Yes they were a huge number of election deniers for the 2016 election and a vast amount of irresponsible rheotoric around it that was very dangerous to democracy. Don't try to gaslight on this one. A lot of uneducated morons and delusional conspiracy theorists thought "Trump colluded with Putin to hack the election", fueled by dangerous and irresponsible rhetoric from certain anti-democratic election denier politicians and media corporations.

> a huge number of election deniers for the 2016 election

[citation needed]

No it isn't.

Well, since you are just lying, I can see why a demand for evidence is inconvenient.

How many election deniers?

A large majority of Democrat voters fell for these baseless and dangerous election-denial conspiracy theories. Why do you ask?

https://twitter.com/peterjhasson/status/1064259048902668289

The one question you present evidence of is not questioning the legitimacy and validity of the election; there is a difference between believing (rightly or wrongly, with or without sufficient cause) that improper activity effected the popular vote tally and believing that the election is illegitimate.

You present no evidence relating to actual election denial.

> The one question you present evidence of is not questioning the legitimacy and validity of the election;

False.

> there is a difference between believing (rightly or wrongly, with or without sufficient cause) that improper activity effected the popular vote tally and believing that the election is illegitimate.

There are differences between different things. Believing election tallies were hacked certainly is a baseless conspiracy theory that questions the legitimacy of the election, despite your wailing and gnashing of teeth. Not to mention something like a full 1/4 of Democrat voters believed Trump to be an illegitimate president too.

Your gaslighting and sealioning doesn't work I'm afraid, better luck with somebody else.

You've broken the site guidelines egregiously here, and have unfortunately been doing that a bunch elsewhere. We've warned you multiple times before:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34429933 (Jan 2023)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30858404 (March 2022)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29085513 (Nov 2021)

If you keep this up we're going to have to ban you. I don't want to ban you. Therefore could you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules? Including, but not limited to: not being snarky, not calling names, not making personal attacks, not posting flamewar comments, and not using HN primarily for political battle.

Sure I'll try to do better, I'm sorry. Would you apply the same rules to people escalating, calling me names, being snarky, etc in the same thread?

Appreciated!

Yes, if that's what they were doing, but I'd have to see specific links. (For example I don't think https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35366985 broke the site guidelines although it wasn't entirely un-edgy either.)

I don't have a problem with the comment you linked. But this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35366133 kicked off the snark with the first sentence, and quickly escalated to namecalling, calling me a liar a few comments later.

So yes I should have just ignored them or kept the higher ground, but sometimes that kind of trolling sucks me in.

I don't think the first sentence of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35366133 was snarky. Interpretations differ, of course, and often by quite a bit when someone is speaking to you personally, but FWIW that sounds rather neutral to my ear.