2020 Election Fraud Roundup

Post Reply New Topic

Trump campaign abandons part of legal challenge to Pennsylvania election results

That's quite an eye opening video.

From the BBC: US Election 2020: The 'dead voters' in Michigan who are still alive

From the BBC: US election security officials reject Trump's fraud claims

This one from October this year was also interesting...


What was curious was the mention that problems could be picked up in an audit, but as I understand it the state is merely doing a recount rather than an audit or canvassing votes.

A lawyer has put together a crowdsourcing database for all claims of election fraud in 2020 along with some useful historical precedents.

https://hereistheevidence.com/

A much better effort than my thread. Interestingly the claims with valid sources are ranked by "admissibility" in a court.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdny/pr/postal-worker-arrested-and-charged-failing-deliver-over-800-pieces-mail-which-included
https://breaking911.com/u-s-postal-worker-caught-at-canadian-border-with-stolen-ballots-in-car-trunk/
https://archive.md/aYcUd
https://archive.md/eGO3T

I have to wonder how often the same few incidents get reported as separate incidents.

Lots and lots of "claims". Claims made by a lawyer are still claims. Justifying claims as valid simply because a lawyer made them is an appeal to authority. The postal worker was found to have a whopping THREE ballots in a single box of random mail. So far, the only "frawd" seems to be all the unsubstantiated claims that get treated like "DA TROOTH", despite a glaring lack of evidence other than someone "claiming" that something happened.

"Audit" is a fancy word for "recount". Know how you perform an audit? You recount everything, and make sure it matches what it says should be there. That's it. Saying they're doing a recount, but not an AUDIT, is pedantic at best, unless you're implying that by doing a "recount", you mean that they intend to recount the votes, but not actually compare them to the supposedly questionable results. But if you count the votes, and then count the votes again, and compare the two totals, you've performed an audit.

It makes you wonder if they're not reporting the same handful of claims over and over again on purpose, with different headlines from different sources, in order to create the illusion that these claims are far more prolific that they actually are. Old witch-hunt trick. If enough "claims" float around, it can give the illusion of "truth". Misreporting the details sees to be rampant, too.

Last edited by uncommondenominator on 17 Nov 2020, 11:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

That is a verbose way of putting it; but yeah, that is definitely something to consider.  It's like what happened when only one person claimed to have seen "Bigfoot" -- the same report was repeated over and over again (each time with new embellishments) so often that now it seems as if "Bigfoot" is everywhere all at once.

Verbosity helps to allay misinterpretation. It's harder to take things out of context when the context is embedded in the observation. Also, as a general rule, if I'm going to call out a mechanism of deceit, I'm going to take the time to explain how it works and what it's doing, rather than simply claiming there is one.

As for your "bigfoot" example, that's exactly it. 50 different people all hear a story about a bigfoot sighting, but all 50 people heard the story from the same exact person, and didn't know it. So while it gives the illusion of 50 different bigfoot sightings, it's really only ONE bigfoot claim, repeated 50 times.

In that same vein, if one can get a news story reported by 10 different "news" outlets, then when *they* go to report it they get to make it look like 10 different claims, rather than ONE claim repeated 10 times. And even then, it's still a CLAIM.

Thus we have only one report of mishandled ballots being expanded by innuendo, rumor, and outright deceit into an alleged vast conspiracy affecting every single ballot at every single voting site.

Sad.

That's it.

Biden's presidency is toast.

Serious or sarcastic?

The system doesn't actually have to be broken if you can simply erode people's faith in it's operation. And you don't have to "prove" much if you can simply cast everything into doubt. Not only that, but it's far easier to argue to be "right", than it is to argue to be accurate. All you have to do to prove you're "right" is cherry pick data that proves you right, and ignore any data that proves you wrong. "Facts" are irrelevant - it's down to being "clever".