6 ms·

> this all stems from videos I can obviously not cover every single one, but just seeing a random van and claiming it's full of fake ballots doesn't make it tr

> this all stems from videos I can obviously not cover every single one, but just seeing a random van and claiming it's full of fake ballots doesn't make it true. In many of these states, the entire counting was livestreamed. > witness statements Anyone can give statements, but election fraud requires more than just hearsay. > and statistical anomalies Numbers are easy to play with, see p-Hacking. In the majority of the cases, if you apply the same calculations to previous elections, or hell, even red counties in this very same election, you get very similar strange looking results. > refusal of certain parts of the government to effectively examine these claims and their supporting evidence in a public Just because you've been told that it wasn't taken seriously doesn't make it true. Courts have gone through the evidence for 2 months and none of it went anywhere. But for some people, being proved wrong means not being taken seriously.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> I can obviously not cover every single one, but just seeing a random van and claiming it's full of fake ballots doesn't make it true. In many of these states, the entire counting was livestreamed. I'd like to have the VA thumb drive handoff and the GA under-the-table ballot stash explained please. > In many of these states, the entire counting was livestreamed. Some of these videos purportedly show poll workers scanning the same ballot multiple times. > Anyone can give statements, but election fraud requires more than just hearsay. There are lots of sworn first-person statements, which aren't hearsay. Also fraud requires evidence of intent. Its much easier to show that serious, legitimate questions can be raised about enough ballots to sway the outcome than to prove why observers were prevented from observing. > Numbers are easy to play with, see p-Hacking. In the majority of the cases, if you apply the same calculations to previous elections, or hell, even red counties in this very same election, you get very similar strange looking results. Can you link me to those majority of cases? Quality of the statistical arguments varies widely and only the non persuasive arguments seem to have been responded to. > Just because you've been told that it wasn't taken seriously doesn't make it true. In a situation like this, demonstrating that the concerns are being taken seriously is more important than actually taking them seriously. The apparent legitimacy of the President is likely to have more of an effect on everything than who the president is, at this point. When these allegations aren't seen to be taken seriously it creates the appearance of illegitimacy, regardless of the facts. > Courts have gone through the evidence for 2 months and none of it went anywhere. Actually many of these cases never reached the stage of preventing evidence. And 2 months ago there hadn't been enough time to investigate and we were already being told that it had been debunked. So its not enough to do whatever they have done, it is necessary for it to be known that they have done what is correct. > But for some people, being proved wrong means not being taken seriously. Can you show me some of these claims "being proved wrong"? Thats a stronger claim than there not being evidence and if you could substantiate this it might help reach some people.
- Hnrobert42 6y ago
  This article[1] from Fox News pretty thoroughly explains the ballots under the table in GA. It took me literally 2 minutes to find it. Did you look for such explanations yourself before asking? You seem reasonable, and I promise I am not attacking you. I am just at a loss. I have to imagine you see that article or ones like it, but you are not satisfied by the explanation. So then what can I do to satisfy you that the claims of fraud have been addressed? What standard of proof do you need, and what guarantee do I have that you won’t shift the goalpost once I meet it? I’m not saying you, personally, will shift the goalpost, but my discussions with those who are already convinced their is fraud is that no amount of evidence is sufficient. There will always be another “but what about.” That’s why this 11th hour demand for an audit by Sen. Cruz, Loeffler, et al is exhausting. Of course I don’t want election fraud, even if finding it means Biden loses. But after two months of courts looking into it, AG Barr refuting it, state legislatures refuting it, and more, I’d say it’s been pretty well looked at. At this point, is an audit really the difference between you feeling satisfied and not? https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fulton-county-georgia-no-mystery-ballots-under-table-investigator-affidavit https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fulton-county-georgia-no-my...
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > This article[1] from Fox News pretty thoroughly explains the ballots under the table in GA. It doesn't really explain anything, it just reports some things people said. > It took me literally 2 minutes to find it. Did you look for such explanations yourself before asking? Indeed I did, and I took the further step of considering whether the allegations of fraud were responded to persuasively, and I saw they were not. > So then what can I do to satisfy you that the claims of fraud have been addressed? An investigator's report is the usual way of satisfying the public as to the results of an investigation. > What standard of proof do you need, and what guarantee do I have that you won’t shift the goalpost once I meet it? The same standard that would be applied to any other criminal investigation with similar consequences. When someone who is implicated in an activity offers an explanation, attempt to verify that explanation. Document this process. When someone makes a claim ("these are normal ballots that were removed and staged for expedited processing") attempt to verify the chain of custody on the ballots. As far as shifting the goalposts, there isn't really a way for me to guarantee that to you. You'll just have to take the risk that you're wasting your time and update your opinion of me if/when that happens, or decline to risk your precious time proving something to a stranger on the internet. Its a personal decision, there is no right or wrong here :) > I’m not saying you, personally, will shift the goalpost, but my discussions with those who are already convinced their is fraud is that no amount of evidence is sufficient. I empathize and I'm certain there are people out there. Surely you would also agree that there are people out there who are goal-oriented and partisan enough that they would condone election fraud in order to replace trump? > There will always be another “but what about.” Thats true but if you acknowledge the possibility of having reasonable questions then you can't dismiss the reasonable questions on the basis of someone else's unreasonable questions. > That’s why this 11th hour demand for an audit by Sen. Cruz, Loeffler, et al is exhausting. The shit is fucking exhausting but people have been making accusations and pursuing legal remedies for 2+ months and its clear that its not exactly easy to challenge the integrity of an election regardless of the amount of evidence. We've been hearing that these allegations are "debunked" since before there was an investigation. People say there's nothing to them but they can't provide any evidence to respond to the allegations except testimony by persons who are implicated. We can't get a simple chain of custody on ~9,000 ballots that appeared from under a table in the middle of the night when no (R) observers were present, and the people there dispute the process by which the obervers were removed from the room. If someone doesn't understand that the results of an election can be changed by adding illegal/fraudulent ballots then they don't understand elections well enough. > Of course I don’t want election fraud, even if finding it means Biden loses. Honestly ask yourself why you care election integrity. Now consider whether election integrity can be meaningfully decoupled from the appearance of election integrity in this context. > But after two months of courts looking into it, AG Barr refuting it, state legislatures refuting it, and more, I’d say it’s been pretty well looked at. I mean, that's probably because you're satisfied with the outcome and you question all the allegations of improprieties. Which is fine. But have you considered whether AG Barr, some state legislatures, etc. have done anything that might alleviate the concerns of someone who feels differently? The scope of effort required to debunk something for someone who doesn't believe it is far less than the scope of effort required to debunk something for someone who does believe it. In this case, the latter standard is the one that should prevail for obvious reasons. > https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fulton-county-georgia-no-mystery-ballots-under-table-investigator-affidavit https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fulton-county-georgia-no-my... Mostly just repeats the claims of various parties without making efforts to substantiate them. We already know the people involved disagree about the details of what happened, that's why there needs to be a chain of custody for those ballots. That way we are less reliant on the word of partisans.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago

> I can obviously not cover every single one, but just seeing a random van and claiming it's full of fake ballots doesn't make it true. In many of these states, the entire counting was livestreamed. I'd like to have the VA thumb drive handoff and the GA under-the-table ballot stash explained please. > In many of these states, the entire counting was livestreamed. Some of these videos purportedly show poll workers scanning the same ballot multiple times. > Anyone can give statements, but election fraud requires more than just hearsay. There are lots of sworn first-person statements, which aren't hearsay. Also fraud requires evidence of intent. Its much easier to show that serious, legitimate questions can be raised about enough ballots to sway the outcome than to prove why observers were prevented from observing. > Numbers are easy to play with, see p-Hacking. In the majority of the cases, if you apply the same calculations to previous elections, or hell, even red counties in this very same election, you get very similar strange looking results. Can you link me to those majority of cases? Quality of the statistical arguments varies widely and only the non persuasive arguments seem to have been responded to. > Just because you've been told that it wasn't taken seriously doesn't make it true. In a situation like this, demonstrating that the concerns are being taken seriously is more important than actually taking them seriously. The apparent legitimacy of the President is likely to have more of an effect on everything than who the president is, at this point. When these allegations aren't seen to be taken seriously it creates the appearance of illegitimacy, regardless of the facts. > Courts have gone through the evidence for 2 months and none of it went anywhere. Actually many of these cases never reached the stage of preventing evidence. And 2 months ago there hadn't been enough time to investigate and we were already being told that it had been debunked. So its not enough to do whatever they have done, it is necessary for it to be known that they have done what is correct. > But for some people, being proved wrong means not being taken seriously. Can you show me some of these claims "being proved wrong"? Thats a stronger claim than there not being evidence and if you could substantiate this it might help reach some people.

Hnrobert42 6y ago
This article[1] from Fox News pretty thoroughly explains the ballots under the table in GA. It took me literally 2 minutes to find it. Did you look for such explanations yourself before asking? You seem reasonable, and I promise I am not attacking you. I am just at a loss. I have to imagine you see that article or ones like it, but you are not satisfied by the explanation. So then what can I do to satisfy you that the claims of fraud have been addressed? What standard of proof do you need, and what guarantee do I have that you won’t shift the goalpost once I meet it? I’m not saying you, personally, will shift the goalpost, but my discussions with those who are already convinced their is fraud is that no amount of evidence is sufficient. There will always be another “but what about.” That’s why this 11th hour demand for an audit by Sen. Cruz, Loeffler, et al is exhausting. Of course I don’t want election fraud, even if finding it means Biden loses. But after two months of courts looking into it, AG Barr refuting it, state legislatures refuting it, and more, I’d say it’s been pretty well looked at. At this point, is an audit really the difference between you feeling satisfied and not? https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fulton-county-georgia-no-mystery-ballots-under-table-investigator-affidavit https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fulton-county-georgia-no-my...
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > This article[1] from Fox News pretty thoroughly explains the ballots under the table in GA. It doesn't really explain anything, it just reports some things people said. > It took me literally 2 minutes to find it. Did you look for such explanations yourself before asking? Indeed I did, and I took the further step of considering whether the allegations of fraud were responded to persuasively, and I saw they were not. > So then what can I do to satisfy you that the claims of fraud have been addressed? An investigator's report is the usual way of satisfying the public as to the results of an investigation. > What standard of proof do you need, and what guarantee do I have that you won’t shift the goalpost once I meet it? The same standard that would be applied to any other criminal investigation with similar consequences. When someone who is implicated in an activity offers an explanation, attempt to verify that explanation. Document this process. When someone makes a claim ("these are normal ballots that were removed and staged for expedited processing") attempt to verify the chain of custody on the ballots. As far as shifting the goalposts, there isn't really a way for me to guarantee that to you. You'll just have to take the risk that you're wasting your time and update your opinion of me if/when that happens, or decline to risk your precious time proving something to a stranger on the internet. Its a personal decision, there is no right or wrong here :) > I’m not saying you, personally, will shift the goalpost, but my discussions with those who are already convinced their is fraud is that no amount of evidence is sufficient. I empathize and I'm certain there are people out there. Surely you would also agree that there are people out there who are goal-oriented and partisan enough that they would condone election fraud in order to replace trump? > There will always be another “but what about.” Thats true but if you acknowledge the possibility of having reasonable questions then you can't dismiss the reasonable questions on the basis of someone else's unreasonable questions. > That’s why this 11th hour demand for an audit by Sen. Cruz, Loeffler, et al is exhausting. The shit is fucking exhausting but people have been making accusations and pursuing legal remedies for 2+ months and its clear that its not exactly easy to challenge the integrity of an election regardless of the amount of evidence. We've been hearing that these allegations are "debunked" since before there was an investigation. People say there's nothing to them but they can't provide any evidence to respond to the allegations except testimony by persons who are implicated. We can't get a simple chain of custody on ~9,000 ballots that appeared from under a table in the middle of the night when no (R) observers were present, and the people there dispute the process by which the obervers were removed from the room. If someone doesn't understand that the results of an election can be changed by adding illegal/fraudulent ballots then they don't understand elections well enough. > Of course I don’t want election fraud, even if finding it means Biden loses. Honestly ask yourself why you care election integrity. Now consider whether election integrity can be meaningfully decoupled from the appearance of election integrity in this context. > But after two months of courts looking into it, AG Barr refuting it, state legislatures refuting it, and more, I’d say it’s been pretty well looked at. I mean, that's probably because you're satisfied with the outcome and you question all the allegations of improprieties. Which is fine. But have you considered whether AG Barr, some state legislatures, etc. have done anything that might alleviate the concerns of someone who feels differently? The scope of effort required to debunk something for someone who doesn't believe it is far less than the scope of effort required to debunk something for someone who does believe it. In this case, the latter standard is the one that should prevail for obvious reasons. > https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fulton-county-georgia-no-mystery-ballots-under-table-investigator-affidavit https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fulton-county-georgia-no-my... Mostly just repeats the claims of various parties without making efforts to substantiate them. We already know the people involved disagree about the details of what happened, that's why there needs to be a chain of custody for those ballots. That way we are less reliant on the word of partisans.