Trump doubles down on election attacks in primetime speech
By: Michelle L. Price, Eric Tucker, and Collin Binkley (AP News)
Last night's national address marks a dramatic shift in the political rhetoric concerning elections. President Trump really did not relitigate the 2020 election as the press and Democrats expected. Instead, he systematically built the case that election integrity is a matter of national security and national defense. This framing of election integrity grants the executive branch sweeping latitude to intervene in the conduct and oversight of local elections. The declassification and release of intelligence material provides tangible support for invoking a national defense mandate to oversee election security.
Obsessing over fact-checks and repeating worn-out partisan rhetoric only serves to distract the public from this quiet, systemic threat. To focus on the theater of the address is to fall into a dangerous trap of institutional complacency.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
July 17, 2026 -- WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump used a primetime address to the nation Thursday to elevate his yearslong push to raise doubts about the legitimacy of U.S. elections and dispute his 2020 loss in an appeal for more restrictive voting laws ahead of the midterms.
Trump's amplification of debunked theories about the election six years ago and his inability to accept his loss led to one of the darker moments in American history when a mob of his supporters led a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, in the final days of his first term.
Now back in power, Trump opted to revisit the subject, despite persistent voter concerns about the cost of living, American forces escalating strikes on Iran in a conflict for which there is no end in sight, and an immigration crackdown facing bipartisan scrutiny for its sometimes deadly tactics.
His address Thursday hinged on contradictions.
A twice-elected president complained about his one personal defeat, alleged a cover-up by officials in his own first administration and surfaced claims about countries attempting to harm his own prospects while staying silent on steps taken by other nations to boost him.
Trump used the remarks to justify his push to pass a strict voter ID bill in Congress that has not advanced because it lacks enough support from his fellow Republicans.
"America is back and doing really well, but we still have a major challenge that must be urgently addressed, because no country can be great without fair and honest elections," he said.
Trump doesn't raise doubts about his election wins
Trump began Thursday night with a stark warning about what he described as flaws in the voting system and said he was releasing previously classified documents related to the 2020 and 2018 elections, when he lost the presidential election and when his party suffered losses.
Trump's speech presented allegations of interference and influence in ways that lacked key context and did not produce evidence that votes had been manipulated or that the election outcome had been altered.
Notably, Trump focused on China but glossed over Russia, a country that intelligence officials have said favored Trump in 2016 and 2020 and engaged in wide-ranging influence campaigns aimed at boosting him over Democrat Joe Biden in the latter campaign.
Despite focusing on China in his speech, Trump did not criticize or issue a warning to Chinese President Xi Jinping, whom he has long praised.
Election security experts say America's decentralized voting system, with the power over elections residing with the states instead of the federal government, is a strength. Americans vote in more than 10,000 different jurisdictions with different rules, making the nations' elections extraordinarily complicated but safe from widespread fraud.
No credible intelligence has emerged showing that the vote count in 2020 was manipulated by foreign actors. Repeated audits and reviews -- manyrun by Republicans, including Trump's own then-attorney general -- have found no significant fraud occurred in 2020.
Even if substantiated, Trump's claims did not amount to conduct that would have altered the outcome of any race, let alone the 2020 race for the White House.
He also did not raise doubts about his election wins in 2016 or 2024.
As Trump spoke, the White House unveiled a website containing documents that were presented without context and included selectively released pieces of investigation files, intelligence analysis and correspondence.
Former intelligence official calls address 'dangerous'
Sue Gordon, principal deputy director of national intelligence in Trump's first term, called the president's address "a dangerous speech about an incredibly important topic." She said the intelligence community throughout Trump's first term was alarmed about foreign interference in elections, but Trump scoffed at them, angered at the investigation of his campaign's relationship with Russia.
"He had an entire term to deal with it and I don't know how you can believe how the same community that told him about it, that was excoriated about it" wouldn't warn him in 2020, Gordon said on CNN.
Conservative commentator John Solomon, who joined the White House staff last month and was seated in the East Room for Trump's speech, later told MS NOW that "the intelligence community has zero evidence that someone has flipped - that a foreign power flipped -- a vote in 2020, '22 or '24."
But, he added, "We're not through all the documents."
Trump urged the Justice Department to conduct investigations and prosecutions, though it was unclear from his speech what sort of criminal conduct — if any — could be identified, proven and charged.
In a contrast with his concerns about foreign interference in elections, Trump in his new budget proposes a $707 million cut in the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency, the group charged with protecting American election systems from overseas cyberattacks. Trump and other conservatives have been frustrated that the organization pushed back on election claims in 2020 and beyond.
Some networks did not air it live
In past presidencies, primetime addresses have typically been reserved for major milestones or nationally significant events.
Trump last spoke to the nation in April, giving an address on the Iran war a month after it started. He said then that the U.S. would accomplish its objectives "very shortly" and that "the hard part is done, so it should be easy." The war, however, has dragged on and strikes between the U.S. and Iran have intensified this week.
Trump also delivered a politically charged primetime speech in December in which he sought to blame the challenging economic climate on Democrats.
ABC, NBC and CNN did not air Thursday's remarks live but carried them in full on their streaming services.
CBS and MS NOW both cut away from Trump's speech before he finished, while Fox News continued to carry his address.
Trump called out the media outlets for not carrying it live, accused them of being "part of a plot" and suggested their broadcast licenses be revoked.
Networks typically — but not always — carry presidential addresses to the nation live. In 2022, when Biden delivered a primetime address full of warnings about Trump and his adherents' "extreme ideology," the networks did not carry it live.
In 2014, the major networks chose to stick with their primetime programming instead of airing an address by President Barack Obama on his plans for immigration reform.
Democrats accuse Trump of seeking to discredit next election
Democrats warned that Trump was trying to revive false claims of past stolen elections in order to delegitimize the 2026 midterm elections, in which Trump's Republican Party is facing headwinds.
Democratic Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia called Trump's claims "totally bogus."
"The fact is our intelligence agencies unanimously agreed that China did not even try to change a single vote in the 2020 election," Warner said in a statement on X. "A single concurring opinion suggested China may have tried to sway voters' opinions … but that's been public knowledge since 2021."
Rep. Joseph Morelle of New York, the ranking Democrat on the administration committee that handles federal voting issues and elections, said Trump is trying to sow confusion before the midterm elections.
"This is a pretext for the president, I think, calling into dispute the 2026 elections," Morelle said on C-SPAN, adding that "we have secure elections."
"I heard no concrete allegations that foreign actors actually changed the results of an American election," Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware said on CNN.
Associated Press writers Mary Clare Jalonick, Lisa Mascaro and Will Weissert in Washington, Ali Swenson and Jocelyn Noveck in New York and Nicholas Riccardi in Denver contributed to this report.
MICHELLE L. PRICE Price covers the White House. She previously covered the 2024 presidential campaign and politics, government and other news in New York, Nevada, Utah and Arizona. She is based in Washington.
ERIC TUCKER Tucker covers national security in Washington for The Associated Press, with a focus on the FBI and Justice Department.
COLLIN BINKLEY Binkley covers the White House and education policy for The Associated Press. He is based in Washington and joined the AP in 2015.
Be a good human. Grossly derogatory comments, blatantly inflammatory comments, excessive trolling, mean-spirited taunting and insults, scamming, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed in compliance with the site's Terms of Service and the Code of Conduct. The moderators have the final word.
Tags
Who is online
177 visitors
President Trump laid bare his strategy for meddling in the mid-term elections. Don't whine about not being warned.
The consensus belief seems to be that if/when the GOP loses congress Trump will announce the election was fraudulent and try and seize ballots.
Is there anyone who would seriously put it past him?
He will probably cite irregularities and try to seize ballots before they are counted.
I streamed Trump's address on PBS. There wasn't any pundit commentary: the broadcast was a sterile presentation of Trump's address. I did not hear a 'more of the same' rant from Trump. This time really was different.
Trump leaned heavily on the declassified intelligence material as evidence for national security risks and threats. Trump holding the intelligence community accountable for failing to address those security risks and threats is something new. Trump was pointing out systemic weaknesses rather than partisan biases. And Trump's mention of the SAVE Act seemed to be tacked on at the end as an afterthought.
John Ratcliff was the DNI in the last year of Trumps first year and failed to detect "the rigging".
John Ratcliff is now the CIA director who looked surprised when trump appeared to throw him under the bus.
Anyone can follow the rules and buy a state's voter roles. This has been investigated by adults and they have determined that the Chinese can't vote here,
It remains factual that no one rigged the election the 2016 election that Trump won. We were sick of Clintons.
It remains factual that no one rigged the election the 2020 election that Trump lost. We were sick of Trumps
It remains factual that no one rigged the 2024 election that Trump won. We were sick of Biden
The system is a state's rights issue baked into the Constitution and should remain that way.
It is more difficult to manipulate 50 things than one federal system because we all know how good and efficient the Fed is,
WE...the NON MAGA don;t need to be warned. We've had his number for a very long time
and MAGA loves the corruption and grift and absolute destruction of America by cowardly white nationalist weasels. They imagine the Christo-fascists will create a white Christian utopia where they don't have to feel guilty about hating minorities and thinking everyone else in the world is beneath them.
What I wonder is if any Americans are starting to wonder if America's system of democracy is the most beneficial in the world. Does The First Amendment prevent the results of hate speech? Does The Second Amendment prevent massive gun deaths, or prevent students in schools from being shot? Does the election system prevent the empowerment of a govenment that damages international relationships and advancement of world progress? Does the SCofUS actually encourage civilized existence? Does the government discourage scientific reality, i.e in both the medical and climate areas? What do you all think?
"I just want to find 11,780 votes."
Hopefully Trump can put last night's idiotic speech behind him.
I'm glad that 2 networks didn't carry it.
Nope.
There's always hope.
Hope left town November 8 2024
Funny that by not showing it they did Trump a favor. I doubt that is what they intended.
The address was a political necessity to establish justification for Federal intrusion into local elections. The President took the intelligence community to task which is something new in the election rhetoric. Trump laid out the justification for a shakeup in the intelligence structure and reshaping how the intelligence community addresses election integrity. And Trump has declassified intelligence information to back him up.
I streamed the address on PBS. I certainly did not see 'more of the same'. There was a marked shift in President Trump's rhetoric that elevated election integrity to the status of national security.
No, he doesn't. He released some heavily redacted documents that don't support his raving or establish anything new.
A President has a lot of latitude in matters of national defense and national security.
It's time to focus on the midterms
The 2020 election is history.
I'm all for the Save America Act. If Congress can pass it it will restore confidence in the elections
Trump did not relitigate the 2020 election. If you haven't watched the address then I suggest you do so. What struck me was Trump's language appeared to be more like an executive compliance activity to prepare for a restructuring. To me it seemed Trump is not counting on the SAVE Act. I got the impression Trump preparing to act unilaterally.
The GOP is going to lose huge.
...and trump lost, bigly.
We have the most secure elections on the planet, no save act required.
Of course, fix a non-problem in a way that makes it more difficult for the opposition to vote.
Supporting a corrupt administration headed by a pathologically lying psychopath.
I don't think it will pass in it's present form but as bad actors get more sophisticated I do agree a more robust system is prudent
And that relates to my comment how?
Your comment was that Trump doesn't have declassified information to back him up. Obviously that's false since you go on to point to the heavily redacted documents. And the documents do establish there are vulnerabilities and security gaps in how states are administering and managing elections that impacts national security.
And a President has a lot of latitude in matters of national defense and national security. Trump wasn't relitigating past elections but rather laid out a justification for securing future elections as a matter of national defense and security.
There first needs to be clear evidence of a problem. The stats for the USA note that 99.9% of votes are not fraudulent.
It is flat out stupid for someone to declare this a problem that needs to be addressed. It is not a problem now and there is no indication that it will be a problem in the near future.
The Myth of Voter Fraud | Brennan Center for Justice
Spot on. ICE at voting sites to harass, intimidate, and thus dissuade voters.
Yes, I know. Let's face it, it still irritates him.
What struck me was Trump's language appeared to be more like an executive compliance activity to prepare for a restructuring. To me it seemed Trump is not counting on the SAVE Act. I got the impression Trump preparing to act unilaterally.
The problem is that Trump has made 3 enemies among Republican Senators. He can't bring constituent pressure on them because they aren't going to be running again. One of them has been hospitalized for 3 weeks, leaving Republicans down one in all Senate business. The only chance, however slim is to put it into a reconciliation package with things Republicans really want. That carries the enormous risk of the Senate Parliamentarian declaring, after all the work is done, that it can't be submitted via reconciliation. I can't see how Trump can act unilaterally, do you?
Remember what he did to try to steal the 2020 election. He is capable of anything.
Expect ICE to play a key role in his midterm attempts.
Not true. Some folks with foresight would rather not wait for that.
Or more than ICE. As a national security measure, Federal agents could be deployed to monitor registrations and ballot counting. The Federal government could censure campaign communications, such as super Pac advertising, to block election interference. ICE could monitor get-out-the-vote activities as an election security measure.
National defense and security provides a broad umbrella that gives any President a lot of leeway to perform their Article II responsibilities.
President Trump seems to be preparing to go forward without the SAVE Act. By claiming a national defense mandate (under Article II of the Constitution) Trump can take whatever actions are necessary to secure the United States. National security is not a state rights issue.
By linking election integrity to national security, President Trump can deploy Federal agents to monitor election activities - and - take necessary steps to ensure the integrity of the local elections. As a security measure, Trump could deploy TSA-style checkpoints at polling stations. The courts may have ruled a photo ID may not be required to vote, there's nothing to stop a requirement for a photo ID to enter a polling station as a security measure.
From what I've learned so far, the documents do not support, i. e., back up his ravings. What is in the documents that proves the otherwise?
We know with absolute certainty that elections are vulnerable to foreign meddling and tampering. The Democratic Party provided evidence of Russian meddling in the 2016 election. Trump has now declassified intelligence material suggesting Chinese meddling in the 2020 election. That's a national security issue subject to defensive measures to secure future elections.
Once the ballots are counted, there will never be evidence to be found.
The idea is to prevent fraud before the election.
maga finding out from their savior's own voice that the 2 elections he won were run by democratic administrations, while the election trump claims was stolen from him was run by his administration. that must be pretty hard to swallow ...
Make sure you vote for him. He's not on the ballot, but you can write his name in somewhere.
Exactly
The only way it can be done. It is not like there can be an election do over if there is fraud.
I'm warning you about the fucker -- not supporting him. Please, pay attention.
I want some of what you're smoking.
repeating it doesn't change anything.
Meddling by way of attempting to influence public opinion. Often illicitly.
There has to be some kind of voter integrity framework set up and most people want it.
PP_2025.8.22_voting-policy_report.pdf
He 's wearing out that excuse. To a hammer, everything's a nail. to Trump everything's a national emergency to make it easy to end run both the Judiacial and the Legislative branches.
that's not a democracy and I think SCOTUS is getting tired of this.
The States run the elections. period.
Everyone else has accepted the results like gentlemen.
Time for Trump to sit down.
President Trump told us up front that he is going to run a purge on the intelligence agencies and restructure the intelligence agencies. Trump did not point to anything that Todd Blanche and the DOJ should do; DOJ is out of this loop. There isn't any sort of implied assignment for Kash Patel and the FBI.
I posted an announcement by DHS that Markwayne Mullin is taking direct action on issues that Trump outlined in his address. That's the intelligence agencies becoming involved in elections. While Mullins' action focused on registration of immigrants, the direct involvement of DHS in elections is not more of the same.
You can look for what you want to see but that won't address the apparent change in strategy.
We've settled on a designation for Trump we can all agree with.
Trump will probably revive this proposal:
President Trump has a history of threatening investigations and legal action. That was not part of Trump's address this time. The shift to national security is not more of the same.
We do, Vic. That is why the fraud is statistically insignificant.
You actually believe Trump on this???
And it is being done ... the result is a statistically insignificant level of fraud.
You know, the only way to prevent commercial building fires is to take precautions such as sprinklers, electrical codes, plumbing codes, etc.
And big surprise: commercial building fires are statistically rare because we already have those precautions in place!
Voter fraud does not even show up on the radar. It is a non-problem because we already are taking the necessary precautions. Buy a vowel.
You can't prove that.
I'll give you one simple task: Prove to me that the state of California hasn't registered illegal aliens to vote.
But what about registration fraud? Doesn't a fraudulently registered voter count as voter fraud?
We know the District of Columbia, California (San Francisco and Oakland), Maryland, and Vermont allow non-citizens to register and vote in local elections.
Besides, why is the magnitude of a problem relevant in an environment of zero-tolerance? The Democratic Party hasn't been reticent to impose zero-tolerance laws on elections (and society at large). Democrat's opposition to photo ID for voting is a zero-tolerance demand for all elections.
That is a bullshit response. All the research I have done consistently states that we do NOT have a significant voter fraud problem. So if you think that we do, deliver the authoritative stats to back up your (bullshit) claim.
I never made this claim, so I am not going to prove something I have not claimed. Further, such a claim is absurd. All it takes is one illegal being registered for this to be true. So note, Vic, I have never claimed that there is NO fraud. My claim (backed by reality) is that election fraud in the USA is insignificant.
Now if you want to claim otherwise, put forth authoritative facts. Back up your clearly wrong claim.
Your link says it is against the law except for some states in local elections. If a state wants to allow non citizens to legally vote on local issues such as the opening of a WalMart in their locale, that is wholly different from what Trump is claiming.
In short, not what we are talking about.
You've been making all encompassing claims. The link shows that non-citizens are being registered and are voting in the United States. How can you certify that non-citizens have not voted in state elections in these locations? They are registered voters only constrained by a thin legal separation during elections for both local and state positions.
Are the voters required to show ID? Are they required to show registration status? How are poll workers supposed to determine whether or not voters in these locations are barred from voting in state elections? What happens if an election official 'accidently' mixes the registration lists?
Election law says non-citizens are prohibited from voting. That's a consequence of an expansive definition of birthright citizenship. Citizenship either matters or it doesn't. If citizenship really matters then zero tolerance election requirements moots the magnitude of the problem. If citizenship doesn't matter then the definition of birthright citizenship doesn't need to be expansive.
See 3.4.14 and 3.4.7
Trolling
That is exactly the point. zero tolerance (or getting as close to it as possible) is the goal we should be shooting for. Not having significant voter fraud at the present time is not relevent.
I'll give you one simple (impossible) task: Prove that Trump is not a total fraud. Bet you can't.
As I noted. That is different from voter fraud. If you want to rebut my claim that rebut what I actually claimed.
As I noted, there is no claim that we are 100% secure. The claim is that there is no significant evidence of voter fraud. So if you think there is significant evidence, show the evidence!
Do you believe we have significant voter fraud ... to the point of even being close to changing the results of an election? Yes or No! If yes, then show the evidence.
For zero tolerance there's no need to show significance -- the only requirement is to show potential. The fact that non-citizens are registered and do vote in the United States increases the potential for fraud. That's no different than the criteria for other zero tolerance policies and laws.
I am not advocating zero tolerance. So if you want to argue about that, find someone else.
I am stating that I find no credible evidence that we have anything remotely close to a problem with voter fraud in the USA. If you disagree then show the evidence. If not, then we are done.
Prove that Massachusetts doesn't have illegals registered to vote.
At least CA requires a CA photo ID Drivers license which cross checked against SSNs.
voter-id-and-reg-requirements.pdf
and some fact checking
FACT BRIEF: Were nearly half a million registered California voters disqualified from jury duty in one year because they were not citizens?
Nonsense. There is always potential. Do you live in fear of the Moon crashing into the earth?
Every time you get behind the wheel of a car there is a ton of potential but you do it anyway.
There is no doubt that votes by non-citizens has had a significant impact on the outcome of some elections in the USA. Non-citizens affecting the outcome of some elections is an indisputable fact.
Exactly. And the potential increases with people getting more sophisticated with being able to defraud an election and people getting away with it without getting caught.
It reminds me of having a leak in a boat and not getting it fixed because you probably won't sink today. The potential increases that the hole will get bigger and eventually you will have a significant problem. Unfortunately it will then be too late.
But the potential increases if the Moon does not conform to the laws of gravity. The potential for an auto accident increases when drivers do not comply with the law.
Are you arguing that driver's licenses are unnecessary? The requirement for a driver's license to operate a motor vehicle is a zero tolerance requirement regardless of significance. A small number of non-licensed drivers does not diminish the zero tolerance requirement. If someone doesn't have a license they cannot operate a motor vehicle; doing so is a crime.
[deleted][✘]
What is even more irksome about the 'no significant' fraud narrative is that it is coupled with a claim that 'every vote matters'. So I should just accept that my vote was cancelled by a non-citizen? Or is there some statistical magic that the non-citizen vote cancelled someone else's vote?
A statistically insignificant number of fraudulent votes still cancelled legitimate votes. If 'every vote matters' then shouldn't we ensure that is so? That's why a zero tolerance requirement to vote is important.
Where? When? What elections were involved? And provide the exact number of votes by non-citizens as compared to the total number of votes in each instance. This excludes any local races where they have allowed non-citizen voting by law.
The other issue with the claim is no one has really stated when an insignificant number becomes a significant number and how long it would take to plug the holes that made it significant. My guess would be at least 2 presidential cycles.
Why exclude local elections? The mere fact that these laws are in place proves that non-citizen votes have affected some elections in the United States. And those non-citizen votes cancelled out votes by citizens. Are you advocating that citizenship has no value? Are you attempting to excuse a failure to ensure that 'all votes matter'? Should we tolerate your vote being cancelled by a non-citizen?
Votes legally cast by non-citizens is not fraudulent voting. You are not even talking about the claim I made so why even reply to me?
What utter horseshit.
Trump makes this big stink about election fraud and we see his supporters fall in line with this nonsense.
Show evidence that we have a significant problem with voter fraud or even that we are anywhere near close to having a problem.
Pathetic that some will bend over backwards to try to support Trump's nonsense.
That is ridiculous. The stats suggest that fraud is at fractions of a tenth of a percent. Any sensible manager of processes would consider that an A+.
No rational process manager would try to achieve 100%. It is both pointless and absurdly expensive.
Look closely, I did not claim votes legally cast by non-citizens are fraudulent. By citing legalized non-citizen voting you are claiming that voting is a privilege and not a right. You are attempting to use legality to avoid the need for zero tolerance protection of voting for citizens.
My point is that non-citizen votes cancel the votes of citizens. Legalizing that practice doesn't alter the consequences. Whether the non-citizen votes legally or illegally, their vote neutralizes the voice of a citizen to participate in self government. A non-citizen obviously does not carry the same obligations and responsibility as does a citizen for defending the right of self government and other Constitutional rights. That's why non-citizens are excluded from voting in most elections.
What was fraudulent yesterday can be legal today and fraudulent tomorrow. That's an inherent flaw in using law to grant privileges.
You look closely!
I have claimed that fraudulent voting is insignificant; that it is not even remotely close to being a problem.
You cannot show any evidence that it is a problem. Instead, you are off arguing an entirely different point.
You keep going back to something that is irrelevant and ignoring everything said while peppering in the usual nonsense.
And I have shown why that claim is wrong. The number of fraudulent votes may be small but that is not the same thing as insignificant. I have shown that even where it is legal for non-citizens to vote it is still a problem.
As expected, you have nothing.
Ok. Where did votes by non-citizens have a significant impact on the outcome of some elections in the USA? When? What elections were involved? And provide the exact number of votes by non-citizens as compared to the total number of votes in each instance.
No, I'm not. Are you? It's absurd that you might assume I might be based on anything I wrote.
No, I'm not. Are you? It's absurd that you might assume I might be based on anything I wrote.
I'm opposed to allowing non-citizens to vote in elections in the U.S. Are you? It's absurd that you might assume I might be based on anything I wrote.
Bullshit.
That is exactly the opposite. I made a statement and am dealing with you and others arguing a different point while pretending you are rebutting my statement.
Deliver evidence that we have a significant problem with election fraud or even close to it.
If you cannot do that, then you are just deflecting.
Where?? You have stated that 'insignificant' is not the same as 100%. Well, congratulations on that brilliant discovery. Now show me evidence that we have a significant problem with election fraud or even close to it.
By definition, if it is legal for a voter to vote then that is not election fraud.
You continue to fail to rebut my point so why are you replying to me?
Your statement is irrelevant to the subject.
Do you know what the subject is?
This started when Vic @3.4.19 stated:
That implies we have a problem with fraudulent voting in this nation. We do not.
That is my point.
You chimed in, agreeing with Vic, so I asked you both to provide evidence that we have significant voter fraud or are even remotely close to it. It is idiotic to try to solve a problem that does not exist. It is ridiculous to try to 'fix' a process that is 99.99% working properly.
So show me the evidence.
And, by the way, you are clearly the one who is off track. Purposely because you know damn well that you cannot provide evidence that we have significant voter fraud in the USA. Thus you know you cannot support Trump's bullshit claims of voter fraud.
As allowed by local law.
Why are you deflecting from your own argument?
Zero tolerance is unattainable. Fact.
The people caught voting illegally are embarrassingly, mostly GOP members.
The number of green card holders, like the Mayor of Coldwater KS who get caught voting is statistically meaningless.
ICE moves to deport former mayor who admitted voting illegally for Trump
Only authoritative, fascist and communists believe in 100% compliance.
What is your measure of significance? Let's look at another example:
The homicide rate in the United States is currently about 59 per 1,000,000. That's not a statistically large number. The proposed remedies have been zero tolerance requirements: gun bans, red flag requirements, background checks, licensing requirements, proficiency requirements.
Now we're seeing during the ICE raids this year that homicide has been legalized as a political expediency. It's a statistically insignificant number. And since the homicide is legal it is not murder. Does that mean its okay?
Because you are attempting to stake out a position where elections are unimportant. Whether or not votes matter is insignificant. Now the counter argument using my example of homicides would likely be that voting doesn't kill people. So what does that mean? Does that mean elections are less important than institutional authority? Are elections only a messy mechanism to put the 'right' people in authority over people?
Are you arguing for individual rights or institutional authority? Should protecting individual rights be a zero tolerance policy or a statistically significant policy?
A real world example of zero tolerance requirements is not a deflection. Even if zero tolerance is unattainable we still attempt to enforce zero tolerance.
Your argument of low numbers and insignificance disregards the question of individual rights under our form of government. Is voting an individual right protected by the Constitution or is it a privilege granted by government authority using law?
It has been claimed that an assault on an individual's Constitutional rights is an attack on the rights of us all. That's not a requirement for numerical significance. That's a statement of zero tolerance. And zero tolerance for infringing individual rights is a cornerstone of our liberal form of government.
Authoritative fascists and communists believe in unquestioning compliance with their laws and complete submission to their government. Institutional authority supersedes individual rights. Whatever the government legalizes must be accepted. The government dictates who has privileges and who does not. Their zero tolerance requirements serve the state and government, not the people.
So, is voting an individual right or is voting a privilege granted by government? If voting is a privilege then the government can change the laws to serve itself at the expense of individual rights. If voting is an individual right then that right deserves zero tolerance protections.
Look, Nerm, when voter fraud is consistently reported in fractions of 0.1%, that is not even close to being noteworthy much less significant. When you find evidence that voter fraud is getting remotely close to influencing elections, post it.
By any rational measure, voter fraud prevention measures are operating at a spectacular 99.9+% and no intelligent manager would try to improve that.
"Hey Boss, it's me, your head of security. I need another $10 million for store security."
"Why? What seems to be the problem?"
"Well, after several months of investigations, long hours outside the store in my personal vehicle at night on stake outs, and combing through all available records I could find, I have confirmed that .1% of your stores merchandise is being stolen. In six months, we've caught three shoplifters and by my calculations that could mean untold thousands could be attempting to shoplift sir. We must crackdown on this because as you told me, there should be a zero tolerance when it comes to theft sir!"
"Jim Bob, was it?"
"Yes sir, so I was thinking of spending the $10 million on..."
"You're fired. Now get the fuck out you fucking lunatic."
Keep moving the goal posts Nerm,
next we will be talking about the existence of God.../S
Of course voting is a privilege, at one time only applicable to certain men. The confusion appears to be confusing rights and privileges and whether they were granted by men or not..
There is, lots of it, you just don't like it because it allows people to vote that you do not want voting. Why not just say, "We want to make sure no Democrats vote!!", and be done with it. I mean, that's what you're trying to do anyway.
My example of homicides was less than 0.01%. That doesn't provide justification to ignore homicides.
Every single vote influences an election. That's were the claim 'all votes matter' comes from. The low numbers may indicate that fraudulent votes wouldn't change the outcome of an election but they still influence the election as do legitimate votes.
Again my example of homicides show that homicide prevention is operating at an even more spectacular 99.99% but no intelligent citizen would suggest we ignore homicides or defund police.
You are off on tangents and making obtuse statements like "Every single vote influences an election." as if you do not understand what I mean by influence the results of an election. I am not spending any more time with your nonsense.
Yes it is...
Judy Woodruff:
More than a year after President Biden won the presidential election, former President Trump and his allies insist, without evidence, that widespread voter fraud led to a stolen election.
A new, exhaustive piece of reporting from the Associated Press shows that simply is not true. AP Reporters went looking for cases of voter fraud in six states that Trump has challenged, and they found fewer than 475 potential instances out of more than 25 million votes cast, a number that would not have come close to changing the outcome.
I'm pointing out that the goal post has been misplaced.
Let's follow the 'voting is a privilege' claim to its logical conclusion. Whoever is in charge can grant or deny privileges. Since voting is a privilege then it follows that independent self government is a privilege and liberty is a privilege granted by government.
That also means Jim Crow did not deny anyone a right to vote since voting is only a privilege granted by whoever is in charge. Voting is not a matter of civil rights but rather civil privileges granted by the winner.
As you see, the claim that voting is privilege quickly bumps into consequences that seem inconsistent with our national principles.
Isn't that the case already?
always has been.
Then you don't know what subterfuge is.
Semantics, as I said.
Stick to the Constitution and ignore the DOI preamble.
But President Trump did not challenge the results of the 2020 election during his primetime address. Trump did not once claim the election was stolen from him. Trump was not relitigating the 2020 election.
As you point out, the 2020 election has been examined under a microscope. The 2020 election is the most audited, investigated, and litigated election in recent history. We know more about the 2020 election than perhaps any other election in American history. Yet Trump declassified and released intelligence information that had been withheld from the public.
President Trump clearly stated he is using that withheld information to purge the intelligence agencies and restructure the intelligence agencies to implement measures to ensure election integrity and security. Trump was announcing a zero tolerance oversight of elections as a matter of national security. Trump's zero tolerance stance toward elections mirrors the restructuring and zero tolerance polices employed for immigration enforcement.
President Trump took the necessary steps for an executive compliance activity to announce a restructuring and unilateral actions. Trump does not need the SAVE Act to address national security and take measures to defend the nation.
President Trump is basing his zero tolerance policy toward elections on the justifications I have been outlining: voting is a right reserved for citizens, every vote matters, and any amount of fraudulent voting is a national security threat that undermines the principle of self government.
We have seen and know how President Trump has imposed zero tolerance interpretations onto immigration law and policy. Trump told us up front that he is going to do the same thing to elections using national security as the justification.
Are you saying he has never disputed the 2020 election? You sure Nerm?
You sure? How many video's do you want of him saying exactly that?
We already have the most secure elections on the planet, Jesus, even trump's own admin said that.
They WHY push so hard for it if we don't even need it? Seriously.
Zero tolerance is fine but it's an unrealistic goal, it's pointless.
Let's do the math... 25 MILLION votes yielded a PROSPECTIVE of 427 votes. That's .001708% of the vote. On a national scale? You have a better chance of winning the power ball twice...................in the same week. It's such a small percentage it's not even worth discussing.
No, that's not what I said. Please, pay attention.
Here is the transcript of President Trump's address to the nation on July 16, 2026. (This is what I am talking about.)
You can whine, cry, bitch, moan, scream at the sky, or light your hair on fire. The facts are President Trump told everyone that he is going to handle elections the way he has handled immigration. Zero tolerance. Trump's address was not 'more of the same'.
DHS is now directly involved in election security. Sec. Mullins announced DHS involvement not long after Trump's address. Todd Blanch and DOJ are not in the lead role. Trump did not outline any directive for Kash Patel and the FBI to be involved. This marks a change in the administrative approach to election security as national security. Trump was charging the intelligence community with securing elections.
The video is not President Trump's address on July 16, 2026. Some of the comments are 5 years old so this must be from the end of Trump's 1st term.
I don't think anyone here is saying ignore voter fraud. Every case found should be investigated, just like with homicides. But conservatives certainly wouldn't entertain giving up all guns just to lower the homicide rates in the US, which you'd have to be an idiot to think it wouldn't. So, there's a balance of freedom to own a gun and be responsible as well as the freedom to vote by mail and have plenty of checks to make sure voter fraud d isn't occurring, which it isn't in any significant numbers.
Here's a fun fact, there are 5.9 homicides per 100,000 Americans which is 0.0059% per capita.
Verified voter fraud in U.S. presidential elections occurs at an overall rate between 0.0003% and 0.0025% of all ballots cast. [ 1 ]
There are far more murders per capita in one year in the US than there are fraudulent votes cast per voter. And with the 0.0003% of voter fraud, none of those votes hurt anyone, there weren't enough to sway any election results. So why aren't Republicans doing more about that instead of whining about the practically non-existent voter fraud? Because they don't really care about the 0.0003% of voter fraud, I mean what kind of moron would. They care about the very real voter fraud they are actively engaged in which is voter disenfranchisement. Crafting laws specifically targeting eligible minority voters, sowing distrust in election results, claiming widespread voter fraud when there is none when they lose in an attempt to muddy election and challenge the results because they're sore losers and think the ends justify the means.
So you insist (ad nauseum) that I prove something because you contend that I agree with something that Vic never said but you contend he implied. Surely you see how ridiculously flawed that thinking is.
Yes, I agreed with Vic when he said " The idea is to prevent fraud before the election" not with what YOU THINK he implied
Only problem with that is I have never contended that was the case. I have made it very clear why the voting process should be looked at and improved based on increasing potential and not current or recent fraud. IMO voting integrity is too important to wait and fix it after it breaks. You seem to ignore that.
Show you evidence for a claim I never made. Again, ridiculous.
I am not the one arguing based on a claim of what someone implied. I responded based on what he actually said. That makes you the one that is off track
Don't put words in my mouth and demand I defend something I never said. It is a bad look.
Only problem with that theory is I don't support Trumps claim of voter fraud cheating him out of an election, never did. Again, dishonestly trying to put words in my mouth.
I have been very clear I want more robust and standardized voting laws because of a growing potential for fraud way before Trump ever mentioned it or claimed he was robbed. Another flaw in your theory.
Then you weren't listening.
He said the Save Act would "prevent another election from being stolen, again."
Clearly meaning 2020
Yeah let's get in bed in bed with Putin....oh wait!
Interesting comment in the news yesterday - Hillary/Billary is bitching 'bout how the 2016 election was stolen from her.
Different mechanism. old issue.
Having Comey reopen an investigation then declare it moot again 2 days before the election was a bridge to far for millions of voters including many of my own relatives.
It pretty much was.
Trump's never given a speech that wasn't totally idiotic.
I am shocked to read this post from you. You criticized Trump!
Now, given that, does it not bother you greatly that the PotUS is either delusional or is fear-mongering as a prelude to more corruption to try to influence the midterms? Or both?
I think he is human and is vulnerable to his personal flaws. He made a mistake last night. Tomorrow is another day.
Nothing fazes them. Tomorrow is another day !
He has been making 'mistakes' (much, much worse) for years now.
The usual suspects show various facial expressions as Trump, a few feet away from them at a podium , embarrasses them all
JD Vance, Susie Wiles, Marco Rubio, Todd Blanche, Howard Nutlick, unknown lackey, and Sean Duffy. Kash Patel is relegated to row two.
Hegseth was busy getting his testosterone therapy.
They look like they are watching paint dry..
They look like they're at a funeral.
"Why did I hitch my horse to this lunatic?"
Bored stiff, why am I here and when's lunch??
JD, where can we take the helo this weekend...
Susie, this isnt bad, it could be so much worse.
Marco, I'm so screwed.
Todd, please God let him long enough for me to be the AG
Howard, I haven't heard anything funny yet
Lackey, Do I look like Pete Buttigeg?
Sean I'm a Catholic World Champion Lumberjack and I'm bored.