Apparently the latest deceptive slur on those who question the integrity of the 2020 election—which had less than any Presidential election in this century plus at least 40 years back in the previous one—is “election denier.” Nice. I found it ironic that just as an esteemed commenter here has been trying mightily in good faith to argue that the New York Times is not a constant purveyor of partisan propaganda, the paper headlines a front-page story, “Election Deniers Seek State Posts To Certify Votes,” a slimy and misleading header by any standard. Following in the muddy footsteps of the climate change fanatics, using “denier” to characterize those who oppose the Left’s cant, the Times headline plays a despicable cognitive dissonance game. “Denier,” until the climate change mob started using it, had previously only applied to the deniers of the Holocaust–fascists, anti-Semites, and morons. Thus, by extension, “deniers” in any context is similarly damning—and that’s the idea.

In a similar vein, a CNN “factchecker” recently railed that “Twitter says it has quit taking action against lies about the 2020 election.” The story begins, “Twitter quit taking action to try to limit the spread of lies about the 2020 election, the company said on Friday — a day after another social media platform, YouTube, removed a Republican congressman’s campaign ad because it included a 2020 lie…Twitter has not been enforcing its ‘civic integrity policy’ in relation to lies about the 2020 election.”

What is this “lie”? CNN’s reporter is outraged that the Republican U.S. Senate candidate, Missouri Rep. Billy Long, is still allowed on Twitter and Facebook when he uses the phrase, “Democrats rigged the election.”

That is not a “lie,” nor is it “election-denying.”  Merriam-Webster’s relevant definition of “rig” is “to manipulate or control usually by deceptive or dishonest means: rig an election.” Manipulate, like, say, oh, just to pick a random example out of the air, deliberately keeping relevant and negative information about one candidate (Biden’s son’s laptop, with hinds of shady involvement by “the Big Guy”) away from voters, while burying them in false negative stories about the other (President Trump let the Russians pay bounties on dead U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.

Trump has said the election was rigged or “stolen,” and there is solid evidence to back that position. As for “stolen,” A Pennsylvania court last week held that undated mail-in ballots should not be counted in a local judiciary election, though such ballots were counted in the 2020 election. Another Pennsylvania Court held that the state’s mail voting law, which the state’s Democratic Governor signed into law in anticipation of the 2020 Presidential race, was unconstitutional. The Quaker State’s Constitution requires voters to cast ballots in person unless they meet certain requirements, and an amendment is required before such a law is valid.

Without the mail-in ballots, it is very possible, even likely, that Trump would have won Pennsylvania. That doesn’t mean that Biden wasn’t elected—Trump needed more electoral votes than just one state could provide—but it does mean that suspicions about the fairness, integrity and legitimacy of the election are not “baseless,” which is the word some DNC memo apparently directed all of the party’s media mouthpieces to use.

As for the “denier”…I’ll quote myself in another thread:

As an analogy, I believe that the home umpire’s [Larry Barnett] wrong call in Game 3 of the 1975 World Series probably cost the Boston Red Sox that World Championship. They wuz robbed, as the saying goes—but I have never denied that the Cincinnati Reds won that World Series.

They shouldn’t have won; it was unfair that they won; the Sox might have very well won had Barnett gotten the call right, but even in 1975, I never said that the Reds didn’t win.

It is unfortunate that Donald Trump’s facility with the English language prevents him from making such distinctions, but I expect better from the New York Times. I guess I shouldn’t.

As an addendum, I also want to point out that the Times headline suggest that the “deniers” want to become secretaries of state to “certify votes,” implying the they want decertify valid votes. That is pure partisan spin. I would assume they want to hold those offices to make sure that unconstitutional laws don’t pollute the crucial institution of fair and democratic elections…like they did in Pennsylvania, where the Secretary of State looked the other way.

23 thoughts on ““Election-Deniers!”

  1. The use of the term “denier” in sociopolitical debates seems to carry a big whiff of religious fervor. I don’t think this is coincidental. The true believers must destroy the heretics.

        • If you have read what I wrote, then you know that it is sufficiently suggestive that decisive votes should not have been valid to show that opinions that the election was rigged are not “lies” and that suspicions that it was stolen are not baseless…and that those who believe that the results could have been and perhaps were manipulated are not “election deniers.”

          Clear yet?

          • Let me get this straight because I have a follow up question.

            You agree that the PA law can be used as proof to suggest that the election was rigged/stolen correct?

              • Okay, since you’re being pedantic, I’ll rephrase:

                You agree that the PA law can be used as evidnece to suggest that the election was rigged/stolen correct?

                • 1. Making the distinction between “evidence” and “proof” is not pedantic. all proof is evidence all evidence isn’t proof.

                  2. The point is that the fact, and it is a fact, that Biden’s victory in Pennsylvania was assisted by millions of votes that were illegal is evidence that the election might have been “stolen” or “rigged” in that state, and thus proof that that the opinion that the national election was “stolen” or “rigged” cannot be baseless, since that fact is a legitimate basis for doubt, suspicion and skepticism.

                  3. Not the PA law iself, but the fact that the votes allowed by the now-overturned law were, in fact, illegal.

                  • I agree that if you get rid of the mail in ballots cast by the voters of Pennsylvanian, you would have gotten a different outcome.

                    Maybe those mail in voters would have voted in person and Biden still would have won.

                    That’s obvious.

                    (As a side note, I’m not sure why you would classify votes cast by PA voters as illegal. The court didn’t say the votes were illegal, only that the way in which the law was passed was unconstitutional. The votes are still valid.)

                    So now can I ask you what you mean by “rigged” or “stolen” in this context pertaining to the PA law?

                    • I didn’t say they were invalid. The state Constitution is the law. If a law violates the Constitution, it is illegal. It is correct to say that inconstitutional legislation is illegal, because it is banned by superior law. In our Constitution, ex post facto laws are prohibited. Such a law would be illegal. Slavery is prohibited. A law allowing slavery is illegal.

                      The votes are valid because they have already had their effect. If a man is illegally executed, he’s still dead.

  2. When rules are not followed – and the state constitution has to trump a mere legislative act – people have reason to believe they were the victim of an unfair process.

    “Rigged?” Well, let’s look at the many times conservatives have been smeared as racist, sexist, homophobic, bigoted, Nazis, child killers, Islamophobes, xenophobes, and domestic terrorists for any part of their agenda.

    The first time I heard John Lewis speak, it was 1995. He smeared Republicans who tried to fix a broken welfare system as Nazis – I saw that speech on CSPAN.

    There were ads that depicted Paul Ryan as pushing a wheelchair-bound elderly woman off a cliff over his entitlement reform proposals after Republicans won the House in 2010.

    We saw them false accuse Sarah Palin of inciting the Tucson shooting that left Gabby Giffords with brain damage.

    In my lifetime, I’ve seen the Democrats accept illegal contributions from foreign donors when they were worried about a Republican “juggernaut” in 1996. I’ve seen them claim the last three Republican presidential election victories were somehow illegitimate. We’ve seen Democratic administrations use the IRS against their opponents. I’ve seen them use the FBI to spy on opposing campaigns.

    At the state level, there were the “John Doe” investigations in Wisconsin, what can only be described as massive insubordination by government bureaucrats, and abuses of power by the state of New York targeted at the National Rifle Association and Trump and his family.

    So tell me again that they wouldn’t rig an election in order to defeat a bunch of uppity deplorables/Teabaggers who don’t know their place, and who need to be firmly put in their place.

    Because a LOT of Republicans and conservatives, particularly those involved enough to vote in primary elections, have seen that over nearly three decades.

    • You’re preaching to the choir, IM, a lot of us here couldn’t agree with you more. Unfortunately, no one will listen to us. Especially no one would listen to us while there was the view that this nation was spinning out of control and we had to put the brakes on FAST. The narrative was perfect: the steady elder statesman, seasoned by personal tragedy, steps up to push out the dangerous, loudmouthed demagogue and correct all the problems he created. Unfortumately, once the dangerous demagogue was out of office, the elder statesman found that he not only couldn’t solve the existing problems, his policies created a whole mess of new problems. Never mind, his supporters say, the important thing is that Trump is gone. Now that he’s gone, we have to work on getting rid of his supporters, ALL of them. .

  3. Touché, Inquiring Mind! I got lost after “proof to suggest.” I might possibly consider thinking about what I could do if I need to. I’m on the verge of having an opinion.

  4. I have to wonder why we are so willing to accept the negative connotations of these labels.

    Perhaps we should embrace them and use them to advance our arguments and thus take the bite out of their labels. Columbus was a “flat earth” denier. Copernicus was a “sun revolved around the earth” denier. The Wright brothers were “men could not fly” deniers. History is replete with deniers who saw what could be or should be. Any time someone calls me a denier I will accept it and respond that Martin Luther King was a status quo denier; so, what is their point?

  5. Here is the core of all the political left’s narratives…

    The political left and its Pravda like media outlets have shown a pattern of false propaganda and lies in their narratives so many times since 2016 that it’s beyond me why anyone would accept any narrative that the political left and their lapdog media push.

    As for the 2016 & 2020 elections…

    What Hillary Clinton and her campaign did in 2016 was literally a soft coup and that attempted soft coup was intentionally extended by the political left, their politicians and their propaganda media machine for four years straight. Their related and continuous anti-Trump libelous and slanderous propaganda for four years straight and their bastardization of state election laws were all an integral part of their efforts to rig (not steal) the 2020 election. What the political left did was to fraudulently perpetrate constant false accusations against President Trump; what the political left did was immoral and pure evil.

    Soft Coup: sometimes referred to as a silent coup, is a coup d’état without the use of violence, but based on a conspiracy or plot that has as its objective the taking of state power by partially or wholly legal means, to facilitate an exchange of political leadership and in some cases also of the current institutional order.

    Bastardization: change (something) in such a way as to lower its quality or value, typically by adding new elements.

    Rig: manage or conduct (something) fraudulently so as to produce a result or situation that is advantageous to a particular person or group.

    Fraudulently: in a way that involves deception.

    Evil: profoundly immoral and wicked.

    • For shame, for shame!!!

      I forgot something in the following sentence…

      “What the political left did was to fraudulently perpetrate constant false accusations against President Trump and intentionally suppress and demonize the truth; what the political left did was immoral and pure evil.”

    • It goes even before that. There are decades of them smearing Republicans as racist, the second incarnation of Nazism, sexist being anti-immigrant, anti-woman, Islamophobic.

      There’s a host of other abuses, too. The FBI files that found their way to the Clinton White House, The targeting of Prop 8 donors. Lois Lerner and the IRS.

      This has been going on for a while, and the inaction of so-called “leaders” among the Republican Party and conservative movement led to Trump’s ascendancy.

Leave a Reply to Roy Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.