5 ms·

Unfortunately, I think the numerous tangential and unsubstantiated comments in this very thread suggest that the strategy has been highly successful. While I im

Unfortunately, I think the numerous tangential and unsubstantiated comments in this very thread suggest that the strategy has been highly successful. While I imagine Dominion could win against Giuliani, he is only one person and this disinformation has been spread through many channels. I expect we will see it again. Edit: grammar.

bonestamp2 6y ago
One of the things that makes this more complex is that we should be skeptical of any person, company or machine that handles election data and has the power to make any significant change to that data. So, I think the dissenters at least got the skepticism part right. The problem, of course, is that a healthy level of skepticism should only inform the investigation of facts, and then perhaps new legislation and oversight. Without the investigation, oversight or legislation... the skepticism is pointless. For example, it's unfortunate that gaming machines in Las Vegas have more oversight and regulations than voting machines. That doesn't necessarily there is a problem with voting machines, but it does mean we could do more to ensure there isn't a problem with them now or in the future. Dominion has not done anything to lose my trust, but when it comes our elections, we should have proper oversight over these machines (no matter who makes them since there are multiple suppliers for voting machines).
- simonh 6y ago
  > Without the investigation, oversight or legislation... the skepticism is pointless. Which is the tell that Trump didn’t believe his own claims of vote fraud. Bear in mind he pulled exactly the same stunt in 2016 claiming massive vote fraud but when he won never mentioned it again until 2020. If he’d actually believed there was vote fraud or a chance of it, he would have done something about it. Investigations, hearings, technical audits, best practices and standards. Statistical analysis to identify issues (as against the analyses that do happen that show insignificant fraud). He had 4 years to sort this out. You’d think it would be one if his top priorities. Of course none of that happened because the whole show is entirely performative. In fact doing anything about it would take his excuse away, because if he addressed vote security he couldn’t blame vote security issues on anyone else.
  - useerup 6y ago
    Actually, there were claims made about massive voter fraud in the 2016 election: When Trump could not stomach the fact that he lost the popular vote, he claimed that more than 3 million ineligible voters had voted for Clinton and that he had in fact won the popular vote. There was even a voter-fraud commission set up to investigate the claims. They quietly disbanded.
    - jimmygrapes 6y ago
      They were not able to acquire any data because Alex Padilla, now temporary Senator replacing Kamala Harris, refused to cooperate. A class case of "we refuse to look for evidence, therefore there is no evidence"
      - simonh 6y ago
        One guy in one state asks for actual evidence such as an actual reason why fraud is being alleged and the entire investigation shrugs it's shoulders, says oh well we tried, and shuts itself down and quietly goes away? Really? Also why pick on Padilla, why not Jon Husted (Rep, Ohio). What about all the Republican lead states where massive fraud was supposed to have happened? Trump expended no political capital or effort whatsoever on doing anything meaningful about supposed voter fraud, and couldn't even persuade any Republican state administrations he had any credible evidence or reason for alleging it. He just gave up immediately at the first hurdle of being asked what he wanted to do and why. In fact he didn't even pursue this personally, he just delegated it to some flunkies and walked away from the issue until the next election. How to explain this? It's almost as if he had no credible reason for making the claims and the whole thing was just for show.
    - simonh 6y ago
      That's what I said, he pulled exactly the same stunt in 2016 claiming massive vote fraud.
- Pxtl 6y ago
  We should be even more skeptical of people who stand to benefit at distrust of the election outcome. So many "skeptics" are actually incredibly trusting patsies, they're just trusting con-men instead of mainstream discourse.
- Fezzik 6y ago
  Sure, and if Trump and his goons were actually worried about issues with Dominion machines they should have filed lawsuits in every county that used the machines... it doesn’t take a genius to realize Trump et al only filed ridiculously vague complaints where he lost the vote as an insane last-ditch effort to somehow overturn his overwhelming loss and/or rile up his supporters.

bonestamp2 6y ago

One of the things that makes this more complex is that we should be skeptical of any person, company or machine that handles election data and has the power to make any significant change to that data. So, I think the dissenters at least got the skepticism part right. The problem, of course, is that a healthy level of skepticism should only inform the investigation of facts, and then perhaps new legislation and oversight. Without the investigation, oversight or legislation... the skepticism is pointless. For example, it's unfortunate that gaming machines in Las Vegas have more oversight and regulations than voting machines. That doesn't necessarily there is a problem with voting machines, but it does mean we could do more to ensure there isn't a problem with them now or in the future. Dominion has not done anything to lose my trust, but when it comes our elections, we should have proper oversight over these machines (no matter who makes them since there are multiple suppliers for voting machines).

simonh 6y ago
> Without the investigation, oversight or legislation... the skepticism is pointless. Which is the tell that Trump didn’t believe his own claims of vote fraud. Bear in mind he pulled exactly the same stunt in 2016 claiming massive vote fraud but when he won never mentioned it again until 2020. If he’d actually believed there was vote fraud or a chance of it, he would have done something about it. Investigations, hearings, technical audits, best practices and standards. Statistical analysis to identify issues (as against the analyses that do happen that show insignificant fraud). He had 4 years to sort this out. You’d think it would be one if his top priorities. Of course none of that happened because the whole show is entirely performative. In fact doing anything about it would take his excuse away, because if he addressed vote security he couldn’t blame vote security issues on anyone else.
- useerup 6y ago
  Actually, there were claims made about massive voter fraud in the 2016 election: When Trump could not stomach the fact that he lost the popular vote, he claimed that more than 3 million ineligible voters had voted for Clinton and that he had in fact won the popular vote. There was even a voter-fraud commission set up to investigate the claims. They quietly disbanded.
  - jimmygrapes 6y ago
    They were not able to acquire any data because Alex Padilla, now temporary Senator replacing Kamala Harris, refused to cooperate. A class case of "we refuse to look for evidence, therefore there is no evidence"
    - simonh 6y ago
      One guy in one state asks for actual evidence such as an actual reason why fraud is being alleged and the entire investigation shrugs it's shoulders, says oh well we tried, and shuts itself down and quietly goes away? Really? Also why pick on Padilla, why not Jon Husted (Rep, Ohio). What about all the Republican lead states where massive fraud was supposed to have happened? Trump expended no political capital or effort whatsoever on doing anything meaningful about supposed voter fraud, and couldn't even persuade any Republican state administrations he had any credible evidence or reason for alleging it. He just gave up immediately at the first hurdle of being asked what he wanted to do and why. In fact he didn't even pursue this personally, he just delegated it to some flunkies and walked away from the issue until the next election. How to explain this? It's almost as if he had no credible reason for making the claims and the whole thing was just for show.
  - simonh 6y ago
    That's what I said, he pulled exactly the same stunt in 2016 claiming massive vote fraud.
Pxtl 6y ago
We should be even more skeptical of people who stand to benefit at distrust of the election outcome. So many "skeptics" are actually incredibly trusting patsies, they're just trusting con-men instead of mainstream discourse.
Fezzik 6y ago
Sure, and if Trump and his goons were actually worried about issues with Dominion machines they should have filed lawsuits in every county that used the machines... it doesn’t take a genius to realize Trump et al only filed ridiculously vague complaints where he lost the vote as an insane last-ditch effort to somehow overturn his overwhelming loss and/or rile up his supporters.