Hacker News Reader

Comment by wakawaka28 | Hacker News Reader

>She conceded. Trump did not concede when he lost the 2020 election. These are facts. Get real.

She "conceded" then continued smearing Trump for years and literally called him illegitimate. Not just her but the entire Democrat media machine that backed Hillary over other plausible candidates. The smearing and denial cancel out any good will she gained by "conceding". Shall we talk about the Russiagate hoax that went on for years, that Hillary herself started by commissioning the Steele Dossier? I suggest you go educate yourself on all of that and how she paid a fine for election interference (and how Trump did not).

View on HN

Given up being a debunked 2020 election conspiracy apologist?

The Steele Dossier was commissioned in 2016, before the election. Trump is claiming the 2020 election was "stolen" well after. Both bad. But not the same.

Trump's allies challenged the election results after losing, 60 times. (edit to add: Challenging, and getting their day in court, is fine! However,) No credible, election-result-changing fraud found. (edit to add: Despite losing in court, they continued to spread debunked conspiracies, and still claimed it was "stolen" without evidence. And still tried to hold on to power, Trump asked Pence to "do the right thing", and declare Trump the winner despite losing. This is the bad part.) Clinton did not challenge the election results after losing. Not the same. Not even close.

Well this is what I'm talking about: https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/30/politics/clinton-dnc-steele-d... Hillary paid a fine for her 2016 antics during the Biden administration.

>Trump's allies challenged the election results after losing, 60 times. No credible, election-result-changing fraud found. Clinton did not challenge the election results after losing. Not the same. Not even close.

I think the key here is that not enough was proven to change any results. But the margins were close. Candidates routinely challenge elections (even Kamala was fundraising to challenge her clear defeat), and some (like Hillary and Trump) never accept it all the way. These things are all similar. The media pretends that everything is uniquely bad when Trump happens to do it and they turn a blind eye to Democrats doing the exact same stuff. It is exhausting to argue with people who refuse to understand this hypocrisy happening right before their eyes.

> The media pretends that everything is uniquely bad when Trump happens to do it and they turn a blind eye to Democrats doing the exact same stuff. It is exhausting to argue with people who refuse to understand this hypocrisy happening right before their eyes.

Got it. Did Clinton try to gain the presidency despite losing? Did she ask the vice president to "do the right thing" and throw out electoral votes?

That's what Trump did.

They did not do the "exact same stuff".

Ok it is not exactly the same but it is quite similar. Clinton and fellow Democrats initiated a years-long legal campaign against Trump using her connections in 2015. They even had his whole campaign wiretapped. Trump did not even prosecute her for her mishandling of classified data. Now that the political persecution chickens are coming home to roost, these people have no actual answer besides to fearmonger about Trump even more.

>>> By the way, Hillary and her cronies never accepted the 2016 election.

>> She conceded. Trump did not concede when he lost the 2020 election. These are facts. Get real.

> She "conceded" then continued smearing Trump for years and literally called him illegitimate.

It's like the goalposts keep moving to try and get away from the bullshit, but there's always more up ahead...

Acceptance and formal concession are two different things, just like clarification versus moving the goalposts. The real bullshit here is trying to avoid the actual issue at hand by attacking my choice of words when you know damn well what I mean.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com