Allegations of Fraud in 2020 US Election

[Stacyhs]

I know. I do wonder if the news was always this bad. There is that Hearst story about "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war."

Incidentally, I don't claim that what Veritas says is true. Unlike the NYT, they post videos and evidence that one can actually evaluate.

They post heavily edited and manipulated videos as evidence.

 

[Cavemonster]

I'm not equivocating. I was aware of the content. Newspaper stories typically work in that way. Say a completely untrue thing in the headline, pad it out in a misleading way in the first paragraph, stick the true facts way, way down towards the bottom.

And just for poops and giggles, and to be clear. The headline wasn't completely untrue. It was perhaps an oversimplification of the content.

To the extent that "no fraud" is a misrepresentation of "No fraud at a level that affected the outcome", then your statements about the article itself are freaking whoppers and you're in a bit of a glass house there.

 

[Bob001]

....
"baseless" is subjective, "rampant" is subjective. Are there claims baseless given that they have 200+ pages of affidavits plus other evidence? Most of what the President is claiming is actually election fraud, malpractice. Officials can't know that there were no irregularities that affected the outcome. The only part of the first sentence that is a statement of fact is false. Go NYT!

Baseless and rampant are objective facts in this case. I think we can presume that the Trumpers would have presented their strongest, most compelling evidence in court. And not one judge has sided with them. The conclusion is inescapable.

 

[shuttlt]

Also in 2012? Or are we going back to 1960 again?

No. This election, but I realize I misremembered and it was Minesota.... anyway... there are videos of the same thing this election.

 

[shuttlt]

Baseless and rampant are objective facts in this case.

They are subjective terms, one persons baseless is another persons "there is some evidence for". Same with rampant.

I think we can presume that the Trumpers would have presented their strongest, most compelling evidence in court. And not one judge has sided with them. The conclusion is inescapable.

Or they would have presented their most pressing, earliest arising cases first.

 

[Stacyhs]

My favorite "mail in ballot fraud" whopper so far is the claim in Nevada that turned out to be military families stationed out of state. They have so much egg on their face that they look like a friggin' omelette.

 

[dirtywick]

I know. I do wonder if the news was always this bad. There is that Hearst story about "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war."

Incidentally, I don't claim that what Veritas says is true. Unlike the NYT, they post videos and evidence that one can actually evaluate. Look at the Postal worker story, they have given us the original affidavit, interviews with the postal worker and the recording of the interrogation. What have we got from WAPO? Three unnamed sources told us that some other unnamed people said something and it doesn't look like the WAPO story is honest. If Veritas is so bad, and WAPO/NYT can't even beat Veritas, what is going on at these papers?

IF veritas is bad? Jesus Christ bro

 

[johnny karate]

No I didn't.

Again, you said “I'm not sure I would want to entirely trust either affidavit for what his claim is.”

Why would you not trust the original affidavit?

I suspect it is a strongly stated version of his position.

You literally said you don’t know if you trust it. Why would you not trust if you think it’s accurate?

Given that he signed it knowing what it said, it clearly isn't falsified. He seems to be sticking by it at the moment which is about all that can be said.

I’m going by what you said.

You’re the one who said you don’t know if you trust the accuracy of the original affidavit.

So you’re the one who needs to explain why it’s untrustworthy.

 

[johnny karate]

No. This election, but I realize I misremembered and it was Minesota.... anyway... there are videos of the same thing this election.

Okay, whatever you say.

Considering how badly you self-owned in front of all of us like an hour ago, your judgment and credibility are both laughably suspect.

 

[Stacyhs]

Looks a lot like that Veritas claiming to show ballot harvesting in Somali community in Pennsylvania.

Also in 2012? Or are we going back to 1960 again?

No. This election, but I realize I misremembered and it was Minesota.... anyway... there are videos of the same thing this election.

This one that has been debunked, too:

The claim: Project Veritas discovered a voter fraud scheme connected to Rep. Ilhan Omar in Minneapolis.

Based on our research, the claim that Project Veritas discovered a voter fraud scheme connected to Rep. Ilhan Omar is FALSE. There are many aspects that are impossible to corroborate, given the use of unnamed sources and unverifiable translations, and the "central source" behind the video backtracked on some of his claims after publication. There's no link between Omar and the alleged fraud, and the scenario in the video is implausible based on the evidence provided. Researchers have also termed the videos part of a "coordinated disinformation campaign."

ETA: Sheesh. Try doing some research. I'm not Sherlock Holmes and I can easily find these things have been debunked in a couple minutes.

 

[Bob001]

.....
Or they would have presented their most pressing, earliest arising cases first.

What does this even mean? They didn't present their strongest cases because something somebody made up was more "pressing?" What would the Trumpers be claiming if the election had gone the other way, and the Biden side was going through these contortions?

 

[shuttlt]

ETA: Sheesh. Try doing some research. I'm not Sherlock Holmes and I can easily find these things have been debunked in a couple minutes.

That's just a collection of assertions that it isn't true. It may be that it isn't true, but it clearly isn't debunked.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Funny....that same exact story ran in 2012:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/deis...Uqf1CPjLxsRP82zjr1PYKau-d0snly7As3UakorJ6RMDN

ETA: It took me about one minute to find that. You'd think people would do at least the minimum research before embarrassing themselves.

The link to huff post did not debunk anything. The huff article closes with a quote from the prosecuting attorney stating that allegations of fraud are far-reaching. Then said attorney recuses herself because the charged individual was working for her campaign.

 

[shuttlt]

What does this even mean? They didn't present their strongest cases because something somebody made up was more "pressing?" What would the Trumpers be claiming if the election had gone the other way, and the Biden side was going through these contortions?

Well before the election he had cases trying to get various rules enforced, he would have been hard pressed to put cases claiming issues on election night ahead of that. Then there were the cases during election day when he was trying to get counting stopped until poll watchers had proper access, again it would be difficult to do that either before the pre-election cases or after the post election night cases. You then have evidence and witnesses that come to light as the days pass... necessarily cases can't be filed before the claims in the cases have come to light.

 

[acbytesla]

That's just a collection of assertions that it isn't true. It may be that it isn't true, but it clearly isn't debunked.

You don't seem to get that the individual who makes a claim is obligated to present actual evidence and prove it. Until they do it is considered false and unproven.

What is provable is that Project Veritas, the souce for these claims is a notorious for mounting coordinated disinformation campaigns.

 

[johnny karate]

That's just a collection of assertions that it isn't true. It may be that it isn't true, but it clearly isn't debunked.

Oh okay, then. Can you provide a link to the pending criminal investigation into this totally-not-debunked claim of election fraud?

 

[shuttlt]

Again, you said “I'm not sure I would want to entirely trust either affidavit for what his claim is.”

Why would you not trust the original affidavit?

Because they have a political line to push.

You literally said you don’t know if you trust it. Why would you not trust if you think it’s accurate?

Accurate with relation to what? You said "falsified". It was not falsified and I never implied it was falsified.

I’m going by what you said.

No you aren't you are rewording what I said to say something different. I never said or implied it was falsified, that was your invention.

You’re the one who said you don’t know if you trust the accuracy of the original affidavit.

No I didn't.

So you’re the one who needs to explain why it’s untrustworthy.

No I don't. You are adding all these words in to make claims I didn't make and then demanding I defend them. They are you words, you defend them.

 

[shuttlt]

Oh okay, then. Can you provide a link to the pending criminal investigation into this totally-not-debunked claim of election fraud?

Quit moving the goalposts.

 

[johnny karate]

The link to huff post did not debunk anything. The huff article closes with a quote from the prosecuting attorney stating that allegations of fraud are far-reaching. Then said attorney recuses herself because the charged individual was working for her campaign.

It’s from 2012 and involved Republicans.

You and shuttit are both just awful at this.

 

[dirtywick]

What is provable is that Project Veritas, the souce for these claims is a notorious for mounting coordinated disinformation campaigns.

It’s more than notorious, it’s their entire operation. And it’s a long history. They don’t deserve the same benefit of the doubt a news outlet who got one wrong but puts out good faith effort at reporting accurate news. Veritas is built in bad faith.