3 ms·

Perhaps what you say is correct, but I have no way to verify the vote records myself. All I can do is trust the vote counters, and at this point that is the ve

by yters 6y ago

Perhaps what you say is correct, but I have no way to verify the vote records myself. All I can do is trust the vote counters, and at this point that is the very matter under dispute. Someone in the know really should do an in depth write-up of why it is we can trust this election result. As it is the third Peter Navarro report appears very suspicious and it is hard to believe there is absolutely no reason to doubt the election results. On the contrary the election could very well have been the steal of the century.

JshWright 6y ago
This is very "conspiracy theory" type thinking you're engaging in... There is no evidence supporting any of the claims of fraud, any evidence that doesn't support your position is automatically dismissed as untrustworthy. Your claim seems to be that the Georgia Secretary of State (a staunch Republican and Trump supporter) along with the governor managed to pull off a huge operation to secretly change the results of the election (which would have involved hundreds of people and require that none of them speak out). That's a really outlandish claim, and requires supporting evidence, of which you have none.
- yters 6y ago
  Isn't a stolen election precisely a conspiracy? I would prefer not to believe the election was stolen. I wanted Trump out, and Biden seems a reasonable replacement. I also debunked a number of the fallacious statistical 'proofs' the election was stolen. Believe me I would like nothing better than to believe everything is fine. But especially Navarro's report makes me unable to dismiss the allegations off hand with a clean conscience. I've also looked into the PA court's reasons for dismissing Trump's lawsuit from back in Sept, and the reasoning is all based on technicalities and does not address the substance of the concern that the loosening of the rules has opened the door to major fraud. The fact all the coverage of the lawsuits is frivolous dismissal or even in some cases the courts rule in favor does nothing to set my mind at ease.
  - JshWright 6y ago
    Peter Navarro is a _highly_ partisan source, and not someone you should assume to be arguing in good faith. Are there other, more credible, sources that are influencing your thinking? There is zero evidence supporting the claim of widespread fraud. Unless you have some evidence of some kind, it really seems like you would prefer to believe there is some vast conspiracy and you are writing off all the evidence to the contrary.
    - yters 6y ago
      I am looking at the lawsuits and articles linked from Navarro's report. The lawsuits sound pretty credible to me. When I read the court's reason for rejecting the lawsuit it sounds like the judge is looking for technical reasons to reject the lawsuit. When I look for articles explaining why the lawsuits are rejected en mass, every article I have found is very hand wavy, stating the judges are appointed by Trump so we should expect them to be unbiased. However, no one actually dogs into the opinions or takes the reason why the election seems highly suspicious seriously. To pick out one specific piece of evidence, in PA they found 200k more votes than voters, which is more than enough to change the result for that state. The counts are all from state government databases. http://www.repdiamond.com/News/18754/Latest-News/PA-Lawmakers-Numbers-Don%E2%80%99t-Add-Up,-Certification-of-Presidential-Results-Premature-and-In-Error http://www.repdiamond.com/News/18754/Latest-News/PA-Lawmaker... Navarro has over 50 such claims linked in his report, totalling over 3M potentially fraudulent votes. Regardless of what you think of the man, the evidence itself I find hard to set aside, even though I am like you and would tend towards dismissing Navarro as a partisan hack. But when he has laid out the claimed evidence like this in detail I must at least give it a spot check and the spot checks hold up so far.
      - JshWright 6y ago
        Ok... but the 200k thing is easily debunked... The SURE system is not the official record of votes, the certified county results are. It is not unexpected that those wouldn't match (the counties were prioritizing getting the elections certified and hadn't yet published their results to SURE (which, again, isn't the official source of truth, and therefore wasn't a priority). Several large counties had not uploaded their data to SURE, as of the time of the press release you linked to. https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-afs:Content:9887147615 https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-afs:Content:9887147... You claim that the "spot checks hold up", but the one example you chose to cite (presumably one of the ones you believe holds up) falls apart with just a tiny bit of research.

by yters 6y ago

JshWright 6y ago

This is very "conspiracy theory" type thinking you're engaging in... There is no evidence supporting any of the claims of fraud, any evidence that doesn't support your position is automatically dismissed as untrustworthy. Your claim seems to be that the Georgia Secretary of State (a staunch Republican and Trump supporter) along with the governor managed to pull off a huge operation to secretly change the results of the election (which would have involved hundreds of people and require that none of them speak out). That's a really outlandish claim, and requires supporting evidence, of which you have none.

yters 6y ago
Isn't a stolen election precisely a conspiracy? I would prefer not to believe the election was stolen. I wanted Trump out, and Biden seems a reasonable replacement. I also debunked a number of the fallacious statistical 'proofs' the election was stolen. Believe me I would like nothing better than to believe everything is fine. But especially Navarro's report makes me unable to dismiss the allegations off hand with a clean conscience. I've also looked into the PA court's reasons for dismissing Trump's lawsuit from back in Sept, and the reasoning is all based on technicalities and does not address the substance of the concern that the loosening of the rules has opened the door to major fraud. The fact all the coverage of the lawsuits is frivolous dismissal or even in some cases the courts rule in favor does nothing to set my mind at ease.
- JshWright 6y ago
  Peter Navarro is a _highly_ partisan source, and not someone you should assume to be arguing in good faith. Are there other, more credible, sources that are influencing your thinking? There is zero evidence supporting the claim of widespread fraud. Unless you have some evidence of some kind, it really seems like you would prefer to believe there is some vast conspiracy and you are writing off all the evidence to the contrary.
  - yters 6y ago
    I am looking at the lawsuits and articles linked from Navarro's report. The lawsuits sound pretty credible to me. When I read the court's reason for rejecting the lawsuit it sounds like the judge is looking for technical reasons to reject the lawsuit. When I look for articles explaining why the lawsuits are rejected en mass, every article I have found is very hand wavy, stating the judges are appointed by Trump so we should expect them to be unbiased. However, no one actually dogs into the opinions or takes the reason why the election seems highly suspicious seriously. To pick out one specific piece of evidence, in PA they found 200k more votes than voters, which is more than enough to change the result for that state. The counts are all from state government databases. http://www.repdiamond.com/News/18754/Latest-News/PA-Lawmakers-Numbers-Don%E2%80%99t-Add-Up,-Certification-of-Presidential-Results-Premature-and-In-Error http://www.repdiamond.com/News/18754/Latest-News/PA-Lawmaker... Navarro has over 50 such claims linked in his report, totalling over 3M potentially fraudulent votes. Regardless of what you think of the man, the evidence itself I find hard to set aside, even though I am like you and would tend towards dismissing Navarro as a partisan hack. But when he has laid out the claimed evidence like this in detail I must at least give it a spot check and the spot checks hold up so far.
    - JshWright 6y ago
      Ok... but the 200k thing is easily debunked... The SURE system is not the official record of votes, the certified county results are. It is not unexpected that those wouldn't match (the counties were prioritizing getting the elections certified and hadn't yet published their results to SURE (which, again, isn't the official source of truth, and therefore wasn't a priority). Several large counties had not uploaded their data to SURE, as of the time of the press release you linked to. https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-afs:Content:9887147615 https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-afs:Content:9887147... You claim that the "spot checks hold up", but the one example you chose to cite (presumably one of the ones you believe holds up) falls apart with just a tiny bit of research.