an astounding number of low information republican voters believed it, but now that he won, the murmers of fraud have fallen off a cliff. Because trump won this time.
Read closely, he said it correctly, he was talking about who was the sitting president when the election was held.
To be fair it could be interpreted both ways, now that you mention how else that could be read.
In that way of reading it, pretty damning about faith in one party vs another
Except you just corroborated his claim
Our elections have been fairly held, in 2016, 2020, and this year too.
If things weren’t above board the actual career professionals whose job is election integrity in each state would have sounded the alarm.
So I’m not sure what you’re insinuating.
You’re arguing against him by agreeing with him. He said that they only accept this election as fair and the previous one as completely illegitimate, those are elections run by a Democratic administration and Republican respectively. You’re talking past each other, it’s very funny.
For anyone’s reference, here is the study: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/12/04/voters-broadly-positive-about-how-elections-were-conducted-in-sharp-contrast-to-2020/ [1]
References
- “Voters Broadly Positive About How Elections Were Conducted, in Sharp Contrast to 2020”. Pew Research Center. Published: 2024-12-04. Accessed: 2024-12-09T07:48Z. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/12/04/voters-broadly-positive-about-how-elections-were-conducted-in-sharp-contrast-to-2020/.
Entitled shit stains.
9 years in mesa https://x.com/KelliKayK/status/1863297903835353112
Stupid person:
- Has theory
- New data comes in
- Changes theory
That is literally the scientific method.
I think you meant something else, but it comes across as anti-science.
What they have is a false premise, built on nothing, nothing changed, still changes hypothesis after the outcome fall in line with their belief.
