Trump lost both the 2016 and the 2024 elections.

[OGBuzz]

I have no proof, I have zero evidence, but I do have a "gut feeling" and I have common sense. In both elections the conspiracies to elect Trump were so "diabolical", first with the Russians in 2016 followed by Musk in 2024, that coming up with irrefutable evidence is all but impossible.

[Botany]

1. Your gut is correct

Musk has admitted to cheating in the 2024 election when he said that he had a special app
that let him see the results of the election earlier. That wasn’t an app that was a hack.

[questionseverything]

27. He could see the numbers early and adjust them as necessary

[Botany]

60. Musk had already down loaded programs that made the outcome .....

… a done deal and Peter Thiel’s Palantir had a program called Digital Janitor that hid the vote
deletions*. and flips. Trump also benefited from voter caging that removed millions of voters
in swing states, the U.S.P.S. stopping @ least 1/2 a million mail in ballots because the “postage
was wrong” or the address was bad, and another million or so mail in ballots were rejected
because their were problems with the signatures matching.


* these were called undervotes. This hit Hillary in 2016 and the last 2 Ohio Senate races too.
People showed up and voted but “just skipped” voting for President.

[MadameButterfly]

35. There was an interview back then with Tucker Carlson where Musk and his son were giggling

about having the power to do whatever they want; they could barely keep it inside. If we could only have called up Tom Cruise I'm sure we'd have had a "Damn right I ordered the code red" moment.

[kacekwl]

2. Just as

Plausible as trumps claims.

[OGBuzz]

5. and Moses Mike Johnson yesterday.

[AloeVera]

36. The O/P is satire on Johnson's remarks, right? Well done. Nt

[OGBuzz]

42. Correct, and thanks for catching it, there's a couple in the comments here that didn't get it.

They just replayed Johnson's comments from yesterday and now I'm angry all over again.

[IcyPeas]

50. Here's a diabolical redux:

I know instinctively that Mike Johnson is a big fat liar.

— Khashoggi's Ghost (@urocklive1.bsky.social) 2026-06-08T20:43:38.525Z

[OGBuzz]

53. Thanks for posting the video, that's the b.s. from Johnson that I was responding to.

[IcyPeas]

58. It's sickening and dangerous...

that the speaker of the house is promoting election lies.

Trump's consiglieres must have some diabolical dirty dirt on Saint Mikey.

[OGBuzz]

59. The man has zero integrity and he's the House Speaker. Things will not go well in November.

There is no bottom for these people. I think you're right about the dirt.

[ShazzieB]

86. I found myself watcbing his face closely whille he was talking.

He eyes were shiftting from side to side like marbles in a pinball machine, lol. He also kept looking in different directions without seeming to make eye contact with anyone. (I could tell because his eyes never seemed to really focus, and he shifted back and forth between glancing at his audience and glancing down.) Such an obvious liar, and such disgraceful behavior from someone in that position.

You'd think I'd enjoy watching his awkwardness and discomfiture, but I didn't. It just made me feel twitchy!

[Jacson6]

3. Trump won both elections fair & square.

End of Message.

[OGBuzz]

6. You got "proof"?

[EdmondDantes_]

9. We have the audits states do

We have that there are protections in place to protect voting both through elected officials and poll workers. We have that all the claimed evidence people like the this will hold substack falls apart on looking closer. We have our success in down ticket and off cycle elections. We have that Biden won in 2020. We have that the elections were pretty close to pre election polls.

You have a gut feeling.

These don't deserve the same weight even if you want to say all of the above other than the audits are just circumstantial or inferential evidence.

[OGBuzz]

11. States audited 2020 and Trump still denies that Biden won. As does pretty much every other MAGAt.

Anyhow, I was channelling Moses Mike Johnson from yesterday when he said that "diabolical" forces were at work in California and were responsible for eliminating Spencer Pratt from the LA mayoral race.

[Dave says]

13. It holds as much evidentiary weight as trump's claim that he won 2020 except for the work of those "cheating Dems"

Which means neither have sufficient weight.

[mr715]

22. It is incredible Edmond that we can disagree in one thread and completely agree

elsewhere.

Cheers.

[MadameButterfly]

37. I think the OP was spoofing on Trump thinking his own gut feeling

was enough to make the case for a stolen election. It's not like Dems haven't had plenty of reason to suspect skulduggery. We just don't try to charge anybody if we can't prove it. Then it looks like they are the only side with a complaint.

[questionseverything]

43. Well and we can't prove it if we don't get to look 👀

[MadameButterfly]

87. True. The laws need to change so we can safely and effectively investigate

more elections, and the rules need to be the same for both sides. Somehow Republicans get multiple recounts and get pardoned for compromising voting machines, and we didn't even get to recount Florida 2000.

[Blue Full Moon]

66. Insider aka Tina Peters warning from James Baker.

[FHRRK1]

12. I believe you are missing the point from the OP

If they are going to state every Dem win is due to fraud, then it seems to be fair to put every Dem win into doubt.

[OGBuzz]

24. 👍 It looks like my attempt at sarcasm completely failed with some.😂 I need to find one of those 'sarcasm' emojis

before trying again in the future.

[FHRRK1]

28. Damn it

I meant to post to who you responded to AND messed up my post.

[OGBuzz]

30. I figured you meant to say "put every Republican win into doubt". Am I right?

[FHRRK1]

55. Exactly, dumbass

And I am the dumbass

[EdmondDantes_]

63. In my defense sarcasm is often hard to read online

In your defense I've certainly thought something I wrote was obvious sarcasm and it didn't read that way to others. It's amazing how much body language plays into communication.

[Kid Berwyn]

4. It'd be nice if the software was open for review.

For some reason, I have a problem with the fact the voting machine companies are owned by the Epstein Class.

[malaise]

8. I will remain

Doubting malaise 😀

[PatSeg]

14. When we're dealing with grifters and cheaters,

we have to remain "doubters". We know from experience that they WILL do whatever necessary to win. It doesn't matter if it is legitimate or not. We've seen this for many years now. If they can cheat, they will.

[malaise]

15. THIS

I know enough about stolen elections financed by local and foreign interests in this hemisphere.
I hope I live long enough to see evidence to justify my doubts.

[PatSeg]

16. We can always hope

I just can't abide liars and thieves; there are SO many of them.

[Melon]

19. I feel like our system is broken at this point

How can it take weeks to count votes? And then once it happens only a manual recount can audit? It’s crazy in this day and age. All of this should be fast and transparent to the general public. It should take days to digitally audit every vote against voter roles. Our system should never be so convoluted that it’s questionable by any party.

[questionseverything]

31. Digital vote counting can not be transparent because no human being can see inside the computer

[Tim S]

7. Voting in the US should be MANDATORY like it is in Australia.

You decided to skip your obligation to help shape your government? Then you get fined… everytime you’re stupid enough to sit it out & just gripe that “they’re all bad”.

If voting were mandatory for everyone, then there would be a LOT less Republicans in office (and therefore a LOT less scheming). And the oligarchs would have a tougher time (finally!)

[sarisataka]

10. If so many voters are anti-Republican

why do they have to be ordered to vote?
Why are we failing to convince them their vote matters?

[MichMan]

17. What do you do with those who can't or won't pay the fine?

Lock them up?

[mr715]

23. No.

The right to opt out is important.

[Tim S]

25. Opting out isn't a viable option.. The right to descent and choose a 3rd party is the way to express your opinion

It might even break the two-party stranglehold that upsets many citizens and put us on the road to coalition governing in our congress (like most other countries)

[mr715]

26. So, do you fine non-voters?

When they sue on the grounds that they shouldn't be forced to reduce down their politics to a single checkbox, how do you litigate

[Tim S]

32. I don't know how Australia does it (you're welcome to look it up) but...

It makes sense to me to tie it in to another event that’s mandatory: paying our income taxes. If you don’t submit proof of voting (issued at the polling station or receipt for mail-in ballot) then you’d be liable for $1,000 as a tax fee. That’s for Federal. For states? Not all states have income tax so I don’t have anything for that.

Voting in primaries shouldn’t mandatory because some folks insist on not being in a party (i.e., not helping to select final candidates). But I think voting in general elections should be mandatory — force everyone into becoming part of the solution — some skin in the game — instead of being a do nothing complainer.

[mr715]

34. How about make voting easy, incentivize it, and ritualize it

I understand the spirit of what you are trying to do, but we aren't parliamentary like Australia.

States administer elections, right? So there would be 50 states with 50 different ways of doing things. Plus, you'd require people in Puerto Rico, Guam, etc. to vote without any representation?

Mandating voting is not feasible in our system

[Tim S]

39. States are free to choose their Electors for the Electoral College as they be fit, but...

There *are* some Federal regulations regarding Federal elections (like when Election Day is). I suppose NOT paying a $1,000 election fee to the IRS by submitting proof of voting is, by definition, incentive-based. Maybe I’m too old-school, but I still believe that voting is a responsibility of every citizen. We have, what, 40% turn out? Something like that.

If the oligarchy keeps going the way it is, big money will find a way to incentivize NOT-voting — paying people not to exercise their right to choose their government, If voting was mandatory, we could make that scenario impossible. (Kinda future-proofing ourselves from worsening conditions)

[mr715]

40. Well, it'll take a Constitutional convention

or a 13 seat Supreme Court to break the oligarchy now.

Mandatory voting, which is effectively state mandated speech, ain't going to survive here.

[Tim S]

45. Agreed...

I know courts consider voting as speech. Government mandated speech sounds pretty Orwellian, but then again, what happens if you refuse to swear an oath when subpoenaed to testify in a court of law? Isn’t that mandated speech? (I’m just being silly now)

[mr715]

48. I don't know, honestly.

It is a tough question. I think the Constitutional answer is subpoenas compel you to show, but not to self incriminate.

As for oaths... it is problematic that we can put our hand on a Bible, or Quran, or Analects or whatever... I guess people "affirm" on secular texts.

[OGBuzz]

46. Australia holds elections on Saturday which allows many more people to go to the polls.

[Melon]

57. Interesting. You proposing a voting tax....

No thanks. With freedom comes….freedom.
You do you boo. Forcing people to do things, even in the countries interest is unAmerican. Self determination is a thing.

[Sympthsical]

18. Maybe folks can get with the Spencer Pratt people

You know, compare notes. Share all this evidence that's apparently laying around everywhere.

Stephen Colbert used to make fun of this stuff. Truthiness, when you don't need facts, because you feel it in your gut.

[kentuck]

20. As a corollary question...

Would Trump cheat if he had the chance? I think we all know the answer to that question.

[in2herbs]

21. There is proof. see below.

https://kaitjustice.substack.com/p/ivanka-trump-albania-epstein-kushner
Access the above link and then scroll down to Kait Justice’s May 21 post titled “The Gap in How America Detected Election Fraud I Found in the Epstein Files”.

[yellow dahlia]

29. Thanks for posting.

[flashman13]

33. I took a couple of statistics courses eons ago so I know a little about the subect.

The chances of winning seven swing states by margins just large enough not to trigger automatic recounts are damned near zero. That could happen in land slide elections like like Reagan vs Carter and Mondale or Nixon vs McGovern. In those elections none of the state margins were close. But 2024 was a 49/49% squeaker and I don't see any way there could have been a seven state sweep.

Think about it this way. They are called swing states because they could go either way. Coins are like that. Flip a coin and it could go either way. Flip a coin seven times. Odds are that you will get a 4 - 3 split. You might get a 5 - 2 split. Chances are very low that you will get a 6 - 1 split. Statistically speaking, the chances of a 7 - 0 split are damned near zero.

The Democrats should have challenged voting in the swing states. Yes, I know, they didn't want to sound like whiners. Now we are stuck with a raving lunatic for a President that whines everyday like a spoiled child.

[malaise]

38. Ding ding

Rec

[questionseverything]

44. Exactly, it's all about being afraid to look wrong

[mr715]

49. Misunderstanding predictive statistics.

A coin flip happening n times is n independent events.

States are not moving independently. PA, WI, and MI have a lot in common.



Edit: I think it is called Bayesian modelling. The question isn't the probability of having won or lost all 7 swing states. The question is the probability of winning X GIVEN you have won either PA or MI or NC or whatever.

[questionseverything]

61. Now do the math for 88 swing counties please

[mr715]

62. I am not making the extraordinary claim.

So I am not burdened with providing extraordinary evidence.

I am saying that rather than asserting 88 swing counties moved in one direction, the correct statistical way of looking at it would be "Given that Trump won X, how likely is it that he would've won Y".

The answer is, btw, if you win 1 swing state you are likely to win all of them.

The probability of Trump winning Michigan was, I don't know, 45%?

The probability of Trump winning EVERY swing state IF he were to win Michigan would probably be 80-90%

Same logic applies to the Senate, though less rigorously and strictly because they are more independent. But if Collins wins Maine, we won't be winning the Senate. It isn't a question of GOP "sweeping" the Senate races. Its that in an environment where we lose our bluest state, we're going to end up losing them all.

[questionseverything]

64. As Obama said, " we have to beat them so bad there can be no doubt "

I believe in transparency in our elections and if that’s extraordinarily, I am proud to be guilty!

[mr715]

65. We do.

But we didn't.

[questionseverything]

67. I don't think even Obama won all of those 88 swing counties but

We can’t change the past but we can use the knowledge to protect the future

Now you have the last word and then let’s try and save the country!

Deal?

[mr715]

68. Agreed. nt

[Metaphorical]

79. Mathematician here

Yes there is a certain amount of dependency between states, but it's not usually strong when populations are equally divided, especially with the votes all convenient falling JUST outside the threshold to invoke an automatic recount.

I think Hillary Clinton legitimately lost in 2016. There was a bruising primary, a lot of acrimony going into the Fall, and then Comey's FBI surprise three weeks before the election turned the tide in Trump's favour. Harris led pretty much since July 2024 in most polls, and turnout was very low at most of Trump's events. There was no significant event that should have changed that, yet somehow, Trump managed to come out five points ahead of where he had been polling all autumn. That can happen, of course, but Trump was a known (and largely hated) quantity.

I know some people get frustrated with the speed of counting paper ballots, but paper ballots provide an audit trail that electronic ballots don't. It is trivially simple to change votes in a database if the only records are electronic.

[mr715]

80. Link provided.

https://www.270towin.com/2024-presidential-election-polls/

VP Harris was not polling ahead of Donald Trump. She was usually tied. This aggregator says her polling average was ~+2% in MI and tied completely in PA, as well as being behind in AZ, NC, and GA. These are all within margins of error.

My claim here is the outcome of 2024 election was due to a depressed turnout which was not accurately corrected for. Or I should probably more accurately say that a Trump voting more that is more mobilized than expected.

[flashman13]

73. I stand by my analysis. The chances of all seven going Trump in 2024 by just enough to avoid recounts is very near zero,

but not impossible.

I'm not sure I see the similarities between, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. In the interest of looking for similarities, I examined Presidential elections since 2000. I found that in all seven races Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan all three voted for the same candidate in each race. In 2000 they voted for Gore, in 2004 they voted for Kerry, in 2008 and 2012 they voted for Obama, in 2016 Trump, in 2020 Biden, in 2024 again for Trump. Three times they voted for a winning Democrat and twice they they voted for a losing Democrat. I'm not sure why three states that voted reliably for Democrats five times voted for Trump twice. In 2016 Trump won by 0.2% in MI, 0.7% in PA, and 0.7% in WI. In 2024 Trump won by 1.42% in MI, 1.71% in PA, and 0.86% in WI. The only common denominator seems to be that they were willing to vote for a totally unqualified conman over two highly qualified women. Apparently all three states also favored a white woman over a black woman by significant margins.To me that is a scathing indictment of the American voter.

By contrast, in 2008 Obama won by 16.4% in MI, 10.3% in PA and 13.9% in WI. In 2012 Obama won by 9.5% in MI, 5.4% in PA, and 6.9% in WI. In all cases the margins were far larger than 2016 and 2024. It is interesting that Obama's margins in 2008 were far larger than in 2012. Could that have been a result of McCain's running mate being not only a woman, but in Palen's particular case, a dummy as well?

So the facts show that Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan reliably vote Democratic, as long as the candidate is not a woman. They are not necessarily good predictors of the final winner.

[mr715]

74. There is your statistical question...

What is the probability that Trump will win swing states given that the Democrats run a woman?

[flashman13]

84. Can a woman be elected President? I want to believe it can happen. It would be a great step forward for the country.

I have been advocating for a woman President since college. If the occasion arises I will actively campaign for any woman candidate.

I myself am 100% ready to vote for AOC. She is smart, articulate and has moxie.

[MichMan]

54. Statistically "damned near zero", is not the same as impossible

The chance of flipping a coin and getting a 6-1 result is 5.47 %. The chance of getting a 7-0 result is 0.78%. Coin flips are completely independent of each other, so that isn't really a good analogy.

Barack Obama won nearly all the swing states in both 2008 & 2012 for example. Joe Biden in 2020 won the swing states of Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, & Nevada. Only one he lost was North Carolina. It isn't as statistically impossible as you think it is.

[Dave Id]

41. Everything Trump accuses others of

safe bet, he IS guilty of doing.

[OGBuzz]

47. He is the Projector-in-Chief.

[ShazzieB]

51. I don't see much point in speculating about those elections.

I'm not saying you're right, and I'm not saying you're wrong. I honestly have no idea. I just think it's a moot point:

*Moot point describes a topic or issue that is debatable or arguable but that there is no foreseeable solution or answer to.

*Most people use moot point to indicate that continued discussions on the topic or issue at hand would be a waste of time because there will never be an agreement, or the topic simply doesn't matter anymore.

*You might also call a topic a moot point if you could talk about is indefinitely without ever reaching an agreement, answer, or solution.

*A moot point is a fact that doesn’t matter because it doesn’t apply or contribute to the current situation or topic.

Source: https://www.poised.com/blog/moot-point

In other words, like my mom would say if she were still alive, it's all water under the bridge. Whatever happened, happened; he got into office both times, and we're stuck with the resulting mess.

If he did steal both of those elections (and whether he did or not, I'm sure he wanted to), that's just 2 more items to add to the already encyclopedically long list of his high crimes and misdemeanors. It's frustrating, but everything to do with him is frustrating.

[OGBuzz]

52. My original post was intended to be sarcasm in response to Mike Johnson's comments yesterday casting doubt

on the primaries in California because their boy Spencer Pratt didn't make the cut for the LA mayoral race. JD Vance pretty much said the same. So for Republicans it's only a fair election if they win, otherwise the election must be rigged. Trump needs to learn about 'moot point' because he's been claiming the 2020 election was stolen for 6 years. Now he's got Todd Blanche at DoJ, and Bill Pulte managing 18 intelligence and security agencies, and I'm quite certain they'll get right on it.

[ShazzieB]

69. Oh, sorry about that.

I completely missed Johnson's comments (still don't know what he said), so your intent was lost on me.

Unfortunately, we do get posts here from time to time where people want to obsess about something that happened in the past. I mistook your post for one of those. Apologies for my confusion.

[OGBuzz]

70. No worries.😃 IcyPeas posted the Johnson video if you're interested. Comment #50 in the thread. It's shocking.

[ShazzieB]

85. Thanks for pointing me to the video.

I've been really curious about it and can't wait to watch it,

[Polybius]

56. Crazy how he couldn't steal 2020 then...

Hmm...

[OGBuzz]

71. He tried, but that pesky Blue Tsunami. Who loses by 7 million votes???

[Polybius]

72. Reagan twice won by 7+ million votes, including these guys:

Richard Nixon: 18m
Ronald Raegan: 17m
Lyndon Johnson: 16m
Franklin Delenor Roosevelt: 11m
Dwight Eisenhower: 9.5m
Barack Obama: 9m
Ronald Raegan: 8.5m
Bill Clinton: 8m
Calvin Coolidge: 7.5m
George H. W. Bush: 7m
Franklin Roosevelt: 7m
Joe Biden: 7m

https://www.quora.com/Has-any-US-President-ever-won-by-more-than-7-million-votes

[OGBuzz]

75. Okay, you got me. But in the 21st Century, only Barack and Ole' Joe.

[Polybius]

76. And hopefully Gavin in 2028

[OGBuzz]

78. I'm with you on Gavin.👍

[BlueTsunami2018]

77. Whether he did or not, and I think not, it doesn't really matter.

Because there he sits, ruining the world with his ruling class cabal, and no one does a thing about it.

People overestimate the intelligence and “goodness”, whatever the means, of Americans.

This is nasty country at heart and always has been.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

81. Is that so ?

[Seeking Serenity]

83. He's a traitor. His cabinet and staff are traitors. His financial backers are all traitors.

Members of Congress that supported him are traitors.

What's the punishment for treachery?