How to tell a political lie from the truth and the implications of the answers on Nov 2026 midterms

Update: 6/8/2026, Trump stormed off an interview with Kristen Welker of NBC when she tried to challenge him with actual evidence that the 2020 election was stolen. Shouted Trump, there is plenty of evidence, more evidence ...and instead of presenting it, he got up and left, calling Welker stupid among other insults. The stupid are those who cannot tell the difference between "more" and "enough". The point is not a few more examples..  It is the volume of those examples that would have proved the election was stolen.  That has never been found after every case presented to a judge, purported to show fraud was dismissed by a judge (except one) for lack of evidence, or that there was not enough evidence to change the outcome. Judges represented both Trump and prior Democratic appointees.,Without evidence that the outcome was affected, there is no evidence that the election was stolen.  This constant lie by Trump is his rationale for J6, for slush fund payoffs, for supporting election deniers like Tina Peters, who took orders from him and acted on it ways that violated state criminal statutes, ICE suppression of Hispanics, a war against mail-in ballots, and the BS war against California's ranking complicated vote count method that deviates from the usual primary system, show me your papers in the defeated SAVE act, and more. 

The California vote count is slow coming in, but even before the final total, Trump was claiming it was stolen.  https://votingsystems.cdn.sos.ca.gov/oversight/directives/irv-faq-060409.pdf

Continuing with the original 6/4/2026 post:

How do you tell a political lie from the truth? There are serious implications, depending on the answers you get, for the November 2026 midterms and for whether the election will be stolen or the integrity will be protected. If you only get your news from one or two "trusted sources" and hear a few examples, the next question is how widespread these selected examples of fraud were, and whether they were sufficient to have changed the outcome of the 2020 election.  

One way to tell a lie from the truth is if, instead of evidence of how widespread something was, the answer you get is an example, a story, a judicial finding that one person, or even one county like Fulton County, GA, was found guilty, or some evidence or not. Watch the election denier neglect presenting evidence that the example represented enough of a problem to justify a federal takeover by whatever means, including violent acts like in J6. The SAVE Act, also inspired by the lie that the 2020 election was stolen, which was so voter suppressive, was just defeated in the Senate. That was a dire piece of legislation in search of an actual dire problem to fix, resulting in dire unintended consequences.  

The data and every attempt to assert the claim before any court that there was enough fraud to have changed the outcome failed for lack of evidence.   Ever since 2020, MAGA has been consumed by the search for missing pieces to justify their beliefs, and so far, after 6 years of trying, they have failed. They are trying to find a poster child in Georgia and one county, but even if they could find some anecdotal evidence or if they didn't, how did what happened there mean it happened in the thousands of counties elsewhere? 

So, where do you get the data and evidence outside of your "trusted sources"? AI is helpful if you ask the question several ways.  That way, you may avoid a slanted answer.   Usually, AI will summarize one source, and the screen may show a variety of answers, a menu, and links to other sources.  If you ask for evidence or examples of how and whodunit, you will get some anecdotes. Ask for data on frequency and impact, and you will get another viewpoint: there was no finding by any due process judge that there was enough fraud to overturn the 2020 election.  The MAGA response: we'll keep digging; the evidence has got to be there somewhere. That is enough to satisfy the loyalists to the MAGA cause. The president's word is all they need.

Here is one source I thought was fair to provide in response to the question raised: how widespread was fraud in 2020? After all, Congress-sponsored information sources had been objective in budget analyses.  So I tapped into the information supplied by Congress, which members rely on for research. Congress does have the power to make changes in certain circumstances. Here is what happened when I clicked on https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/108824/documents/HHRG-116-JU00-20190129-SD020.pdf    I was immediately directed to the ultra-conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, the architect of the unitary form of government that presented a plan to defang Congress and the judicial branch and put the actual power in the hands of an all-powerful autocratic president,  Project 2025.   Ok, I said, let's see what they have.  I got this: anecdotal reports of selective election fraud that actually got a guilty verdict after due process. The evidence was on state-by-state convictions over at least the past 10 years, some of which were relevant in 2020. 

I wondered how many of those prosecutions resulted in convictions and led to a judge or jury actually overturning the 2020 elections. There was plenty of data and evidence presented, but not enough to prove the point in a court of law, and in many cases, no evidence or data at all.   

In the meantime, ICE armed for the Middle East battle, may be sent to Nov 2026 polling places on the unproven claim of illegals, ie. Hispanics were voting (scaring the toot out of anyone who looked Hispanic and was legally registered). "Suspect" ballot boxes may be seized and kept from the public, and Secretaries of State's security and any protection from tampering. There will be a huge attempt to challenge the legitimacy of voters, from registration to ballot casting, and mail-in ballots that, per Trump's executive order, will only be accepted and counted if the post office verifies federal registration lists that do not exist.  All of this will be in the name of "voter integrity" or "vote integrity? and the election results will be delayed amid the ensuing chaos and court challenges. on the constitutionality ...all justified by a demonstrable lie.

We need them both: research universities and technical education

 Whether public funds should be used to support either publicly funded tech/trade schools or research universities is not a choice between the two. We need them both. One for research and development, and the other for the application of what universities have discovered and developed. 

Often, research efforts do not make a practical profit for years or fail in blind alleys, but are responsible for breakthroughs that separate us from "old school" to new, better, more efficient, and effective ways of doing things. Here are some R and D discoveries and inventions that originated in research universities: "the world wide web and Gatorade, to pivotal innovations, such as X-ray technology, birth control pills, and the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine, famous inventions from higher education institutions"  https://blog.halo.science/modern-day-inventions-university-r

Someone needs to take the financial risk and still be funded while undertaking research and development. .Often, there is no profit generated while doing it.  That is what research institutions do so well. Still, they require investments by the government and the private sector for R&D. Without research and development for applications, technology would still be back in the nail, hammer, and hand wrench, and diseases would remain spreading, dependent on those who can treat the symptoms or watch patients die. 

 Those in trade-related education have the opportunity to be educated on how to utilize the latest tools developed by research upon graduation or certification. Usually, years of experience are required to hone their skills.  If they do not keep learning new things, they could be left behind by those who adopt them. 

For-profit trade schools are ever problematic. Some are certificate mills with no real value in the labor market, and others are worth the tuition. Apprenticeship programs like unions provide are winners.  Therefore, I only referred to those publicly funded tech/trade schools now mostly tied to community colleges, mostly locally and state-funded. That was the choice Trump, himself famous for fraud in Trump University, tried to make when he threatened to divert federal contract funds from Harvard R&D and allocate them to trade schools. https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/trade-school-advocates-cheer-trump-threatens-redirect-harvard-federal-funds    Let's just let other countries become the innovators and lead us into the new tech and scientific future, right? 

Here is what I learned from watching my own children and grandchildren learn and enter the workforce.

 My own children hold profession-oriented master's degrees, and all four grandchildren (and their spouses) are involved in or have completed higher education graduate degrees that will enhance their income and/or their pursuit of happiness throughout life. Some will be paying off student loans for years to come. I have both a Harvard and  2-year community college certificate holders in my very immediate family. The pursuit of happiness is a personal preference, and some individuals prefer the intellectual challenges of higher education and the higher salaries that accompany it. In contrast, others derive pleasure from a job well done, even if it is physically demanding. Within my family are now or have been physicians, other healthcare service providers, investment bankers, business consultants, marketing data services, a skilled transportation bus and airplane mechanic, an elementary school teacher, warehouse supervisors, nonprofit administrators, restaurant managers, culinary chefs, a mathematician, and a computer scientist.  

Those headed for higher education can think in abstract, deductive terms and/or deal with students and coworkers. Some are just born educators. Others are born to be analysts of complex things. Others, such as those who repair things and solve problems, are fascinated by how machines and systems function. Most possess the talent to apply their special skills, using tools and up-to-date knowledge, to what they know from experience.  Some individuals possess both kinds of talents, which is a blessing because they have such a wide choice of professional lives to pursue.  To each their own. All are able to make a living doing what they enjoy. In some instances, the skilled, tech-educated make as much or more than those with a more basic liberal arts higher education. They are the skilled ones who have received a trade education, learning how to keep up with new skills and advances in technology that have often been first developed in the research halls and laboratories of higher education. Learning new skills is a lifelong pursuit in an era of rapid discoveries and rapid obsolescence. They will be the ones who survive AI.

The smartest thing I did in mentoring young trade-oriented family members was to equip them early, over 30 years ago, with computers, and I insisted they become computer literate. This, in turn, enabled them to learn more effectively and efficiently and apply this knowledge to their trades.  Keeping up with innovations is key to success in the trades long after individuals obtain their community college certificates or even the school of hard knocks.