4 ms·

There are over a thousand links and not all of it is strong evidence but they surely suggest that there were irregularities in more than one location. There ar

• harryh 6y ago
  What you are doing here is a classic Gish Gallop. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop You're presenting a large number of unsourced claims with weak or non existent evidence that take time and effort to track down and debunk. In these sorts of situations the burden of proof is on the accuser and you aren't even close to that standard. Let's just pick "video showing dead people voting" from above. It ignores the fact that two different people can have the same name. And often this happens in the same family with people living at the same address. In an election with over 150M votes cast, there is every reason to believe there would be plenty of instances of daughters with the same names as their dead mothers casting votes. There's no evidence that this isn't what happened here. It's also worth noting that Trump and his associates brought a lot of the so called "evidence" to court and were nearly laughed out of court almost every single time.
  • condomhacker 6y ago
    Present few evidence - not widespread enough, "okay there were a few irregularities" Present a large number of evidence - Gish Gallop unsourced claims - Links and sources speak for themselves, it is not as if I have manufacured them out of thin air. > burden of proof is on the accuser and you aren't even close to that standard If me presenting over a thousand links with lets say 90% weak evidence doesnt come close to a standard I dont know what will. > It's also worth noting that Trump and his associates brought a lot of the so called "evidence" to court and were nearly laughed out of court almost every single time. You are right about this one. Though as far as I know, were not dismissed on the matter of the evidence itslef but on precedent, issues regarding the timing and other matters.
    • harryh 6y ago
      It's not a Gish Gallop because you've presented "a large number of evidence". It's a Gish Gallop because you've presented a large number of claims (you called out 4 specifically) each of which has extremely thin evidence and, in fact, when someone takes the time to investigate it, it's fairly easily debunked. I already did #2. For #1 this is information on Wikipedia about how the underlying data used by the professor was not sufficient to support his conclusions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_J._Miller#2020_Election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_J._Miller#2020_Election For #3 here is a reuters post debunking the assertion: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-oklahoma/fact-check-video-shows-spoiled-ballots-not-discarded-trump-votes-idUSKBN27R212 https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-oklahoma/fact-c... For #4 here is a post from some Georgia press (the assertion was about fraud in Georgia) debunking the assertions: https://www.11alive.com/article/news/politics/elections/fact-checking-claims-about-fulton-countys-election/85-89c150d2-c917-44b6-b7ab-a29dd9dcb888 https://www.11alive.com/article/news/politics/elections/fact...
      • deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      • condomhacker 6y ago
        Just like how you didnt readily accept my link and presented me with an article debunking the vide, let me go deeper into the evidence presented by the debuking article with my analysis that should be easy for you to verify. Link of the tweet the debunks the video #3. https://twitter.com/OKelections/status/1325910154907439104 https://twitter.com/OKelections/status/1325910154907439104 One of the images does show both yes and no filled, but that is the only one of the batch that is both filled. But for the rest of the batch, some dont seem to have multiple markings, that is they seem to be fully valid. Some torn ballots also have both checkmarks and rectangles filled. It seem highly unusual that someone would fill the rectangle for all the categories and then come back and put checkmarks? If someone accidentally put checkmarks instead of filling the rectangles. Then why would they come chose a different answer next time? As seen in the video where for many torn ballots one box is filled while other is checkmarked. [Sorry a picture would be helpful but you'll have to go therough the video manually] My asserion is this: the provision for discarding a spoiled ballots was exploited and valid ballots were marked with checkmarks in order for them to be discarded. You can also see from the long tails of the checkmarks that the person doing it was doing it quickly. Also if it was spoiled ballot why were there only mostly Trump ballots? If you think it was a a staged video, we can certainly contact the poster's instagram and ask him about his intentions. Source: https://www.instagram.com/p/CHY19zygjJw/ https://www.instagram.com/p/CHY19zygjJw/ _________________________________________________________ Regarding the Georgia video, the only thing the article says it that it was not a "suitcase" but a ballot box. Which doesn't dispute the fact that the ballot-box or "the suitcase" was pulled from under the table and then the ballots were counted after the poll watches were told to leave. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avh-kOYfaOs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avh-kOYfaOs _____________________________________ Also how did you debunk the video showing that a dead person voted?