[mc32]

IIRC, Hillary was among a group claiming "stolen elections" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUqxX0YAafg and that her opponent was an illegitimate president... so, you know, it's not a unique claim. Also miss Abrams seems to make similar claims. These claims happen a bit in local elections.

[ch4s3]

There’s a much longer and “prouder” tradition of Americans claiming elections were rigged stretching all the way back to when it was true. Bush v Gore is another recent example but older folks will probably remember claims about Kennedy’s election and Nixon’s in ‘60. Andrew Jackson is somewhat credibility accused. And that’s just presidential elections off the top of my head.

[dataflow]

No, you're just conflating things horribly.

What Clinton (and I would bet most other folks that you're alluding to from the years prior) had meant by "stolen" elections or "illegitimate" president was emphatically not the same as Trump's wild allegations. She was not claiming "people cast fraudulent ballots" or "the votes were counted incorrectly" or the like. She was not denying what actually happened. Rather, she was using "stolen" to refer to things like "you can get the most votes but still lose the electoral vote, and thus the presidency", or "they make it difficult for your supporters to vote", or things like that. It's unfortunate she used the word "stealing" to refer to that, given that that apparently gave some people a very convenient opportunity to paint a false equivalency between both sides, when in reality she was using that word to make a factual statement about how votes are cast and counted in the system, whereas her opponent was using that word to to hurl unsupported (and "unsupported" is incredibly generous here) allegations of fraud.

Imagine if you were about to get a heart transplant. Someone grabs the donated heart sitting in the operating room and runs. "She stole my heart!", you panic. "Oh don't worry honey, my wife stole my heart too. It's pretty common! It happens to all of us." Imagine the sheer exasperation when you're on life support and now have to spend the remainder of your energy replying to that as a serious comment.

[pyuser583]

I understand the big difference between Trumps delusions, and Clinton’s opinions.

But you’re giving Clinton too much credit.

For one thing, neither Clinton nor Trump received over 50% if the popular vote. It’s tempting to think the Green and Libertarian voters wanted Clinton more than Trump - but third party voters have weird ideas.

Winning the presidency by getting the majority of the electoral college isn’t a steal.

If there were concerns about disenfranchised voters, maybe she would have a something.

But it was low turn out, plain and simple.

The election wasn’t stolen in any way shape or form. Nothing fishy happened. It wasn’t insanely close like in 2000.

She simply lost.

Not as bad as Trumps insanity. But not innocent either.

[dataflow]

I'm not giving Clinton any credit for anything (if anything, I'm denying her credit—for things she didn't do), and nobody is saying Clinton was innocent. You just distorted what had happened and are now twisting what I said.

If you "understand [as you admit; emphasis mine] the big difference" between what Trump and Clinton were referring to and merely intended to argue "Clinton is not innocent", then by all means, go ahead and say that directly, instead of casually leaving an incredibly misleading comment claiming Trump's allegations were "not a unique claim" because Clinton and others have been making "similar" claims. "Big difference" and "similar" are not only dissimilar, they're about as diametrically opposite as you can go.

[Nursie]

On the one hand we have the Mueller report which finds that there was Russian interference in the 2016 election in the form of coordinated social media and other 'attacks' on the Clinton campaign. This seems to form some reasonable basis for making claims that the election was ‘stolen’ (informally, and clearly not a legal basis to overturn a result).

On the other you have a narcissist who actually tried to overthrow democracy to stay in power and throws around utterly baseless claims of an organised conspiracy of direct vote subversion and interference in the election mechanism itself, who was also caught trying to coerce others to do that for him over the phone.

These situations are not really comparable.

[pyuser583]

I’m pretty sure the multiple reports on electoral interference said the outcome of the election wasn’t affected.

[Nursie]

And? Again we have one person who thinks that the (proven) Russian interference might have taken the election away from her. She's probably wrong, so?

We have a second who has actually tried to have a democratic result overturned and tries his best to undermine it at every turn, through 'soft' pressure by cajoling officials, through many failed court cases, through inflammatory rhetoric and eventually through raising a mob. A person who continues to attack the election result and throw accusations of vast, entirely unevidenced illegal conspiracies.

These are not the same. It's a ridiculous false equivalence. I'm not American, I have no particular love for Hilary Clinton, but I saw the footage of January 6th and I know how out of the ordinary that is. Trump's conduct is far more than someone mithering about a loss they perceived as unfair, and to attempt to put these on a level is disingenuous at best.

[pyuser583]

I’m glad we agree!

[pstuart]

Yawn. First and foremost that's a Fox clip and framing.

More context: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/oct/05/glenn-youn...

She was talking about voter suppression and other tactics rather than the election results being tampered with.

This is important to point out, because the GOP is hellbent on messing with future elections and want an air of whataboutism regarding election integrity.