Anti-Trump Propaganda?

Recently I wrote a trio of articles on the ongoing cultishness of Trump supporters, their weird affinity for authoritarianism and how just plain stupid they are. A conversation I had recently with a Trump supporter inspired me to write about what they consider reliable and trustworthy sources of information. It's not new information that Trump has done his best to undermine any media that doesn't cheerlead for him, and that Trumpists derive their opinions from sources with a pro-Trump bias, but I was surprised at how, in some cases, major issues just don't hit their radar. 

The conversation in question involved Trump's authoritarian and dictatorial words and actions since he was re-elected. As an example, I referred to Trump's attempt to nullify part of the actual Constitution, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, by fiat, i.e. executive order. I have heard plenty of anti-immigrants rhetoric arguments against the concept of birthright citizenship; I have heard numerous barstool legal scholars maintaining that it only applied to freed slaves, but was shocked that this person had not so much as heard about this. To clarify, this person is not apolitical, he likes to think he stays up to date on current events, and often expresses opinions about world events, but he had no idea what I was talking about. 

As the conversation progressed (and I'm using the word "progressed" very loosely, only as it pertains to the passage of time and not to quality) he referred to the "anti-Trump propaganda in the legacy media" (legacy is used as a synonym for mainstream here). I'm very aware that Trumpists believe that most of what we view as the mainstream media has a liberal bias, and that they often repeat a "statistic" claiming the 92% of Trump coverage is negative. This statistic, in this case inflated to 98%, came up in our discussion. Let's divert from my friend's view of the media for a moment and look at where that "92%" figure comes from.

Media Research Center, the organization that came up with the 92% negative rating for media coverage of Trump. Its mission is, according to their website, to “prove—through sound scientific research—that liberal bias in the media exists and undermines traditional American values…MRC’s sole mission is to expose and neutralize the propaganda arm of the Left: the national news media.” Hardly unbiased. They have started with a conclusion have gone about seeking facts that back up their assertion. Their presumably biased "analysis" is the basis of virtually every mention that you will ever see about anti-Trump media bias. The bottom line is that any claim of a statistical basis for a claim of anti-Trump or pro-liberal media bias is itself biased. 

One mainstream news source that I regularly read is the New York Times, which is regularly excoriated by Trump and his minions as virulently anti-Trump and has been criticized even pre-Trump as having a liberal bias. However, a typical Times piece about Trump will simply report what he said or did. The article might also include analysis of the consequences or benefits of the policy as well as statements by his spokesperson or by the opposition. In other words, complete and detailed reporting. The same standards applied to previous presidents and presidential candidates. Of course I'm talking about news articles and not opinion or editorial pieces. I wrote an article that included the difference between news and opinion last year. Trump and the Trumpists believe that news coverage of him should include effusive praise for his "accomplishments" and serve as cheerleading for his policies. If it doesn't, they call it negative. 

As my conversation with my Trumpist friend continued, I asked him to show me a recent example of anti-Trump propaganda in the mainstream media, pretty confident that I could demonstrate that whatever he came up with was simply "reporting". This was his response:

"there's so much out there that the mere question is comical these days my friend. You have Russiagate, the Hunter Biden Laptop Russian Disinformation, The Steele Dossier, the Very Fine People On Both Sides, making fun of a disabled reporter, calling our Military suckers and losers, just to list a few right off the top of my head. These, and many more have been thoroughly exposed and debunked. A simple AI or grok questioning/research will provide all the information you're requesting."

No specific article was referenced, just a recycling of the pro-Trump position that what we heard with our own ears and saw with our own eyes wasn't what we really heard or saw. I'm surprised he didn't bring up "injecting bleach", which was supposedly debunked because he said "disinfectant" and not "bleach". I wrote an article about debunking last year, covering some of the things he brought up. I further responded that I knew how to Google, but was looking for specific evidence of the anti-Trump propaganda he believed existed, rather than vague assertions. What's ironic is that The New York Times, as well as other media with a supposedly liberal bias, is regularly criticized by "The Left" for including opinion pieces that support some Trump policies or even that report on Trump evenhandedly. 

All of this is in line with the cultishness of most of Trump's support. They have bought into his criticism of mainstream news sources as "fake news". They have "decided" that anything in the mainstream media is biased at the very least, and probably simply lies. As an alternative their go-to news sources are podcasts, blogs and Twitter. To be fair, you can find factual, unbiased, information anywhere, but most of these right wing, pro-Trump sites are merely opinions about actual news, and don't have the resources to do any investigative reporting, or access to the people who set policy in this country. 

Like any cult, they have limited their sources of information to those approved by the cult leader. 

It's Schadenfreude Down in Texas

Here we go, another natural disaster, this time it's  catastrophic flooding in Texas. There's a lot we still don't know about the response, the advance warnings, the respective roles of the National Weather Service (NWS) and local warning systems. What I want to address is some people's responses to the floods and associated deaths. 

I've interacted with two Trump supporters in the last few days who have expressed horror at what some people have been saying about the situation. In particular they have taken offense at statements like "This is what they voted for", referring to Texas having voted 56-42% for Trump in the last election, and to the cuts to government agencies, including NWS that Trump's team initiated. Or variations on the theme of "Fuck Around and Find Out", suggesting that Texans got what they deserved. Considering that a large percentage of the deaths were pre-teen girls (who didn't vote for anyone) at summer camp, this take is a cruel one. Schadenfreude can sometimes be quite satisfying, but gleeful comments about dead children is beyond the pale. 

I haven't seen too many of these comments, but they're out there. 

But is it out of line to question whether NWS gave sufficient warning about the potential severity and whether any shortcomings were due to the cutbacks initiated by Trump? Absolutely not. It's always appropriate to question the government. Is it really so incredible to think that after all government agencies (except ICE) were gutted in the last six months that these cuts could have contributed to the death toll in the first massive natural disaster for this administration? Of course not. It's the first question that we should be asking. We'd be fools not to question whether NWS cuts contributed to the deaths. We'd be idiots to listen to Ted Cruz - of course it's political!

Based on the probably incomplete information available so far, NWS did send out flash flood warnings, at one point calling them "catastrophic", but it is unclear whether all residents heard the warnings. Presumably more information will be available in the coming days. 

But while the Republicans are wringing their hands at Democrats for blaming Trump for a natural disaster, they conveniently forget that Trump played the blame game during natural disasters during Biden's term. In the aftermath of last year's hurricane in North Carolina, Trump accused Biden of avoiding sending help to Republican-majority areas. During the California fires earlier this year Trump blamed Democrats for the fires. Sure, I'm engaging in whataboutism, but calling out hypocrisy is always in season. When questioned about whether the NWS cuts contributed to the deaths in the Texas flooding, he waffled about blame:

    “What a situation that all is. That was really the Biden setup. That was not our setup. But I                 wouldn’t blame Biden for it either.”

A lot of the quotes I have seen didn't include the last sentence, attempting to make Trump look like he was unambiguously blaming Biden, but why would you blame Biden? He's not the president any more! Maybe he belatedly realized that he was opening up himself for blame that he reflexively was trying to pin on his predecessor. 

And for extra context, we have this quote by Tom Homan, a Department of Homeland Security official: 

    “Bottom line is,” he said, “I looked at the response that occurred, it’s a far better, quicker, appropriate response than you would have seen under the Biden administration.”

So let's keep it classy and refrain from crowing about the deaths of people we disagree with politically, even if they are horrible people. Their inhumanity is no excuse for us to sink into the muck with them. But at the same time let's not fall for the line that it's not the right time to ask questions of our government. 

Tips, Overtime and Taxes on Social Security Benefits

The 2025 Republican tax bill passed. There's many horrible and harmful things in that bill, but today we'll be focusing on the changes in how tips, overtime and Social Security will be taxed (or not). Trump and the Republicans campaigned on eliminating taxes on all three. They haven't really done so, despite the propaganda email from the Social Security Administration. 

Let's start with Social Security, and how portions of it are taxed now. First of all, not all Social Security benefits are taxed. For a taxpayer filing singly, total adjusted gross income plus half of social security benefits is $25,000 or greater then up to 50% of benefits count as taxable income. If the total is greater than $34,000, then up to 85% of benefits count as taxable income. (The exact percentage is a sliding scale - the formula can be found in the Form 1040 instructions). For married couples filing jointly the thresholds are $32,000 and $44,000. So whether someone's Social Security benefits are taxable or not is based entirely on whether their combined income exceeds the levels mentioned above. 

If the formula indicates that a portion of one's benefits will be taxed, this is not deducted from their monthly benefits, but is calculated when completing the annual tax forms and determines tax liability, and therefore either the refund or amount due. 

The new tax law does not eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits. What it does is provide an additional deduction for seniors (age 65+) of $6,000 per individual ($12,000 for married filing jointly). In other words, it reduces taxable income by $6,000. This phases out for individuals earning more than $75,000 or married filing jointly over $150,000. This reduces the number of  seniors who will have their benefits taxed, but does not eliminate the tax itself. For example an individual who is still working with combined adjusted gross income and half of benefits exceeding $31,000 (the statutory threshold plus the new deduction) will have some of her Social Security benefits taxed. 

This additional deduction is only in effect for four years. It will also hasten the insolvency of the Social Security Trust Fund, since taxes on benefits go back into the Trust Fund. This additional deduction is for all seniors, not just those who are receiving Social Security benefits. 

Next up: tips

Tips are taxable income, the same as any other source of income like W-2 or 1099 remuneration. The only reason it appears to be tax-free is that many people who receive tips do not report them as income unless compelled to do so by their employer. It's virtually impossible for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to track every tip paid in cash (i.e. not by credit or debit card). The IRS has attempted to make it more difficult for employees to avoid paying taxes on their tip income by holding their employers accountable. Currently, in a business with tipped employees, the employees are required to report all tips to their employer who will include those tips as part of their gross income, and withhold federal and state taxes, as well as Social Security and Medicare taxes. Since it's likely that not all tips will be reported, the business is required to calculate what reported tips would be if they were 8% of sales. If total reported tips fall below 8%, the business is then required to allocate the difference between actual reported tips and 8% among all tipped employees. (Not sure if this allocation is based on sales or hours - nothing prevents an employer from having a stricter policy). This results in a tipped employee being taxed for income that they may or may not have actually received.  

The new law does not eliminate taxes on tips. What it does do is allow workers in "occupations that customarily and regularly received tips" to deduct $25,000 in tipped income from their taxable income. (This clause is supposed to prevent people who don't receive their income from tips to classifying their fees as "tips" and avoiding some taxes. With all the cuts in IRS staffing, I'm sure there will be abuses.)  All tips above $25,000 are taxable. One recurring misunderstanding is that this deduction applies only to tips paid in cash. The IRS defines "cash tips" as tips paid in cash, check, card etc. The definition of "cash tips" excludes in-kind gratuities or services in lieu of cash. This change will not benefit low income workers if their total income was already below the standard deduction, but it will reduce taxable income for many tipped workers. 

Expires after four years. 

Finally: overtime

This is similar to tips in that overtime pay is still taxable, but that a portion can be deducted from taxable income. Individuals can deduct $12,500 and married couples filing jointly can deduct $25,000. This deduction only applies to the "and a half" portion of "time and a half" paid for overtime hours. 

Expires after (you guessed it) four years. 

The bill requires that the IRS formulate regulations to govern withholding for both tips and overtime by 2026, so it remains to be seen whether paycheck withholding will take into account the tax exempt portion of tips and overtime. For the remainder of the 2025 tax year taxes will continue to be withheld as before. Taxpayers will claim the applicable deductions when filing their 2025 tax return in 2026. Since those who are claiming tip and overtime income will effectively be overpaying, I imagine that most in these categories will seeing higher than usual refunds next year. 

How will this affect state taxes? This remains to be seen. For Nebraska, taxable income is mostly based on federal adjusted gross income with a few Nebraska-specific adjustments. (Nebraska already completely exempts Social Security benefits from state income tax.) So, if these deductions reduce federal taxable income, will it also affect state taxable income? States can adjust their tax codes to compensate, or they can go along with the federal regulations; although Nebraska's legislature is out of session for the year. It looks like I got out of the Nebraska Department of Revenue just in time. FICA withholding will continue to be based on an employee's gross wages, so tips and overtime will still be subject to FICA. 

I'm sure more details will become clear in time, and if I'm missing anything I will issue updates, but that's what I know for now.

Stupid is as Stupid Does

This third post in this weekend's trilogy ties together the cultish aspects of Trumpism with "the end justifies the means" mindset of those who revel in Trump's retribution upon his enemies. 

Trump's supporters just aren't that smart.

No surprise, Trump isn't that smart either. 

A Trump supporter would immediately argue with me. They'd be angry and insulted with the label I hung on them, and incredulous that I would think that someone who was a billionaire and president of the United States wasn't, by definition, smart. I guess if defrauding the government, cheating your customers, stiffing your contractors and still bankrupting your businesses several times is smart, then I suppose I'm wrong. Trump's fortune was originally based on inheriting his father's real estate business. Fred Trump's unethical shenanigans have been well-documented, and his ill-gotten gains should have gotten him thrown in prison for fraud. Donald took over the family business by screwing over his siblings and several times almost lost it all. It's been said that if he simply put his inheritance into a money market fund he'd have a fortune many times larger than what he supposedly has now. It's no secret that prior to his deification as a business god on The Apprentice Trump ran business after business into the ground, bankrupting several casinos and losing millions on bad real estate deals. If he can be considered smart in any category, it's his choice of smart lawyers and accountants. Even when businesses he ran went belly-up, he managed to secure a paycheck for himself. Once The Apprentice created his reputation as a consummate deal-maker, banks fell over each other to loan him money, even when he became a serial defaulter. He became too big to fail. He was obviously not a good businessman, but his supporters were too stupid to see that. 

Once in office Trump's stupidity in the realm of government became obvious. He may have been politically aware enough to get elected by telling people what they wanted to hear, but he had no idea how things worked, whether in government, economics or international relations. One example of his willful ignorance is tariffs. He persisted in his belief that foreign governments pay tariffs and that a trade deficit meant that we were losing money. In his second term he imposed tariffs with little regard to any discernable strategic objective, and held on to his lack of understanding like a security blanket. His constant blustering about the 2% NATO spending goal was another example. Should NATO nations take on more responsibility for their own defense? Of course. But the 2% figure was not "dues" or payments where the United States was picking up the slack, but was a percentage of GNP that each NATO member was supposed to be spending on their military. Of course our percentage was higher since we had a military presence throughout the world, where most NATO members' militaries were concentrated close to home. Surely someone was attempting to correct him -- maybe not, he doesn't like to admit he's wrong. That's just two easily checked examples of him insisting on a view that isn't factual. It's not even a matter of interpretation. He's just wrong. 

Which brings us to the stupidity of Trump supporters. 

Most of what Trump says can be easily checked. Referring to my examples in the previous paragraph, they will celebrate as a "win" Trump's actions on tariffs when high school level economics will debunk everything he says. His ramblings about NATO spending can be checked with a 20 second Google search. They high-five each other over Trump victories that didn't happen. How many MAGA folks think the current budget bill eliminates taxes on Social Security and tips? (Spoiler alert: it doesn't -- it does contain some new deductions that are supposed to balance out those taxes). How many Trumpists believe that Trump brought peace to Israel and Iran after dropping bombs on Iran? 

Trump lies. Of course his apologists will either deny that he's lying, or will claim that all politicians lie, so it's no big deal that Trump does. Usually they just ignore the lie and engage in some "whataboutism" and point out some lie that a Democrat supposedly told. Sometimes the lie is so obviously transparent, so obviously a lie, so easily checkable, that anyone who believes it has to truly be stupid. I sometimes see posts or tweets doing a victory lap about some supposed Trump accomplishments and think "None of that happened". Do Trump voters not have internet access? Or are they just stupid? To be clear, I'm not talking about whether a particular policy is good or bad, or that I disagree with projected results, but whether or not something actually happened! 

I'm sure that Trump supporters believe  that they are very smart and discerning. The evidence would suggest otherwise.

Hail Caesar

Yes, it's a cult, as I have said many times, but there are aspects of Trump's agenda where he has been consistent about his intentions, and his supporters have been consistently for those policies. Unlike his changeable war vs. peace policies, or his view of the stock market -- these policies were no surprise. One of them is immigration.

There's no serious argument being made that our immigration and border security was "just fine" under President Biden, or for that matter under any previous president. People are highly motivated to leave the dangerous situations in their home countries, and they're going to come here. If the hoops are too high, too numerous, too expensive, they're going to find ways to come here outside the system. Instead of finding ways to balance controlling the border with expediting an immigrant's request to stay here, Trump's simplistic answer was to "close the border" and attempt to deport all non-citizens, whether they were here legally or not. A large percentage of his supporters were in favor of this before voting for him, and are still in favor of it now that they see how it's being carried out. 

Deporting people who are here illegally is perfectly legal. An argument can be made that they took a chance by entering illegally or overstaying their visa and that they brought the situation upon themselves. Of course, this isn't the moral, or even practical argument, whereby many people who do not have legal status have been contributing members of their communities for decades, working hard, paying taxes and are indistinguishable from anyone who was born here. The legal vs. illegal absolutists, however, are not interested in morality, they come down firmly on the side of the law, and have no sympathy for those who are breaking it, no matter the mitigating circumstances.  You don't have to be a racist to hold this position, but there is considerable overlap between racists and law and order absolutists on this issue. But are they really concerned about following the law?

Of course the fact that they voted for a convicted felon who was under indictment for more serious crimes than the one he was convicted for -- who saw all his legal troubles go away after being elected -- cast doubt upon their respect for the law. The methods that the administration is using to deport non-citizens (and in some cases, citizens) is itself illegal. Contrary to what Trump would have us believe, not every person being deported is here illegally. Most of the people who have been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have had some kind of legal status which allowed them to remain here. Some were awaiting adjudication of their asylum claims, others were permitted to stay under a program called Temporary Protected Status. Even Permanent Legal Residents (holders of Green Cards) have been detained and deported. ICE is picking up legal residents as they reported for their annual ICE check-in, or at the courthouse where their asylum claim was being heard. Few if any of these people are receiving any kind of due process before being disappeared into an ICE facility. None of this is legal but the Trump supporters don't care. All they care about is that deportations are being done, that Trump's agenda is being carried out, and legality is irrelevant. 

The whole "Department of Government Efficiency" (DOGE) purge is another example. Trump supporters tend to believe that Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives are discriminatory against white people and are a waste of taxpayer money. It was no surprise that DOGE targeted these programs as part of their assault on government. There's certainly arguments to be made that these programs as well as foreign aid and numerous other programs shouldn't be taxpayer funded. However, all of these expenditures, all of these gutted agencies were established and funded by law. Trump has embarked upon a mission to unilaterally remake government. The role of the president is to implement and execute the law, not to decide what the law is. But is the Trump base concerned about the Constitution being ignored? It sure doesn't seem that way. 

The political philosophy of the Trump base is evidently "the end justifies the means". They are willing to abandon the law, the constitution, and democracy in order to see Trump achieve his goals. 

Still A Cult

The Trump Cult. I've written about it before, and I'll write about it again. It offends those who are part of it. But every day I find new reasons to believe that Trumpism is indeed a cult, no different than any religious cult you care to name. 

Cults share several common characteristics. The most obvious is that a cult possesses a charismatic leader. Let's not get confused about what "charismatic" means. It doesn't mean "likeable", and certainly doesn't mean in possession of any of the traditional leadership abilities. In this context it means that the leader has great confidence, despite any evidence to the contrary, that he is always right, and has all the answers. He is somehow able to convince his followers that this true. This is manifestly true of Trump. How many times has he uttered some version of "I alone can fix it"? When pressed for a rationale for his actions, or for any basis for his plans and policies, he often answers with some variation of "because I know best". And his followers accept that answer. 

One of the clearest indicators that Trumpism is a cult is how quickly his followers pivot to a new position when Trump changes his mind about something. During the 2024 campaign the most common rationale Trump voters gave for supporting him was that they thought he would be better for the economy. They pointed to low inflation during Trump's first term compared to the high inflation of the first half of Biden's term, conveniently forgetting the economic chaos during Trump's last year in his first term. Democrats, including myself, pointed out how the 2021-2022 inflation was largely due to factors outside of a president's control (with some of the causes originating during Trump's tenure). Attempts to explain this to Trump voters got no traction -- they usually just repeated their position that Biden caused inflation. But when Trump was elected and his promise of not only ending inflation (which had by this time receded to normal levels) but rolling back prices had now come due, he said that it "was hard" and that there was little a president could do to control prices. And his people barely blinked before reciting the new mantra. 

Trump Cultists' acceptance of Trump's view of "the stock market". During Trump's first term the various methods of tracking stock market activity showed a steady increase in value, resulting a "record high" around every month. Trump and his followers ignored the fact that the trend simply followed the trend that had begun in the Obama administration, but claimed that this was evidence of how great the "Trump economy" was. When the trend continued into Biden's term, Trumpists generally ignored the stock market, until, following Trump's re-election, he claimed that the newest record high was due to anticipation of his soon-to-be second term. Not content to spew a little bit of nonsense, when the stock market fluctuated and lost value in the wake of his nonsensical and inconsistent tariff "policy", suddenly it was "Biden's stock market", or the stock market wasn't a reliable gauge of the strength of the economy. Now, since Trump stopped talking about tariffs and has paused just about all of them, the stock market has steadied and we're seeing record highs again. And once again, Trump is claiming the stock market as his, as are his sycophants. And none of them see the contradiction in any of these statements. 

One of the few Trump positions that I agreed with was his pledge to end "forever wars". He was very much against foreign involvement when he was campaigning. During his second campaign he doubled down on this, even though "not starting any new wars" didn't prevent him using the military to bomb Syria, assassinate an Iranian general, and keep us mired in Afghanistan. With his eye on a second term he made no secret that he wanted us to end our support for Ukraine in its war with Russia, claiming that, the consummate deal maker that he was, he could end the war in 24 hours -- even before he took office. We all know that that did not happen, yet his cult seems to have no problem with that. Just as the followers of the "peace president" suddenly became concerned about an Iranian nuclear weapons program and were all for a war with Iran when just a few weeks before were against any foreign military involvement. 

It's no secret that Trump desperately wants a Nobel Peace Prize. It galls him that President Obama received one (although I have no idea why they gave it to him) and his constantly hinting that he should be so honored. He is always on the lookout for conflicts where he can insert himself and claim to have solved. But he failed to get a result in the Russia-Ukraine war. He failed to get a result in Israel's destruction in Gaza. He exaggerated his role in India's and Pakistan's latest saber rattling. Who knows if he had anything of substance to contribute to the paper cease fire between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo -- which apparently has already ceased to cease. Trump's cultists take Trump's claims at face value, even when it's obvious that it's not factual. Let's not forget that the peace loving, noninterventionist MAGA clan had no trouble morphing into cheerleaders for dropping bombs on another country in someone else's war, and accepting Trump's claim to be a peacemaker as the dust from the airstrike that he ordered had yet to settle. 

One of Trump's most insidious goals was to undermine any trust in mainstream media. I won't try to claim that legacy media always gets it right or are never biased. But Trump has succeeded in convincing his cult that mainstream media is totally biased against him and prints or broadcast virtually all negatives about him. He has conveniently taken the organizations that have the experience and resources to shine a light on his words and actions out of the game. Replacing them for Trumpists are a spider web of podcasters and bloggers who are Trump cultists themselves. Any media coverage that isn't backing up whatever Trump is doing is suspect in their eyes -- and usually just assumed to be lies. 

Finally there's the politicians and the billionaire class. Many of them know that Trump lies, and that his "policies" are at best the ramblings of a lunatic. The politicians also know that due to his cultish influence over his followers, he can easily end the political career of anyone who stands against him. Wealthy business owners know that cozying up to him will make them more money. Both categories know that opposing Trump has a cost that they're not willing to pay and they enable his actions. 

What's ironic is that the Trumpists think that we're the cultists. They call us deluded. They call us deranged. They say opposition to Trump means we hate America.

They're willing to cheer on the flowering of authoritarianism.

Stolen Election?

In the lead up to the 2020 presidential election, Trump began his mission to undermine voter confidence in election results early. Months before the first votes were cast he was calling the election rigged, claiming that the only way he could lose would be if the election were somehow stolen. When results started coming in on Election Day evening indicating that he would lose, he doubled down, refusing to concede and embarked on a three month crusade to overturn the results. He and his supporters cited what they thought were anomalies, and threw around accusations that the voting machines were programmed to change votes. A recurring theme was that neither Trump nor his cult thought it was possible that Biden, who campaigned virtually for much of the year, had the support to beat Trump. To this day, Trump has never admitted that he legitimately lost to Joe Biden. 

Fast forward four years and Trump comes back and defeats Vice President Kamala Harris. Harris concedes and Trump is inaugurated a second time on January 20, 2025. There is no "Stop the Steal" movement spurred on by Biden and Harris, no one storms the Capitol, Biden attends Trump's inauguration and life goes on. Except...

...many Democrats and other progressives begin to claim that Harris "actually" won the election and that it was somehow stolen by Trump with the help of Elon Musk and other tech bros. This was not something originating with the Democratic National Committee (DNC) or with elected Democrats, but was more of a grass-roots phenomenon. A Substack article by This Will Hold lays out some technical information as well as some of the names involved in changes to the vote tabulation software and Dissent in Bloom points to some irregularities in Rockland County New York. You can read these articles yourself and see if you're convinced that the information that we currently know (or think we know) means that the election was stolen and that Harris won. I don't think that it does. Here are a few supposed red flags from This Will Hold:

"Data that makes no statistical sense. A clean sweep in all seven swing states.
The fall of the Blue Wall. Eighty-eight counties flipped red—not one flipped blue.
Every victory landed just under the threshold that would trigger an automatic recount. Donald Trump outperformed expectations in down-ballot races with margins never before seen—while Kamala Harris simultaneously underperformed in those exact same areas."

If one were to accept these results at face value—Donald Trump, a 34-count convicted felon, supposedly outperformed Ronald Reagan.

This sounds very similar to some of what the Trumpists were saying in 2020 when "bellwether" counties unusually didn't predict the winner. Whoever crafted the statement that I quoted seems blissfully unaware of what independents and fence-sitters were thinking. They have apparently underestimated just how much the high inflation of 2020-2022 hurt the Democrats -- how many people turned a blind eye to Trump's negatives while convincing themselves that he was better for the economy. How the chaos of Biden's withdrawal from the general election and Harris' anointing as successor turned off persuadable people. How Biden's paralysis on immigration and Harris' guilt by association swung many people to Trump's side. Let's not forget that for many people, Trump's felony convictions are a non-issue -- they think it's a politically inspired "witch hunt". 

Do I think it's possible that our elections were subverted and stolen in the way that is suggested? Sure, anything is possible. Do I think that speculating about scenarios that might be plausible make it so? Absolutely not. This is what the paranoia of right wing podcasters engendered after the 2020 elections. Fantasize about what could've happened and then make the leap to it absolutely did happen with barely a break for lunch. Plausibility does not equate to certainty. Do I think these allegations merit an investigation? Absolutely. Do I think that blog posts suffice as investigations? Nope. 

What thinking like this does is further erode confidence in our elections and discourages civic engagement. If you really believe that one side has made it impossible for them to lose, why even bother voting.