3 ms·
They can post it somewhere with standards of evidence if they want to be taken seriously. Why waste time looking into it on the off chance it has more veracity
by Kye 6y ago
They can post it somewhere with standards of evidence if they want to be taken seriously. Why waste time looking into it on the off chance it has more veracity than everything around it?
- gruez 6y agoThe logic around these election fraud posts usually goes something like this: 1. something "suspicious" is presented 2. only conclusion must be election fraud, no explanations to the contrary is explored or accepted 3. go to step 1, preferably before the "MSM" debunks the first instance. You can try this yourself: try to find any election fraud claim from 2+ weeks ago that turned out to be "legit".
- User23 6y agoHow can I try it myself? Nobody is giving me access to the information I need to actually draw an informed conclusion.
- throwawaylolx 6y agoI found it impossible to verify claims like this: https://twitter.com/DavidShafer/status/1334995992102506498 https://twitter.com/DavidShafer/status/1334995992102506498 All that seems reasonable to do is to wait for all court decisions.
- implements 6y agoA glaringly obvious logic fail is “any apparent fraudulent behaviour must be on behalf of the winner” - er, no - it would be much more likely for the intended benefit of the less ethically sound candidate. (Which one that would be in this case is an exercise left for the reader)