5 ms·

> Despite evidence to the contrary, nearly one-third of Americans still believe the 2020 presidential election was stolen. > Speaking of naïve realism, what ev

> Despite evidence to the contrary, nearly one-third of Americans still believe the 2020 presidential election was stolen. > Speaking of naïve realism, what evidence You can really only prove this type of thing in a single direction, by providing evidence that there was fraud on such a scale as to have swung the results. Otherwise, one could endlessly claim that the election thieves just covered their tracks so well that you don't have any evidence of your assertions regarding their behavior. The burden of proof was on the ones making accusations of election stealing, and as was reflected in how they lost case after case regarding this, _they did not provide it_.

StanislavPetrov 4y ago
>Despite evidence to the contrary, nearly one-third of Americans still believe the 2020 presidential election was stolen. What evidence? An accurate statement might have read, "Despite the lack of conclusive evidence, nearly one-third of Americans still believe the 2020 presidential election was stolen". >You can really only prove this type of thing in a single direction, by providing evidence that there was fraud on such a scale as to have swung the results. This assertion relies on the baseless assumption that the elections are fair unless proven fraudulent. Given the history of elections the opposite could just as easily be argued. This is one of the most important reasons to have total and complete transparency on every level of an election with an auditable paper trail that can be publicly scrutinized leaving no doubt about the integrity of the election among any honest arbiter. Personally I have doubts about the integrity of every election in my lifetime, and I'm not a young man.
- pavlov 4y ago
  “Despite the lack of conclusive evidence” — this sounds like there is some evidence. But there isn’t. Trump’s own attorney general said so. He quit his job when pushed by the president to ignore the lack of evidence and instead issue a statement that there might have been fraud. If you’re inclined to doubt every election, did Trump win in 2016 by fraud too? Bush in 2000? Their margins were very tight and they lost the popular vote. Doesn’t that seem like a more likely situation where fraud would carry the day?
  - StanislavPetrov 4y ago
    >If you’re inclined to doubt every election, did Trump win in 2016 by fraud too? Bush in 2000? Their margins were very tight and they lost the popular vote. It's impossible for me say, unfortunately, because of our black-box elections carried out (mostly) on electronic voting machines that don't allow for real audits and, for the most part, don't have complete paper trails. In my opinion it is absurd to have confidence in any process that is not completely transparent.
    - jjeaff 4y ago
      What is absurd is to make such sweeping claims with incorrect information. More than 90% of votes tallied in the US in 2020 had a paper trail. Up from 80% in 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/05/cybersecurity-202-more-states-now-have-paper-trails-verify-votes-were-correctly-counted/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/05/cybersecu...
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    > did Trump win in 2016 by fraud too? This is the consensus opinion among Democrats. > Bush in 2000? This is the consensus opinion among Democrats. > Doesn’t that seem like a more likely situation where fraud would carry the day? It now seems like this is your opinion. So 100% of elections since 2000 where the opposition won are bitterly contested as illegitimate by party partisans. I'm starting to think these political parties might be the problem.
    - heretogetout 4y ago
      > > did Trump win in 2016 by fraud too? > This is the consensus opinion among Democrats. This doesn't jibe with the facts: https://news.gallup.com/poll/197441/accept-trump-legitimate-president.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/197441/accept-trump-legitimate-... (24% believed Trump was illegitimate) > > Bush in 2000? > This is the consensus opinion among Democrats. This also doesn't match the facts: https://news.gallup.com/poll/2188/black-americans-feel-cheated-election-2000.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/2188/black-americans-feel-cheat... (31%)
- ahiknsr 4y ago
  > What evidence? An accurate statement might have read, "Despite the lack of conclusive evidence, nearly one-third of Americans still believe the 2020 presidential election was stolen". An even more accurate statement would be, "Despite Donald Trump's blatant attempt to change the outcome of election results[1] [2] his followers still believe he has won the 2020 election" [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/03/us/politics/trump-raffensperger-call-georgia.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/03/us/politics/trump-raffens... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/06/fake-trump-electors-ga-told-shroud-plans-secrecy-email-shows/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/06/fake-trum...
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    That's not more accurate, it adds extraneous information in order to antagonize people, and removes the "nearly one-third of Americans" to imply that it's an unusual opinion. "Despite the release of another Jurassic Park sequel, nearly one-third of Americans still believe the 2020 presidential election was stolen."
    - ahiknsr 4y ago
      > extraneous information How is this extraneous? Aren't we talking about election fraud? > in order to antagonize people How is this antagonizing people? I'm just stating facts. Trump tried to manipulate election and there is evidence to support this.
      - atq2119 4y ago
        One can argue about whether it's truly extraneous information, but the "despite" is absolutely the wrong connective. The people who think the election was fraudulent do so because of Trump's actions, not despite of them. Those people's thinking is horribly flawed, of course, but it's still better to represent it accurately.
- Nursie 4y ago
  > What evidence? The evidence of participants and observers, the evidence of recounts and audits. You know, all the actual evidence that the election was free and fair, that actually holds up under scrutiny. Unlike all the 'evidence' to the contrary which crumbled when shown the light of day. > Personally I have doubts Great, but these are unsubstantiated at this point. It's like you think that there are no mechanisms in place to ensure that elections are run honestly.
  - StanislavPetrov 4y ago
    >It's like you think that there are no mechanisms in place to ensure that elections are run honestly. The "mechanisms" in place to ensure that elections are run honestly are lacking and/or non-existent in many municipalities and states around the country (something any informed, unbiased election expert will tell you regardless of their political affiliation). The overwhelming majority of voting in the US takes places on electronic voting machines that run proprietary, black-box software. Further, US electronic voting machines have been proven vulnerable to hacking and manipulation over and over again. https://www.inverse.com/article/48038-here-s-how-a-voting-machine-used-in-18-states-can-be-hacked-in-two-minutes https://www.inverse.com/article/48038-here-s-how-a-voting-ma... These issues have not been recognized, much less addressed. The fact is that our system of recording and tallying votes on these vulnerable electronic machines that cannot be audited renders our elections insecure. This isn't a partisan issue (for the record I voted 3rd party in the last two elections and voted for neither Republicans or Democrats). You are correct when you say my doubts are "unsubstantiated". Also unsubstantiated is any confidence that votes were accurately cast and recorded. We - all Americans - deserve a reliable, transparent, auditable voting system that everyone can be confident in.
    - Nursie 4y ago
      Yet these machines have held up where challenged, and paper recounts have confirmed their results. So there is evidence that, in general, things are OK. This idea that there is no evidence that the system works is just wrong. There's plenty, and that's in stark contrast to the 'evidence' that the election was stolen. I agree that an reliable and transparent system is the best, and should be the aim, and I'm sure there is room for massive improvement, I wouldn't seek to deny it. But likewise you can't just dismiss the evidence that the election was OK as "I don't trust it", when there are a variety of measures taken that are positive evidence of reliability, with no particular evidence it wasn't.
antifa 4y ago
Not only that, they expected the courts to do all the work of looking for evidence based merely on an allegation with no initial evidence. Trump even said ahead of time he will contest the election results if he lost.

StanislavPetrov 4y ago

>Despite evidence to the contrary, nearly one-third of Americans still believe the 2020 presidential election was stolen. What evidence? An accurate statement might have read, "Despite the lack of conclusive evidence, nearly one-third of Americans still believe the 2020 presidential election was stolen". >You can really only prove this type of thing in a single direction, by providing evidence that there was fraud on such a scale as to have swung the results. This assertion relies on the baseless assumption that the elections are fair unless proven fraudulent. Given the history of elections the opposite could just as easily be argued. This is one of the most important reasons to have total and complete transparency on every level of an election with an auditable paper trail that can be publicly scrutinized leaving no doubt about the integrity of the election among any honest arbiter. Personally I have doubts about the integrity of every election in my lifetime, and I'm not a young man.

pavlov 4y ago
“Despite the lack of conclusive evidence” — this sounds like there is some evidence. But there isn’t. Trump’s own attorney general said so. He quit his job when pushed by the president to ignore the lack of evidence and instead issue a statement that there might have been fraud. If you’re inclined to doubt every election, did Trump win in 2016 by fraud too? Bush in 2000? Their margins were very tight and they lost the popular vote. Doesn’t that seem like a more likely situation where fraud would carry the day?
- StanislavPetrov 4y ago
  >If you’re inclined to doubt every election, did Trump win in 2016 by fraud too? Bush in 2000? Their margins were very tight and they lost the popular vote. It's impossible for me say, unfortunately, because of our black-box elections carried out (mostly) on electronic voting machines that don't allow for real audits and, for the most part, don't have complete paper trails. In my opinion it is absurd to have confidence in any process that is not completely transparent.
  - jjeaff 4y ago
    What is absurd is to make such sweeping claims with incorrect information. More than 90% of votes tallied in the US in 2020 had a paper trail. Up from 80% in 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/05/cybersecurity-202-more-states-now-have-paper-trails-verify-votes-were-correctly-counted/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/05/cybersecu...
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > did Trump win in 2016 by fraud too? This is the consensus opinion among Democrats. > Bush in 2000? This is the consensus opinion among Democrats. > Doesn’t that seem like a more likely situation where fraud would carry the day? It now seems like this is your opinion. So 100% of elections since 2000 where the opposition won are bitterly contested as illegitimate by party partisans. I'm starting to think these political parties might be the problem.
  - heretogetout 4y ago
    > > did Trump win in 2016 by fraud too? > This is the consensus opinion among Democrats. This doesn't jibe with the facts: https://news.gallup.com/poll/197441/accept-trump-legitimate-president.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/197441/accept-trump-legitimate-... (24% believed Trump was illegitimate) > > Bush in 2000? > This is the consensus opinion among Democrats. This also doesn't match the facts: https://news.gallup.com/poll/2188/black-americans-feel-cheated-election-2000.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/2188/black-americans-feel-cheat... (31%)
ahiknsr 4y ago
> What evidence? An accurate statement might have read, "Despite the lack of conclusive evidence, nearly one-third of Americans still believe the 2020 presidential election was stolen". An even more accurate statement would be, "Despite Donald Trump's blatant attempt to change the outcome of election results[1] [2] his followers still believe he has won the 2020 election" [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/03/us/politics/trump-raffensperger-call-georgia.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/03/us/politics/trump-raffens... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/06/fake-trump-electors-ga-told-shroud-plans-secrecy-email-shows/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/06/fake-trum...
- pessimizer 4y ago
  That's not more accurate, it adds extraneous information in order to antagonize people, and removes the "nearly one-third of Americans" to imply that it's an unusual opinion. "Despite the release of another Jurassic Park sequel, nearly one-third of Americans still believe the 2020 presidential election was stolen."
  - ahiknsr 4y ago
    > extraneous information How is this extraneous? Aren't we talking about election fraud? > in order to antagonize people How is this antagonizing people? I'm just stating facts. Trump tried to manipulate election and there is evidence to support this.
    - atq2119 4y ago
      One can argue about whether it's truly extraneous information, but the "despite" is absolutely the wrong connective. The people who think the election was fraudulent do so because of Trump's actions, not despite of them. Those people's thinking is horribly flawed, of course, but it's still better to represent it accurately.
Nursie 4y ago
> What evidence? The evidence of participants and observers, the evidence of recounts and audits. You know, all the actual evidence that the election was free and fair, that actually holds up under scrutiny. Unlike all the 'evidence' to the contrary which crumbled when shown the light of day. > Personally I have doubts Great, but these are unsubstantiated at this point. It's like you think that there are no mechanisms in place to ensure that elections are run honestly.
- StanislavPetrov 4y ago
  >It's like you think that there are no mechanisms in place to ensure that elections are run honestly. The "mechanisms" in place to ensure that elections are run honestly are lacking and/or non-existent in many municipalities and states around the country (something any informed, unbiased election expert will tell you regardless of their political affiliation). The overwhelming majority of voting in the US takes places on electronic voting machines that run proprietary, black-box software. Further, US electronic voting machines have been proven vulnerable to hacking and manipulation over and over again. https://www.inverse.com/article/48038-here-s-how-a-voting-machine-used-in-18-states-can-be-hacked-in-two-minutes https://www.inverse.com/article/48038-here-s-how-a-voting-ma... These issues have not been recognized, much less addressed. The fact is that our system of recording and tallying votes on these vulnerable electronic machines that cannot be audited renders our elections insecure. This isn't a partisan issue (for the record I voted 3rd party in the last two elections and voted for neither Republicans or Democrats). You are correct when you say my doubts are "unsubstantiated". Also unsubstantiated is any confidence that votes were accurately cast and recorded. We - all Americans - deserve a reliable, transparent, auditable voting system that everyone can be confident in.
  - Nursie 4y ago
    Yet these machines have held up where challenged, and paper recounts have confirmed their results. So there is evidence that, in general, things are OK. This idea that there is no evidence that the system works is just wrong. There's plenty, and that's in stark contrast to the 'evidence' that the election was stolen. I agree that an reliable and transparent system is the best, and should be the aim, and I'm sure there is room for massive improvement, I wouldn't seek to deny it. But likewise you can't just dismiss the evidence that the election was OK as "I don't trust it", when there are a variety of measures taken that are positive evidence of reliability, with no particular evidence it wasn't.

antifa 4y ago

Not only that, they expected the courts to do all the work of looking for evidence based merely on an allegation with no initial evidence. Trump even said ahead of time he will contest the election results if he lost.