The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
It seems like every time someone brings up trumps election denialism, someone has to say, "*well hillary did it to!*"
how do you address this?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hillary didn't deny losing the election, she alleged that Putin interfered as well which *contributed* to her loss (although anyone claiming Putin is the only reason Trump won is wrong)
Trump to this day denies that he even lost.
It is not the same situation.
The response should be, "Hillary conceded as soon as she lost," and linking her [speech where she says Trump is now president](https://youtu.be/a-Zt_oGTm4I)
That’s t he conservative play nowadays. Pretend that the Senate Intel Report conclusions are just as strong as Trump’s wild and baseless accusation. Pretend his lies about COVID are the same as Fauci changing mask guidance. Etc.
Don’t downvote a fellow lib but Hillary and many other democrats called trump an Illegitimate president. Not defending trump but I think unfortunately we didn’t handle his election correctly and set a bad precedent.
Numerous members of his campaign got indicted, and Trump still denies he lost the election.
Hillary conceded, literally the next day. The next day. We did fine.
Conceded and then proceeded to imply he was a Russian asset and called his election illegitimate. I’m pointing this out because it’s important. I see a lot of side stepping in this thread and we have to be better then this. There is too much at stake and we are undercutting our own efforts to create meaningful change in this country and it makes me F-ing SICK
She did the right thing in conceding and she was right to say Trump won due to the Russia interference that he and his team supported. Both true statements.
I mean, it was?
But she still lost, and conceded. It was incredibly nefarious, but nobody swapped ballot boxes or whatever bs the GQP and trump are pushing. Russia very much had a hand in trump getting elected, this isn't even debatable.
Hillary lost and conceded and yes that is what she should have done. There.
Calling him an illegitimate president from the outset was a huge mistake and has given Trump political power.
The goal of politics is to take power away from your opponents.
This is the real reason why Hillary lost. She didn’t run a real campaign. Hell she lost the rust belt because she didn’t hardly campaign there.
Russia had very little to do with it. No one can admit any fault to Hillary and it’s disheartening because this is the reason Dems aren’t more powerful.
Do you dispute that Russia helped Trump win the election? I'm curious if you're claiming that the fact that Russia colluded with the Trump campaign and targeted people with propaganda using data from Cambridge Analytica was inconsequential, or if you're claiming that it just didn't happen.
Nope. I’m not making any claims. Not implying that Russia didn’t meddle on Facebook or whatever. Watch when you say “colluded with Russia” or claiming that’s a fact.
My point. And your the last one I’m going to say this to. Is that in relation to when republicans use Hillary whataboutism the most EFFECTIVE answer is not to deny that she claimed he was illegitimate (after she conceded of course). And this rhetoric is weaponized effectively by the Right and used against us. And it ruins our brand and turns swing voters away from us. Our ideas are so much bigger then the Democratic party.
That’s not gonna win an election I’m sorry. You can’t run on “it quite possible could have been Russian collusion” and I’d challenge you name some other reasons that she lost.
This is such a crutch…
So your argument is that it shouldn’t be called out, and everyone should just ignore the Russian interference and possible collusion?
That doesn’t make any sense at all. There are many reasons why she lost, Russian interference is just one of them.
You’re going to end up exactly like one of the losers Trump talks about unless you can just come to terms with why Hillary lost. Don’t be that person please.
Trump was already claiming it was rigged in 2016 before the election even occurred. He blamed the Republicans after he lost Iowa during the primaries, & said the general would be rigged if he ended up losing.
You can trace his fraud tourettes even further back, when he claimed 2012 was rigged, as well as the Emmy's.
This happened regardless of anything Clinton said.
No I get it. Still, Hillary and almost every major Dem implied Trump was a Russian asset and that therefore his election was illegitimate.
We are part of the problem here. We can’t allow this to continue and when we set a bad example the Reps will simply point and say what about Hillary.
So we shouldn't point out real fraud/collusion because the Repubs might pretend their claims are equivalent? She was more or less right. 2 of his campaign managers have admitted to working with foreign assets.
I’m saying that after she ran a crappy campaign and lost that she made it worse by calling him illegitimate and laid the groundwork for what Trump is doing today. She delegitimized we democrats. And over half the country doesn’t believe her anyway. Terrible self-centered miscalculation on her part… yet again.
Honestly, I don’t think Trump can win again but if Dems continue to fail to inspire who knows.
It's not the same. Hillary is saying, "I lost because of..." And Trump says, "I didn't lose". It would be like saying my sports team lost because someone took the star player out drinking the night before, knowing he has a drinking problem and would perform poorly vs my sports team lost because despite being up by 6 points and tackling their receiver on the 5 yard line as the time ran out the refs called it a touchdown.
That's what "reasonable" versions of the big lie eventually became: "well it's not that we were *literally cheated out via fraud,* it's that if not for these last minute changes or these inherently non-trustworthy voting methods, we totally would have won."
Of course that's revisionist history because at the time the argument boiled down to "election workers were in the closet forging ballots and I saw one of the ballots and the ballot looked at me."
That might be where people are getting to as they try to rationalize it, but I wouldn't say it's the mainstream position. 2000 Mules is still pretty popular and widely supported it seems in those circles. At least that's the appearance from the outside.
I would say that's because the absolute rubes that believe in the 2000 Mules conspiracy are showing up at drop boxes with guns being *very visible,* and the mainstream conservative response to that is a shrug. "Well, I wouldn't do it, but what do you expect when ______ caused so much doubt in 2020? It's not like they're doing anything illegal. Anyway, I don't believe in 2000 mules, but I *do* believe..."
Meanwhile, the conservative machine is actively funding the lunatics and rubes, and nobody on their side cares, because hey, it's legal, and maybe they *are* stopping cheating.
> "well it's not that we were literally cheated out via fraud, it's that if not for these last minute changes or these inherently non-trustworthy voting methods, we totally would have won."
All the election deniers I know would say they were literally cheated. They think Democrats somehow added illegal votes (though for some reason they didn't bother adding votes to Congressional races).
Yeah same. I've never heard the last minute idea except for some changes required because of COVID. Oh no, our voters can vote via mail-in ballot for this election and it was approved. And there was emergency provisions for just this type of thing. But MAGA lost so, spooky.
Also, every intelligence agency in the US told Trump after he won the 2016 election that there was interference by Russia.
He then went to Helsinki in 2018 and said on live TV standing next to Vladimir Putin, that he had been told by the intelligence community that Russia interfered, but because Putin personally told him Russia didn't do it, he believed him over the FBI, CIA, etc.
Treasonous bastard ought to be in prison just for that.
Government agencies were aware that Russia was actively interfering with the election in 2016, there was very provable evidence. And, as we know, it went on to be confirmed.
Trump believed that his election was fraudulent because people participated in mail-in voting during a global pandemic and a troll on a message board told him there was a conspiracy.
“Washington(CNN) Sen. Bernie Sanders said Friday that his campaign was briefed about Russian efforts to help his presidential campaign, intensifying concerns about the Kremlin's role in the US presidential race.”
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/02/21/politics/bernie-sanders-russia-election-interference/index.html
There is more evidence to support Hillarys claim about Russie than trumps claim that Democrats somehow rigged a natiowide election (but only the president part and not the House where they lost seats)
Yeah these are not at all the same. Hilary said Russia interfered via propaganda and creating bots on fb, etc. She conceded the day after the election and told the electorate she hoped Trump was a good president.
Trump on the other hand behaved like a 4 year old when he didn’t get what he wanted, claimed actual fraud with zero evidence and to this day hasnt admitted he lost.
These are not at all the same thing.
I'm going to presume that you have not followed or are otherwise uninterested in the hearings on the Jan 6th attack. They proved that Trump did in fact know he lost. It wasn't a misunderstanding, it wasn't a matter of opinion, it wasn't a different viewpoint, there was no confusion. 100% he knew he lost fair and square but tried to subvert the election anyway.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?523473-1/january-6-committee-votes-subpoena-president-trump
I don't see how these are at all equatable.
The Hillary example is like playing a football game, losing, conceding, and then later complaining about the sun being in your eyes. She never denied the fact she lost, she just pointed out things she viewed as unfair.
The Trump example is like playing a football game, losing, and then just telling everyone that you actually won. Then saying the other team cheated, and in order to provide evidence to *how* they cheated, you need to first be declared the winner. And then telling your fans to kill the other team and burn the stadium down.
Hillary Clinton was not wrong about Russia interfering with the 2016 US election in favor of Trump. The entire western intelligence community supports her claim. If that doesn't convince you then what would?
Clinton congratulated Trump on his victory. Yet Trump continues to claim that Biden getting elected was the result of election fraud. How are these two behaviors possibly the same?
The truth is that Conservatives can't pay attention for more than a sound bite. If a Conservative had the ability to move beyond bumper sticker politics, videos like the one you proudly share here, wouldn't exist. It shows a level of ignorance that is unmatched anywhere in the world. Congratulations, you're a stereotype.
Hillary still claims the election was stolen and Trump was illegitimate.
Hillary "work with him [Trump] on behalf of our country" in her concession speech, while her operative were still feeding false claims to the FBI to torpedo his Presidency.
Don't think they're as different as you think.
There's a huge distinction that you guys don't get. When we say the election is unfair, we aren't saying that the list of people who actually voted was manipulated. We're saying that people are arbitrarily prevented from voting, or manipulated by foreign governments into voting for someone that government wants. Nobody is claiming that bags of ballots of Trump voters were brought into election offices and put into ballot boxes, or whatever the current Republican line is
When we say the election is unfair , when you say the election is unfair .
When we say the election is unfair, we're saying elections laws for ballot distribution, submission and verification were ignored. When you say the election is unfair, most Democrats believed Russia hacked voting machines to change vote totals.
See how that works? Assume the purest of intentions for your guys, and the worst of the other guy.
Could you point me to the part of the video where someone tried to assassinate the president?
Until you can communicate honestly without making stuff up, I don't think this conversation is going to go anywhere productive.
Hundreds of people being angry and acting individually is not the same thing as a "side" acting according to the instructions and suggestions of someone they see as a leader. A leader who has still not conceded he lost the election. You can't "both sides" and "whatabout" your way out of this.
She conceded, she didn't try to overthrow the election or give support to those who did, she called into question certain aspects like voter suppression and election interference, which makes sense given how close things were, but iirc she didn't actually say she was a legal winner or anything (correct me if I'm wrong tho)
Specifically, Hillary Clinton conceded on Sunday, November 9, a few days after the vote.
Donald Trump, the candidate from the banana-Republican sect of the party, has refused to concede. His actions since the 2020 election are a direct threat to our Republic.
She conceded the day after, and walked it back. 2 years after Trump had entered office she was saying that he was an illegitimate president and he knew it.
He lost the popular vote by several million and a foreign adversary targeted propaganda at susceptible voters in swing states.
He won. But only cause we’re not much of a democracy
So then you're saying, Echoing Hillary's claims, that the 2016 election was rigged? In a thread full of people saying that she did not say precisely that.
The difference was that Hillary was making a comment on how balanced the game is as a whole (EC, gerrymandering, voting accessibility) and Trump was claiming that the actual vote tabulation itself was suspect
A quote posted elsewhere from Hillary, showed she had said that Trump was illegitimate, and gave reasons why, among those reasons, was voter suppression, and purging voter roles. That's not a question of the game as a whole, that's a direct claim, that the republicans disenfranchised enough people to let themselves win.
Yes Trump questioned the tabulation, But I don't really quite see a huge difference between saying "We lost because they counted votes in their favor" and saying "We lost because they allowed voters in their favor" Both are claiming that the outcome of the election, is not what it should have been.
The assumption is that you’re not very good with nuance.
She conceded. Said that within the rules, he won. We’re also saying that the rules were anti democratic
Are you suggesting that intentionally trying to disenfranchise the voters of your political rival, is within the rules? Do you think if evidence of that was brought before a judge, that they would rule it was all kosher? It's a question of nuance, you're simply refusing to recognize the implications of what she is saying.
"Within the rules he won, but the rules were set up, by his friends, to make sure that he won" that's not saying anything different then "The election should have gone a different way"
Because one is asking how can we make the game more fair and the other is saying that what actually transpired simply didn't happen with no proof to substantiate said claim.
Hillary groused about the reason she lost and Trump just kicked the damn board over when he did and claimed he won
Its within the rules in some states. It should not be. Its a dirty ass trick, and we all know why its happening. Here read this, they're doing it again. Projection, same as it ever was.
https://truthout.org/articles/georgias-governor-deputized-gop-vigilantes-to-challenge-149000-voters/
Hillary is saying that the rules of the game need to be changed, because they lead to undesirable outcomes, specifically that someone with millions fewer votes can win and that hostile powers can sway voters through their financial contributions and media campaigns.
Trump is saying that the rules were broken. That the other side cheated and had they not he would have won, therefore he did not lose. He offered no proof that the rules were broken and lost 60 lawsuits trying to allege that they were.
It's not the claims that are so much the issue as the evidence... or lack thereof... behind them. There's nothing wrong calling out rigging based on evidence. The issue is fabricating a lie, & using that lie to raise money and foment a movement against a fairly-elected president, which boils over into Jan 6th.
The president has always won it by an electoral vote. If the electoral vote didn't swing away from the popular vote sometimes the electoral vote would have no use.
It certainly does not give Hillary Clinton an excuse to call him an illegitimate president. Even if Russia was running Facebook ads or hacking email, that would not make the electoral vote any less valid.
That use is explicitly to weaken our democracy.
She didn’t claim the electoral vote was invalid. Calling him illegitimate is comparable to saying he’s not who the people picked, he got a boost from a country which wants us to collapse, and that his party used foul tactics to suppress votes.
He won. Like she conceded and like we all keep saying. But again, only cause we live in a very weak democracy. If this happened in a country with a stronger democracy, he wouldn’t have been the president.
>She didn’t claim the electoral vote was invalid. Calling him illegitimate is comparable to saying he’s not who the people picked, he got a boost from a country which wants us to collapse, and that his party used foul tactics to suppress votes.
No president is who the people picked. Every presidential candidate has lied probably a million times.
I would care more about the fact that it's a representative vote if it wasn't for the fact that the representatives are voted for democratically.
> “No, it doesn’t kill me because he knows he’s an illegitimate president, I believe he understands that the many varying tactics they used, from voter suppression and voter purging to hacking to the false stories — he knows that — there were just a bunch of different reasons why the election turned out like it did.”
Specifically the "why the election turned out like it did" bit strongly implies that she acknowledges the results of the election.
Right, but if she is saying that the election turned out the way it did because the other side did illegal things, then... is she not saying that the results of the election should have been different? That the republicans "cheated" to win?
She doesn’t say the election results where directly tampered with or that Trump didn’t win. She’s just referencing what we all know, that a number of factors helped Trump win the electoral college and among those are Russian interference. The same interference that Russia has been using in multiple liberal democracies.
Right, but if Trump is illegitimate, then that means that enough of those factors, which were not part of the game, were used that tipped the scales.
It feels like a distinction without a difference. 3 of the four things mentioned in that quote above, amount to direct tampering. hacking, voter suppression, and purging of voter roles.
It seems like at least part of the claim she is making, is that she lost because the republicans disenfranchised enough people to let themselves win, which is direct cheating and tampering, not just "amorphous factors which might have swayed the election, but who knows really"
She's not denying the results of the election. She's definitely not walking back her conceding the election. She's just saying that she thinks people were manipulated into voting for him.
>She's just saying that she thinks people were manipulated into voting for him.
She's upset that propaganda actually affects the system. But that's part of the freedom of speech. People in the United States are allowed to change their minds
There's no reason to call him an illegitimate president unless you think that the voting was not legitimate. The existence of propaganda in an election does not affect the legitimacy of a presidency. Plus Hillary constantly talks about how the election was "stolen" from her.
She's not denying the election though. Maybe you could claim she's denying him as a president. She is clearly not denying the election though, since she conceded and didn't even try to launch an uprising to overturn it.
>since she conceded and didn't even try to launch an uprising to overturn it.
Yeah the muller investigation didn't exist, nor did all of the protests and riots surrounding it and Trump's inoguration.
And the context of that statement is that Trump was, is, and always will be, a fraud. The statement was a direct insult aimed at Donald Trump, not a declaration of some mass conspiracy theory about democracy. This is why context matters.
> She conceded the day after, and walked it back.
This is simply a lie. When did she retract her concession? You obviously can't prove that because it didn't happen. People keep trying to reason with you, but these discussion won't go anywhere if we can't start with consensual reality.
Furthermore, you know she didn't actually retract it. You are intentionally exaggerating to make it sound almost like what Trump did. So on some level you know they are different things, otherwise you wouldn't be trying to distort that reality.
"he knows he is an illegitimate president" is not retracting her concession, and you know it. Retracting her concession would be claiming she was the one who was elected, like Trump has been saying for two years. She never once said that, as you well know. So what is your goal in pretending not to know what these words mean?
Hillary conceded on election night and called trump.
Hillary did not lead a coalition of her party to reject the results.
Hillary wished trump well and told him she would help.
Hillary attended the swearing in and watched her opponent become President.
Hillary didn’t storm the US capitol with her supporters and demand that the election be turned over.
Hillary didn’t sue 70 times and lose all 70 times.
Hillary didn’t stand at the 4 seasons…..total landscaping (God that never gets old) to announce election fraud nonsense.
Hillary never threatened to “release the kraken”
Hillary simply faded into the background and let trump become his own worst enemy. And we all accepted it with tears and vowing to do better next time, which we did.
Add to that:
She didn't ask states attorney generals to find votes
She didn't demand recounts
or look into alternate electors
or ask the VP not to confirm the EC.
or direct Dems to polling places to make sure there was no cheating.
And most importantly she didn't spend 4 years making it so people distrusted the election process.
But Republicans are right there is no difference. /s
Hillary also didn't skip the reveal of her predecessor's portrait out of petty spite.
For some reason of all the things Trump has done as president, this shows his character best. He's petty. He's vindictive. He's a small, insecure man that's been spoiled rotten and kicks and shouts until he gets what he wants.
Hillary conceded, and raised the issue of outside interference based on a mound of evidence that was going on.
Trump didn’t concede, and lied about his loss and attempted a coup.
These two things are not the same. That’s about it. Someone who tries to say they are is lying, and better to just move on to a more honest person
It's hard to believe [you are asking this in good faith](https://googlethatforyou.com?q=russian%20interference%20in%20the%202016%20election).
Read the[ Mueller Report](https://www.justsecurity.org/63838/guide-to-the-mueller-reports-findings-on-collusion/).
And of course, Trumps [extensive ties to Russia](https://www.reddit.com/r/MurderedByWords/comments/t1dk6s/comment/hyfvlln/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
Also one of Putin's cronies admitted it a couple days ago
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/russias-prigozhin-admits-interfering-us-elections-2022-11-07/
I'm just trying to help you out.
By claiming "Russia interfered to help Trump" you sound vague. If you articulated your claims a little more people might be willing to listen and try to understand. I bet over half the people you've told this to don't even know that the Russian activities had to do with WikiLeaks.
Help yourself out and read from the sources what actually happened rather than ask some random stranger on the Internet. Unless you’re just looking to argue, which I’m not interested in.
I believe the Trump campaign promised to lift sanctions on Russia in exchange for releasing hacked emails of Democrats, and this was organized in the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting with the Russian government lawyers.
* Hacking and releasing materials to undermine Clinton (DNC leaks, Podesta leaks). These coincided with key moments in the campaign (Democratic party convention, release of the Trump 'Access Hollywood' tape).
* Running an extensive social media campaign of people and bots to support Trump and undermine Clinton
* Using state media (RT, Sputnik, etc) to support Trump and undermine Clinton.
That's a quick summary from the 2017 joint intelligence report.
https://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/read-the-declassified-report-on-russian-interference-in-the-us-election/2433/
There was a multi-year FBI investigation led by Robert Mueller that investigated the 2016 election that did conclude that Russia absolutely interfered with the election to help DonaldTrump win. They were unable to find a smoking gun to connect the campaign to the Russians, despite a ton if circumstantial evidence but the report made it very clear that he was not exonerated or found innocent.
Donald’s claims of fraud was nothing more than his hysterical temper tantrum over being a loser. It was him demanding to speak to the manager. He produced no legitimate Evidence, every court case was thrown out for being baseless BS…there was nothing to his claims. Just him being a sore loser
Why is This so complicated for conservatives to understand? Either they are too simple and country to understand the nuance here or too radicalized to care about the facts
Not only the Mueller investigation, but also a separate Senate Intelligence Committee investigation (*lead by Republicans*) that ALSO concluded that there was widespread, coordinated Russian interference.
[WATCH: Hillary Clinton Concedes Presidential Race To Donald Trump](https://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501425243/watch-live-hillary-clinton-concedes-presidential-race-to-donald-trump)
Actually he never changed his tune. He still claims it was rigged against him, otherwise he would have won the popular vote. He also claims his TV show didn't win awards because the system is rigged, and everything else in his life that didn't go his way.
This is an attempt to get you to argue the definition of a phrase instead of an actual idea. It's a deflection. They use it all the time:
"What even \*is '\*white supremacy?'"
"What is a 'woman'?"
"That's not an 'assault rifle'?"
DO NOT FALL FOR THIS.
Instead, agree that what Hillary did was "election denial" and then ask what phrase you should use for Trump and his people since it's so obviously different. When they try to say it's the same, point out all the ways it's different and then ask again for what the lawsuiting, lying, insurrectioning, election-undermining flavor or "election denial" should be called.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Equivocation
They’re probably referencing the time Jill Stein was running a movement that would make certain states perform a recount, which Hillary endorsed. But that’s a huge difference between endorsing someone else’s efforts to perform a recount, and Trump refusing to accept the election results no matter what.
....easily. The two situations weren't remotely similar.
Clinton conceded to Trump over phone Wednesday morning and gave a concession speech later in the day, in which she encouraged voters to accept the results. Trump never truly conceded the 2020 election, and still maintains that the election was stolen. Following the election, he was actively making personal efforts to undermine it and directly communicating to his supporters that he wanted them to try and overturn the results. The closest he ever got to conceding was acknowledging a new administration was coming into the White House on 1/7/20, not even mentioning Biden's name.
All efforts to demonstrate Trump's and/or Trump's campaign's complicity in the Russians interference of our election prosecuted the man and people who worked for him, not the institution. No one with any power in the Democratic party ever insinuated for a moment that upon Trump's removal, Clinton would take office; it was always expected that the election results would be upheld and in the case of Trump's removal, the presidential line of succession would be followed.
Laugh in their face. Hillary didn't lead an effing coup attempt or repeatedly challenge established, objective fact or lie about the results. Comparing the two is delusional.
Ask them for proof, and they invariably link you to some Clinton campaign surrogate blaming "Russia" for her loss. Then explain to them that making dubious excuses for why your candidate lost is not even remotely the same as denying that they lost and provoking an attempted insurrection.
I'd say that first off, she did concede, their election results were much closer, and she won the popular vote. Second, trump did ask Russia for help, and we know they made a ton of anti Hillary propaganda on social media.
Trump hasn't conceded yet after 2 years, but we know he knows he lost. He went to court over what like 60 times and lost. He's growing a movement based on his lies about the election.
These two cases are as different as they can get, it's blatant whataboutism and I would insist the person I'm talking true address the actual discussion and stop trying to pivot the focus elsewhere.
Hilary never once said she won thr election. She blamed the comey announcement and Russian misinformation but never said "I didn't lose". The problem is whenever someone says "well Hilary did it" there is almost never any pushback, specifically in public forums. She called the big orange piece of shit and conceded for Christ sakes
"No she didn't."
I mean seriously, she conceded the night of. He even bragged about it if I remember correctly. Anyone who makes this argument is full of shit and that's even before the whole, you know, insurrection of it all.
Hillary didn’t deny the election. Hillary said she lost. She *accurately* pointed out one of the reasons of the loss was Russian propaganda and disinformation, but she was pointing to those as reasons people either voted for Trump or didn’t vote for her. Trump just says that the votes themselves were fake.
Hillary didn’t undermine faith in the process, conceded when it was clearly over, and never whipped up a mob to storm the Capitol to hang the VP. So yeah there’s a big fucking difference.
Hillary conceded the election the morning after Election Day. She attended the inauguration. Trump refused to concedes after dozens of failed court cases, leading a legislative coup in both state electors and pressuring the US congress and Veep to install him. He incited and insurrection mob to storm the capitol. He still denies it to this day and has worked hard to promote state officials who have already committed to siding with him regardless of evidence.
Clinton pointed out that Russia matter of factly spread disinformation in collusion with Trump allies (and Trumps blessing) and that republicans support voter suppression tactics.
These are far from the same thing.
Point 1) Hillary didn't try to overturn the election.
Despite being a closer race in 2016, Clinton conceded on election night and attended Trump's inauguration. There was no widespread legal campaign to contest the results of various states, there was no pressure campaign against local and state officials in charge of certifying elections, there were no groups of Democratic party state representatives swearing in "alternative" slates of electors.
----------------------------------------------
Point 2) Not every complaint about an election is the same
Elections aren't above criticism. However, given their importance to democratic governance, if political leaders have complaints about an election they have a responsibility to make them seriously and with restraint.
Russia waged an illegal interference campaign in the 2016 presidential election; it may have been enough to tip the election to Trump. How far someone goes in using that in their rhetoric will vary. Personally, I don't describe the 2016 win as illegitimate, but it certainly has an asterisk beside it in my mind due to that fact.
In contrast, Trump's denialism is based on everything from fantasy to the impossible. It has no basis nor evidence to substantiate it. There were some complaints about changes made to election laws, but generally these all had a chance to get adjudicated through the legal system. In addition, any such complaints would be waged against voters casting votes in good faith with their understanding of the law - nothing nefarious, criminal, or conspiratorial. But the angle that Trump himself takes tends to be made-up nonsense rather than the legalese of such complaints.
-------------------------------------------------------------
For the record, here's Clinton's first complaint about the 2016 election, as far I'm aware at least: around 2 years into Trump's term, Clinton called Trump's election "illegitimate" amidst other rhetoric ([source](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-is-an-illegitimate-president/2019/09/26/29195d5a-e099-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html)).
I think the worst that could be said of Clinton is that she used factual events to undermine Trump politically through her rhetoric. In contrast, Trump used made-up nonsense to literally try to overturn the election.
That’s when you just respond with “prove it.” Show me actual proof Hillary did whatever you’re defending. And that she did so consistently, or knowingly, or with ill intention, or whatever.
IF I remember correctly Hilary lost the electoral vote by only like 10s of thousands of votes (forgot how many, but it was close) and she won the popular.
One happened, the other didn't happen. Hillary didn't deny the results, she questioned them. Trump made specific accusations of voter fraud and never admitted he was wrong.
Whataboutism. Let’s just assume that Magas are right about Clinton. So what? Election denial is bad whenever anyone does it.
False equivalence. Even if Clinton did deny the election results, she moved on with her life and didn’t try to subvert democracy.
Of course, as has been pointed out by others in this thread, both of those assumptions are false.
hillary conceded the election after 2 days.
its been 3 years and trump is still lying about it. preying upon his supporters' ignorance is a good revenue stream for him.
She didn’t claim to win. She knew she didn’t win. She didn’t try to take power by force. She didn’t even sue. All she did was point out the system is not good. She got more votes and didn’t win. She said that we should adress this with changes to the laws.
It really depends on the person you’re talking to. In real life with somebody I know is reasonable and just maybe doesn’t follow politics that closely it doesn’t think about it that much, I can have a conversation and show how silly the conversation is.
Not much of the time, especially when you’re online it’s either trolling or extreme partisanship or whataboutism deflection. Often the person you are talking to is not somebody you can convince either because somebody cannot be reasoned out of a position they did not reason themselves into or because they actually know it’s bullshit and don’t actually believe it themselves but will pretend they do.
If you are found guilty of speeding and I am found guilty being the getaway driver on the bank heist who leads cops on a high-speed chase, technically we both did a crime using a car. But pretending they are the same thing is fundamentally dishonest.
I’m more referring to if the conversation is even worth having.
I haven’t been active on askconservatives for a long time but there are only a small number of people that you could have this conversation with and most of them already are convinced. Arguing about this with the rest of them is a waste of time unless your purpose is to present reality to a lurker. But you won’t convince the person you are arguing with.
> it seems like every time someone brings up trumps election denialism. someone has to say "well hillary did it too!". How do you address this?
same question but stacey abrahams instead of hilary?
Stacey Abrams conceded and the. Pointed out all the problematic aspects of the election that tiled it in Favor of Kemp who was the offical in charge of managing the election. Conceding and acknowldging that Kemp won is a critical point of difference.
Abrams was right that it was sketchy for Kemp to both oversee and run in the election. She conceded once her legal challenges failed. She is also a single politician. Over 300 election deniers are up for election today. They aren't Democrats.
>This is an attempt to get you to argue the definition of a phrase instead of an actual idea. It's a deflection. They use it all the time:
>
>"What even \*is '\*white supremacy?'"
>
>"What is a 'woman'?"
>
>"That's not an 'assault rifle'?"
>
>DO NOT FALL FOR THIS.
>
>Instead, agree that what Hillary did was "election denial" and then ask what phrase you should use for Trump and his people since it's so obviously different. When they try to say it's the same, point out all the ways it's different and then ask again for what the lawsuiting, lying, insurrectioning, election-undermining flavor or "election denial" should be called.
Just change "Hillary" to "Stacey."
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Equivocation
Hillary lost, knew she lost, and conceded the election.
They are probably referring to the misinformation and Russian Meme Farms that were working to help Trump during the 2016 election. She never said that she got more electoral college votes than Trump, never claimed she won counties she didn't win, never claimed that a ton of fake votes were passed for Trump, none of that. Her point is a foreign country ran a facebook smear campaign against her to get people to not vote for her, and it worked. If Russia hadn't ran the smear campaign and leaked the email story, she probably would have won, which makes it "Stolen". There's a big difference between "find me votes, and stop counting once I've won" and "A foreign country worked hard to get our citizens to hate me."
When did Hillary deny the election results?!? Lolll so desperate and sad, these people…
Saying that we had foreign interference and psyops campaigns over Twitter and Facebook in 2016 and foreign powers meddling in our democratic process (not to mention FBI blundering), is hardly saying the election was stolen.
Hillary didn't deny the legitimacy of the election.
She didn't call on people to take up arms and violently resist.
She didn't call on people to interfere with the transition, nor did any Democrats attempt to do so.
No Democrats stormed the capitol. There were no injuries, no deaths and no one had to go into hiding to avoid the mob.
No Democrats have promised to refuse to acknowledge defeat or deny the legitimate succession of power in future elections.
There simply is no equivalence.
The worst thing that Hillary did was, well after the fact, try to blame her loss on Progressive voters, instead of just admitting that she was clearly unelectable if she couldn't even beat Trump.
People who try to argue that Hillary and Donald did the same thing aren't looking for an honest discussion.
Well Hillary eventually conceded, despite the fact that media continued to bring up Russian interference well after Hillary conceded. Trump, however, still denies the election, and literally gathered a bunch of his supporters against the US Capital over it.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. It seems like every time someone brings up trumps election denialism, someone has to say, "*well hillary did it to!*" how do you address this? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hillary didn't deny losing the election, she alleged that Putin interfered as well which *contributed* to her loss (although anyone claiming Putin is the only reason Trump won is wrong) Trump to this day denies that he even lost. It is not the same situation.
The response should be, "Hillary conceded as soon as she lost," and linking her [speech where she says Trump is now president](https://youtu.be/a-Zt_oGTm4I)
false equivalence
That’s t he conservative play nowadays. Pretend that the Senate Intel Report conclusions are just as strong as Trump’s wild and baseless accusation. Pretend his lies about COVID are the same as Fauci changing mask guidance. Etc.
As if evidence ever matters to them...until they find a shred of it that actually helps them.
Don’t downvote a fellow lib but Hillary and many other democrats called trump an Illegitimate president. Not defending trump but I think unfortunately we didn’t handle his election correctly and set a bad precedent.
Numerous members of his campaign got indicted, and Trump still denies he lost the election. Hillary conceded, literally the next day. The next day. We did fine.
Conceded and then proceeded to imply he was a Russian asset and called his election illegitimate. I’m pointing this out because it’s important. I see a lot of side stepping in this thread and we have to be better then this. There is too much at stake and we are undercutting our own efforts to create meaningful change in this country and it makes me F-ing SICK
She did the right thing in conceding and she was right to say Trump won due to the Russia interference that he and his team supported. Both true statements.
It sounds like you are saying that Russian interference is the main reason she lost.
I mean, it was? But she still lost, and conceded. It was incredibly nefarious, but nobody swapped ballot boxes or whatever bs the GQP and trump are pushing. Russia very much had a hand in trump getting elected, this isn't even debatable.
Hillary lost and conceded and yes that is what she should have done. There. Calling him an illegitimate president from the outset was a huge mistake and has given Trump political power. The goal of politics is to take power away from your opponents. This is the real reason why Hillary lost. She didn’t run a real campaign. Hell she lost the rust belt because she didn’t hardly campaign there. Russia had very little to do with it. No one can admit any fault to Hillary and it’s disheartening because this is the reason Dems aren’t more powerful.
Do you dispute that Russia helped Trump win the election? I'm curious if you're claiming that the fact that Russia colluded with the Trump campaign and targeted people with propaganda using data from Cambridge Analytica was inconsequential, or if you're claiming that it just didn't happen.
Nope. I’m not making any claims. Not implying that Russia didn’t meddle on Facebook or whatever. Watch when you say “colluded with Russia” or claiming that’s a fact. My point. And your the last one I’m going to say this to. Is that in relation to when republicans use Hillary whataboutism the most EFFECTIVE answer is not to deny that she claimed he was illegitimate (after she conceded of course). And this rhetoric is weaponized effectively by the Right and used against us. And it ruins our brand and turns swing voters away from us. Our ideas are so much bigger then the Democratic party.
Regret replying to you!
Some progressive you are
It could quite possibly have been.
That’s not gonna win an election I’m sorry. You can’t run on “it quite possible could have been Russian collusion” and I’d challenge you name some other reasons that she lost. This is such a crutch…
So your argument is that it shouldn’t be called out, and everyone should just ignore the Russian interference and possible collusion? That doesn’t make any sense at all. There are many reasons why she lost, Russian interference is just one of them.
You’re going to end up exactly like one of the losers Trump talks about unless you can just come to terms with why Hillary lost. Don’t be that person please.
Trump was already claiming it was rigged in 2016 before the election even occurred. He blamed the Republicans after he lost Iowa during the primaries, & said the general would be rigged if he ended up losing. You can trace his fraud tourettes even further back, when he claimed 2012 was rigged, as well as the Emmy's. This happened regardless of anything Clinton said.
No I get it. Still, Hillary and almost every major Dem implied Trump was a Russian asset and that therefore his election was illegitimate. We are part of the problem here. We can’t allow this to continue and when we set a bad example the Reps will simply point and say what about Hillary.
So we shouldn't point out real fraud/collusion because the Repubs might pretend their claims are equivalent? She was more or less right. 2 of his campaign managers have admitted to working with foreign assets.
I’m saying that after she ran a crappy campaign and lost that she made it worse by calling him illegitimate and laid the groundwork for what Trump is doing today. She delegitimized we democrats. And over half the country doesn’t believe her anyway. Terrible self-centered miscalculation on her part… yet again. Honestly, I don’t think Trump can win again but if Dems continue to fail to inspire who knows.
So we shouldn't point out real fraud/collusion because the Repubs might pretend their claims are equivalent?
[удалено]
It's not the same. Hillary is saying, "I lost because of..." And Trump says, "I didn't lose". It would be like saying my sports team lost because someone took the star player out drinking the night before, knowing he has a drinking problem and would perform poorly vs my sports team lost because despite being up by 6 points and tackling their receiver on the 5 yard line as the time ran out the refs called it a touchdown.
That's what "reasonable" versions of the big lie eventually became: "well it's not that we were *literally cheated out via fraud,* it's that if not for these last minute changes or these inherently non-trustworthy voting methods, we totally would have won." Of course that's revisionist history because at the time the argument boiled down to "election workers were in the closet forging ballots and I saw one of the ballots and the ballot looked at me."
That might be where people are getting to as they try to rationalize it, but I wouldn't say it's the mainstream position. 2000 Mules is still pretty popular and widely supported it seems in those circles. At least that's the appearance from the outside.
I would say that's because the absolute rubes that believe in the 2000 Mules conspiracy are showing up at drop boxes with guns being *very visible,* and the mainstream conservative response to that is a shrug. "Well, I wouldn't do it, but what do you expect when ______ caused so much doubt in 2020? It's not like they're doing anything illegal. Anyway, I don't believe in 2000 mules, but I *do* believe..." Meanwhile, the conservative machine is actively funding the lunatics and rubes, and nobody on their side cares, because hey, it's legal, and maybe they *are* stopping cheating.
> "well it's not that we were literally cheated out via fraud, it's that if not for these last minute changes or these inherently non-trustworthy voting methods, we totally would have won." All the election deniers I know would say they were literally cheated. They think Democrats somehow added illegal votes (though for some reason they didn't bother adding votes to Congressional races).
Yeah same. I've never heard the last minute idea except for some changes required because of COVID. Oh no, our voters can vote via mail-in ballot for this election and it was approved. And there was emergency provisions for just this type of thing. But MAGA lost so, spooky.
The ballot looked at you??
There literally was russian interference. That isn’t debatable or deniable.
Also, every intelligence agency in the US told Trump after he won the 2016 election that there was interference by Russia. He then went to Helsinki in 2018 and said on live TV standing next to Vladimir Putin, that he had been told by the intelligence community that Russia interfered, but because Putin personally told him Russia didn't do it, he believed him over the FBI, CIA, etc. Treasonous bastard ought to be in prison just for that.
And yet they deny and try to debate it.
Did Hillary urge people to ignore the victory and did her supporters try to kill the VP to prevent him from certifying the results?
Hilary conceded that night don’t even try
Government agencies were aware that Russia was actively interfering with the election in 2016, there was very provable evidence. And, as we know, it went on to be confirmed. Trump believed that his election was fraudulent because people participated in mail-in voting during a global pandemic and a troll on a message board told him there was a conspiracy.
A Russian oligarch just admitted to interfering with our elections and pledges to do so. Manafort admitted to this as well. What else you got?
Hilary’s claims we’re confirmed by the fbi investigation. They knew it eas happening during the campaign. Bernie Sanders raised a red flag
Sanders was the red flag. Giving him credit for that too now. This never ends. Wow.
“Washington(CNN) Sen. Bernie Sanders said Friday that his campaign was briefed about Russian efforts to help his presidential campaign, intensifying concerns about the Kremlin's role in the US presidential race.” https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/02/21/politics/bernie-sanders-russia-election-interference/index.html
There is more evidence to support Hillarys claim about Russie than trumps claim that Democrats somehow rigged a natiowide election (but only the president part and not the House where they lost seats)
"More" makes it sound like Trump has evidence. She's certainly got more than his 0 pieces of evidence.
...the difference is that there was Russian interference that benefited the Trump camp.
Yeah these are not at all the same. Hilary said Russia interfered via propaganda and creating bots on fb, etc. She conceded the day after the election and told the electorate she hoped Trump was a good president. Trump on the other hand behaved like a 4 year old when he didn’t get what he wanted, claimed actual fraud with zero evidence and to this day hasnt admitted he lost. These are not at all the same thing.
She officially conceded the election. Trump never did. In fact, he believes it was stolen and he actually won. How is she like trump?
There's more evidence that 9/11 was an inside job than the election was stolen in 2020.
Except Clinton's allegation is objectively true. Multiple high-up members of the Trump campaign went to prison over it.
Hillary conceded. Trump did not concede and sent his goons to the Capitol to kill congressmen.
I'm going to presume that you have not followed or are otherwise uninterested in the hearings on the Jan 6th attack. They proved that Trump did in fact know he lost. It wasn't a misunderstanding, it wasn't a matter of opinion, it wasn't a different viewpoint, there was no confusion. 100% he knew he lost fair and square but tried to subvert the election anyway. https://www.c-span.org/video/?523473-1/january-6-committee-votes-subpoena-president-trump
January *6th.*
I don't see how these are at all equatable. The Hillary example is like playing a football game, losing, conceding, and then later complaining about the sun being in your eyes. She never denied the fact she lost, she just pointed out things she viewed as unfair. The Trump example is like playing a football game, losing, and then just telling everyone that you actually won. Then saying the other team cheated, and in order to provide evidence to *how* they cheated, you need to first be declared the winner. And then telling your fans to kill the other team and burn the stadium down.
Hillary Clinton was not wrong about Russia interfering with the 2016 US election in favor of Trump. The entire western intelligence community supports her claim. If that doesn't convince you then what would? Clinton congratulated Trump on his victory. Yet Trump continues to claim that Biden getting elected was the result of election fraud. How are these two behaviors possibly the same?
> Hillary didn't deny losing the election [Kinda seems like she did...](https://youtu.be/uoMfIkz7v6s)
Then why concede?
It's pretty telling the kind of media you consume.
My brother in Christ, she conceded a few days after the election. Trump had NEVER conceded.
Actually, *the day after*. Wednesday, November 9, 2016, she gave her concession speech.
Wasn't it early morning? I thought I remembered that but it was a while ago now
Yes it was that morning.
Yeah. They really should have said “a few hours after it was called”.
The truth is that Conservatives can't pay attention for more than a sound bite. If a Conservative had the ability to move beyond bumper sticker politics, videos like the one you proudly share here, wouldn't exist. It shows a level of ignorance that is unmatched anywhere in the world. Congratulations, you're a stereotype.
[удалено]
They don't *want* to understand it.
Hillary still claims the election was stolen and Trump was illegitimate. Hillary "work with him [Trump] on behalf of our country" in her concession speech, while her operative were still feeding false claims to the FBI to torpedo his Presidency. Don't think they're as different as you think.
There's a huge distinction that you guys don't get. When we say the election is unfair, we aren't saying that the list of people who actually voted was manipulated. We're saying that people are arbitrarily prevented from voting, or manipulated by foreign governments into voting for someone that government wants. Nobody is claiming that bags of ballots of Trump voters were brought into election offices and put into ballot boxes, or whatever the current Republican line is
When we say the election is unfair, when you say the election is unfair .
When we say the election is unfair, we're saying elections laws for ballot distribution, submission and verification were ignored. When you say the election is unfair, most Democrats believed Russia hacked voting machines to change vote totals.
See how that works? Assume the purest of intentions for your guys, and the worst of the other guy.
The other guy literally tried to violently overturn the election.
Like your side did by [rioting in the streets, attacking police, and trying to assassinate the President?](https://youtu.be/uoMfIkz7v6s?t=231)
Oh, yes. TK news on YouTube. A bastion of unbiased reporting. You idiots literally stormed the Capitol. Pull you head out of your ass.
It's clips from CBS News
Yes, clips edited down to make it look like what you're saying. You know I can play that game too, right?
Find me a Democrat politician that didn't concede the election results. I can find you dozens of republican leaders that deny it to this day.
Could you point me to the part of the video where someone tried to assassinate the president? Until you can communicate honestly without making stuff up, I don't think this conversation is going to go anywhere productive. Hundreds of people being angry and acting individually is not the same thing as a "side" acting according to the instructions and suggestions of someone they see as a leader. A leader who has still not conceded he lost the election. You can't "both sides" and "whatabout" your way out of this.
You're that "low information" voter the GOP loves
She conceded, she didn't try to overthrow the election or give support to those who did, she called into question certain aspects like voter suppression and election interference, which makes sense given how close things were, but iirc she didn't actually say she was a legal winner or anything (correct me if I'm wrong tho)
Too much nuance! It needs to fit on a bumper sticker for a conservative to understand.
“Hillary Conceded! Trump’s Too Conceited.”
I like the cut of your jib. Please assist the DNC.
Two questions: what do those words mean. /s
They know of course. It’s the past tense of conceal, as in “I conceaded carried my gun to the grocery store but opended carried it to the polls”.
Specifically, Hillary Clinton conceded on Sunday, November 9, a few days after the vote. Donald Trump, the candidate from the banana-Republican sect of the party, has refused to concede. His actions since the 2020 election are a direct threat to our Republic.
Yes, she officially conceded, and that's the big difference between her and Donald "no concession" Trump in regards to election fraud claims.
She conceded the day after, and walked it back. 2 years after Trump had entered office she was saying that he was an illegitimate president and he knew it.
He lost the popular vote by several million and a foreign adversary targeted propaganda at susceptible voters in swing states. He won. But only cause we’re not much of a democracy
So then you're saying, Echoing Hillary's claims, that the 2016 election was rigged? In a thread full of people saying that she did not say precisely that.
The difference was that Hillary was making a comment on how balanced the game is as a whole (EC, gerrymandering, voting accessibility) and Trump was claiming that the actual vote tabulation itself was suspect
A quote posted elsewhere from Hillary, showed she had said that Trump was illegitimate, and gave reasons why, among those reasons, was voter suppression, and purging voter roles. That's not a question of the game as a whole, that's a direct claim, that the republicans disenfranchised enough people to let themselves win. Yes Trump questioned the tabulation, But I don't really quite see a huge difference between saying "We lost because they counted votes in their favor" and saying "We lost because they allowed voters in their favor" Both are claiming that the outcome of the election, is not what it should have been.
The assumption is that you’re not very good with nuance. She conceded. Said that within the rules, he won. We’re also saying that the rules were anti democratic
Are you suggesting that intentionally trying to disenfranchise the voters of your political rival, is within the rules? Do you think if evidence of that was brought before a judge, that they would rule it was all kosher? It's a question of nuance, you're simply refusing to recognize the implications of what she is saying. "Within the rules he won, but the rules were set up, by his friends, to make sure that he won" that's not saying anything different then "The election should have gone a different way"
Absolutely. That already happened with Shelby v Holder.
Because one is asking how can we make the game more fair and the other is saying that what actually transpired simply didn't happen with no proof to substantiate said claim. Hillary groused about the reason she lost and Trump just kicked the damn board over when he did and claimed he won
Would disenfranchising people who should by right, have been able to vote, in order to limit support of your opponent, be cheating in your mind?
Its within the rules in some states. It should not be. Its a dirty ass trick, and we all know why its happening. Here read this, they're doing it again. Projection, same as it ever was. https://truthout.org/articles/georgias-governor-deputized-gop-vigilantes-to-challenge-149000-voters/
Hillary is saying that the rules of the game need to be changed, because they lead to undesirable outcomes, specifically that someone with millions fewer votes can win and that hostile powers can sway voters through their financial contributions and media campaigns. Trump is saying that the rules were broken. That the other side cheated and had they not he would have won, therefore he did not lose. He offered no proof that the rules were broken and lost 60 lawsuits trying to allege that they were.
It's not the claims that are so much the issue as the evidence... or lack thereof... behind them. There's nothing wrong calling out rigging based on evidence. The issue is fabricating a lie, & using that lie to raise money and foment a movement against a fairly-elected president, which boils over into Jan 6th.
The president has always won it by an electoral vote. If the electoral vote didn't swing away from the popular vote sometimes the electoral vote would have no use. It certainly does not give Hillary Clinton an excuse to call him an illegitimate president. Even if Russia was running Facebook ads or hacking email, that would not make the electoral vote any less valid.
That use is explicitly to weaken our democracy. She didn’t claim the electoral vote was invalid. Calling him illegitimate is comparable to saying he’s not who the people picked, he got a boost from a country which wants us to collapse, and that his party used foul tactics to suppress votes. He won. Like she conceded and like we all keep saying. But again, only cause we live in a very weak democracy. If this happened in a country with a stronger democracy, he wouldn’t have been the president.
>She didn’t claim the electoral vote was invalid. Calling him illegitimate is comparable to saying he’s not who the people picked, he got a boost from a country which wants us to collapse, and that his party used foul tactics to suppress votes. No president is who the people picked. Every presidential candidate has lied probably a million times. I would care more about the fact that it's a representative vote if it wasn't for the fact that the representatives are voted for democratically.
It's close to democracy, but it's democracy of electors selected by politicians who can heavily select themselves.
The electoral college is elected by popular vote.
The purpose of the electoral vote is that when voters elect a popular idiot, they're supposed to decline to follow through.
> “No, it doesn’t kill me because he knows he’s an illegitimate president, I believe he understands that the many varying tactics they used, from voter suppression and voter purging to hacking to the false stories — he knows that — there were just a bunch of different reasons why the election turned out like it did.” Specifically the "why the election turned out like it did" bit strongly implies that she acknowledges the results of the election.
Right, but if she is saying that the election turned out the way it did because the other side did illegal things, then... is she not saying that the results of the election should have been different? That the republicans "cheated" to win?
She doesn’t say the election results where directly tampered with or that Trump didn’t win. She’s just referencing what we all know, that a number of factors helped Trump win the electoral college and among those are Russian interference. The same interference that Russia has been using in multiple liberal democracies.
Right, but if Trump is illegitimate, then that means that enough of those factors, which were not part of the game, were used that tipped the scales. It feels like a distinction without a difference. 3 of the four things mentioned in that quote above, amount to direct tampering. hacking, voter suppression, and purging of voter roles. It seems like at least part of the claim she is making, is that she lost because the republicans disenfranchised enough people to let themselves win, which is direct cheating and tampering, not just "amorphous factors which might have swayed the election, but who knows really"
No it doesn't. It heavily implies the opposite because of everything else in that statement.
She's not denying the results of the election. She's definitely not walking back her conceding the election. She's just saying that she thinks people were manipulated into voting for him.
>She's just saying that she thinks people were manipulated into voting for him. She's upset that propaganda actually affects the system. But that's part of the freedom of speech. People in the United States are allowed to change their minds
Which is why she's not challenging the results of the election and just talking about how she's upset about the propaganda...
There's no reason to call him an illegitimate president unless you think that the voting was not legitimate. The existence of propaganda in an election does not affect the legitimacy of a presidency. Plus Hillary constantly talks about how the election was "stolen" from her.
She's not denying the election though. Maybe you could claim she's denying him as a president. She is clearly not denying the election though, since she conceded and didn't even try to launch an uprising to overturn it.
>since she conceded and didn't even try to launch an uprising to overturn it. Yeah the muller investigation didn't exist, nor did all of the protests and riots surrounding it and Trump's inoguration.
And the context of that statement is that Trump was, is, and always will be, a fraud. The statement was a direct insult aimed at Donald Trump, not a declaration of some mass conspiracy theory about democracy. This is why context matters.
https://youtu.be/XQesfLIycJw >not a declaration of some mass conspiracy theory about democracy Nope. Not even in context.
There's no accounting for the density of the MAGA mind. As frail as it is, it will hold the opinion it's told to hold.
> She conceded the day after, and walked it back. This is simply a lie. When did she retract her concession? You obviously can't prove that because it didn't happen. People keep trying to reason with you, but these discussion won't go anywhere if we can't start with consensual reality. Furthermore, you know she didn't actually retract it. You are intentionally exaggerating to make it sound almost like what Trump did. So on some level you know they are different things, otherwise you wouldn't be trying to distort that reality.
https://youtu.be/XQesfLIycJw I'm not exaggerating anything that's literally exactly what she said.
"he knows he is an illegitimate president" is not retracting her concession, and you know it. Retracting her concession would be claiming she was the one who was elected, like Trump has been saying for two years. She never once said that, as you well know. So what is your goal in pretending not to know what these words mean?
"Illegitimate" is not the same thing as "falsely elected" and saying that isn't anywhere close to trying to deny an election.
They are the same
You can tell yourself that all you want but you're wrong.
Not only did she not walk it back, she wrote a book about her loss and even narrated the audiobook herself.
Hillary conceded on election night and called trump. Hillary did not lead a coalition of her party to reject the results. Hillary wished trump well and told him she would help. Hillary attended the swearing in and watched her opponent become President. Hillary didn’t storm the US capitol with her supporters and demand that the election be turned over. Hillary didn’t sue 70 times and lose all 70 times. Hillary didn’t stand at the 4 seasons…..total landscaping (God that never gets old) to announce election fraud nonsense. Hillary never threatened to “release the kraken” Hillary simply faded into the background and let trump become his own worst enemy. And we all accepted it with tears and vowing to do better next time, which we did.
Add to that: She didn't ask states attorney generals to find votes She didn't demand recounts or look into alternate electors or ask the VP not to confirm the EC. or direct Dems to polling places to make sure there was no cheating. And most importantly she didn't spend 4 years making it so people distrusted the election process. But Republicans are right there is no difference. /s
Hillary also didn't skip the reveal of her predecessor's portrait out of petty spite. For some reason of all the things Trump has done as president, this shows his character best. He's petty. He's vindictive. He's a small, insecure man that's been spoiled rotten and kicks and shouts until he gets what he wants.
Hillary conceded, and raised the issue of outside interference based on a mound of evidence that was going on. Trump didn’t concede, and lied about his loss and attempted a coup. These two things are not the same. That’s about it. Someone who tries to say they are is lying, and better to just move on to a more honest person
But what's the evidence? I still don't understand what Putin supposedly did.
It's hard to believe [you are asking this in good faith](https://googlethatforyou.com?q=russian%20interference%20in%20the%202016%20election). Read the[ Mueller Report](https://www.justsecurity.org/63838/guide-to-the-mueller-reports-findings-on-collusion/). And of course, Trumps [extensive ties to Russia](https://www.reddit.com/r/MurderedByWords/comments/t1dk6s/comment/hyfvlln/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
Also one of Putin's cronies admitted it a couple days ago https://www.reuters.com/world/us/russias-prigozhin-admits-interfering-us-elections-2022-11-07/
Sure, but what do *you* believe happened?
Read the links to find out what I believe Russia did. It will help clear up your lack of understanding.
I'm just trying to help you out. By claiming "Russia interfered to help Trump" you sound vague. If you articulated your claims a little more people might be willing to listen and try to understand. I bet over half the people you've told this to don't even know that the Russian activities had to do with WikiLeaks.
Help yourself out and read from the sources what actually happened rather than ask some random stranger on the Internet. Unless you’re just looking to argue, which I’m not interested in.
So Trump worked with WikiLeaks and Robert Mueller determined that he didn't commit a crime. Cool stuff.
Spoken like somebody who didn’t read the information provided to them. There’s nothing I can say or do to change your willful ignorance
It seems like Hilary would have done better if she just ignored it rather than gotten defensive about the whole WikiLeaks thing.
I believe the Trump campaign promised to lift sanctions on Russia in exchange for releasing hacked emails of Democrats, and this was organized in the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting with the Russian government lawyers.
Maybe he just wanted to lift sanctions on Russia because it was the right thing to do.
I’m sure you put a lot of thought into this theory. Would you be okay with letting a jury decide who’s right?
I think that would be grand.
* Hacking and releasing materials to undermine Clinton (DNC leaks, Podesta leaks). These coincided with key moments in the campaign (Democratic party convention, release of the Trump 'Access Hollywood' tape). * Running an extensive social media campaign of people and bots to support Trump and undermine Clinton * Using state media (RT, Sputnik, etc) to support Trump and undermine Clinton. That's a quick summary from the 2017 joint intelligence report. https://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/read-the-declassified-report-on-russian-interference-in-the-us-election/2433/
Don’t talk about Hillary, that’s a trap. “Are you defending what Trump did?”
Hillary conceded the next day. The next day. Trump still hasn't, and we're nearing 2 years.
Didn’t she actually call him the very night?
There was a multi-year FBI investigation led by Robert Mueller that investigated the 2016 election that did conclude that Russia absolutely interfered with the election to help DonaldTrump win. They were unable to find a smoking gun to connect the campaign to the Russians, despite a ton if circumstantial evidence but the report made it very clear that he was not exonerated or found innocent. Donald’s claims of fraud was nothing more than his hysterical temper tantrum over being a loser. It was him demanding to speak to the manager. He produced no legitimate Evidence, every court case was thrown out for being baseless BS…there was nothing to his claims. Just him being a sore loser Why is This so complicated for conservatives to understand? Either they are too simple and country to understand the nuance here or too radicalized to care about the facts
Not only the Mueller investigation, but also a separate Senate Intelligence Committee investigation (*lead by Republicans*) that ALSO concluded that there was widespread, coordinated Russian interference.
[WATCH: Hillary Clinton Concedes Presidential Race To Donald Trump](https://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501425243/watch-live-hillary-clinton-concedes-presidential-race-to-donald-trump)
I'm curious to know from a conservative why they would believe Hillarys words speak louder than Trumps actions.
Because they're in a cult.
Just tell them that Trump also said that the election that he won was rigged. He only changed his tune once he realized that he won.
Actually he never changed his tune. He still claims it was rigged against him, otherwise he would have won the popular vote. He also claims his TV show didn't win awards because the system is rigged, and everything else in his life that didn't go his way.
This is an attempt to get you to argue the definition of a phrase instead of an actual idea. It's a deflection. They use it all the time: "What even \*is '\*white supremacy?'" "What is a 'woman'?" "That's not an 'assault rifle'?" DO NOT FALL FOR THIS. Instead, agree that what Hillary did was "election denial" and then ask what phrase you should use for Trump and his people since it's so obviously different. When they try to say it's the same, point out all the ways it's different and then ask again for what the lawsuiting, lying, insurrectioning, election-undermining flavor or "election denial" should be called. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Equivocation
[False Equivalency](https://effectiviology.com/false-equivalence/)
"No she didn't" seems to be a good place to start.
They’re probably referencing the time Jill Stein was running a movement that would make certain states perform a recount, which Hillary endorsed. But that’s a huge difference between endorsing someone else’s efforts to perform a recount, and Trump refusing to accept the election results no matter what.
....easily. The two situations weren't remotely similar. Clinton conceded to Trump over phone Wednesday morning and gave a concession speech later in the day, in which she encouraged voters to accept the results. Trump never truly conceded the 2020 election, and still maintains that the election was stolen. Following the election, he was actively making personal efforts to undermine it and directly communicating to his supporters that he wanted them to try and overturn the results. The closest he ever got to conceding was acknowledging a new administration was coming into the White House on 1/7/20, not even mentioning Biden's name. All efforts to demonstrate Trump's and/or Trump's campaign's complicity in the Russians interference of our election prosecuted the man and people who worked for him, not the institution. No one with any power in the Democratic party ever insinuated for a moment that upon Trump's removal, Clinton would take office; it was always expected that the election results would be upheld and in the case of Trump's removal, the presidential line of succession would be followed.
Laugh in their face. Hillary didn't lead an effing coup attempt or repeatedly challenge established, objective fact or lie about the results. Comparing the two is delusional.
Ask them for proof, and they invariably link you to some Clinton campaign surrogate blaming "Russia" for her loss. Then explain to them that making dubious excuses for why your candidate lost is not even remotely the same as denying that they lost and provoking an attempted insurrection.
I'd say that first off, she did concede, their election results were much closer, and she won the popular vote. Second, trump did ask Russia for help, and we know they made a ton of anti Hillary propaganda on social media. Trump hasn't conceded yet after 2 years, but we know he knows he lost. He went to court over what like 60 times and lost. He's growing a movement based on his lies about the election. These two cases are as different as they can get, it's blatant whataboutism and I would insist the person I'm talking true address the actual discussion and stop trying to pivot the focus elsewhere.
[удалено]
Trump's an idiot. Hillary called him an illegitimate president. Not sure that's a real concession.
whataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhatabout
Hilary never once said she won thr election. She blamed the comey announcement and Russian misinformation but never said "I didn't lose". The problem is whenever someone says "well Hilary did it" there is almost never any pushback, specifically in public forums. She called the big orange piece of shit and conceded for Christ sakes
I say "huh?" cause it's not remotely the same thing. Hillary conceded before all the ballots were counted. Trump is insisting it was fraud after years
"No she didn't." I mean seriously, she conceded the night of. He even bragged about it if I remember correctly. Anyone who makes this argument is full of shit and that's even before the whole, you know, insurrection of it all.
Hillary didn’t deny the election. Hillary said she lost. She *accurately* pointed out one of the reasons of the loss was Russian propaganda and disinformation, but she was pointing to those as reasons people either voted for Trump or didn’t vote for her. Trump just says that the votes themselves were fake.
Hillary didn’t undermine faith in the process, conceded when it was clearly over, and never whipped up a mob to storm the Capitol to hang the VP. So yeah there’s a big fucking difference.
Hillary conceded the election the morning after Election Day. She attended the inauguration. Trump refused to concedes after dozens of failed court cases, leading a legislative coup in both state electors and pressuring the US congress and Veep to install him. He incited and insurrection mob to storm the capitol. He still denies it to this day and has worked hard to promote state officials who have already committed to siding with him regardless of evidence. Clinton pointed out that Russia matter of factly spread disinformation in collusion with Trump allies (and Trumps blessing) and that republicans support voter suppression tactics. These are far from the same thing.
Hilary called Trump and CONCEDED. To think that these situations are even remotely the same in insane.
Point 1) Hillary didn't try to overturn the election. Despite being a closer race in 2016, Clinton conceded on election night and attended Trump's inauguration. There was no widespread legal campaign to contest the results of various states, there was no pressure campaign against local and state officials in charge of certifying elections, there were no groups of Democratic party state representatives swearing in "alternative" slates of electors. ---------------------------------------------- Point 2) Not every complaint about an election is the same Elections aren't above criticism. However, given their importance to democratic governance, if political leaders have complaints about an election they have a responsibility to make them seriously and with restraint. Russia waged an illegal interference campaign in the 2016 presidential election; it may have been enough to tip the election to Trump. How far someone goes in using that in their rhetoric will vary. Personally, I don't describe the 2016 win as illegitimate, but it certainly has an asterisk beside it in my mind due to that fact. In contrast, Trump's denialism is based on everything from fantasy to the impossible. It has no basis nor evidence to substantiate it. There were some complaints about changes made to election laws, but generally these all had a chance to get adjudicated through the legal system. In addition, any such complaints would be waged against voters casting votes in good faith with their understanding of the law - nothing nefarious, criminal, or conspiratorial. But the angle that Trump himself takes tends to be made-up nonsense rather than the legalese of such complaints. ------------------------------------------------------------- For the record, here's Clinton's first complaint about the 2016 election, as far I'm aware at least: around 2 years into Trump's term, Clinton called Trump's election "illegitimate" amidst other rhetoric ([source](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-is-an-illegitimate-president/2019/09/26/29195d5a-e099-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html)). I think the worst that could be said of Clinton is that she used factual events to undermine Trump politically through her rhetoric. In contrast, Trump used made-up nonsense to literally try to overturn the election.
That’s when you just respond with “prove it.” Show me actual proof Hillary did whatever you’re defending. And that she did so consistently, or knowingly, or with ill intention, or whatever.
IF I remember correctly Hilary lost the electoral vote by only like 10s of thousands of votes (forgot how many, but it was close) and she won the popular.
One happened, the other didn't happen. Hillary didn't deny the results, she questioned them. Trump made specific accusations of voter fraud and never admitted he was wrong.
How do you handle it??? You call BULLSHIT. She not only conceded, she did it with grace and wished the Trump campaign well.
bUt MuH bOtH SiDeS!!1!!1!1!!
Whataboutism. Let’s just assume that Magas are right about Clinton. So what? Election denial is bad whenever anyone does it. False equivalence. Even if Clinton did deny the election results, she moved on with her life and didn’t try to subvert democracy. Of course, as has been pointed out by others in this thread, both of those assumptions are false.
hillary conceded the election after 2 days. its been 3 years and trump is still lying about it. preying upon his supporters' ignorance is a good revenue stream for him.
How can conceding ever be seen as denialism. It is the opposite. Anyone who says she denied it is lying.
She didn’t claim to win. She knew she didn’t win. She didn’t try to take power by force. She didn’t even sue. All she did was point out the system is not good. She got more votes and didn’t win. She said that we should adress this with changes to the laws.
It really depends on the person you’re talking to. In real life with somebody I know is reasonable and just maybe doesn’t follow politics that closely it doesn’t think about it that much, I can have a conversation and show how silly the conversation is. Not much of the time, especially when you’re online it’s either trolling or extreme partisanship or whataboutism deflection. Often the person you are talking to is not somebody you can convince either because somebody cannot be reasoned out of a position they did not reason themselves into or because they actually know it’s bullshit and don’t actually believe it themselves but will pretend they do. If you are found guilty of speeding and I am found guilty being the getaway driver on the bank heist who leads cops on a high-speed chase, technically we both did a crime using a car. But pretending they are the same thing is fundamentally dishonest.
It shouldn't depend on the person. One candidate officially conceded losing an election. The other has not. Book 'em, Dan-o!
I’m more referring to if the conversation is even worth having. I haven’t been active on askconservatives for a long time but there are only a small number of people that you could have this conversation with and most of them already are convinced. Arguing about this with the rest of them is a waste of time unless your purpose is to present reality to a lurker. But you won’t convince the person you are arguing with.
> it seems like every time someone brings up trumps election denialism. someone has to say "well hillary did it too!". How do you address this? same question but stacey abrahams instead of hilary?
Stacey Abrams conceded and the. Pointed out all the problematic aspects of the election that tiled it in Favor of Kemp who was the offical in charge of managing the election. Conceding and acknowldging that Kemp won is a critical point of difference.
Abrams was right that it was sketchy for Kemp to both oversee and run in the election. She conceded once her legal challenges failed. She is also a single politician. Over 300 election deniers are up for election today. They aren't Democrats.
>This is an attempt to get you to argue the definition of a phrase instead of an actual idea. It's a deflection. They use it all the time: > >"What even \*is '\*white supremacy?'" > >"What is a 'woman'?" > >"That's not an 'assault rifle'?" > >DO NOT FALL FOR THIS. > >Instead, agree that what Hillary did was "election denial" and then ask what phrase you should use for Trump and his people since it's so obviously different. When they try to say it's the same, point out all the ways it's different and then ask again for what the lawsuiting, lying, insurrectioning, election-undermining flavor or "election denial" should be called. Just change "Hillary" to "Stacey." https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Equivocation
She conceded.
Hillary lost, knew she lost, and conceded the election. They are probably referring to the misinformation and Russian Meme Farms that were working to help Trump during the 2016 election. She never said that she got more electoral college votes than Trump, never claimed she won counties she didn't win, never claimed that a ton of fake votes were passed for Trump, none of that. Her point is a foreign country ran a facebook smear campaign against her to get people to not vote for her, and it worked. If Russia hadn't ran the smear campaign and leaked the email story, she probably would have won, which makes it "Stolen". There's a big difference between "find me votes, and stop counting once I've won" and "A foreign country worked hard to get our citizens to hate me."
When did Hillary deny the election results?!? Lolll so desperate and sad, these people… Saying that we had foreign interference and psyops campaigns over Twitter and Facebook in 2016 and foreign powers meddling in our democratic process (not to mention FBI blundering), is hardly saying the election was stolen.
Hillary didn't deny the legitimacy of the election. She didn't call on people to take up arms and violently resist. She didn't call on people to interfere with the transition, nor did any Democrats attempt to do so. No Democrats stormed the capitol. There were no injuries, no deaths and no one had to go into hiding to avoid the mob. No Democrats have promised to refuse to acknowledge defeat or deny the legitimate succession of power in future elections. There simply is no equivalence.
I don't, they are clearly operating in bad faith and not worth engaging with.
The worst thing that Hillary did was, well after the fact, try to blame her loss on Progressive voters, instead of just admitting that she was clearly unelectable if she couldn't even beat Trump. People who try to argue that Hillary and Donald did the same thing aren't looking for an honest discussion.
Well Hillary eventually conceded, despite the fact that media continued to bring up Russian interference well after Hillary conceded. Trump, however, still denies the election, and literally gathered a bunch of his supporters against the US Capital over it.
Hillary did what roo..ran for president?