[ad_1]
Sixty percent of the country believes that the 2020 election was not fair and that Joe Biden is actually – this is according to the Poynter Institute for Media Studies – and you will see someone on the ballot who believes that Joe Biden is not the legitimate winner. In the year 2020 election,” Faulkner said. “Seventy percent of people polled say so.” So why did Masters remove the statement that Trump would still be president in a “free and fair election”?
We will return to Faulkner’s frame in a second. First, let’s look at the teacher’s response.
“I think if everybody followed the law, President Trump would be in the Oval Office,” he said. See how the FBI pressured Facebook and other big tech companies to censor real information about Hunter Biden’s most serious crimes in the weeks leading up to the election. … I think an act of corporate censorship, massive technological censorship? That sent Biden to the White House.
First, this is not a new angle for taking a Masters. He told Faulkner the same thing at a debate last week.
Second, it’s useless from top to bottom. The FBI did not pressure Facebook to “censor information.” Russia in 2010 He warned that she would try to influence the 2016 election in the 2020 election. Facebook blocked electronic material belonging to Joe Biden’s son Hunter over concerns the New York Post story may have been part of Russian collusion. The material listed as “serious crimes” may be a point of contention within the Justice Department, but there’s no real reason to think there’s a significant swath of voters who 1) haven’t heard of the material and 2) are. They changed their voice as a function.
Third, in The Master’s efforts to block his analysis of what happened to Nefarious Big Tech in 2020 were soon abandoned. He also pointed out to Faulkner that “states have changed the rules to flood the zone with mail-in votes.” This is a recurring theme in their party as well, and it is very telling. After all, consider what he’s saying: governments made voting easier (because of the pandemic) and more people voted. He rejected the idea that there was widespread fraud during the debate. So it is not saying that more postcards should be allowed to be cheated; He easily quarrels with many people Voting – With strengthening democracy.
And then there’s the fourth point: Far from taking a novel path through post-election nonsense, Masters is now following a well-worn path. Because of the widespread belief that the election was rigged, it is being adopted by the police, who will make it difficult to prove its deliberate forgery. It’s not clever here; He’s shy: He wants to appeal to Republicans who say something subtle has happened but refuse to join them in their faith.
The Republican Party believes the election was stolen by rampant voter fraud — or so they tell voters. In December, The Washington Post and its partners at the University of Maryland questioned whether there was evidence of widespread fraud. More than half of Republicans said there is, even though it wasn’t there then, and it’s not there now. Since the election, Monmouth University has been asking people if President Biden won because of a series of frauds. On average, nearly two-thirds of Republicans said he did.
When Masters proposed the Facebook-made theory, Faulkner was intrigued by the idea.
“That’s interesting because that has nothing to do with the election process,” she said, asking if polls were even asked about that concept. Well, no, because you don’t have to. That 70 percent of the people who say Biden is not a legitimate winner are almost entirely Republicans, and of course they’re perfectly content to think there’s real evidence of fraud in tens of thousands of states. Voices and every person involved held the mother and no evidence came forward that this happened. Either it’s an absolute crime or – and bear with me here – it’s not a crime at all.
But the Masters don’t want to say that. He wants to hold the base and go to the side. He’s the latest in a long line of Republicans who try to cast historical error as tough-guy opponents and also want to avoid being pinned down as absurd.
Beginning in December 2020, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) was the first member of the Senate to announce that he would oppose the ballots cast on behalf of Biden. In the year In a statement released on December 30, 2020, Hawley announced that he would contest the results from Pennsylvania, prompting headlines from the pro-Trump media and Trump’s praise. (He got both.) But he didn’t cheat like the Masters, you know, the rules changed and he shouldn’t have. Neither here nor there was the particular law he cited already reviewed by the Pennsylvania courts and allowed to stand. The police said, “The election was rigged!!!” A narrative was born.
Oh, Hawley sees Facebook and Twitter as “unprecedented efforts by mega-corporations.”
A right-wing Federalist blog writer hastily produced a book called “Fraudulent,” hoping to tap into the market for rationality, which is still flooded with capitalist opportunity. She goes on Tucker Carlson’s show to promote it and he does something you’re not supposed to do: He asks her if she thinks cheating happened.
Tucker! A useless person! Basically we are trying to keep the idea that we are on their side and keep Wakadul’s claims at a distance so we can still be taken seriously! A very important wall is coming down!
After talking to her for a bit, she said, “It’s important to think about what happened in general.” Wow, the wall has been rebuilt. Or, really, it’s a motte-and-bailey defense. Say the election was rigged and Trump should be president, and then when pressed, go “Well, look what Big Tech did!! position.
You can say that Facebook thinks sharing of Hunter Biden’s story shouldn’t be limited. You can say that you think the laptop raises important questions and deserves more hearing than it gets. nice. fair enough. But you can’t say that the FBI “hacked” Facebook and that it “sent Biden to the White House” because it didn’t, and there’s no reason to think that Facebook’s decision was the reason Biden won. Biden’s odds of winning were not less than twice that of Trump, according to polling averages. The idea that this story about the child completely closes this gap – a story, mind you, that He did Ask for more dialogue – it’s simply ridiculous.
But what are the masters going to say? Is it that there is no fraud and that Trump lost because he himself is unpopular for promoting the same policies that Masters supports? Why did he say that, why was he disloyal for months, when men like Hawley and that Federalist man had already found a clear path through the woods?
Why be brave when it’s so easy to be shy?
[ad_2]
Source link
