> 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 p

> 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.