When are Trump Supporters Going to Realize They've Been Conned?

1. 80

   crankaliciousposted 4 years ago

   It's no fun when somebody takes advantage of you. It's exceedingly hard to admit when somebody has sold you something that turns out not to work. It's also hard to admit when somebody tells you something, insisting it's true, and it turns out to be totally false.
   
   There are literally millions of people who believe that vaccines cause autism, who believe that the world is flat, who believe that COVID is a hoax. In fact, nurses have reported people dying of COVID, claiming it was all a hoax as they died. If only they had believed that taking precautions was important.
   
   When are Trump supporters going to realize that all this voting fraud stuff is a hoax, concocted by Trump to generate money he can spend on other things? There is considerably more evidence for a con job than there is for any substantial voter fraud.
   
   Consider for instance, two of Rudy Giuliani's star witnesses: first, a guy in New Jersey who is a registered sex offender and then Melissa Carone, another "star" who was charged with using her computer to commit a crime by sending sex tapes to harass her boyfriend's ex-wife.
   
   These are "star" witnesses? Aside from the fact that judges have dismissed their claims as lacking substance, these are the people you put forth as "stars"? It should be embarrassing to anyone with real concerns of voter fraud.
   
   Now consider this: Trump has raised over $500 million. He has changed his story over and over. The fraud only seems to have happened in states he lost. The money has gone, not to the legal defense fund, but to Trump's campaign, the Republican Party, and a PAC called Save America.
   
   To top it all off, the Supreme Court dismissed Trump's Pennsylvania case without comment or dissent. That means that none of the nine justices felt the case had merit.
   
   Consider that neither Giuliani or his witnesses have made their claims under oath. They've been very careful to make their claims in front of legislatures where they could speak freely without fear of perjury. When it comes to court, very few of their cases have involved fraud. They've mostly involved procedural things. In other words, Trump and Giuliani have encouraged supporters to get angry about fraud, but have not presented those charges in court.
   
   Consider how many election workers, both Republican and Democrat, are being threatened across the country for doing their job. People are gathering at their houses with guns. In Georgia, it's the Republicans who are standing up to Trump. Same in Arizona.
   
   Finally, consider the ridiculousness of the whole claim. Republicans made gains in the House. If there was wide-scale, "massive" fraud, there's no reason "they" would not have moved votes away from Republican candidates all over the ballot. It didn't happen.
   
   When will Trump supporters realize that there's a lot more evidence of a massive fundraising scheme than there is of voter fraud. Like Steve Bannon raised money for the border wall, so is Trump raising money for his own benefit.
   
   Go do the research. Republican-appointed judges say there's no evidence. The Supreme Court has said there's no justification for this. There's been no massive voter fraud. Trump lost by more than 7 million votes. He lost decisively. He has every right, as have people before him, to pursue legal options regarding the outcome. It's time for Trump to admit he was wrong.
   
   Asking officials in Michigan, Georgia, and Arizona to break the law to overturn the election should not be part of it. If he feels so compelled, he can declare martial law and take back the presidency by force. But when are Trump supporters going to look at the facts and draw the obvious conclusion - it's all a con that's doing real damage to our country.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      peterstreepposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I thought about this one as well. And have no answer.
      Why do people believe in things, even if there is no evidence.
      Believing the moon landing was a hoax.
      Believing Hillary Clinton was part of a paedophile network.
      Believing the Climate Crisis is a hoax.
      Why?
      I think we people believe in stories. It doesn't matter if they are real or if it is the truth. If the story is good and repeated over and over we start to feel comfortable with it. Like children asking for the same story over and over again.
      And as a child we were told many things by our parents. Most things we still believe although we have grown up. Even if we know that what they told us as a child was not the truth, it is hard to put it aside. As we saw our parents as authorities. If your parents told you that drinking coffee will make you sick, you will believe that all your life. Even if your best friends are drinking coffee. You will not like it.
      We are hardwired by ideas. And it needs training to think for yourself. and reject ideas that you were told at school or in the army or at home.
      That's why politicians can sell lies, as people don't always care for the truth but care more for the story. The classic is one of the first lies president Trump told to the media and it's followers. That there were a million to 1.5 million people present at his inauguration. - This was definitely not true as all the footage showed. But it is a great story. And so the media is painted black and not to be trusted.
      The story told by Trump was better then the truth. And of course you trust Trump, you just voted for him. Even if you know Trump made a lie, it is difficult to give it a place. The best thing you can do is say "Well, he said millions as a matter of speaking..." But it is the start of giving in. Ending with the story of mass voter fraud.

      replyreport
      1. 80

         crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Trump's people haven't presented anything close to a compelling case in court regarding fraud, but people believe it nonetheless.
         
         However, there's ample evidence that he's generated hundreds of millions of dollars and put that money in a PAC. This protest has been very lucrative for him.

         replyreport
      2. 79

         wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         It is certainly true the the young are gullible in believing whatever they are told, but then they have developed neither the intellect to question and reason nor the experience required to do so.
         
         But beyond that, and probably more important, is that people believe what they [i]want[/] to, even to the point of ignoring what doesn't support that or pretending they never heard it.  They don't want to die; they will believe in an omnipotent ET that promises eternal life.  They want better crops; they might believe that sacrificing their child to the gods will accomplish that.  They want an easier life; they will believe the lies of politicians that say they will give it to them.  They want what others worked for; they will believe that the wealth redistribution of socialism works well and is quite ethical.  The capacity of the human mind to rationalize whatever it wishes to is incredible.

         replyreport
         1. 83

            peterstreepposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            I dont think believing has always something to do with wanting or greed. After all people believe in the hell, but they don’t want it. In that case people believe because of fear. Fear is a big motivator. Or people believe things as the majority of their social circle believe them too. And it is the fear of being left out of the community that makes them believe things that are irrational.
            The fear for change is a big motivator. Like people who don’t believe in climate crisis. As acknowledging it means they have to accept responsibility. It’s easier to ignore then to change your routine in life.
            That’s why people make up stories as not to be confronted with the facts of reality. It’s deliberately ignoring problems,making up stories in the hope the story will change the reality. Like another classic of Trump. O, the virus will go away. He almost thought that by telling this enough times it would go away, like a voodoo doctor. Or a deeply religious person who thinks that praying will cure cancer.
            Its this making up stories as not to deal with reality that is classic. And we all do it every day. Making little stories as not to do tasks we should do.
            But sadly the story of massive voter fraude as not to deal with the reality of a lost elections is not the same as finding an small excuse for not doing the dishes..but the mechanics are the same I think.

            replyreport
            1. 79

               wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               Hell is a good example, but...how many believers believe they will go to Hell?  I'd wager that precious few do - they believe they will go to heaven because they want to believe that.  Hell was created as a tool to enforce control, but at the same time people are taught that they won't go there.
               
               Acknowledging climate crises means that people have to change their lifestyle, and in a downward direction.  It isn't so much the change, it's the results of that change.  If my power bill is to double then I jolly well refuse to swallow this nonsense!
               
               It is that making up stories to counter reality that I am pointing out.  "I will believe this rather than that because it will result in what I want to happen."
               
               Not so sure about the voter fraud, though.  I know I have long thought that if fraud could be gotten away with it would be, and there is a long history showing that to be true.  From strong arm tactics at the ballot box to gerrymandering to "super" electors such as was used to promote Clinton to the Democrat candidate, there has always been cheating.  This year in the US offered a new opportunity with masses of mail in ballots (and little to no preparation) - coupled with increasing, fallible technology and it would only surprise me if the amount of fraud did NOT increase.  Whether it was enough to change the election is the only question, and it concerns me at least that the winners refuse to acknowledge that, forever continuing the claim of no evidence of fraud...but never actively looking for it, either.

               replyreport
         2. 80

            crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Wilderness, you make a very good point about how and why human beings rationalize what they believe.

            replyreport
   2. 79

      wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      "The fraud only seems to have happened in states he lost."
      
      Can you possible expect, or even hope, that Trump would spend money investigating states that went Red?  That would be the height of foolishness (to think that as well as Trump doing it).
      
      " The money has gone, not to the legal defense fund, but to Trump's campaign, the Republican Party, and a PAC called Save America."
      
      This is no better than Trump's claims, and probably much worse.  Unless you have proof that money donated for legal defense of the election went to his campaign or the Republican Party?  Last I heard it was possible but there was zero indication it has done so.  Much like it is possible there was massive fraud but little real indication it happened.  Are you following Trump's methods in blowing it out of proportion and claiming that "possible" equals "happened"?

      replyreport
      1. 80

         crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         They've spent roughly $10 million on legal defense and raised $200 million since the election. It's gone into a PAC. You can go research it.

         replyreport
         1. 79

            wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Does that mean that it has gone to pay personal debts or to the Republican party, as is being stated?  Hardly - you are making assumptions without any factual basis to support them.

            replyreport
            1. 80

               crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               No, you are absolutely correct. I have no idea what he's going to use that money for. However, what's clear is that he's not going to use it, or much more of it, for the stated purpose of filing legal cases to overturn the election.
               
               The purpose of moving it into the PAC is so that he can use the money for other purposes even though it was raised to combat election fraud.
               
               What do you think he should do with all the extra money?

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Give it to me.  I could put it to good use and would promise not to participate in any electing fraud.

                  replyreport
                  1. 95

                     MizBejabbersposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     

                     replyreport
2. 61

   Live to Learnposted 4 years ago

   Had we had a normal election process,I might agree with you.
   
   However, it was not normal. We have been complaining, for years, that mail in ballots are immersed in fraud. What we have seen is that only the right wants that cleaned up. Probably because the left is mostly responsible for that fraud.
   
   This election we had massive amounts of mail in ballots. Of course the side that has been complaining about votes from dead people, possible votes by illegals, paying people for those ballots, etc would be even more suspicious. Couple that with sworn testimony,  cctv footage of nefarious behavior, last minute changes in state laws to ease verification processes, etc. ... the suspicion grows and grows.
   
   I don't care who won. I just want to believe the process was fair. Without that,to me, Biden is an illegitimate president.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      So, what is your explanation for why these instances of voter fraud have gotten nowhere with the courts, regardless of whether the judges were appointees of Democrats or Republicans?

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Because there is no remedy the court can offer that wouldn't disenfranchise others. No one is going to have the time before it's too late to provide the quantity of evidence needed to prove,
         beyond a reasonable doubt,  that this was a concerted effort, across state lines to create a false outcome and even if they did,  what would be the outcome? The left cried foul,  with no evidence, in the last election.  They refuse to look at the evidence in this one.  If the election was overturned what do you think the left would do?
         
         I've seen democrats cheat at the local level.  Just like sure witnesses saw in this election. There is no election integrity when only one side wants to ensure it exists, when one side ignores fellow citizens and that side has a proven track record of bullying and intimidation to shut people up.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            "Because there is no remedy the court can offer that wouldn't disenfranchise others"
            
            So, when multiple courts say there is no evidence, or that it is not convincing, you do not accept that as true?

            replyreport
            1. 79

               wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               When a judge throws out a suit for lack of standing, do you count it as "no evidence" (I understand that many have suffered that fate)?
               
               I haven't read the court opinions on why suits were canceled.  Have you, or do you just take the word of a media that will say nearly anything to demonize and degrade anything that even might result in Trump in the WH?

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  I have read enough. I'm starting to feel embarrassed for you.

                  replyreport
                  1. 79

                     wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     That's OK - I've been embarrassed by your kindergarten name calling for a long time now.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                        I was leery to respond to her query for the exact same reason. I'm not expecting the exchange to remain civil for long.

                        replyreport
                     2. 0

                        PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                        Lol, that's fine. One person's "name calling" is a another's "accurate description" (liar, bully, malignant narcissist, pussy-grabber).

                        replyreport
            2. 61

               Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               I think you are jumping to a conclusion that may not be logical with the limited data. Were legal matters that simple courts wouldn't have have cases sitting on dockets for months waiting to be heard, we wouldn't bother with appeals courts  plus some districts stone walled efforts to monitor the voting floors,  or clean up their voter rules making us appear like a banana republic in some localities.
               
               The election was in November.  The inauguration is in January.  Evidence of wide spread wrong doing on this scale isn't going to be gathered over night.  It may take a year, or two. Our government cannot sit in limbo.
               
               But,  I can tell you this,  the democratic party has devolved quickly.  In a two party system,  don't think that other party won't take notes and try to beat them at their own game.  The left may revel in an illegitimate process when it results in a win but they will regret it when they come out on the bottom when the other party figures out how to be the better cheater.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  I have no problem with the filing of lawsuits and have said so from the beginning.

                  replyreport
               2. 95

                  MizBejabbersposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  They already did figure how to be the better cheater. Russian interference put Trump in the White House, or did you forget?

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     I'm not one duped by conspiracy theories and when I am, and the evidence proves them to be just that, I don't embarrass myself by continuing to push them.
                     
                     But, if you believe that then, since we have massive amounts of evidence of vote tampering in this election....you'll understand voters feeling disenfranchised and seeing the criminal the left is sending to the White House as an illegitimate president.

                     replyreport
                     1. 80

                        crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                        How many court cases have to be thrown out for you to accept there was no fraud? How many times does the Supreme Court have to say that no evidence is being presented to warrant hearing a case?
                        
                        How many "star" witnesses - the supposed lynchpins who have the critical evidence everyone needs to be convinced - have to turn out to be drunks or sex offenders or "military intelligence analysts" with no actual military analyst experience, for you to believe that the fraud here is not with the voting process, but with the accusation of election fraud?
                        
                        We have a President who is saying the moon is made of cheese and despite all evidence that it is not made of cheese, you continue to assert that it must be made of cheese because Donald Trump says so.

                        replyreport
               3. 80

                  crankaliciousposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  I think you are jumping to a conclusion.
                  
                  Widespread fraud evidence isn't going to be gathered overnight?
                  
                  First, if it's "widespread" and "massive" it should be easy to find because it's everywhere. Second, this so-called "widespread" and "massive" fraud was asserted by Trump long before the election occurred. In fact, he said that if he won, things would be fine, but if he lost, there would be massive fraud.
                  
                  Trump created the fraud a long time ago to explain away defeat, not because he had evidence of any actual fraud.
                  
                  Ironically, in regard to "massive fraud", the latest Texas case didn't involve fraud. It actually said in the brief that the changes the offending states made to their election made it impossible to detect fraud. So which is it?
                  
                  And do you think Ken Paxton will get a pardon? Seems that was his goal all along - file this frivolous case so Trump would pardon him since he's under indictment.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     Possibly. But remember the left spent four years and massive amounts of taxpayer money looking for Russian Collison, only to find nothing but still believe in it.
                     
                     If you believe in it then its hypocritical to complain about this situation, where less than a month of looking has produced massive amounts of eyewitness testimony. Of American citizens. Not paid foreign influencers pushing b.s. when they couldn't come up with anything

                     replyreport