4 ms·

World gone crazy. The only reason we are talking about fraud is because a narcissist said so, because he can’t accept he lost.

westwing 6y ago
Observe the media narrative slowly drift from “no evidence of fraud” to “not enough evidence of fraud” to “no evidence of enough fraud”.
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> The only reason we are talking about fraud is because a narcissist said so, because he can’t accept he lost. Suppose that's true. So what? We analyze the results. We apply science. It can't change the result if it wasn't supposed to. You give the devil his due. Because then given the result doesn't change, you can't be accused of covering up a fraud when it wasn't actually there. Which is what happens in the alternative.
- noncoml 6y ago
  > Suppose that's true. So what? Casting doubts and entertaining the witch hunt is damaging the democracy by eroding the trust of people in the election system. Opening the way for a coup in the future.
  - jungletime 6y ago
    Isn't that what the Russia gate did. It casted doubts about the election results for 4 years of his presidency. And still no definitive proof after 4 years. I don't understand the double standard now. I hope he pardons Snowden and Manning on the way out, as a final act of revenge on the system. During the debates Biden pledged to wait for the vote to be certified before declaring victory. Proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1miwDWst-IQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1miwDWst-IQ
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - jcranmer 6y ago
      That is absolutely not what Russiagate was about. No one, so far as I am aware, was claiming that the election results were improperly counted in 2016 [1]. Instead, Russiagate was about illegal Russian interference in, and potential Republican collaboration with, political advertising that may have swayed people's votes. [1] In favor of the Republicans, I mean. Some Republicans, primarily Trump, did claim fraud in favor of the Democrats, but were unable to find any evidence for their claims.
      - jungletime 6y ago
        The implication and implied end result was that he was an illegitimate president that won by cheating. Same difference. You are splitting hairs.
        jcranmer 6y ago
        The implication is that he committed a criminal act that he deserved to be impeached for (and indeed he was, although the Senate did not vote to convict), following the normal constitutional procedures. There is no implication that the election result should be annulled and the presidency should go to Clinton instead. Trump is no less an illegitimate president than Nixon, Bush, or Hayes was.
      - TMWNN 6y ago
        >No one, so far as I am aware, was claiming that the election results were improperly counted in 2016 The mantra for Trump's opponents and the media in the first year or so of his presidency was that "Russia hacked the election".
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > During the debates Biden pledged to wait for the vote to be certified before declaring victory. No, he didn't.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    If someone questions the election results and you respond by checking everything over and doing a manual recount and giving them every opportunity to make their case and it still doesn't go their way, you can claim with confidence that they were full of it. Shutting them down before that happens is how you erode the trust of people in the election system.
    - esoterica 6y ago
      No one has suggested blocking recounts in states where the margin is close enough that one candidate is entitled to a recount. You are attacking a strawman.
      - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        One of their claims was voting machine irregularities where the machine would count votes for one candidate as being for the other. Doing a recount using the same voting machines could thereby preserve the alleged irregularity, which is why I specified a manual recount.
        esoterica 6y ago
        And no one is suggesting blocking a manual recount in the states where a candidate is entitled to one. > Suppose that's true. So what? We analyze the results. We apply science. It can't change the result if it wasn't supposed to. You are implying that it is perfectly fine for Trump to spread wild conspiracy theories with no evidence because if those conspiracy theories are false then they will be proven false and no harm will be done. Except irreparable harm WILL be done to the democratic process in America, because there are tens of millions of Americans who worship Trump as an infallible god and will forever believe his claim that the election was stolen from him, even if all the allegations are thoroughly debunked and no evidence turns up demonstrating any kind of fraud.
        AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        > And no one is suggesting blocking a manual recount in the states where a candidate is entitled to one. There are plenty of people suggesting that Trump should concede immediately without going through any of those processes. > You are implying that it is perfectly fine for Trump to spread wild conspiracy theories with no evidence because if those conspiracy theories are false then they will be proven false and no harm will be done. The problem with Trump is that just about everything he says is a half-truth. It won't be entirely true but it also won't be entirely false. Some people think he does this on purpose. It causes his opponents to cover him by pointing out the part that's false and his supporters to defend him by talking about the part that's true, but in either case they're both talking about Trump and they're both talking about the issue Trump wants people to talk about. I assume that anyone who can figure out how to get Trump to stop doing this would be awarded a Nobel Prize. The trouble is that it means you can't just dismiss everything he says as a lie, because it's only half lie. I expect that when this is all over he'll have uncovered some modicum of voting irregularities but probably not enough to flip as many states as he needs to win, if any. But he's entitled to try. Now if only somebody would win that Nobel Prize.
- mcphage 6y ago
  > Suppose that's true. So what? We analyze the results. We apply science. It can't change the result if it wasn't supposed to. If you're a heterosexual man, imagine asking your spouse for a paternity test on your children. And when that goes over like a lead balloon (which it would), imagine replying "So what? We analyze the results. We apply science. It can't change the result if it wasn't supposed to." > you can't be accused of covering up a fraud that wasn't actually there. Which is what happens in the alternative. So you think that Trump has no problem complaining about fraud when he has no evidence, but won't complain about fraud after an investigation shows there was none? Not a chance—he'll just complain that the investigation was a fraud as well.
- lhorie 6y ago
  There are two separate issues at stake though that are getting conflated. One is of whether fraud happened. So far, the stuff before the courts have mostly been thrown out due to lack of evidence. Which supports the idea of due diligence and that the system works. The second is whether the system itself is compromised. The problem here is that one can keep irrationally escalating accusations saying that the watchmen of the watchmen of the watchmen are all in cahoots. And we know from stuff like flat earth society that there are people willing to believe anything. The danger here is that if you have a large portion of the population and their political representatives believing that the system is rigged, that they might as well do everything in their power to rig it in their favor, which erodes the pillars of democracy.
- throwawydedbee 6y ago
  I'm mildly curious about the details of Benford's law, etc., but one of the strongest signals that something is afoot is how widespread the censorship has been on this. When I see that, I start with the assumption that what's being censored is likely true. The other night, I realized that of the various sources I trawl, some of the best analysis going on to knock down invalid theories of fraud is happening on TD. (Note that I said "best", not necessarily "good".) Why is this happening? Because those discussions have been wiped off of most other sites. No matter how you feel about the claims, this is an appalling state of affairs.
eloff 6y ago
Someone near and dear to me is in the Trump camp and claiming the election was stolen for no reason other than Trump's empty accusations. But now backing it up with conspiracy theory quality sources on the topic. How can I attempt to counter this with logic? What would you say to someone who believes this nonsense?
- benjohnson 6y ago
  I would suggest that it would be wise to acknolage that it's a good thing to give our elections process some much-needed vigorous scrutiny and that you look forward to the outcome and look forward to making the process better.
ikerdanzel 6y ago
Fraud happened. I suggest you go find those published affidavits for the current courts cases pending. I bet you didn't read ANY of those affidavits before you come to the conclusion of "he can't accept lost". Read it and then conclude he lost or maybe just maybe you have been in the bubble? Another confirmed news that don't trend in your usual news outlets are the servers retrieved from Germany. I let you do some home work rather than I dish you all the proves. You need to learn how to research and not just what FB or CCN tells you.

westwing 6y ago

Observe the media narrative slowly drift from “no evidence of fraud” to “not enough evidence of fraud” to “no evidence of enough fraud”.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> The only reason we are talking about fraud is because a narcissist said so, because he can’t accept he lost. Suppose that's true. So what? We analyze the results. We apply science. It can't change the result if it wasn't supposed to. You give the devil his due. Because then given the result doesn't change, you can't be accused of covering up a fraud when it wasn't actually there. Which is what happens in the alternative.

noncoml 6y ago
> Suppose that's true. So what? Casting doubts and entertaining the witch hunt is damaging the democracy by eroding the trust of people in the election system. Opening the way for a coup in the future.
- jungletime 6y ago
  Isn't that what the Russia gate did. It casted doubts about the election results for 4 years of his presidency. And still no definitive proof after 4 years. I don't understand the double standard now. I hope he pardons Snowden and Manning on the way out, as a final act of revenge on the system. During the debates Biden pledged to wait for the vote to be certified before declaring victory. Proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1miwDWst-IQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1miwDWst-IQ
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    That is absolutely not what Russiagate was about. No one, so far as I am aware, was claiming that the election results were improperly counted in 2016 [1]. Instead, Russiagate was about illegal Russian interference in, and potential Republican collaboration with, political advertising that may have swayed people's votes. [1] In favor of the Republicans, I mean. Some Republicans, primarily Trump, did claim fraud in favor of the Democrats, but were unable to find any evidence for their claims.
    - jungletime 6y ago
      The implication and implied end result was that he was an illegitimate president that won by cheating. Same difference. You are splitting hairs.
      - jcranmer 6y ago
        The implication is that he committed a criminal act that he deserved to be impeached for (and indeed he was, although the Senate did not vote to convict), following the normal constitutional procedures. There is no implication that the election result should be annulled and the presidency should go to Clinton instead. Trump is no less an illegitimate president than Nixon, Bush, or Hayes was.
    - TMWNN 6y ago
      >No one, so far as I am aware, was claiming that the election results were improperly counted in 2016 The mantra for Trump's opponents and the media in the first year or so of his presidency was that "Russia hacked the election".
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > During the debates Biden pledged to wait for the vote to be certified before declaring victory. No, he didn't.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  If someone questions the election results and you respond by checking everything over and doing a manual recount and giving them every opportunity to make their case and it still doesn't go their way, you can claim with confidence that they were full of it. Shutting them down before that happens is how you erode the trust of people in the election system.
  - esoterica 6y ago
    No one has suggested blocking recounts in states where the margin is close enough that one candidate is entitled to a recount. You are attacking a strawman.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      One of their claims was voting machine irregularities where the machine would count votes for one candidate as being for the other. Doing a recount using the same voting machines could thereby preserve the alleged irregularity, which is why I specified a manual recount.
      - esoterica 6y ago
        And no one is suggesting blocking a manual recount in the states where a candidate is entitled to one. > Suppose that's true. So what? We analyze the results. We apply science. It can't change the result if it wasn't supposed to. You are implying that it is perfectly fine for Trump to spread wild conspiracy theories with no evidence because if those conspiracy theories are false then they will be proven false and no harm will be done. Except irreparable harm WILL be done to the democratic process in America, because there are tens of millions of Americans who worship Trump as an infallible god and will forever believe his claim that the election was stolen from him, even if all the allegations are thoroughly debunked and no evidence turns up demonstrating any kind of fraud.
        AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        > And no one is suggesting blocking a manual recount in the states where a candidate is entitled to one. There are plenty of people suggesting that Trump should concede immediately without going through any of those processes. > You are implying that it is perfectly fine for Trump to spread wild conspiracy theories with no evidence because if those conspiracy theories are false then they will be proven false and no harm will be done. The problem with Trump is that just about everything he says is a half-truth. It won't be entirely true but it also won't be entirely false. Some people think he does this on purpose. It causes his opponents to cover him by pointing out the part that's false and his supporters to defend him by talking about the part that's true, but in either case they're both talking about Trump and they're both talking about the issue Trump wants people to talk about. I assume that anyone who can figure out how to get Trump to stop doing this would be awarded a Nobel Prize. The trouble is that it means you can't just dismiss everything he says as a lie, because it's only half lie. I expect that when this is all over he'll have uncovered some modicum of voting irregularities but probably not enough to flip as many states as he needs to win, if any. But he's entitled to try. Now if only somebody would win that Nobel Prize.
mcphage 6y ago
> Suppose that's true. So what? We analyze the results. We apply science. It can't change the result if it wasn't supposed to. If you're a heterosexual man, imagine asking your spouse for a paternity test on your children. And when that goes over like a lead balloon (which it would), imagine replying "So what? We analyze the results. We apply science. It can't change the result if it wasn't supposed to." > you can't be accused of covering up a fraud that wasn't actually there. Which is what happens in the alternative. So you think that Trump has no problem complaining about fraud when he has no evidence, but won't complain about fraud after an investigation shows there was none? Not a chance—he'll just complain that the investigation was a fraud as well.
lhorie 6y ago
There are two separate issues at stake though that are getting conflated. One is of whether fraud happened. So far, the stuff before the courts have mostly been thrown out due to lack of evidence. Which supports the idea of due diligence and that the system works. The second is whether the system itself is compromised. The problem here is that one can keep irrationally escalating accusations saying that the watchmen of the watchmen of the watchmen are all in cahoots. And we know from stuff like flat earth society that there are people willing to believe anything. The danger here is that if you have a large portion of the population and their political representatives believing that the system is rigged, that they might as well do everything in their power to rig it in their favor, which erodes the pillars of democracy.
throwawydedbee 6y ago
I'm mildly curious about the details of Benford's law, etc., but one of the strongest signals that something is afoot is how widespread the censorship has been on this. When I see that, I start with the assumption that what's being censored is likely true. The other night, I realized that of the various sources I trawl, some of the best analysis going on to knock down invalid theories of fraud is happening on TD. (Note that I said "best", not necessarily "good".) Why is this happening? Because those discussions have been wiped off of most other sites. No matter how you feel about the claims, this is an appalling state of affairs.

eloff 6y ago

Someone near and dear to me is in the Trump camp and claiming the election was stolen for no reason other than Trump's empty accusations. But now backing it up with conspiracy theory quality sources on the topic. How can I attempt to counter this with logic? What would you say to someone who believes this nonsense?

benjohnson 6y ago
I would suggest that it would be wise to acknolage that it's a good thing to give our elections process some much-needed vigorous scrutiny and that you look forward to the outcome and look forward to making the process better.

ikerdanzel 6y ago

Fraud happened. I suggest you go find those published affidavits for the current courts cases pending. I bet you didn't read ANY of those affidavits before you come to the conclusion of "he can't accept lost". Read it and then conclude he lost or maybe just maybe you have been in the bubble? Another confirmed news that don't trend in your usual news outlets are the servers retrieved from Germany. I let you do some home work rather than I dish you all the proves. You need to learn how to research and not just what FB or CCN tells you.