• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: 2020 Presidential Election part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Meadmaker said:
I think there's a certain amount of what you might call "maintenance" type investigations that are useful in assuring the public that there's nothing to the allegations. Not that it will ever be 100% effective, either. As the old saying goes, you can't reason someone out of something that he didn't reason himself into.

The people shouting the loudest about election fraud are, of course, not thinking at all. They're just saying that if their guy lost, it much be fraud. Those people cannot be reached at all. Beyond that, though, there's another group who hears the allegations, and can't come up with any explanation for the sketchy evidence, and sees the allegations dismissed, and begins to think maybe there's something to it.

People who come here are more likely to have investigated some sort of conspiracy theories before, and see all of the tell-tale signs of a CT in the "evidence" of election fraud today. However, most people have never done that. A little bit of official word demonstrating why the apparently suspicious activity has a perfectly innocent explanation, or that the effect is so tiny the suspicious ballots could not have changed anything, would go a long way toward convincing the ones on the fence about whether they think there might be election fraud.

For example, I just saw a video of a group of yahoos in our state capital of Lansing, Michigan, chanting "Dead People Voted!" So, they are sure that lots of dead people voted and they probably think Michigan was stolen, or at least that the evil Democrats did the same thing in Georgia and stole that one. Maybe they saw the video, posted on this forum from a tweet, showing what appeared to be evidence that a vote was received from a 120 year old woman in Jackson County. Well, I saw that video, and I cannot come up with a convincing explanation of how that came to pass. I'm sure lots of other people saw that video, too, and some, failing to come up with a non-fraudulent explanation, are sure that means it proves vote fraud.

So, I would like someone to look into what happened there. I don't mean a million dollar investigation. I just mean that I think it would be worth the effort if someone in the Jackson County Clerk's office checked out whether the video is really legitimate, whether the woman in question really represents a woman, long since passed away, but who is still on the voter rolls, but who nevertheless recorded a vote. I'm guessing not, but I don't know the explanation of how that might have come to pass any other way.

It just helps to reassure people. If you can show them that one or two of the "proof of voter fraud" videos that they have seen on youtube are not legitimate, they might think that there's probably good explanations for the others, too. If you ignore all of them, and just say, "There's no evidence.", the people might think that you are just ignoring the evidence.

ETA: Newt Gingrich is running around talking about vote fraud, and citing an example from the Franken-Coleman recount about an envelope full of ballots that magically appeared to put the Democrat, Franken, over the top. Well, I know exactly the envelope he's talking about, and why the overwhelming evidence is that it was a perfectly legitimate envelope full of real votes, that should have been, and was, counted. However, I follow this sort of thing a lot more closely than most. If you can find the most widespread allegations you can find, and put together a report detailing the reasons why this is almost certainly not voter fraud, it could make a difference in the mind of some of the protestors. Not all, of course. Some are hopeless, but some are reachable.
Click to expand...

It's funny. I watched a report today about Alabama ballots being delivered to a residence in Texas. An immediate thought is that something nefarious going on. Maybe with the USPS perhaps? But a cursory examination with an open mind suggest that while something strange did happen, two ballots being misdelivered is not persuasive evidence of anything corrupt.
 
Dr.Sid said:
Is this covered by freedom of speech in US ? It's not here. This would 2 years in prison, possibly parole, depending on context.
Click to expand...


You can say pretty much what you want, as long as you don't act on it or incite others to act. But a public official who says stuff like that can't keep his job.

Another link (that I can't find again) said this guy is the "chief" of a two-person department. One thing that's weird about the U.S. is that there are as many as 18,000 (nobody seems to know exactly how many) individual police and sheriff's departments, with their own standards for hiring, training and supervision. Most countries have national or regional police forces; our departments range from the NYPD and the LAPD to Officer Oppie and his big dog.
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
You can say pretty much what you want, as long as you don't act on it or incite others to act. But a public official who says stuff like that can't keep his job.
Click to expand...

You could justifiably argue he was inciting others to act. This police officer posted "Death to Democrats" and "don't leave any survivors".
 
Dr.Sid said:
Is this covered by freedom of speech in US ? It's not here. This would 2 years in prison, possibly parole, depending on context.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. The issue is getting a conviction.

What he said consisted of cliches and stock language. "Take no prisoners. Leave no survivors" sounds like some sort of role playing, hyperbolic type speech, not meant to be taken seriously.

In order to get a conviction, you have to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that his words represented a credible and deliberate incitement to violence. Realistically, they probably did not. I doubt that guy actually wanted anyone to pick up a gun and shoot someone.

On the other hand, to get him fired, all you have to do is decide that no good can come of it, that it showed very poor judgement, and that some moron out there in dumbassland might actually take you seriously, and that by making a remark like that, you made the city look bad. (Or county, or state, or wherever the guy worked for.)
 
shemp said:
Unlike your country, we're not a communist country. :D

Seriously, it's not illegal here, although the Secret Service might want to have a chat with him to determine if he's made a credible threat. But the First Amendment only protects your right to free speech; it does not protect him from the decisions of his employer, who has a legal right to "request" his resignation.
Click to expand...

There has to be a point where incitement to harassment, violence and murder count for something in a rational society. This kind of filth can't be tolerated forever.
 
There have been fireworks going off all day in my neighborhood since it became official. Church bells have been ringing in several European cities.
 
eerok said:
Here's some more schadenfreude for those with a stomach for it.

TRUMP SUPPORTERS COMPILATION [/r/PublicFreakout]
Click to expand...

Wait, those red hats look familiar. Aren't these the same people who made fun of us for being shocked and horrified when Trump won? Because I swear these are the same red hat crowd that made fun of us for being shocked and horrified. I swear it's the same facist red hat crowd. Is there more than one facist red hat crowd?

eta It's not a straight up whataboutism, though. There's a difference. We were horrified that a corrupt, incompetent, racist, misogynist, divisive, authoritarian supporter of violent extremism won. They are horrified that their corrupt, incompetent, racist, misogynist, divisive, authoritarian supporter of violent extremism lost.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure the consensus in this thread (haven't been keeping up with it) is that the claims of election tampering / fraud, etc. are overblown, stuff that always happens, not enough to change the outcome, outright lies, rumor, speculation, whatever.

That is what I'd expect folks here to think.

I personally have seen enough evidence going around to put us well beyond the point of justifying a careful, deliberate look and recount in specific states.

There are some serious abnormalities.

When it all gets hashed out, will it be enough to overturn the result as it stands now? Maybe, maybe not. I would say the odds are probably against Trump here.

So why did I make the renewed declaration and the avatar bet, then? Because I find doubling down / long shots / die hard mentality to be appealing and worthy of subscription.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
I'm sure the consensus in this thread (haven't been keeping up with it) is that the claims of election tampering / fraud, etc. are overblown, stuff that always happens, not enough to change the outcome, outright lies, rumor, speculation, whatever.

That is what I'd expect folks here to think.
Click to expand...

Yup.

Skeptic Tank said:
I personally have seen enough evidence going around to put us well beyond the point of justifying a careful, deliberate look and recount in specific states.
Click to expand...

I don't believe this.

Skeptic Tank said:
There are some serious abnormalities.
Click to expand...

I don't believe this either.

Skeptic Tank said:
When it all gets hashed out, will it be enough to overturn the result as it stands now? Maybe, maybe not. I would say the odds are probably against Trump here.
Click to expand...

Trump has lost. There is no chance that he can lie his way out off a failed election, despite him having lied his way through his whole life.

Skeptic Tank said:
So why did I make the renewed declaration and the avatar bet, then? Because I find doubling down / long shots / die hard mentality to be appealing and worthy of subscription.
Click to expand...

All I know is that from what I've seen your choices are poor in general, and it really makes no difference.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
How is he doing that?

He gave us some information on 'how the U.S. State Dept explained Ukraine electoral fraud', which presumably is factual. As to what relevance this has to the current US election or what it might mean, he did not state an opinion.

Please don't accuse other posters of 'intentionally promoting spreading false facts and promoting a false narrative' when they just quote from a link and otherwise 'have no opinion on that'. Because it's a trap.
Click to expand...

Thank you Roger. My only reason for posting this information is because it seems to be exactly what the Trump side is alleging. The merits of that are in question. I don't feel they are obligated(legally) to tip their hand before they file their suits, which I believe is happening tomorrow.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom