Conservative publication fact checks election fraud stories

"All of these claims, with the exception of the absentee Georgia ballots (which seemed like honest confusion and could actually have hurt Joe Biden if true, given his general advantage in mailed-in ballots), were shared to bolster the claim that the election was stolen from Donald Trump. And all of them, with the exception of the claim that Pennsylvania reported a batch of ballots all for Biden, were false. (Even that one was missing some context.)" - The Dispatch

6785 reads

There are 175 Comments

Robert Byers's picture

This is utterly dishonest bovine byproduct.  The Dispatch is NOT a conservative publication.  It is a rabidly anti-Trump publication.  It is possible to be a conservative and not be pro-Trump (foolish and misguided, but possible).  It is NOT possible to be a conservative and be pro-Biden.  And they're wrong on the facts as well.  There is widespread evidence--not rumors, not suggestions, but evidence--of voter fraud.

Thousands of out of state voters in Nevada

Hundreds (at least) of dead voters in Michigan.  And Pennsylvania.  And Wisconsin.

Thousands of illegal ballots being counted in Georgia where they went out and "cured" them after the election was over.

People (on camera no less) sitting in rooms where they're supposedly counting ballots and filling them in instead.

The list goes on and on.

Whoever wrote this headline should be ashamed and then repent of lying.  And whoever thought this Dispatch garbage was accurate and newsworthy is a deluded fool.  Sad.

PhilKnight's picture

I am not naive enough to believe any of the following:

  1. that there was no fraud in this election.  As long as people are sinful and the stakes are high, it is unlikely we can ever have a nationwide election in any country without some fraud (referred to hereafter as "shenanigans" Smile );
  2. that it's not possible that there were enough such shenanigans in this election to have flipped the winner in the race for president in a state or two, given the slim margins; and
  3. that, for at least some Democratic leaders, one motivation behind the push for mail-in ballots (and the loosening of constraints around the receipt and counting deadlines for such ballots) was their belief that mail-in ballots provide more opportunities for undetected shenanigans (e.g., more ways for votes to be illegal votes to be cast and or for legal votes to be manipulated).

That said, however, I'd like to point out even if you doubt the credibility of the "fact checking" in the linked article, it is a good reminder of how little we actually know, and of how careful we should be about what we distribute to others.  Passing around defaming anecdotes such as the ones enumerated in the linked article--anecdotes that are unverified and, in most cases, practicably unverifiable--is not merely unprofitable; it's sinful.  It is bearing false witness, and it is malicious. And the fact that such anecdotes resemble the sort of wrongdoing that you believe is likely taking place doesn't excuse it. It is highly unlikely that anyone on this board has the personal knowledge to verify whether a single one of the anecdotes debunked by the linked article is true or false. Absent such knowledge (or credible verification from a reliable and qualified source), we shouldn't be guilty of passing such things on to others.

None of the above is to say that the allegations in these anecdotes aren't to be taken seriously. Not at all.  I believe our government should treat credible accusations of voting fraud in this election with extreme seriousness--by investigating them and, if there is enough evidence, prosecuting them to effect a legal remedy. That's important in order to pursue justice and in order to preserve the public's trust in the integrity of our democratic processes.  In thinking about a "legal remedy," though, it 's important to remember that prosecuting people for individual cases of fraud is extremely different from changing the winner of an election due to fraud.  Justifying a remedy that changed the winner of the election would require demonstrating all of the following:

  1. that there's credible evidence that instances of fraud took place,
  2. that the effects of such fraud is quantifiable in terms of votes affected, and
  3. that the quantified collective effect of the fraud was sufficient to change the winner of the election.

And all of that would have to be completed before the Constitutional deadline for certifying the election, which is fixed and not legally alterable by anyone--not even the Supreme Court.  Granted, that is a very high bar. But that really is the legal and constitutional bar here as I understand it.

According to Antonin Scalia, justices who faithfully follow a textualist philosophy will sometimes be compelled by the law to reach a decision whose outcome they don't like.  If the Trump team could get enough evidence to prove that there was election fraud and could demonstrate credibly that the result of the fraud changed the outcome of the election, they should take it to the court--and all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary.  However, without such evidence, they don't have a valid case for overturning the election.  And if the Supreme Court were to take the case without such evidence, I'm fairly confident  the vote would be 9-0 against the Trump administration.  And, legally, that would be the right decision.

Philip Knight

TylerR's picture

Editor

He lost. He can whine, pout, throw temper tantrums and act like a spoiled little boy if he wishes. He lost. Bye bye, Donald. I look forward to the GOP primaries in 2024. Hopefully, they can put forward a serious candidate. 

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

T Howard's picture

TylerR wrote:

He lost. He can whine, pout, throw temper tantrums and act like a spoiled little boy if he wishes. He lost. Bye bye, Donald. I look forward to the GOP primaries in 2024. Hopefully, they can put forward a serious candidate. 

Amen.

Mark_Smith's picture

on the national level. If you didn't fight for Trump, those people aren't going to stand up for you in 2024. Hasta la vista for a conservative Republican party on the national level.

And if you disagree with that statement, I will rephrase. I am not supporting a Republican that didn't fight with Trump the last four years.

dgszweda's picture

The problem that we have is that we have Trump, Rudy and a ton of far right to extreme right news agencies that are throwing out all kinds of examples of fraud and injustice.  What you find, when reading the lawsuits is very little to no concrete examples of fraud.  Even in PA where Trump won a court ruling, the ballots were already being set aside, and to this point, have not even been counted in the totals.  I have read many of the lawsuits and I am struggling to find any real evidence for anything outlined in them.  This is why most are getting rejected.  There is nothing legally going on wrong, even if you try to stretch the definition.  The sad thing is that Trump doesn't really care about the nation.  If he did he would be speaking to it.  Instead he used the last 4 years to feed his ego, and stand awash in the adulation of his supporters, while calling everyone else loosers.  He was never a president of this United States, he was a leader to a segment of people, and only a segment that would feed his narcissm.  Everyone talks about how great a leader he was, and I think over these next two months you will continue to see his real character continue to come out.  It is sad to see his reaction and how he is behaving right now.  I am not the oldest one on this forum, but if you have lived long enough, you have heard how the next democrat will ruin the nation and our lives will be over.  And yet we continue to move on.  Biden will be significantly hampered for the next few years.  Yes, he will undue a string of executive orders, but maybe that isn't all that bad.  The flipside, is given Trump, Biden as much a centrist as the Democrats had, barely won.  If the Republicans can get a half decent candidate to run in 4 years, it will be an easy win.

Mark_Smith's picture

I don't mean in the election count. The "fraud" was the switch in several states to mail-out to all registered voters with ballots. By "fight with Trump" I meant in all the battles over the last 4 years. The constant calls that Trump and his supporters were racists. The opposition to his immigration controls. His tax cuts. His strong opposition to China and North Korea, and yes, Russia. The opposition to the Democrat plans ran by Speaker Pelosi and Sen Schumer. Those things. If you blew off Trump in his first 2 years when the Repubs had all of government. That kind of thing.

I suspect the Repubs are going to go back to be a "don't tax me bro" party. The faithful and loyal opposition that neither seeks nor wants the leadership.

RajeshG's picture

According to a conference that Giuliani held the other day, he has 50+ affidavits from poll watchers in PA who were completely denied suitable access. He is planning to file a lawsuit tomorrow. We will see what comes of that lawsuit.

Also, there is a huge constitutional issue with what the PA Supreme Court did. If the US Supreme Court does not intervene and invalidate what they have done, a very wrong precedent will be set that will effectively mean that we have lost the rule of law in our country.

Regardless of who ultimately wins, we must have a fair election.

dgszweda wrote:

The problem that we have is that we have Trump, Rudy and a ton of far right to extreme right news agencies that are throwing out all kinds of examples of fraud and injustice.  What you find, when reading the lawsuits is very little to no concrete examples of fraud.  Even in PA where Trump won a court ruling, the ballots were already being set aside, and to this point, have not even been counted in the totals.  I have read many of the lawsuits and I am struggling to find any real evidence for anything outlined in them.  This is why most are getting rejected.  There is nothing legally going on wrong, even if you try to stretch the definition.  The sad thing is that Trump doesn't really care about the nation.  If he did he would be speaking to it.  Instead he used the last 4 years to feed his ego, and stand awash in the adulation of his supporters, while calling everyone else loosers.  He was never a president of this United States, he was a leader to a segment of people, and only a segment that would feed his narcissm.  Everyone talks about how great a leader he was, and I think over these next two months you will continue to see his real character continue to come out.  It is sad to see his reaction and how he is behaving right now.  I am not the oldest one on this forum, but if you have lived long enough, you have heard how the next democrat will ruin the nation and our lives will be over.  And yet we continue to move on.  Biden will be significantly hampered for the next few years.  Yes, he will undue a string of executive orders, but maybe that isn't all that bad.  The flipside, is given Trump, Biden as much a centrist as the Democrats had, barely won.  If the Republicans can get a half decent candidate to run in 4 years, it will be an easy win.

Bert Perry's picture

The thing here, regarding claims that "we don't know", is that there is something we do know.  There are a lot of people out there who were registered poll watchers who were denied access.  As I noted on another forum, that's like telling an ISO or other auditor that he can't come into your facility when he comes to do a required audit, and one must assume bad intent when an entity does that.  If your facility tells an auditor to stay out, it's almost guaranteed that your accreditation will be revoked for that reason.  The same should hold for polling places.

Do we know how many ballots were stuffed into the ballot box?  No, but we do know that a number of areas showed behaviors that are compatible with ballot box stuffing, and are for that reason illegal.  All of them happen to be run by Democrats, and they've been showing these behaviors for decades.  I've known basically since my college days that in certain states, the urban/liberal areas always report last, and "inexplicably" the Democrats always seem to make up a huge amount of ground in the wee hours when the poll watchers are tired or gone.  We need to start taking ballot box security seriously one of these days.

I don't like Trumps lack of character, and I don't like his habit of "nonsensing" in his Twitter feed.  That noted, he does fight, and that's something that the GOP desperately needs.  The GOP also desperately needs people who understand that at many points, per the definition of populism, that yes, coastal elites are doing things that work strongly against the interests of the middle class.  

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

dgszweda's picture

RajeshG wrote:

According to a conference that Giuliani held the other day, he has 50+ affidavits from poll watchers in PA who were completely denied suitable access. He is planning to file a lawsuit tomorrow. We will see what comes of that lawsuit.

Also, there is a huge constitutional issue with what the PA Supreme Court did. If the US Supreme Court does not intervene and invalidate what they have done, a very wrong precedent will be set that will effectively mean that we have lost the rule of law in our country.

Regardless of who ultimately wins, we must have a fair election.

The problem with the affidavits is that they indicate some individual people were not allowed to watch the polls or were not allowed to watch at a level they felt they should be watching.  The problem with these is that 1) people were still allowed to watch the polls, and 2) no evidence of fraud.  What you are hearing from this camp is an announcement of a perceived problem, which allows them to raise a question and then try to link that question to fraud.  It is the same exact models that conspiracy theories are structured upon.  Now whether there was fraud or not, cannot be perceived from these lawsuits, because no fraud is identified or highlighted and therefore can't be addressed by the court.  This is why so many are being thrown out so quickly.

In terms of the PA Supreme Court, again, no sign of fraud, but a sign of irregularity.  In addition, regardless of what happens here, it doesn't change the results, as the ballots in contention haven't even been counted yet or added to the totals.  In actuality the response of the US supreme court was a rebuff to the Republicans.

All in all, with as massive of a turnout as we had and with the large number of mail in and absentee ballots, this went very smoothly in my opinion.  Some irregularities no doubt, and given the size and number of counties there shouldn't be an expectation that nothing will be found.  But no signs of fraud (which is the intentional and systematic process of committing a crime).  We will find over the next few days that nothing will make its way through the predominately republican judges and supreme court and that no fraud or any irregularity that impacts the outcome will be made.

 

dgszweda's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

The thing here, regarding claims that "we don't know", is that there is something we do know.  There are a lot of people out there who were registered poll watchers who were denied access.

I would encourage you to read the details in some of the less biased news sources.  In all cases, there were poll watchers.  Rudy and Trump declared that poll watchers were denied access in a Detroit precint.  This is true, but what they forget to mention is that there were already more than 200 Republican poll watchers roaming around the precint room and that it had reached capacity as hundreds more poll watchers wanted access.  All of these cases in the various states have been investigated and been proven to be false by numerous investigations.  What we have perpetuating this discussion is Rudy and Trump rehashing the same story and numerous far right sites reprinting the same exact story.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/11/06/trump-and-allies-keep-...

 

RajeshG's picture

dgszweda wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

According to a conference that Giuliani held the other day, he has 50+ affidavits from poll watchers in PA who were completely denied suitable access. He is planning to file a lawsuit tomorrow. We will see what comes of that lawsuit.

Also, there is a huge constitutional issue with what the PA Supreme Court did. If the US Supreme Court does not intervene and invalidate what they have done, a very wrong precedent will be set that will effectively mean that we have lost the rule of law in our country.

Regardless of who ultimately wins, we must have a fair election.

 

 

The problem with the affidavits is that they indicate some individual people were not allowed to watch the polls or were not allowed to watch at a level they felt they should be watching.  The problem with these is that 1) people were still allowed to watch the polls, and 2) no evidence of fraud.  What you are hearing from this camp is an announcement of a perceived problem, which allows them to raise a question and then try to link that question to fraud.  It is the same exact models that conspiracy theories are structured upon.  Now whether there was fraud or not, cannot be perceived from these lawsuits, because no fraud is identified or highlighted and therefore can't be addressed by the court.  This is why so many are being thrown out so quickly.

In terms of the PA Supreme Court, again, no sign of fraud, but a sign of irregularity.  In addition, regardless of what happens here, it doesn't change the results, as the ballots in contention haven't even been counted yet or added to the totals.  In actuality the response of the US supreme court was a rebuff to the Republicans.

All in all, with as massive of a turnout as we had and with the large number of mail in and absentee ballots, this went very smoothly in my opinion.  Some irregularities no doubt, and given the size and number of counties there shouldn't be an expectation that nothing will be found.  But no signs of fraud (which is the intentional and systematic process of committing a crime).  We will find over the next few days that nothing will make its way through the predominately republican judges and supreme court and that no fraud or any irregularity that impacts the outcome will be made.

 

The PA Supreme Court unconstitutionally changed the election law. Only the legislature has that authority. If the US Supreme Court rules as they should, more than enough ballots may yet be invalidated for Trump to win PA.

dgszweda's picture

RajeshG wrote:

 

The PA Supreme Court unconstitutionally changed the election law. Only the legislature has that authority. If the US Supreme Court rules as they should, more than enough ballots may yet be invalidated for Trump to win PA.

Yes, but in the end it is just noise in regards to the final outcome.  The votes have not been counted and it is not clear that even if they have been counted, they would shift the results.

Robert Byers's picture

TylerR wrote:

He lost. He can whine, pout, throw temper tantrums and act like a spoiled little boy if he wishes. He lost. Bye bye, Donald. I look forward to the GOP primaries in 2024. Hopefully, they can put forward a serious candidate. 

If the Democrats are allowed to steal this election, the Republicans could run a George Washington/Archangel Michael ticket in 24 and it won't matter.  When all the "votes" you need to win any given state can magically appear under the cover of darkness, it's not about the candidates any more.

Mark_Smith's picture

to mail in votes that were sent out by the millions, you lose tight control on the vote. I realize that it normally works in several states like that, but when the Democrats decide Trump is synonymous with Hitler and he has to be defeated, they will do whatever it takes to win. If there was any "cheating" it was in that mail in category that you are never going to prove. So the election is over. Move on. Pray. And beg for mercy from the Lord.

WallyMorris's picture

All of the accusations of fraud, irregularity, and improper ballots being counted need to be investigated to determine if any credible evidence exists to verify the accusations. The courts are involved because of disagreements about the application of the laws to the ballots and the possibility of illegal ballots. The Republicans need to produce credible evidence to substantiate their accusations. If they cannot produce evidence, then either they haven't found enough evidence yet or the evidence doesn't exist. In order to change the apparent results of the election, Trump will have to win at least 2 states which currently Biden has won. Otherwise he will not have the Electoral College votes to be President, even if they do prove fraud. In any case, the country needs credible resolution to Republican charges of fraud since we can't have 1/2 of the country doubting the integrity of national elections. That is a recipe for continual conflict and violence.

Wally Morris

Charity Baptist Church

Huntington, IN

amomentofcharity.blogspot.com

Bert Perry's picture

dgszweda wrote:

 

Bert Perry wrote:

 

The thing here, regarding claims that "we don't know", is that there is something we do know.  There are a lot of people out there who were registered poll watchers who were denied access.

 

I would encourage you to read the details in some of the less biased news sources.  In all cases, there were poll watchers.  Rudy and Trump declared that poll watchers were denied access in a Detroit precint.  This is true, but what they forget to mention is that there were already more than 200 Republican poll watchers roaming around the precint room and that it had reached capacity as hundreds more poll watchers wanted access.  All of these cases in the various states have been investigated and been proven to be false by numerous investigations.  What we have perpetuating this discussion is Rudy and Trump rehashing the same story and numerous far right sites reprinting the same exact story.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/11/06/trump-and-allies-keep-...

Let me know which sources those are.  As far as I can tell, almost all of those "better" news sources completely ignored what should have been a bombshell--the release of texts (and crack smoking pictures) from Hunter Biden's laptop.  Many of them have been "helpfully" changing the question with alarming frequency in their "fact check" articles.  They did nothing to get to know about Barack Obama's history--when his admitted drug use in his autobiographies ought to have raised quite a bit of concern--but they were eager to work with those who committed felonies to release Donald Trump's tax returns (as well as leaks of classified information).  

Put gently, if the Old Gray Lady, Washington Post, and CNN want to know why a large section of the nation doesn't trust them (and Fox after their election coverage), all they need to do is look in the mirror.  Wonder why more and more people are going to alternative news sources?  It's because it's getting more and more obvious when the finger is on the scale.  

As for me,what I'm seeing is that the independent sources seem to be providing sworn testimonies and even video supporting their allegations.  Claiming "200 poll watchers were there" really doesn't answer the fact that in one area, it was apparent that as soon as a Republican poll watcher spotted and objected to irregularities, they were evicted.  

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Adam Blumer's picture

Some of you need to do more digging before outright dismissing election disputes. Yes, there is clear evidence of miscounts or "mistakes" on a large scale. For example, in Michigan, did you know that 6,000 (yes, SIX THOUSAND) votes went to Biden instead of Trump IN ONE COUNTY due to a computer "glitch" or "human error"? That computer software is used in all battleground states and 47 counties in Michigan. Remember, Biden won Wisconsin by only about 20,000 votes. So if that glitch happened four times in Wisconsin with the same results (and those glitches are investigated and overturned), the state flips for Trump.

I'm not judging anyone's motives in this example. I can't call this "fraud" per se if in fact human error is to blame (though one can't help wondering if it was intentional). But the wrong assignment of that many votes is a colossal mistake and warrants further investigation of every county that uses this software. (As for Pennsylvania and some other states, you can definitely call some of what has happened as pointing to fraud, and the courts will have to decide.) I am linking an article about these 6,000 votes from a website that isn't considered a right-wing conspiracy site. Notice the headline says "claims." That's an example of bias since this was no claim. The miscounting of 6,000 votes was proved, and the correction flipped the county from Biden to Trump. It also affected the John James Senate race, and it is why James has not conceded at this time, pending an investigation into other examples of miscounting in Michigan.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/software-glitch-in-michigan-sent...

The bottom line is that you have 70 million voters who will no longer trust their votes moving forward until some of these mistakes or irregularities are investigated and closed. All Gore had more than a month to investigate the 2000 election results. Trump voters deserve the same treatment. If it is deemed that Trump lost, then he lost. And the country should move forward.

dgszweda's picture

Adam Blumer wrote:

Some of you need to do more digging before outright dismissing election disputes. Yes, there is clear evidence of miscounts or "mistakes" on a large scale. For example, in Michigan, did you know that 6,000 (yes, SIX THOUSAND) votes went to Biden instead of Trump IN ONE COUNTY due to a computer "glitch" or "human error"? That computer software is used in all battleground states and 47 counties in Michigan. Remember, Biden won Wisconsin by only about 20,000 votes. So if that glitch happened four times in Wisconsin with the same results (and those glitches are investigated and overturned), the state flips for Trump.

Everyone needs to stop reading headlines and start doing your own digging.  All of this has been debunked numerous times across a whole swath of investigative sites.  Proof?  Well the key one should be that none of these are progressing through the filing status at a court house without being thrown out.  There is a massive disinformation campaign going out and people need to be more discerning around what they read.  We seem to be so good at it with Scripture, but throw it out when it comes to news.  We seek to find news stories to support a narrative that we feel is true, without digging deeper.  First, all of the news stories around a glitch are being reported as "GOP claims", not that anything has been proven.  When you seek the reports from the Secretary of State who has legal authority and rights to articulate what happened, or you look at the AG for that state or you dig into investigative sites, including non-partisan ones, you will find there is no substance here.  Second, this is all part of a disinformation plan that the campaign and the GOP has, and it follows a clear conspiracy narrative, that is well documented in psychology studies.  You only need to poke a lot of small tiny holes, tie them together (whether they can legitimately or not) and then paint a story that the whole thing is suspect.  I encourage you to do your own research on the web, but here is one article out of many, that actually explored the facts and didn't report on what a GOP person claims happened.

 

https://gizmodo.com/no-theres-isnt-a-glitch-in-michigan-election-softwar...

 

dgszweda's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

  Wonder why more and more people are going to alternative news sources?  It's because it's getting more and more obvious when the finger is on the scale.  

As for me,what I'm seeing is that the independent sources seem to be providing sworn testimonies and even video supporting their allegations.  Claiming "200 poll watchers were there" really doesn't answer the fact that in one area, it was apparent that as soon as a Republican poll watcher spotted and objected to irregularities, they were evicted.  

Ha!  The reason more and more people are going to alternative news sources is because you have a president who routinely or almost exclusively pedals in conspiracy theories and false narratives, of the likes that we have never seen.  He controls a rabid base that feeds off of these.  He calls into question just not news sources, but anyone who disagrees with him, regardless of how stupid his comments are.  My favorite was all of the sites trying to explain his idea of putting a UV light into you.  I mean come on.  The internet and Steve Bannon would be glad to spin up as many radical sites as people want, pushing stories that feed into people's narratives.  I mean the Russians are doing it in droves, all the while you have an oblivious set of people who think that they have finally found the truth while Steve Bannon sits on yachts wracking in his fortunes and Putin is laughing like crazy.  I for one am so pleased to see Trump leaving.  Good riddance.

Time will tell. We will see all of these legal filings thrown out, but people will still feel that they are cheating and that there is a conspiracy here, not realizing that the scale and depth of something like this that would be needed to pull this off would be impossible.  But I guess that is why QAnnon is here and all of its evangelical followers.  The quality of a man is foretold in how he exits.  What we are seeing is a narcissist who is going to cry about this.  Picture this against how Bush handed off the WhiteHouse to Obama and it is night and day. 

Mark_Smith's picture

Here the thing. I cut cable about 6 months ago, so election night and a few nights since I've watched the CBS coverage. It is hilariously biased 100% Democrat. Its not really hilarious because of how egregious it is. Their coverage is so anti-Trump and pro-Biden that you might as well be listening to the Biden Press Secretary talk all the time. They see nothing but the metropolitan "Trump is evil and Biden is needed to save the world" view.

 

Adam Blumer's picture

Dgszweda, Gizmodo is far-left media. Why would you trust anything it says? I knew I wasn't at a standard site when there was an expletive three words into the article. But this is to be trusted more than my source? Why?

This is part of the problem. Nobody knows where in the media to go to get the straight facts. 

Here's FOX News. Not a word about this being a phony story: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/michigan-gop-chairwoman-says-software-g...

RealClearPolitics: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/11/06/michigan_gop_chair_47...

Just google "6000 ballots Michigan." You'll see this story confirmed by many sources, and you point to only one that says it's not true. Seriously? 

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

First, all that's needed to go to court is evidence of fraud, not proof.  Proving it (or not) happens at that point.

Second, it's easy to say "there's no evidence of fraud," but that statement means nothing when one is not allowed to look for it.  "Observers" that are too far away can't actually examine anything, any more than nuclear observers in Iran kept out of certain places.

Of course we shouldn't pass around unsubstantiated allegations as if they were truth, but it's not more "honest" to simply accept results without verification when there is at least some evidence of irregularities.  We should demand verification even if it takes a long time.  The integrity of the U.S. election process is worth it.

Dave Barnhart

Paul Henebury's picture

Adam Blumer wrote,

"All Gore had more than a month to investigate the 2000 election results. Trump voters deserve the same treatment. If it is deemed that Trump lost, then he lost. And the country should move forward."

Well, that the sanest thing anyone (pro or con) can say about it. 

 

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

Mark_Smith's picture

In 2000 the Florida results depended upon a few hundred votes. In 2020 we are talking thousands, really tens of thousands, in several states. It is highly unlikely they are going to find that many "discrepancies."

 

Bert Perry's picture

Mark_Smith wrote:

In 2000 the Florida results depended upon a few hundred votes. In 2020 we are talking thousands, really tens of thousands, in several states. It is highly unlikely they are going to find that many "discrepancies."

It's unlikely unless you have local authorities in Wisconsin (esp. Madison and Milwaukee), Michigan (Detroit, Flint), Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh, Philly), and Georgia putting their finger on the scales to drag Biden across the finish line.  Then all bets are off; the numbers will be what they think they can get away with.  There are also places where a good statistical look at voting and counting patterns would be very interesting--it might not be sufficient to find and convict perpetrators, but it could show some distinctly non-random patterns.  Translated; finger on the scale.

Regarding the notion that responsible media outlets have "debunked" allegations--well, that's just as silly a claim as the claim that they've been authoritatively proven, isn't it?  Plus, as Mark Blumer notes, "gizmodo" is not exactly a "less biased" source.  There are some allegations that are going to be quickly disproven, and there are others--like the poll watchers claiming fraud--that are going to take some more work to vet.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Pages