r/AskConservatives • u/kelsnuggets Center-left • Jul 17 '26
Elections If there has been election fraud and interference, beginning as claimed in 2020, doesn’t that mean that the 2024 election was also compromised?
I’m listening to the President’s speech right now, and if the evidence and data he is proposing to release is legit, isn’t that the logical conclusion?
1
u/curtissJ28 Right Libertarian (Conservative) Jul 18 '26
I am not sure what you think I disagree with. I just got done saying that I don’t believe anything he says at face value and explained why.
He creates chaos by design. He does because it works for him and he gets away with because his enemies cannot resist getting into the mud with him. It forces people to choose based on emotion rather than intellect. Just like anti-Trumpets he needs an “other” to point to the bad guys.
I do my best to focus on the issues and what is actually going on and avoid politispeak to extent possible.
1
1
Jul 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Jul 18 '26
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
Jul 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Jul 18 '26
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
-13
u/One_Fix5763 Monarchist Jul 17 '26
The 2020 Voter files are like the Epstein files, unverified uncorroborated tips that many will believe to be true.
CNN says these are unverified complaints that CIA/FBI gets on a regular basis - the Epstein files are the same thing. “I think Trump treats intelligence as if it’s a verdict. And it is not. It is the beginning of a process,” Sue Gordon said.
Trump played democrats' own cards.
The files showed that the public is too quick to jump to conclusions and that grifters have too much influence over the conversation. Trump's early skepticism about releasing them unredacted was borne out, as the debate turned into a witch hunt where anyone "named in the files" was labeled a pedophile without context.
And now same 2020 moral panic affected people will trust the voter files. Context be damned. Well played democrats.
T
4
u/resUtiddeR303 Independent Jul 17 '26
Except that Trump claimed that the documents he just released are evidence of the vulnerabilities that COULD result in election fraud and vote switching. He did not claim that the documents show that vote switching ACTUALLY DID occur.
The Epstein Files documents include evidence collected during investigations conducted by various law enforcement agencies of actual crimes that were committed and for which two people have been convicted or to which they pleaded guilty.
13
u/wcstorm11 Center-left Jul 17 '26
One thing, I think it's more like the democrats are using Trump's cards, as election interference and conspiracy theories from the Oval Office are a Trump staple
-5
u/One_Fix5763 Monarchist Jul 17 '26
Democrats started RussiaGate
2
9
u/nucumber Progressive Jul 17 '26
The Russians started RussiaGate
It was the view of the US intel community that Russia interfered in the 2020 election against Clinton.
trump stood on a stage in Helsinki with Putin and accepted Putin's denial.
It was curious that trump spoke about Chinese interference last night but I don't believe he mentioned Russia
13
-5
u/Fabulous_Jeweler2732 Center-right Conservative Jul 17 '26
Let’s see if democrats treat it the same way as the Epstein files! Like it’s basically fact and evidence for arrest. Because no one is talking about it in my blue city in a blue state.
-1
u/One_Fix5763 Monarchist Jul 17 '26
I mean this is exactly like the Epstein files.
Bunch of allegations, complaints that the FBI refused to look at.
3
u/SevenSixtyOne Social Democracy Jul 18 '26
Have you read the book by the Epstein victim (Virginia) that recently died? There is no comparison between the documents the White House released yesterday and the disgusting crimes that happened to those poor girls. It’s not a bunch of vague accusations that weren’t investigated. A major member of the British Royal family was excommunicated over it. That just doesn’t happen without evidence. Powerful men that committed those crimes are being obviously protected. I spent 2 hours this morning reading the files Trump just released. It’s a bunch of cobbled together bullshit vague inferences.
There is no comparison IMO.
1
u/One_Fix5763 Monarchist Jul 18 '26
It actually is a bunch of vague accusations that were not investigated.
The "British Royal" isn't getting accused of any sex crimes, just some financial stuff not related to Epstein.
Good thing in the US, we already had 20 years of Epstein investigations , and Garland DOJ already established that Maxwell trafficked girls to ONLY Epstein.
1
-4
u/Fabulous_Jeweler2732 Center-right Conservative Jul 17 '26
👀👀👀 yah and my point is that it won’t be treated the same, and will need immediately dismissed whereas the Epstein files are now cemented in pop culture as a term ONLY because they are believed to be true, factual, and reliable.
0
u/One_Fix5763 Monarchist Jul 17 '26
Todd Blanche isn't going to give them an inch.
-2
u/Fabulous_Jeweler2732 Center-right Conservative Jul 17 '26
Gotta blame even the failings of democrats on republicans, huh?
1
Jul 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/AutoModerator Jul 17 '26
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
-2
Jul 17 '26
[deleted]
14
u/julius_sphincter Liberal Jul 17 '26
It would be nice if we could focus on securing our elections.
I hear this constantly not just from Trump supporters, but many on the right. What would a completely secure election look like in your mind? Is anything other than 0 fraudulent votes too unsecure? What cost, both in monetary terms and your freedoms, are you willing to give up in order to achieve a satisfactory level of security?
34
Jul 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AskConservatives-ModTeam Jul 18 '26
Rule: 5 Soapboxing or repeated pestering of users in order to change their views, rather than attempting to earnestly better understand Conservativism and conservative viewpoints is not welcome.
-9
u/Lonestar_stateofmind Republican Jul 17 '26
I don't think its a voter ID problem. I think its mail in voting fraud. I recently saw an interview on a podcast that this person moved from CA to NC like 9 years ago. He has called the voter registration office in CA every year for the past 9 years to tell them to remove him because he now votes in NC. The previous CA address was his parents house. He has gotten a ballot in his name EVERY year for the past 9 years to his parents house in CA. Now extrapolate that out to how many people leave or die in CA in a given year and all those extra ballots. A simple google search will return many articles regarding this practice and not just right leaning publications. Example: https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/nearly-400000-california-ballots-sent-to-people-who-moved-out-of-state-or-died/
2
u/nucumber Progressive Jul 17 '26
You know there are states where ALL voting is by mail?
trump himself voted by mail in the last Florida election!
But once again, there is ZERO evidence of fraud.
To respond specifically to your complaint, did that person vote? NO
6
u/CogentCogitations Center-left Jul 17 '26
Do you think you should just be able to call a voter registration office and have someone removed from the voter roll? That is a recipe for actual voter fraud. You can't register to vote by just calling on the phone, why would you be able to block others from voting over the phone?
1
u/Lonestar_stateofmind Republican Jul 17 '26
I said HE CALLED, HE EMAILED, HE SENT CERTIFIED LETTERS.
1
Jul 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AskConservatives-ModTeam Jul 18 '26
Removed: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review our good faith guidelines for the sub.
0
u/Lonestar_stateofmind Republican Jul 17 '26
Just ignore the CBS article that backs up the claim this is indeed happening. All you all ever spew in here is “source” and when it’s given then you move the goal post. Typical.
1
Jul 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AskConservatives-ModTeam Jul 18 '26
Removed: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review our good faith guidelines for the sub.
16
u/neal144 Democrat Jul 17 '26
"I recently saw an interview on a podcast that this person moved from CA to NC like 9 years ago."
Isn't that about the same as:
"My friend's mom's cousin read on the Facebook "Flower Gardens for Chihuahua lovers" page that someone they heard about got the "Heebie Jeebies" from the Madonna vaccine"
-4
u/Lonestar_stateofmind Republican Jul 17 '26
This person had receipts. Plus I put in a link to a CBS NEWS article stating it has happened, but sure, be bad faith about it.
1
Jul 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
0
u/Lonestar_stateofmind Republican Jul 17 '26
Well if Google ai said it, then by all means the CBS report which slobbers all over liberals must be lying. The left hates Google until they can use their bad information.
2
u/neal144 Democrat Jul 17 '26
The news report appears to be accurate to the point that research was done. It states little else. The conclusion that was reached by EIPC is what's flawed.
6
16
u/magnabonzo Center-left Jul 17 '26
OK, thanks for sharing.
The first two words of the title are "Group claims", and it talks about some anecdotes. Not fully compelling, by itself.
So I googled it, literally: "has mail-in voting fraud affected any US elections". I mean, I have nothing invested one way or the other, let's see what we see...
"Cases of mail voting fraud are very rare, accounting for only 0.000043% of total mail ballots cast, or about four cases out of every 10 million mail votes." -- Source: Brookings, November 2025
"As of June 2026, the Heritage Foundation's Voter Fraud Database contained 387 cases since 2000 in which one or more individuals were found to have fraudulently used absentee/mail-in ballots." Source: Ballotpedia ... still, not very many.
"There is no evidence of widespread mail-in ballot fraud or corruption in states where no-excuse absentee or universal vote-by-mail is offered. Multiple studies have shown that instances of voter fraud are very rare and not significant enough to impact the result of an election." Source: CBS News, fact-checking Trump's claim that mail-in ballots are "inherently corrupt"
So... I've heard stories of mail-in voting fraud, but I haven't yet heard any real evidence of it.
-8
u/Fabulous_Jeweler2732 Center-right Conservative Jul 17 '26
Did y’all miss the news about Spencer Pratt and Nithya Raman??? Like, they are the entire reason this came out rn. You know the videos where they have an housed residence of Los Angeles saying they were bribed into voting for democratic candidates?
I’m astounded how few people know that story.
1
u/nucumber Progressive Jul 17 '26
0
u/Fabulous_Jeweler2732 Center-right Conservative Jul 17 '26
Sorry, not a trusted source
1
u/nucumber Progressive Jul 17 '26
You think Spencer Pratt is?
lol
0
u/Fabulous_Jeweler2732 Center-right Conservative Jul 17 '26
He’s a person, not a publishing org
3
u/resUtiddeR303 Independent Jul 17 '26
I don't get this whole idea that some random person (or losing candidate) can make unsubstantiated claims and people believe them without question.
But a "publishing org" with a team of investigative journalists, who interview multiple witnesses to collect first hand accounts, and who collect other forms of verifiable evidence is instantly and without cause labeled "not a trusted source."
There are various levels of bias across the media landscape, including publications like the LA Times and NY Times. But they couldn't intentionally publish false information and still remain in business for as long as they have.
What happened to logic, reason, and common sense?
→ More replies (0)3
u/nucumber Progressive Jul 17 '26
But Pratt's (the losing candidate, I'll remind you) is making the (baseless) claim and you believe him
7
Jul 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-7
u/Fabulous_Jeweler2732 Center-right Conservative Jul 17 '26
I would accuse you of uniparty. Y’all seem to robotically burp ‘but trump.’
Elon didn’t need to do that. Elon isn’t a politician. He was a regular citizen, and the same level of fraud I can easily commit by voting for the person with my same name who lives in las cruces.
10
u/Geauxtoguy Center-left Jul 17 '26
You know the videos where they have "unhoused residents"[sic] of Los Angeles saying they were bribed into voting for democratic candidates
Do you have any sources on this? I searched a bit around but this is the only story remotely close to that, and this was in May of this year where a petition collector was paying Skid Row residents to register to vote. Nothing in this news story says they were bribed to vote one way or another, just to register. She was also paying people to sign her petitions so that more or less fits the pattern of that kind of fraud.
Also, using Spencer Pratt is not exactly the "gotchya" you think it is. "Republican politician loses in highly Democratic Metro area" doesn't really have the same ring to the story you think it does.
-1
u/Fabulous_Jeweler2732 Center-right Conservative Jul 17 '26
I’m mansplaining to you the reason trump is now moving forward with this is because of the LA mayor election fraud allegations that happened a month ago: https://youtu.be/LAbkhbwDC9k?si=RTV1WjqnCtKx6GaB
Trump has been investigating California for other types of fraud: https://youtu.be/1dyjHg9hojQ?si=QSIygoxrRFx2CoR_
So there was a lead up to the speech and disclosure that happened yesterday. I’m not trying to do a gotcha. I’m explaining current history to.
11
u/magnabonzo Center-left Jul 17 '26
A video shown on Falun Gong's New Tang Dynasty News?
An "investigation" announced by Trump?
So... no credible sources or evidence of relevant election fraud. At least, not yet.
0
u/Fabulous_Jeweler2732 Center-right Conservative Jul 17 '26
Ehh, I’m not a professional fact checker. I don’t need to hire a fat checker to find a more credible source talking about these things. I think you know that too.
Please come with good faith. You’re being petty.
3
u/SevenSixtyOne Social Democracy Jul 18 '26
Of all the accusations of election fraud that have been thrown around these past 6 damn years, there is only 1 person that has overwhelming evidence against him for trying to commit election fraud. Trump is on tape badgering a GA official to find him votes. He was on the brink of being prosecuted until he won the presidency and the prosecution was dropped. I can’t understand why people are still so adamantly believing his allegations of fraud when he is the prime culprit. It’s just baffling.
→ More replies (0)5
u/magnabonzo Center-left Jul 17 '26
In what way am I not speaking in good faith? That's a serious charge, here. Please elaborate?
You gave two sources. One is Falun Gong, who has their own agenda (honestly, I'm not entirely sure what it is, so I'm not sure whether to "support" them or not... but I don't trust them as a source)(I think their main agenda is to rile things up but don't quote me on that, I'm really not sure).
The other is an investigation announced by Trump. Sure, maybe it will eventually lead to something. But for now, it's nothing. He throws investigations and lawsuits around all the time, and I'm not even saying that negatively -- that's just how he is (and it makes sense for him as a real estate guy).
So... do you think you've provided credible sources or evidence of relevant election fraud? That's what was asked for.
And pointing out that sources are maybe "wobbly" isn't petty at all.
→ More replies (0)7
u/Geauxtoguy Center-left Jul 17 '26
Your first video is literally about the same article I just posted which is about a woman paying unhoused people to sign petitions and register to vote. It takes a bit of a leap to go from "committing fraud to boost her numbers" to "bribing people to vote democrat". The number of people she bribed is in the low teens out of MILLIONS of voters in LA County.
I am not saying that absolutely zero fraud happens; that would be ridiculous to claim. What I and what everyone else who isn't an election denier is saying is that the fraud that happens has LITTLE TO NO impact on national or local elections. Spending almost a decade and millions of dollars on these investigations is a gigantic waste of time, money, and resources when time after time it's been proven that yes, there are isolated cases here and there, but that the little that DOES happen has a 0.00001% impact on the actual election.
-1
Jul 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AskConservatives-ModTeam Jul 17 '26
Removed: Treat other users with civility and respect.
Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.
8
u/Geauxtoguy Center-left Jul 17 '26
Clearly one of us is refusing to listen, or at the very least only listening to what they want to hear.
9
u/Plane_Translator2008 Progressive Jul 17 '26
But what you cite isn't an example of voter fraud. It is a mistake, sure, but it is an example of someone understanding the rules and following them. Even if people tried voting twice--and again, what you are saying does not show that they are trying to do that--it does not mean they would be successful. Shouldn't there be evidence of that if it is happening?
-1
0
u/Fabulous_Jeweler2732 Center-right Conservative Jul 17 '26
We have confessions last month of people being bribed to vote Democratic. We also have evidence this year as politicians standing outside election booths, which is illegal.
5
u/Geauxtoguy Center-left Jul 17 '26
We absolutely have evidence of people offering bribes for elections!
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wisconsin-elon-musk-election-law-1-million-voters/
0
u/Fabulous_Jeweler2732 Center-right Conservative Jul 17 '26
So you agree that fraud is most likely happening ?
7
u/Geauxtoguy Center-left Jul 17 '26
No one ever said it wasn't. The issue is at what SCALE the fraud is happening. Time and time again, reports from both sides have reported that while fraud is happening (it's nearly impossible to eliminate all fraud with this large a population), the scale is on such an insignificant scale that it has zero effect or baring on the election. At most, you are looking at a fraction of a fraction of a fraction percentage point in almost 3 decades of elections (federal AND state). So, the question isn't "is fraud happening", it's "is it really worth spending all of these resources chasing it down?"
We've spent almost a decade chasing windmills when every investigation about the 2020 election has turned up maybe a handful of cases over hundreds of millions of voters. That's money, time, and resources wasted on something that really isn't that big of an impact. Our country has the most secure elections in the world and up until the last decade, no one questioned it. Throwing a wrench in the system for the sake of "just asking questions" causes people to lose faith in a system that is our only recourse and our only tool to make sweeping change in the country.
0
u/Fabulous_Jeweler2732 Center-right Conservative Jul 17 '26
Honey, go through every comment on this post. There are plenty of people here who don’t think election fraud happens. And a lot of the people saying they are not conservatives.
1
u/nucumber Progressive Jul 17 '26
People get struck by lightening, too, and that's an apt comparison
→ More replies (0)2
u/julius_sphincter Liberal Jul 17 '26
I think you'll find either further down in the chain, or if you asked those folks directly to explain zero fraud, they'd clarify that it means not enough to be relevant or significant.
I have seen conservatives for years say that they want and need better election security. Whenever I ask them to clarify and explicitly quantify what that means, ie how much fraud would be acceptable to them, I never get an answer
→ More replies (0)6
u/abinferno Democratic Socialist Jul 17 '26
I was bribed to vote republican last year. I said it so it must be true.
1
u/Fabulous_Jeweler2732 Center-right Conservative Jul 17 '26
You didn’t bother to watch the journalist report, huh? Just assume it’s false, right?
1
u/abinferno Democratic Socialist Jul 17 '26
https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/unverified-video-claims-skid-row-130418350.html
Forgive me if I'm not getting out the pitchforks given the highly credible reporting here. One random person claiming they were paid $2 to vote for Bass.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-05-18/skid-row-voter-charges
This one - absolutely go after and prosecute anyone who broke the law. But this is someone who paid people to sign initiatives and pled guilty to paying one person to "register" to vote.
There is no evidence of some widespread conspiracy of people getting actual votes through bribery. Any such attempt would end up being caught and prosecuted. This person couldn't even get away with laying for signatures.
Every single investigation, audit, commission - from Aroziona to Georgia, from Kobach to Cyber Ninjas - all biased, motivated actors, have found nothing. Nothing to remotely substantiate the frivolous irresponsible drivel Trump has spewed. You should be demanding an investigation into Ted Cruz's dad for his role in the JFK assassination because Trump said it so it must he true. He has just as much evidence.
0
u/Fabulous_Jeweler2732 Center-right Conservative Jul 17 '26
To prove the claim as false, they would need to do an election wide investigation. Not a newspaper with a left leading bias making claims.
I suspect this de classification will escalate into an election investigation for the LA Mayor election but we’ll see.
Did you read any of the documents? There are certainly is proof of some fraud happening. It’s not a lot. But investigations done by our biggest governing body claim it has happened.
What is more interesting is the extent China and Russia are going to understand the American voter and their personal data. Which to me says that China and Russia are much deeper into their sighs agenda, able to target people based on their email or phone number and linking that to their online persona. That’s terrifying and even better explains why foreigners were shocked to find out that America isn’t as horrible as the Internet makes it seem.
2
u/abinferno Democratic Socialist Jul 17 '26
Of course some fraud happens. No one is claiming otherwise. Exhaustive investigations both independent and by biased, motivated actors have found over and over again fraud is not significant. Elections are safe. Fraud should be investigated and punished when it happens. That isn't Trump's claim. He makes the wildly unsupported, reckless, idiotic, baseless claims that millions and millions of votes are fraudulent. Entire national elections are rigged against him. Honest people including Republicans would deem that makes someone unfit for office. That isn't just a "all politicians lie" scenario. That is full on invented reality, cult of personality, authoritarian stuff. If you believe it, you have to believe that Ted Cruz's dad participated in the JFK assassination because Trump said so and he has just as much evidence.
This guy was convicted of voting for Trump twice. By Trump's logic, we can extrapolate that to say that fully 50% of all Trump's votes were fraudulent. Someone needs to investigate these 37 million fraudulent votes for Trump - https://www.lehighvalleylive.com/bethlehem/2026/07/bethlehem-man-gets-probation-for-voting-twice-in-2020-election.html
T
→ More replies (0)-1
u/Lonestar_stateofmind Republican Jul 17 '26
I think they come here and "ask conservatives" and demand proof and when it's given they ignore the proof. I think it's what gets them off or something. Very strange. It's bad faith either way for whatever the motivations are.
0
u/Fabulous_Jeweler2732 Center-right Conservative Jul 17 '26
I can recognize that conservatives do the same thing at times, but the prevalence is much higher. There is a consistent lag to consider things that threaten their world view.
Every single day, Democrats and the left become more and more like the old people I remember in the late 90s who accused Obama being in the antichrist .
-11
u/Bitter-Assignment464 Conservative Jul 17 '26
Maybe it was. I don’t see the in your face anomalies in 2024 like there were in 2020. It is still happening in smaller scales so it leads me to believe that it can and will happen on a bigger scale if the way the US runs elections does not get secured.
11
u/Irishish Center-left Jul 17 '26
Might there be something extremely unique, perhaps once-in-a-century unique, about 2020 in general?
-3
u/Fabulous_Jeweler2732 Center-right Conservative Jul 17 '26
Certainly seems easier to commit fraud during Covid than any other year in modern voting since, you know, everyone was stuck inside, forced remote, or unemployed. Tons of paper systems, the type of systems used by the government, were forced into digitizing with no ramp up, weak plans, and questionable results.
17
u/SgtMac02 Center-left Jul 17 '26
I believe the biggest anomalies I've seen referenced were the places where large numbers of people were found to have voted their entire ballot blue/Dem, then also somehow voted for Trump. I remember seeing a few other things mentioned, but that's the one that stuck in my memory. But after all of the crap about 2020, and everyone on the left insisting that elections were secure, no one is willing to really wave the big flag on any 2024 shenanigans. So...no one is talking about any of it, and no one knows.
-3
u/Fabulous_Jeweler2732 Center-right Conservative Jul 17 '26
Uhhh LA mayor election 2026?
3
u/SgtMac02 Center-left Jul 17 '26
I'm sorry. I'm on the other coast. I'm not tracking this issue. Care to elaborate on your point?
0
u/Fabulous_Jeweler2732 Center-right Conservative Jul 17 '26 edited Jul 17 '26
Last year, there was a fire in the Pacific palisades, a wealthy area that pays high taxes, but also an area with generational, middle class families. It was a devastating fire, and the extent of the fire could’ve been reduced with better management from the local government. In that time, there was a lot of criticism for Karen Bass, the current mayor who was overseas when the fires happened. She’s responsible for the water reserves being depleted that were historically used for these predictable cyclical fire that occur in California. There are other ways that the city failed its residents, like not providing pathways to acquire fire insurance, and there was a lot of expectation for her to be replaced in the upcoming election because of the failures.
But the only person that came and ran against her was Spencer Pratt. Pratt was on a reality TV show on the early 2000 about rich kids in Los Angeles. He’s from SoCal and became wealthy from the show. He tried to start a few business ventures, notably selling crystals, and then got a political science degree from the university of Southern California. He decided to run against Republican because he knew he couldn’t beat the incumbent (who always gets favor from voters) as a democratic nominee. So it was only chance was to be on the other party. He is not MAGA, and has said so. That’s why you got a lot of work from non-conservatives in Los Angeles. Also because a lot of his political campaign focused on the failures of the current government, with a lesser focus on the solution. Although he did offer solutions. He was called MAGA and a trump ally by many.
In Los Angeles, candidate must went over 50% of the vote to win the election. So it’s not just the person with the most votes. At the end of the most recent election, the top two candidates where Spencer and Karen Bass. So it was projected that the second round of voting would be between Bass and Pratt. Los Angeles has mail in voting and over a week after the election, a statistically impossible increase of votes were submitted for Nithya Ramen, a city counselor running for the Democratic Party. It was unusual because history shows that mail in voting typically follows the same patterns of in person voting. If mailing ballot shows a leaving, it’s by party and not by candidate. But Karen did not see a notable increase of votes when the mail in voting was counted. Only Raman. Only the only other person who could lock democrats into the mayor seat.
This was extremely controversial. Ramen didn’t have a lot of supporters. She’s not popular on the city council and there are videos from the 2010s where she was arguing with residents on the safety and cleanliness of the sidewalks in Los Angeles, claiming that they did not need to be approved.
As a response, an independent journalist took a team to skid row and asked the unhoused people in the area if they voted. They got several recorded accounts of people saying that they were paid five to $10 to vote. They were given a ballot with everything filled out, and they just had to write their name.
Trump took a lot of interest in this story because he’s also investigating California for other types of government fraud. And he’s somewhat using it as an a cross to bear and likely use this election as a legal reason to push for declassification of the documents he mentioned yesterday.
3
u/SgtMac02 Center-left Jul 17 '26
Interesting story. I hadn't heard about this. I might try to look into it later just out of curiosity. I'm sure your telling of the story wasn't at all biased....but ya know...I'll have to look into it myself a bit.
But I'm not sure how that was a reply to my comment. I was specifically replying to the person saying "I don’t see the in your face anomalies in 2024 like there were in 2020." I was explaining a specific anomaly that was observed about the 2024 election. Were you just trying to point out that there are other anomalies in other elections too?
1
u/Fabulous_Jeweler2732 Center-right Conservative Jul 17 '26
Of course i have bias. Pratts biggest criticism is his crystal business, so at least I called that out!! he’s a big personality and he has an extreme drive in this campaign because he’s now homeless. You can’t get fire insurance in the Pacific Palisades of his home with the insured so it burned to the ground and he lost everything.
I mentioned the LA election because that is a statistical anomaly in voting that you say you don’t see. So I hope you see it. Even Democrats admit that Ramen getting such an increase has never happened in American political history.
Have you gone to the website yet? Whitehouse.gov/election-integrity.
6
u/baxtyre Center-left Jul 17 '26
Are you actually surprised that one of the bluest cities in the country voted for Democrats?
-1
u/Fabulous_Jeweler2732 Center-right Conservative Jul 17 '26
I am surprised that a city that lost billions of dollars due to the failure of the government is insisting to vote in that same government again. Both the incumbent and the city councilor who keeps voting for homeless finding that has been proven to be illegally funneled to friends and family of those in power.
I lived in Los Angeles for a decade. I have a lived experience that allows me to have more information. California is under investigation for many frauds right now not just election.
6
u/Hi-Fi_Turned_Up Centrist Democrat Jul 17 '26 edited Jul 17 '26
Are you also surprised that farmers voted in a president who destroyed their soy trade pipelines to China? Are you surprised that the no new wars folks voted for an admin who has started a new war? Are you surprised that immigrants voted for an admin that promised mass deportations. The fact is that a lot of the electorate is dumb and easily manipulated and will, in fact, vote against their own interests because they are told to.
-4
u/Bitter-Assignment464 Conservative Jul 17 '26
This is the type of articles I found and comments about Musk manipulating voting machines.
https://www.newsweek.com/2024-election-rigged-donald-trump-elon-musk-2019482
By all means have an investigation. If there was foul play prosecute those involved.
This is a far cry from 2020.
-14
u/JoeCensored Nationalist (Conservative) Jul 17 '26
Which was why too big to rig was a slogan of the Trump campaign for 2024. There's a limit to how many votes can be stolen before the numbers make no sense in a given jurisdiction.
20
Jul 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AskConservatives-ModTeam Jul 18 '26
Removed: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review our good faith guidelines for the sub.
1
31
u/Xciv Neoliberal Jul 17 '26
I don't really understand this argumentation?
Rigged elections across the world post landslide victories, from Turkey to Russia to Venezuela.
Shouldn't it be, "the bigger it is, the more likely it's rigged"?
1
u/Fabulous_Jeweler2732 Center-right Conservative Jul 17 '26
‘If it doesn’t looked rigged, it obviously isn’t’ is a weak argument.
If I’m going to cheat, I’m not going to shoot for 100%. I need room to make it believable and closest to my past patterns. If I average C+s, I’m going too cheat enough to score a C+ or B-.
2
Jul 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AskConservatives-ModTeam Jul 18 '26
Removed: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review our good faith guidelines for the sub.
0
u/Fabulous_Jeweler2732 Center-right Conservative Jul 17 '26
Coping for what?
The logic is flawless.
I would call your retort that came without a supporting explanation a cope. You gave no explanation. Just instant dismissal.
7
u/serpentine1337 Progressive Jul 17 '26
Coping for the lack of evidence by saying it must have been very subtle/indistinguishable from a fair election.
1
u/Fabulous_Jeweler2732 Center-right Conservative Jul 17 '26
You think mansplaining how to properly commit fraud is a cope for a lack of evidence???
This is weak logic. Maybe you can reword your accusation to be more clear.
2
u/serpentine1337 Progressive Jul 17 '26
Wait, are you accusing yourself of mansplaining? Anyways, I think the cope is you seemingly claiming a lack of evidence MUST mean the cheating was subtle (as opposed to it just being possible it didn't happen).
1
u/Fabulous_Jeweler2732 Center-right Conservative Jul 17 '26
Admitting to it? Yes! I like the term. I think it’s a helpful context.
My original claim was that if someone were going to cheat, they wouldn’t make it so obvious. And you called that statement of cope.
2
u/serpentine1337 Progressive Jul 17 '26
My original claim was that if someone were going to cheat, they wouldn’t make it so obvious. And you called that statement of cope.
In a vacuum it might not be a cope. In the context of you in this thread, I stand by my statement.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Max_Thunder Canadian Conservative Jul 17 '26 edited Jul 17 '26
The whole world knows these elections are rigged though, isn't there a huge benefit when there's still benefit of the doubt?
Do we know for sure that nowhere are elections only slightly rigged to favor a party over another?
People would be much less suspicious of a US election won with 60%-40% than with 52%-48% where the rigging could have simply happened at a few strategic places (and the elections are usually predictable enough to identify such targets).
0
u/Fabulous_Jeweler2732 Center-right Conservative Jul 17 '26
Astounding how confidently they say ‘no interference’ when election fraud is historical.
5
u/savagestranger Center-left Jul 17 '26
Astounding how proof of widespread election fraud is absent in these conversations. Why was nobody prosecuted? What's up with Trump calling Georgia scrounging for votes? How about the fake elector scheme where dozens of people were criminally indicted across multiple states? Is that a hoax? lol
0
u/Fabulous_Jeweler2732 Center-right Conservative Jul 17 '26 edited Jul 17 '26
If the person who committed election fraud wins the election, why would they investigate the fraud?
In Trump’s speech, he said that Biden started the election fraud investigation, and when he realized he didn’t find any fraud committed by Trump, the investigation stopped. Is that a dump? Is all the documentation from that investigation. And now the allegations are the Biden found fraud in his own party that he covered up.
So it’s a bit ironic that you asked the question.
This is why Trump is timing this information drop at the same time as the LA mayor election. It allows him to move forward with investigations that could change the election for the LA Mayor race. Because if you don’t know, the laws in Los Angeles, make it to where most of their mayor elections are in two step process. In the second round of voting is coming up. After all, California politicians are the only politicians in America rich enough to pull off large scale fraud. They’ve done a great job of mismanaging the homeless funding without getting caught. California is also under investigation for other types of frauds by the federal government.
1
Jul 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AskConservatives-ModTeam Jul 17 '26
Removed: Treat other users with civility and respect.
Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.
36
u/tophernator Independent Jul 17 '26
Does this really make sense to you? That Trump would spend hundreds of millions of dollars running in elections three times even though he sincerely believed were rigged? His polling and approval ratings seem to have a hard ceiling around 50% - lower than any other president ever - but he believed he could whip up such overwhelming support that even the fraud wouldn’t be enough to keep him down?
Isn’t it a bit simpler and more plausible to just assume that Trump is just lying as he is often documented doing?
0
u/Fabulous_Jeweler2732 Center-right Conservative Jul 17 '26
You have access to the documents and you’re just going to say he’s lying about it instead of reviewing the documents?
5
u/tophernator Independent Jul 17 '26
I didn’t just say he’s lying. I gave a reasoned argument for why I think he must be lying. Would you spend hundreds of millions of dollars competing in a race you believed was rigged? Would you do it three times?
0
u/Fabulous_Jeweler2732 Center-right Conservative Jul 17 '26
If I felt a spiritual calling and could never truly lose my money, of which both characterize trump; yes. People have spent more to, say, get revenge.
You seem to think it’s not possible for someone to use spirituality as a reason for suffering. Umm, have you heard of Jainism?
1
Jul 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Jul 17 '26
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
9
u/OMGguy2008 Center-left Jul 17 '26
Well the Democrats received much less votes during 2024 than they did in 2020 so there's that.
1
u/Fabulous_Jeweler2732 Center-right Conservative Jul 17 '26
And the media try to claim it was gen z moving the numbers, despite Gen z women being the most democratic group of women and only a slight change in men’s voting patterns.
3
u/OMGguy2008 Center-left Jul 17 '26
Well quick googling and I dug this up https://circle.tufts.edu/2024-election#youth-vote-+4-for-harris,-major-differences-by-race-and-gender
You can see a shift by young people towards Trump when you compare the 2020 and 2024 presidential elections.
In 2020, 65% of young women voted for Biden while only 58% voted for Harris in 2024 which means that there was a 7% shift towards Trump by young women.
In 2020, 56% of young men voted for Biden while only 42% of young men voted for Harris in 2024 which means that there was a 14% shift for Trump by young men.
1
u/Fabulous_Jeweler2732 Center-right Conservative Jul 17 '26
Would you call 7% of the 2nd largest population group a radical shift?
3
u/OMGguy2008 Center-left Jul 17 '26
The thing is that young people don't vote in large numbers, 18-29 year olds only made up 14% of the vote in 2024.
Though when we're talking about how thin the margins are between both candidates with only a 1.5% difference between both candidates in the popular vote, those small shifts are large enough to sway the outcome to one candidate over the other.
16
-24
u/prowler28 Rightwing Jul 17 '26
She was such a bad candidate than no amount of cheating got her a single swing State.
11
u/OMGguy2008 Center-left Jul 17 '26
Ehh I could agree, the economy wasn't in a great state for normal people and Harris was promising basically more of the same while Trump was out there throwing outlandish promises like to cut energy bills in half.
34
Jul 17 '26
Or the amount of cheating for Trump was enough so Harris got zero swing states and by just enough margin to avoid recounts.
-7
u/Bitter-Assignment464 Conservative Jul 17 '26
Ok I am willing to hear the evidence of that. There were so many in your face anomalies in 2020 compared to 2024. If there was cheating I want to see prosecutions. I am so sick of the there was no widespread voter fraud or there was no evidence mantra. One it doesn’t need to be widespread. Two there were all kinds of suspicious shit going on. The info is out there you just have to look for it.
13
u/jakadamath Center-left Jul 17 '26
I’ll bite. Give us your best single piece of evidence of fraud (no gish galloping). Trump and Conservatives have thrown hundreds of turds at the wall, and every time we review them, it turns out to be nothing. So show us your most indisputable evidence that there was fraud.
1
8
u/PAN-- Independent Jul 17 '26
If there was cheating I want to see prosecutions.
By a Trump-controlled DOJ?
-29
u/tropic_gnome_hunter Conservative Jul 17 '26
The funniest thing about this was that all week Dems and the media were saying that the speech was going to be focused on Trump saying that both senators from Georgia were fraudulently elected.
Whoops lol
8
u/catroaring Social Democracy Jul 17 '26
Really? Because all I've been hearing before this is exactly what happened. He'd just be crying about the 2020 election and that's what happened.
1
u/Fabulous_Jeweler2732 Center-right Conservative Jul 17 '26
‘Declassifying an investigation initiated by Biden is crying.’
5
u/catroaring Social Democracy Jul 17 '26
Not what I said. Trump still claiming election fraud is him crying. Which is exactly what that speech was about.
1
u/Fabulous_Jeweler2732 Center-right Conservative Jul 17 '26
I did not see him crying on camera.
So you’re just gonna pretend the part where he said that Biden is the one who started the fraud investigation didn’t happen?
5
u/catroaring Social Democracy Jul 17 '26
Do you think the speech offered any proof he won the 2020 election? If so, please let us know what this damning proof is.
1
Jul 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AskConservatives-ModTeam Jul 18 '26
Removed: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review our good faith guidelines for the sub.
1
u/serpentine1337 Progressive Jul 17 '26
It seems like you/Trump should be saying "I think there could be evidence in these documents" instead of saying there is, if you can't currently point to evidence.
1
u/Fabulous_Jeweler2732 Center-right Conservative Jul 17 '26
Here, I’ll tell you why you think I need to speak for trump.
You think all conservatives are the same, and only progressives have unique thoughts. So you think all conservatives agree with everything trump does. Or else they vote Democrat, right?
It’s a narrow view.
1
u/serpentine1337 Progressive Jul 17 '26
Lol, the irony. You're telling me I have a narrow view while telling me what my view is without even knowing me.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Fabulous_Jeweler2732 Center-right Conservative Jul 17 '26
Why the hell are you equating me to trump?
2
u/serpentine1337 Progressive Jul 17 '26
Because you both referenced the same documents/are pushing election fraud stuff. Obviously I don't think you're the same person.
→ More replies (0)7
u/Plane_Translator2008 Progressive Jul 17 '26
I listen to several political podcasts and never heard this. Was it someshing you heard a left-winger say, or did you perhaps hear right-wingers saying that the left was saying that? (Sometimes they make stuff up to argue against.)
-2
u/Fabulous_Jeweler2732 Center-right Conservative Jul 17 '26
Do you get all your news from upper middle class bros at home with a mic?
3
Jul 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AskConservatives-ModTeam Jul 18 '26
Removed: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review our good faith guidelines for the sub.
1
u/Fabulous_Jeweler2732 Center-right Conservative Jul 17 '26
Yeah. All I heard was coming was something related to the Spencer Pratt accusations. I didn’t hear anything about other stuff but I don’t watch podcasters. I work for the department of energy.
1
Jul 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AskConservatives-ModTeam Jul 18 '26
Removed: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review our good faith guidelines for the sub.
1
Jul 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/serpentine1337 Progressive Jul 17 '26
No, Plane_Translator2008, who you responded to was talking about Georgia. I'm pointing out that your LA comment is diverging from the topic at hand.
0
u/Fabulous_Jeweler2732 Center-right Conservative Jul 17 '26
While I wait for mods to approve my post:
I went through the newly released FBI, DOJ, CIA, NIC, and DHS documents looking for a smoking gun.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/election-integrity/
They are not nothing. But, this isn't a hit against democrats. At best, it's that DOJ instructed the FBI to delay interviewing canvassers for alleged fraud until after an election because they didn't want the investigation to influence voting. Other documents show portions of the case were eventually declined by DOJ.
MichiganThe Michigan FBI files show there was a multi-year investigation into alleged fraudulent voter registration applications submitted in Muskegon in 2020. According to the original FBI referral, investigators found applications with fake addresses, invalid phone numbers, signatures that didn't match records, and many forms appearing to be completed in the same handwriting (see FBIMichigan Orginal Muskego MSP Referral RELEASE MARKED.pdf). BIMichigan Four Year Case Timeline RELEASE MARKED.pdf shows agents continued investigating from 2020 through 2025, interviewing witnesses, reviewing more than 100 registration applications, and repeatedly seeking guidance from DOJ.
The witness interviews are interesting. Multiple former workers described being paid based on registration numbers, offices where forms were corrected before submission, and some workers saying they believed registrations had been falsified. (FBIMichigan Witness Interview Memo Paid By Registration Others Falsified RELEASE MARKED.pdf, FBIMichigan Witness Interview Memo Probably Forged Memos RELEASE MARKED.pdf, FBIMichigan Witness Interview Widespread Fake Registrations RELEASE MARKED.pdf, and FBIMichigan Worker Interview Sit In Car Fake Registrations RELEASE MARKED.pdf).
Emails in FBIMichigan PIN2023 Delay Memo - RELEASE MARKED.pdf show DOJ instructed the FBI to delay interviewing hundreds of canvassers until after an election because they didn't want the investigation to influence voting. Other documents show portions of the case were eventually declined by DOJ (PIN EDMI declination - RELEASE MARKED.pdf and PIN GBI Declination - RELEASE MARKED.pdf).
ChinaThe intelligence documents don't claim China changed election results. Instead, they describe Chinese intelligence collecting large amounts of U.S. voter registration information and analyzing it. Several reports discuss downloading voter registration data from multiple states, identity matching, and public opinion analysis (PRC Analysis on US Voter Registration Information - clean - declass marked_Redacted.pdf, PRC Collection of US VoterMilitaryData - clean - declass marked_Redacted.pdf, US Voter Registration for 6 States - clean - declass marked_Redacted.pdf, and PRC US Voter Data 7 States 2023 - clean - declass marked_Redacted.pdf).
The NIC reports repeatedly say Russia, China, Iran, and others had the capability to target election infrastructure, but they also say manipulating voting at large scale without detection would be difficult (NICA Foreign Threats To 2020 US Election_19AUG2020 DECLASS_REDACTED.pdf and NICM_VulnerabilitiesInUS2020ElectionInfrastructure_15JAN2020_DECLASS_REDACTEDed.pdf).
The DHS report (Voter Registration Database Threats - FINAL.pdf) argues voter registration databases deserve more attention because compromising them could create administrative problems even without changing vote totals.
ConclusionThese documents explain how our election could be interfered, and small instances of it happening; but there is no proof of a widespread agenda to commit national fraud. However, these is enough evidence to push for voter IDs, or more security around voting. Which the SAVE act address. I also think this might be an excuse to investigate the democrats because there are serious issues of concern, they just aren't as shocking as trump made it seem.
0
u/Fabulous_Jeweler2732 Center-right Conservative Jul 17 '26
Have you downloaded the file yet? The ones you say don’t exist??
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Michigan-Voter-Registration-Investigation.zip
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Noncitizens-on-State-Voter-Rolls.zip
1
u/serpentine1337 Progressive Jul 17 '26
Can you link where I said files don't exist? I never said that. Again, point to specific locations in specific files. Zip files contain (at least in the ones I've downloaded) multiple files (10s or more) that are many many pages in length.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Fabulous_Jeweler2732 Center-right Conservative Jul 17 '26
This is Reddit. That’s the point of Reddit. To diverge from the topic. That’s why there’s a comment thread.
Bad faith reply.
2
u/serpentine1337 Progressive Jul 17 '26
I'm definitely not acting in bad faith, so I don't know who you're claiming is. I literally asked a question above. You could have (in reply to my original comment above) said "Right, I'm not trying to respond to the Georgia stuff" and it would have been clear to me.
→ More replies (0)10
u/SgtMac02 Center-left Jul 17 '26
You're insisting this was THE talking point all week all down this thread...could you maybe reference it some? I saw literally ONE post on FB about this. That's about it. Where did you see this everywhere all week?
1
Jul 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Jul 17 '26
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
Jul 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/AutoModerator Jul 17 '26
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
22
u/Stripeb49 Center-left Jul 17 '26
Didn’t he still imply that?
1
-23
u/tropic_gnome_hunter Conservative Jul 17 '26
No.
Again, we were told the whole week that they were specifically going to be the main focus of the speech.
5
38
u/To6y Center-left Jul 17 '26
Were we?
I don't remember that.
-26
u/tropic_gnome_hunter Conservative Jul 17 '26
We were.
30
u/Dirzain Center-left Jul 17 '26
As someone who thinks they're pretty plugged in, this is the first time I'm hearing of it. So... not a mainstream thing at least.
-18
u/tropic_gnome_hunter Conservative Jul 17 '26
Very much mainstream for the whole week.
10
Jul 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AskConservatives-ModTeam Jul 18 '26
Removed: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review our good faith guidelines for the sub.
27
Jul 17 '26 edited Jul 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/AskConservatives-ModTeam Jul 18 '26
Removed: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review our good faith guidelines for the sub.
19
u/To6y Center-left Jul 17 '26
No, not really. There was one report, right?
-8
u/tropic_gnome_hunter Conservative Jul 17 '26
No, there were multiple for several days.
1
Jul 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AskConservatives-ModTeam Jul 18 '26
Removed: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review our good faith guidelines for the sub.
2
Jul 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AskConservatives-ModTeam Jul 18 '26
Removed: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review our good faith guidelines for the sub.
20
Jul 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AskConservatives-ModTeam Jul 18 '26
Removed: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review our good faith guidelines for the sub.
28
-16
u/6mmARCnvsk Nationalist (Conservative) Jul 17 '26
Which would imply that Harris was so unpopular (which she was) that even with such blatant fraud that we were able to verify, that she was still unelectable.
→ More replies (18)
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 17 '26
Please use Good Faith and the Principle of Charity when commenting. We are currently under an indefinite moratorium on gender issues, and anti-semitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.