4 ms·

There is lower confidence because there have been more issues. 2020 has been a hectic year. Ascribing the lower confidence entirely to the media is not a convin

There is lower confidence because there have been more issues. 2020 has been a hectic year. Ascribing the lower confidence entirely to the media is not a convincing argument. Regardless, that’s not really my point. A sizable portion of the population thinks the election was fishy. Saying, “Too bad, you’re dumb and wrong” doesn’t accomplish anything when it comes to reducing polarization. I genuinely don’t see the problem with a robust investigation that puts the country as ease, and I don’t understand why anyone would be against such a thing. Not to mention that removing “extremist” voices entirely would have prevented, say, the Civil Rights movement from occurring. At the time it was absolutely not mainstream. A blanket rule against non-mainstream media is clearly a bad idea, but everyone is too short-sighted to understand that.

neogodless 6y ago
> Saying, “Too bad, you’re dumb and wrong” Not sure anyone said that. Judges reviewed court cases, and failing to find legitimate cases, dismissed them. That's not saying "you're dumb and wrong." That's saying - you do not have a case because you don't have evidence. > a robust investigation It sounds like each side defines a "robust investigation" differently. Given that judges from both major political parties dismissed nearly every court filing, and there is still no tangible evidence of widespread election fraud, when do we stop "investigating?" The problem with theories made without evidence is that there is no way to "disprove" them because they are not falsifiable statements[0]. In this case, the request seems to be to have everyone who wants to believe whether or not there was widespread election fraud would need to review 160 million votes with their own eyes, rather than believe the bipartisan election officials as well as the bipartisan judges that reviewed the court filings. That's an unreasonable bar to cross. [0] http://www.butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsheets/thinking/conspiracy.html http://www.butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsheets/thinking/cons... Unfalsifiability > Because it is unfalsifiable, a conspiracy theory is not provable or disprovable. > Conspiracy theory is untestable because it invariably proposes that the evidence has been tampered with. CONSPIRACY THEORY & CONSPIRACISM > WE are a small, dedicated group of freedom fighters and freethinkers. We are soldiers, rebels in the fight for good against evil. > YOU are clueless. Why can't you see what's going on here? > THEY have hidden or destroyed all the evidence that would implicate them and have manufactured false evidence that exculpates them. > YOU are close-minded. In fact, you are probably one of THEM.
- ceilingcorner 6y ago
  Referencing a bunch of random academic sources doesn’t make your argument any stronger. The attitude of the media and the Democratic Party in general has absolutely been “You’re dumb and wrong.” As my initial comment said, this accomplishes the exact opposite thing. People feeling lost and ripped off aren’t going to suddenly change their mind because talking heads on CNN assured them everything was legit. Especially when these sources spent the last four years becoming highly partisan. It’s difficult to even recognize The NY Times anymore, they’ve fallen so far. Skepticism seems like a rational move to me. ‘Courts dismissing cases’ is not equivalent to an investigation. As I said before, my primary concern is reducing polarization. I really don’t care how much it costs. Any price is worth avoiding serious civil unrest. Parties come to agreements on the extent of investigations all the time and there is zero reason a similar compromise couldn’t be worked out for the sake of the country. Of course, no one will do this, because it doesn’t benefit them personally.
  - neogodless 6y ago
    It took me about ten minutes but I went through one of the claims from here[0]. So I looked up Minnesota voter registration counts[1] and Minnesota 2020 vote results[2]. I put this in a spreadsheet and looked at totals per county, and any examples of turnout exceeding eligibility. The percentage ranged from 76.9% to to as high as 92.6%. In no case did it exceed 100%, let alone 350% as claimed in a YouTube video. Given that on my first attempt to validate a claim of implied voter fraud (if more votes were actually cast than eligible) I was unable to, I feel there's no reason to investigate that particular claim further. Presumably each of these so called "proofs" follow this pattern. If any did not, I would be shocked if no one outside of conservatively-biased journalism was able to go through each such instance and find sufficient proof that justified further investigation. Sure I'm just one person taking the minimum of effort on one instance (the first I could readily disprove on the list without exhaustive efforts), so I did not go through every item and spend all day. This is just an internet comment, and despite my efforts, I assume I will still change exactly zero minds. But it reaffirms that what some are calling proof and justification is not even accurate, let alone validation. [0] https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/11/election_fraud_you_can_see.html https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/11/election_fr... [1] https://www.sos.state.mn.us/election-administration-campaigns/data-maps/voter-registration-counts/ https://www.sos.state.mn.us/election-administration-campaign... [2] https://www.sos.state.mn.us/elections-voting/election-results/2020/2020-general-election-results/2020-precinct-results-spreadsheet/ https://www.sos.state.mn.us/elections-voting/election-result...
rhino369 6y ago
Also, the media was running election security fearmongering stories since the day Trump won in 2016. Liberals didn't denounce "Hamilton Electors" very strongly in 2016--though, admittedly, Clinton and most democratic leadership didn't support those efforts, and a larger share of congressional republicans supported Trumps attempt at the same thing. The number of democrats who thought the 2016 election result was fraudulent was pretty high. Democratic intelligence committee members outright lied about their evidence for years re Russiagate because it hurt trump. And Democrats were laying groundwork for contested election this time around too. Hillary Clinton essentially suggested Biden never concede if he lost--implying that a loss would equal fraud. None of this is as nearly as bad as Trump is doing. But it certainly helps Trump destroy any norms prohibiting bad behavior.

neogodless 6y ago

> Saying, “Too bad, you’re dumb and wrong” Not sure anyone said that. Judges reviewed court cases, and failing to find legitimate cases, dismissed them. That's not saying "you're dumb and wrong." That's saying - you do not have a case because you don't have evidence. > a robust investigation It sounds like each side defines a "robust investigation" differently. Given that judges from both major political parties dismissed nearly every court filing, and there is still no tangible evidence of widespread election fraud, when do we stop "investigating?" The problem with theories made without evidence is that there is no way to "disprove" them because they are not falsifiable statements[0]. In this case, the request seems to be to have everyone who wants to believe whether or not there was widespread election fraud would need to review 160 million votes with their own eyes, rather than believe the bipartisan election officials as well as the bipartisan judges that reviewed the court filings. That's an unreasonable bar to cross. [0] http://www.butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsheets/thinking/conspiracy.html http://www.butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsheets/thinking/cons... Unfalsifiability > Because it is unfalsifiable, a conspiracy theory is not provable or disprovable. > Conspiracy theory is untestable because it invariably proposes that the evidence has been tampered with. CONSPIRACY THEORY & CONSPIRACISM > WE are a small, dedicated group of freedom fighters and freethinkers. We are soldiers, rebels in the fight for good against evil. > YOU are clueless. Why can't you see what's going on here? > THEY have hidden or destroyed all the evidence that would implicate them and have manufactured false evidence that exculpates them. > YOU are close-minded. In fact, you are probably one of THEM.

ceilingcorner 6y ago
Referencing a bunch of random academic sources doesn’t make your argument any stronger. The attitude of the media and the Democratic Party in general has absolutely been “You’re dumb and wrong.” As my initial comment said, this accomplishes the exact opposite thing. People feeling lost and ripped off aren’t going to suddenly change their mind because talking heads on CNN assured them everything was legit. Especially when these sources spent the last four years becoming highly partisan. It’s difficult to even recognize The NY Times anymore, they’ve fallen so far. Skepticism seems like a rational move to me. ‘Courts dismissing cases’ is not equivalent to an investigation. As I said before, my primary concern is reducing polarization. I really don’t care how much it costs. Any price is worth avoiding serious civil unrest. Parties come to agreements on the extent of investigations all the time and there is zero reason a similar compromise couldn’t be worked out for the sake of the country. Of course, no one will do this, because it doesn’t benefit them personally.
- neogodless 6y ago
  It took me about ten minutes but I went through one of the claims from here[0]. So I looked up Minnesota voter registration counts[1] and Minnesota 2020 vote results[2]. I put this in a spreadsheet and looked at totals per county, and any examples of turnout exceeding eligibility. The percentage ranged from 76.9% to to as high as 92.6%. In no case did it exceed 100%, let alone 350% as claimed in a YouTube video. Given that on my first attempt to validate a claim of implied voter fraud (if more votes were actually cast than eligible) I was unable to, I feel there's no reason to investigate that particular claim further. Presumably each of these so called "proofs" follow this pattern. If any did not, I would be shocked if no one outside of conservatively-biased journalism was able to go through each such instance and find sufficient proof that justified further investigation. Sure I'm just one person taking the minimum of effort on one instance (the first I could readily disprove on the list without exhaustive efforts), so I did not go through every item and spend all day. This is just an internet comment, and despite my efforts, I assume I will still change exactly zero minds. But it reaffirms that what some are calling proof and justification is not even accurate, let alone validation. [0] https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/11/election_fraud_you_can_see.html https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/11/election_fr... [1] https://www.sos.state.mn.us/election-administration-campaigns/data-maps/voter-registration-counts/ https://www.sos.state.mn.us/election-administration-campaign... [2] https://www.sos.state.mn.us/elections-voting/election-results/2020/2020-general-election-results/2020-precinct-results-spreadsheet/ https://www.sos.state.mn.us/elections-voting/election-result...

rhino369 6y ago

Also, the media was running election security fearmongering stories since the day Trump won in 2016. Liberals didn't denounce "Hamilton Electors" very strongly in 2016--though, admittedly, Clinton and most democratic leadership didn't support those efforts, and a larger share of congressional republicans supported Trumps attempt at the same thing. The number of democrats who thought the 2016 election result was fraudulent was pretty high. Democratic intelligence committee members outright lied about their evidence for years re Russiagate because it hurt trump. And Democrats were laying groundwork for contested election this time around too. Hillary Clinton essentially suggested Biden never concede if he lost--implying that a loss would equal fraud. None of this is as nearly as bad as Trump is doing. But it certainly helps Trump destroy any norms prohibiting bad behavior.