Allegations of Fraud in 2020 US Election

[I Am The Scum]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Didn't they try to stop counting while they were being prevented watching the counting?

No.

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by No Other

If facts don't work you... go after the Individual.

That's what Argumentum ad hominem means, yes. Good for you.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

No.

Which case are you talking about? In any case, each parties lawyers are going to make arguments that favour the party they represent. I don't find this shocking.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by ServiceSoon

What a quandary you have constructed there! You cannot investigate unless you have evidence, but you cannot get evidence unless you investigate

Your fallacy is: equivocation. An official investigation cannot be mandated unless sufficient evidence is offered, which may have been uncovered by a private organisation investigating on its own behalf.

Dave

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Your fallacy is: equivocation. An official investigation cannot be mandated unless sufficient evidence is offered, which may have been uncovered by a private organisation investigating on its own behalf.

Dave

I do wonder what the point of election observers is if when the election observers say they have spotted problems, that doesn't lead to an investigation. Otherwise, the only function I can see would be to help create the political will to force an investigation which seems to be how they are being used in this case.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

That's what an investigation, if it happens, would presumably find out.

You probably need some evidence before starting an investigation. Since nobody in a position of power other than Trump believes there was fraud, Project Veritas has had to resort to offering a $25,000 reward for any evidence of fraud, and even Trump's own court cases failed to provide any evidence, I see no pressing need for one.

I'll happily change my mind when there's more than Trump & associates whinging.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I think given that we had a 6000 vote error in one county, it's not impossible to suppose that errors or 15,000 votes couldn't be found state wide if the election way audited.

But, what really happened is that they scanned a bunch of ballots, saw the results, and said, "Whoa......what the heck is going on here?" They checked the machine, saw it wasn't working, and fixed it.

Saying, "We had a 6,000 vote error" is very misleading here. It was just a simple case of rerunning ballots once the software was upgraded to the new version.

And of course the election will be audited. That's part of the normal, ordinary, process. What's being called for is for outsiders to come in and take a look beyond the normal, ordinary audit.

As I said, I don't mind an investigation. Investigate all you want, if you're willing to pay for it, but let's not pretend that somehow those 6,000 votes are some major issue that needs to be addressed, or is a sign of widespread fraud.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I do wonder what the point of election observers is if when the election observers say they have spotted problems, that doesn't lead to an investigation.

I would imagine Trump's lawyers will present every instance they have of an election observer spotting problems to the courts, the courts will rule on whether the allegations warrant an investigation, and if they do, an investigation will be carried out. If they don't, one won't. So far, all the suits presented have either failed on the basis that no evidence has been presented which warranted an investigation, or resulted in a court order which has been complied with, and in some cases already had been complied with at the time of the order. If Trump has credible evidence of electoral fraud, he's free to bring it before the courts. So far he has failed to do so, which seems somewhat at variance with his absolute certainty that it has occurred on a massive scale. It's almost as if he hasn't actually got any.

Dave

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I do wonder what the point of election observers is if when the election observers say they have spotted problems, that doesn't lead to an investigation. Otherwise, the only function I can see would be to help create the political will to force an investigation which seems to be how they are being used in this case.

So far, the only "problem" observers have reported is that they were 10 feet away from the ballot counters but wanted to be 6 feet away. Do you have any other problems?

[SuburbanTurkey]

Quote:

Top Republicans in Washington are reluctant to call Joe Biden the president-elect publicly, fearing a rebellion by grassroots conservatives loyal to President Trump that would sink the party’s Senate majority.

Republican insiders privately concede Biden ousted Trump and dismiss suggestions voter fraud, ballot errors, or other issues would be uncovered sufficient to alter the election. But with the president claiming otherwise and two Georgia runoff elections set for January that will decide the Senate majority, plus midterm elections in 2022, most congressional Republicans are backing Trump. The move is purely transactional.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...-loss-of-seats

The tail is wagging the dog. Republicans in charge know Trump lost, but they don't want to deal with blowback from the conspiratorial base so they go along with this hopeless legal challenge.

Despite the bluster, there's no reason to believe that the ordinary course of events isn't going to occur. States will soon finish their counts, baseless legal challenges in various courts will fail, and the Biden election victory will be certified.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

But, what really happened is that they scanned a bunch of ballots, saw the results, and said, "Whoa......what the heck is going on here?" They checked the machine, saw it wasn't working, and fixed it.

Saying, "We had a 6,000 vote error" is very misleading here. It was just a simple case of rerunning ballots once the software was upgraded to the new version.

Right, so one "error" can throw the vote off in a county by 6000 votes and the total votes in some states are only different by 15000 votes or less.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

And of course the election will be audited. That's part of the normal, ordinary, process. What's being called for is for outsiders to come in and take a look beyond the normal, ordinary audit.

OK, sounds good.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

As I said, I don't mind an investigation. Investigate all you want, if you're willing to pay for it, but let's not pretend that somehow those 6,000 votes are some major issue that needs to be addressed, or is a sign of widespread fraud.

The paying for it question doesn't seem like much of an issue.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by wareyin

"This content is not available to you"

My bad.

Project Veritas - who apparently have evidence of voter fraud, per one of the conspiracy theorists in this thread - are offering a $25K reward for evidence of voter fraud, which again, they supposedly already have.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

My bad.

Project Veritas - who apparently have evidence of voter fraud, per one of the conspiracy theorists in this thread - are offering a $25K reward for evidence of voter fraud, which again, they supposedly already have.

I'm sure they'll find someone willing to make such a claim publicly, but will be much more reticent to make such a complaint in any venue in which perjury charges could be a possibility.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by ServiceSoon

What a quandary you have constructed there! You cannot investigate unless you have evidence, but you cannot get evidence unless you investigate

As far as I know, there is no evidence that you are a pedophile.

But I guess there should be an investigation to be sure. Agreed?

[crescent]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

And yet a congressional election in North Carolina is being rerun because of fraud.

Was being rerun - past tense. It was early last year.

Election re-run in North Carolina after voter fraud inquiry

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

As far as I know, there is no evidence that you are a pedophile.

But I guess there should be an investigation to be sure. Agreed?

If half the country believed ServiceSoon was a paedophile, maybe having an investigation, if only to refute the claim to the greatest extent possible, would be a good idea?

[johnny karate]

Bump for shuttit.

Originally Posted by shuttlt

What form do you want the evidence in? Take the widely publicised claim of poll watchers being told to leave because there was going to be no more counting only for there to be no more counting. Do you need me to personally present the poll watcher to you for inspection so you can cross examine them? This is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Do you accept claims as evidence?

[JoeMorgue]

"All the evidence suggests that no only are you wrong on every possible level and from every possible angle, there was never any point to even ever ask the question in the first place. You are not even wrong, you are negative right."

"Well agree to disagree. That's just like, your opinion."

- A short summary of every discussion with the Right these days.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

If half the country believed ServiceSoon was a paedophile, maybe having an investigation, if only to refute the claim to the greatest extent possible, would be a good idea?

If half the country believed ServiceSoon was a paedophile and would continue to believe it whatever the result of any investigation that found to the contrary, no, it probably wouldn't.

Dave

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by crescent

Was being rerun - past tense. It was early last year.

Election re-run in North Carolina after voter fraud inquiry

Yes, I have already been corrected on that. It doesn't alter the point though. Fraud does occur that impacts the results of elections.

[JoeMorgue]

Again this is Philosophy Tactics. Once a question is asked we aren't allowed to take it off the table for some reason, even if it winds up being just a giant meaningless nothingburger.

It's "Well when there's smoke there's fire" except there's no smoke.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

If half the country believed ServiceSoon was a paedophile, maybe having an investigation, if only to refute the claim to the greatest extent possible, would be a good idea?

That is in a manner asking for a negative to be proved.

The correct approach is to ask what evidence there is for such a conclusion and then evaluate the evidence.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

If half the country believed ServiceSoon was a paedophile and would continue to believe it whatever the result of any investigation that found to the contrary, no, it probably wouldn't.

Dave

You don't know that.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Yes, I have already been corrected on that. It doesn't alter the point though. Fraud does occur that impacts the results of elections.

Pedophilia exists. Should we discuss whether or not you are one just based on the "Well this crime exists somewhere" standard?

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

If half the country believed ServiceSoon was a paedophile, maybe having an investigation, if only to refute the claim to the greatest extent possible, would be a good idea?

What’s the minimum number of people who need to believe without evidence that you are a pedophile before you are comfortable with the police investigating you for it?

[The Greater Fool]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

If half the country believed ServiceSoon was a paedophile, maybe having an investigation, if only to refute the claim to the greatest extent possible, would be a good idea?

Nope.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Again this is Philosophy Tactics. Once a question is asked we aren't allowed to take it off the table for some reason, even if it winds up being just a giant meaningless nothingburger.

It's "Well when there's smoke there's fire" except there's no smoke.

It’s more like:

“How do you know there is no smoke?”

-Because the smoke alarm hasn’t gone off

“Perhaps the smoke alarm isn’t working”

-I’ve pressed the test button and it worked

“Ah but perhaps the smoke alarm test button isn’t working”

-Fine. When and where do you smell smoke?

“I didn’t say I had”

-Then why are you asking if there is no smoke?

“Because there could have been or there could be smoke now that you, the smoke alarm and me can’t smell!”

[uke2se]

What bothers me about this discussion is that there is no honesty from the Trumpist side - they know full well that Trump lost the election fair and square. What they are doing is participating in a naked attempt to subvert democracy on Trump's behalf. It's rather serious and we should be calling them out for it rather than engage in quippy debunking of their many ludicrous claims.

What the Trumpists are doing in this thread is perpetuating an attempt to steal the election, and they know full well what they are doing.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

You don't know that.

Trump has made it clear that he fervently believes that he has already won the election, and the only purpose of an investigation would be to find out how it was fraudulently stolen from him. Do half the country believe him? You don't know that.

Dave

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Pedophilia exists. Should we discuss whether or not you are one just based on the "Well this crime exists somewhere" standard?

There was that one time in 1960 when pedophilia occurred, for instance.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by uke2se

What bothers me about this discussion is that there is no honesty from the Trumpist side - they know full well that Trump lost the election fair and square. What they are doing is participating in a naked attempt to subvert democracy on Trump's behalf. It's rather serious and we should be calling them out for it rather than engage in quippy debunking of their many ludicrous claims.

What the Trumpists are doing in this thread is perpetuating an attempt to steal the election, and they know full well what they are doing.

They are just asking questions!

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Darat

They are just asking questions!

Hey, we're not allowed to call anyone conspiracy theorists because the term can't be defined with mathematical precision, remember?

Dave

[JoeMorgue]

So now instead of the simple "JAQing Off" and "Gish Gallop" we have to let "Gish Galloping Off" into the discussion.

[Armitage72]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

The Republicans want election security, at least partly, because election security favours them. Democrats are opposed to election security, at least partly, because election security disfavours them. It is going to take an apocalyptic scandal to implement what you are talking about.

And yet it's the Republicans in the Senate, Mitch particularly, who have blocked every election security bill that's been put before them. In February, they blocked three in one day.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

The Republicans want election security, at least partly, because election security favours them. Democrats are opposed to election security, at least partly, because election security disfavours them. It is going to take an apocalyptic scandal to implement what you are talking about.

Can we put this nonsense to rest; this stupid idea that wanting fairness is the same thing as being biased for the people who don't cheat?

"Democrats want things to be run fairly, Republicans don't" doesn't make this a "Political difference" that you are just "Biased for the Democrats" in wanting.

[No Other]

BENFORD'S LAW

1. It is an empirical law within mathematics, it is recognized as a tool by all Mathematicians.
2. This is a process, it does not determine anything outside of the distribution of numbers.
3. The results need to be evaluated.
4. The results do not determine if something is accurate or inaccurate, that is left up to an individual or individuals.
5. There will be occurrences where Benford's Law will not be the proper tool but election results is not one of them.
6. Using Benford's Law as a tool to observe the distribution of votes counted is valid as long as the proper criteria is present. (defined universe,at least one magnitude of numbers, numbers are naturally established, sufficient sample size).
7. Both Democrats and Republicans use this method... this is not new.
8. Benford's Law is valid in ferreting out anomalies; those anomalies very well could have a strong explanation. It doesn't automatically mean something is nefarious if Benford's pattern is not observed.
9. I suggested (along with many others) to use Benford's Law as it is neutral, a starting point is needed if this election will be contested, and math is a great Arbiter.
10. To assume for someone suggesting Benford's Law is a Republican (or supports Trump) is incorrect to highest degree.
11. My father has his Doctorate in Math (Applied Mathematics), my son has his Math Doctorate in Graph Theory, at this moment you can apply many fallacies but I utilize them to the fullest. As for me... I did not pass my dissertation in Differential Geometry so my knowledge of math is certainly not up to my father's and/or my son's level.

As for me... I am still a Bernie Sanders person but he did not make the cut.

Chris Rock: "There's math, everything else is opinion".

[JoeMorgue]

Can Benford's Law be used to prove you are immortal?

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Armitage72

And yet it's the Republicans in the Senate, Mitch particularly, who have blocked every election security bill that's been put before them. In February, they blocked three in one day.

Gosh, it’s almost as if Republicans don’t care about election security and shuttit is just making baseless allegations.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Can Benford's Law be used to prove you are immortal?

I’m not sure, but apparently we need to ask noted mathematician Chris Rock.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Gosh, it’s almost as if Republicans don’t care about election security and shuttit is just making baseless allegations.

They do care, it's just that they have a different definition of election security. In their case it's ensuring that only the right kinds of people vote.