5 ms·

Can you point to a single person who has asserted even one prong of that supposed rhetoric? All anyone reasonable is saying, is if there's widespread or systemi

Can you point to a single person who has asserted even one prong of that supposed rhetoric? All anyone reasonable is saying, is if there's widespread or systemic wrongdoing, where's the evidence?

narrator 4y ago
Since you asked: http://www.hereistheevidence.com http://www.hereistheevidence.com Yup, this exact talking point has been made so many times in so many ways on so many forums that somebody made a site just to rebut it.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  Much like lengthen-your-manhood.info, the domain name is not a seal of quality. In this case, the index appears to be a mash of conspiracy Twitter accounts, fringe blogs, and links to itself. Ho hum.
  - batch12 4y ago
    ~ $ whois lengthen-your-manhood.info Domain not found. YC23 anyone?
  - narrator 4y ago
    Much like cnn.com, the domain name is not a seal of quality. In this case, every source that has told you there was no fraud in the 2020 election appears to be a mash of conspiracy Twitter accounts, fringe blogs, or links to itself. Ho hum.
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      CNN’s domain is not “hereisthetruth.com.” You presumably understand the distinction. (For what it’s worth, I don’t get my news from them.)
      - airtonix 4y ago
- usernomdeguerre 4y ago
  Really unfortunate that these are disorganized and don't make clear statements as to what was improper. Two years on I would have hoped for more clarity from detractors.
- autoexec 4y ago
  > Since you asked: http://www.hereistheevidence.com http://www.hereistheevidence.com Another poster in this discussion posted some links including this one https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/here-is-the-evidence https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/here-is-the-evidence but I didn't find it very satisfying because while it does mention a lot of problems with that site, it doesn't really address the specific evidence itself. I was hoping to see somebody break down the evidence found on hereistheevidence and explain what was so wrong with it. I mean, even heavily biased sources that have been caught spreading lies in the past can still post some truths right? A biased source is a reason for caution, not a reason to outright dismiss something! So, not having that readily available, I thought I'd check some of the evidence myself. I started with "143,835 votes in Georgia were in violation to state laws". That sure sounds pretty serious! That claim consists of nothing more than a link to https://thepostmillennial.com/trump-lawyer-lists-exhaustive-list-of-voting-infractions-in-georgia https://thepostmillennial.com/trump-lawyer-lists-exhaustive-.... No evidence, but I guess they linked to it so I ignored the nagging voice saying "WTF is thepostmillennial.com?" and clicked that link so that I could take in all the glorious evidence I was promised! I'll save you a click though. There is no evidence there. It's just a blog post about how somebody else made a bunch of claims and a video of those claims being made. Not once in the text of that site does the number "143,835" even come up and nowhere is there any evidence available to review. Okay, so there's zero evidence at that link, maybe it was just a bad example... I next checked the entry for "300,000 Fake People Voted In Arizona Election" - Wow! So many fake people! How did I not hear about this?! The entry for that claim is also nothing more than another link. Okay, so no evidence of fake people, but surely that link must take me straight to it! The link goes to https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/12/01/data_expert_up_to_300000_fake_people_voted_in_arizona_election_.html https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/12/01/data_expe... and once again, I'll save you the click, it's still just a post about someone else's claims. There's zero evidence there. Links to stories about people making claims without evidence is not evidence. If there's any evidence at all to be found on hereistheevidence.com, I didn't find it. I guess we need someone to create "hereistheevidenceonhereistheevidence.com" I can't blame people for not taking the time to go over all of the evidence at hereistheevidence.com and verify it, because there is no evidence, which I guess we all should have known by now.
thepasswordis 4y ago
>widespread systemic I am so frustrated that the discussion space is so often forced around this topic. The claim is not that there was “widespread systemic” wrongdoing, the claim is that it would only take a very tiny amount of weight to push an election in direction that benefits the one doing the pushing.
- ajross 4y ago
  That's sort of a specious point, though. In two party systems, elections are always close more or less by definition. If you want to show wrongdoing, you need to show actual wrongdoing and not just that it's possible. I'd argue that the fact that no single group/party/cabal/whatever has managed to disproportionately cheat stands are very good evidence that this is not, in fact, happening.
  - thepasswordis 4y ago
    Okay fine, but that is a different argument. This obsession with the phrase “widespread systemic” is a distraction that prevents people from actually talking to one another.
    - ajross 4y ago
      I submit that a still bigger problem preventing people from actually talking to one another about this is the lack of evidence of an actual stolen election.
      - thepasswordis 4y ago
        https://hereistheevidence.com/ https://hereistheevidence.com/
        ajross 4y ago
        And of course I got trolled into engaging. But fine: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/here-is-the-evidence/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/here-is-the-evidence/ https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/Briefing_Memo_Debunking_Voter_Fraud_Myth.pdf https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/B... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/16/technology/a-website-funded-by-right-wing-groups-gains-followers-with-debunked-voting-fraud-claims.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/16/technology/a-website-fund... https://www.hoover.org/research/no-evidence-voter-fraud-guide-statistical-claims-about-2020-election https://www.hoover.org/research/no-evidence-voter-fraud-guid... All that stuff is just junk, you realize. And you can tell because none of it makes sense! It's got a bunch of numbers and a long list of links to click on that makes you feel like there must be evience (which is the whole point), but when you actually drill down... there's nothing there. It's all argumentation of the form "Why would X be true if we know Y?", leading you to suspect that the "real" reason must be "Z" without saying it. That's not argument, it's a gish gallop. And it's fooled you. I mean, just to make a point using the same logic[1]: if elections were this easy to cheat, then why aren't the cheaters winning all the time? Why do both sides share power at all? How does it not devolve into a single party illuminati running everything? I submit that it doesn't because elections aren't being stolen. [1] But in favor of bland conservatism about "stuff works normally" and not a particular criminal conspiracy.
anon291 4y ago
I mean.. the New York Times just defamed an organization for apparently telling the truth about American election data being held in China. So there's a few people who asserted that.

Can you point to a single person who has asserted even one prong of that supposed rhetoric? All anyone reasonable is saying, is if there's widespread or systemic wrongdoing, where's the evidence?

narrator 4y ago

Since you asked: http://www.hereistheevidence.com http://www.hereistheevidence.com Yup, this exact talking point has been made so many times in so many ways on so many forums that somebody made a site just to rebut it.

woodruffw 4y ago
Much like lengthen-your-manhood.info, the domain name is not a seal of quality. In this case, the index appears to be a mash of conspiracy Twitter accounts, fringe blogs, and links to itself. Ho hum.
- batch12 4y ago
  ~ $ whois lengthen-your-manhood.info Domain not found. YC23 anyone?
- narrator 4y ago
  Much like cnn.com, the domain name is not a seal of quality. In this case, every source that has told you there was no fraud in the 2020 election appears to be a mash of conspiracy Twitter accounts, fringe blogs, or links to itself. Ho hum.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    CNN’s domain is not “hereisthetruth.com.” You presumably understand the distinction. (For what it’s worth, I don’t get my news from them.)
    - airtonix 4y ago
usernomdeguerre 4y ago
Really unfortunate that these are disorganized and don't make clear statements as to what was improper. Two years on I would have hoped for more clarity from detractors.
autoexec 4y ago
> Since you asked: http://www.hereistheevidence.com http://www.hereistheevidence.com Another poster in this discussion posted some links including this one https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/here-is-the-evidence https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/here-is-the-evidence but I didn't find it very satisfying because while it does mention a lot of problems with that site, it doesn't really address the specific evidence itself. I was hoping to see somebody break down the evidence found on hereistheevidence and explain what was so wrong with it. I mean, even heavily biased sources that have been caught spreading lies in the past can still post some truths right? A biased source is a reason for caution, not a reason to outright dismiss something! So, not having that readily available, I thought I'd check some of the evidence myself. I started with "143,835 votes in Georgia were in violation to state laws". That sure sounds pretty serious! That claim consists of nothing more than a link to https://thepostmillennial.com/trump-lawyer-lists-exhaustive-list-of-voting-infractions-in-georgia https://thepostmillennial.com/trump-lawyer-lists-exhaustive-.... No evidence, but I guess they linked to it so I ignored the nagging voice saying "WTF is thepostmillennial.com?" and clicked that link so that I could take in all the glorious evidence I was promised! I'll save you a click though. There is no evidence there. It's just a blog post about how somebody else made a bunch of claims and a video of those claims being made. Not once in the text of that site does the number "143,835" even come up and nowhere is there any evidence available to review. Okay, so there's zero evidence at that link, maybe it was just a bad example... I next checked the entry for "300,000 Fake People Voted In Arizona Election" - Wow! So many fake people! How did I not hear about this?! The entry for that claim is also nothing more than another link. Okay, so no evidence of fake people, but surely that link must take me straight to it! The link goes to https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/12/01/data_expert_up_to_300000_fake_people_voted_in_arizona_election_.html https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/12/01/data_expe... and once again, I'll save you the click, it's still just a post about someone else's claims. There's zero evidence there. Links to stories about people making claims without evidence is not evidence. If there's any evidence at all to be found on hereistheevidence.com, I didn't find it. I guess we need someone to create "hereistheevidenceonhereistheevidence.com" I can't blame people for not taking the time to go over all of the evidence at hereistheevidence.com and verify it, because there is no evidence, which I guess we all should have known by now.

thepasswordis 4y ago

>widespread systemic I am so frustrated that the discussion space is so often forced around this topic. The claim is not that there was “widespread systemic” wrongdoing, the claim is that it would only take a very tiny amount of weight to push an election in direction that benefits the one doing the pushing.

ajross 4y ago
That's sort of a specious point, though. In two party systems, elections are always close more or less by definition. If you want to show wrongdoing, you need to show actual wrongdoing and not just that it's possible. I'd argue that the fact that no single group/party/cabal/whatever has managed to disproportionately cheat stands are very good evidence that this is not, in fact, happening.
- thepasswordis 4y ago
  Okay fine, but that is a different argument. This obsession with the phrase “widespread systemic” is a distraction that prevents people from actually talking to one another.
  - ajross 4y ago
    I submit that a still bigger problem preventing people from actually talking to one another about this is the lack of evidence of an actual stolen election.
    - thepasswordis 4y ago
      https://hereistheevidence.com/ https://hereistheevidence.com/
      - ajross 4y ago
        And of course I got trolled into engaging. But fine: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/here-is-the-evidence/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/here-is-the-evidence/ https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/Briefing_Memo_Debunking_Voter_Fraud_Myth.pdf https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/B... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/16/technology/a-website-funded-by-right-wing-groups-gains-followers-with-debunked-voting-fraud-claims.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/16/technology/a-website-fund... https://www.hoover.org/research/no-evidence-voter-fraud-guide-statistical-claims-about-2020-election https://www.hoover.org/research/no-evidence-voter-fraud-guid... All that stuff is just junk, you realize. And you can tell because none of it makes sense! It's got a bunch of numbers and a long list of links to click on that makes you feel like there must be evience (which is the whole point), but when you actually drill down... there's nothing there. It's all argumentation of the form "Why would X be true if we know Y?", leading you to suspect that the "real" reason must be "Z" without saying it. That's not argument, it's a gish gallop. And it's fooled you. I mean, just to make a point using the same logic[1]: if elections were this easy to cheat, then why aren't the cheaters winning all the time? Why do both sides share power at all? How does it not devolve into a single party illuminati running everything? I submit that it doesn't because elections aren't being stolen. [1] But in favor of bland conservatism about "stuff works normally" and not a particular criminal conspiracy.

anon291 4y ago

I mean.. the New York Times just defamed an organization for apparently telling the truth about American election data being held in China. So there's a few people who asserted that.