For those who think the election doubters have no grounds-

Thanks Yardmeat, for demonstrating my point. You can lead a man to knowledge, but you cannot make him think.

 

You can ask a conspiracy theorist for evidence, but he is incapable of providing it and will blame his pathetic failures on critical thinkers -- those of us who ACTUALLY are curious. Unlike the conspiracy theorists. You are blaming people for not seeing things that you are hiding from them.

Thanks for demonstrating my point, Eleuthera. You have no evidence. By your own tacit admission. Therefore, we have no reason to buy your bull ****.

 

Maybe I wasn't as clear as I should have been with my question, but I didn't want to lead the answer. The implication appears to be that there was some kind of calculated conspiracy to manipulate the result of the Presidential election at a national level. What I have never seen is any explanation of how such a grand conspiracy is meant to have been planned and implemented. I don't think the usual scatter-gun of separate claims and observations (like you've given here and this thread opened with) actually mean anything alone, though they have been very effective in stirring up those already inclined to believe.

It is opinion and it's less than speculative, it's just an empty assertion coloured by your political bias. As I've already said, I'm not great fan of Biden and against pretty much any conventional opponent, I would expect him to loose. The fact is that Trump was (and still is) extremely divisive. For everyone who is a massive fan, there is someone who is a massive opponent, and it is clear that a whole load of people weren't voting for Biden but against Trump.

I think that is specifically why his team didn't have him out campaigning very much whereas for all of Trump's massive rallies, they largely involved people who already supported him (often the same people going to multiple rallies) so they won't have had much impact on increasing his vote.

Those are examples of the scatter-gun of individual claims and allegations. The fact is that few have been proven to have any basis, often being normal (if flawed) incidents that would occur in other elections, misunderstanding or misrepresentation of complex data or simple lies (some of which have resulted in lawsuits). As I said at the start, there has never been anything presented to support the idea of some co-ordinated conspiracy to fix the election.

Sure, but you do need at least some evidence and, significantly, evidence is meaningless without a hypothesis to test it against.

I'm not sure that's a question . Remember that 50% of people are of below average intelligence.

Biden has certainly performed worse than might have been expected or hoped but little of that was as apparent to everyone at the time of voting, nor were many of his controversies high profile in the public domain (regardless of whether that is due to mainstream media bias or not). It's also worth noting that there are a significant number of people who felt the same level of negativity about the prospect of Trump as president (rightly or not).

No more (or less) that previous administrations. Indeed, much of "government" doesn't change with presidents, hence the talk about "draining the swamp". Again, political bias will always perceive the corruption of your opponents to be worse than the corruption of your own.

That is an entirely different question though. We're talking about claims about conspiracy to fix the 2020 election, not current debates about future ones.

 

You are making me dizzy. It is normal that the number of registered votes exceeds the number of voters. However, there have been cases where the number of votes did exceed the number of registered voters and that was the contention that it was bull**** to be concerned about it. My initial response was that it definitely was not bull**** to be bothered by it as it is a clear indication of fraud.

 

You've literally stated the opposite. More than once. Perhaps you are making yourself dizzy? It isn't my fault you can't keep track of your own claims.

So now we are onto a third claim of yours. A second shifting of the goalposts. Even then, I've already responded to this claim. I'm sorry you don't understand that registering to vote does not make people immortal.

 

Discussisons shouldn't consist of evasions, but of examination of facts and their order of relevance. I'm going to address just one of your responses, about the corruption in government growing, becoming pervasive.

One prime example relates to the events around Peter Strozok, Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI's Counterintelligence Division, who led the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. As eventually revealed by investigations of communications, particularly with FBI lawyer Lisa Page. Not his wife, and he was married- but his girlfriend, he planned to sabotage the election, to prevent Trump from winning- and discussed an "insurance" plan to use in case he won. Not a casual emotion, but a planned scheme by a person with a strong official capacity to conduct it.

Such is virtually unprecedented dereliction of duty, by a high official in the nations most powerful law enforcement agency, who was also leading an investigation that might have accused Trump of collaboration with the Russians. That might be described in many ways, but treason and conspiracy are certainly among them. Then- the question of why others in the agency that most certainly were aware of his mindset and many actions, said nothing and did nothing to stop of reveal this. If the scheme had not been

The exposure of this did not get Strozok charged with anything. It did get him fired, and you don't have to be too savvy to realize that the motivation was a response to the negative publicity rather than the conduct. Right now, he has a lawsuit against the government claiming his 2018 termination was improper. Obviously, he saw nothing wrong with doing what he did, even though he also had to know it was a violation of law, or his sworn duty and position.

Several things are obvious here. This is corruption at a fairly high level. It is corruption that could not have existed to any extent in an agency that didn't have sympathies for it. And, it's only one of a sizeable list of things we have discovered mostly through whistleblowers, instead of the government cleaning it's own house and being open about it, rather than quietly hiding its dirty laundry when it couldn't stand the smell any longer. This isn't new; it goes back in living memory to the Pentagon Papers from the Vietnam war, Daniel Snowdon's exposing the government's illegal phone data skimming, ChelseaManning, a soldier and analyst for the army revealing information the government hid from the public about Iran and Afghanistan, which she provided to Wikileaks (Julian Assange) who had to leave the country for exposing the offenses of government that government should never have hidden in the first place. Literally, our government prosecutes people who snitch on them. But Strozok didn't snitch, he was just caught, so nobody no prsecution took place. We shouldn't have to rely on people risking their lives to tell us what's happening in government, government should be trustworthy in the first place. That doesn't mean it will not have corruption- it means they should not be orchestrating it nor tolerating it, but history says they do both.

I doubt any level of proof would convince those who think they benefit from the denial of it that they were enabling the wrongdoing and the damage to the nation.

But the evidence it is ongoing is indisputeable, and that means it will apply to the future and what we do today and tomorrow as sure as it has in the past. That IS the swamp, and until the level of honor and oversight of government prevents it, corruption will continue. That has to start with the people who oversee everything else- Congress, and the president. Whatever they will tolerate is what we will live with.

Many in Congress right now have decided not to run for re-election, because of the chaos, the disorder, the lack of honor, and the climate that makes it impossible for Congress to fulfill it's duty to the people and the nations. Several have stated this openly; that is something I've never seen before in my lifetime- and I remember Harry Truman.

Some things are certain but can't be proved. Will the sun come up in the morning? The fact is it always has isn't proof, it is the history of the past. Probability.
History also tells us that corruption in government has always been present in all governments, but while the degree of it varies greatly, the probability is certain.

The real question is how much of it we are going to tolerate, and sacrifice our liberty and lives for.

 

You're right; I'd like to add one thing. Some people seek selectively. The objective is to find support for a preconceived conclusion, not facts to form a conclusion. I don't think "curious" would fit that.
A lot of people lower the bar for what they want to hear, raise it against what they don't want to hear- and tell themselves they have examined all the evidence.

 

Stop evading then. You started the thread suggesting that inconsistent voter registration is grounds to believe there was a specific conspiracy against Trump in the 2020 presidential election. The problem is that you've yet to provide any facts to support that suggestion and continue to ignore my requests that you do so.

Not relevant to the thread, but regardless, I'm don't see how a single case of alleged corruption in 2017 supports a claim that corruption has increased nor challenges my position that the extent of corruption in US government is, to a great extent, independent of who is in the Whitehouse.

 

Nov 3rd, 2019 was a successful coup... that what.

 

Then- you chose to be blind to a huge volume of indicators of increasing corruption, as well as that the 2016 election was rigged in some way. Proof of radical inconsistencies as well as things any person of integrity would recognize as clear indications of dishonesty. You have a right to believe anything- including that divine intervention that took over brains in the voting booth, or sent gremlins to inflate numbers, if you wish.

If you chose to deny what others see as proof- so what? I have absolutely no doubt. Your doubt... is your problem. My recommendation for anyone is to not lie to themselves, it's very destructive. However, that is
the choice of the individual. The consequence goes with the choice.

 

How can I be blind to something you've not shown? If there is such a "huge volume", it should be easy for you to show an increase (and note that "increase" involves a change between multiple measures across a specified time period). I'm aware of several examples of government corruption throughout US history and there are plenty of examples I (and I suspect you) either forgot or never knew about; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States

And anyway, even if you demonstrated an increase in general corruption over any recent time period, that in itself is still not a valid grounds to assume any specific example of corruption, such as a conspiracy to fix the 2020 presidential election. You still need a rational hypothesis for that and some direct evidence to support it.

So again, as per your thread topic, do you have any logical reasoning that inconsistent voter registration is grounds to believe there was a specific conspiracy against Trump in the 2020 (or 2016) presidential election?

 

Their sole reasoning is that trump lost.

 

We could start with the infamous Dossier that was created to portray Trump as colluding with the Russians. Financed by the DNC, and Hillary. Proven- and proven false and contrived.
Lefties blow off everything that clearly points to a vendetta, a conspiraacy to take Trump out. They tolerate behavior that serves that goal, while they would be screaming bloody murder if it had been used by the other side. Duplicity. Double standards. You can't "prove" the obvious to a person who chooses to deny it.

Small spoiled children do the same thing, but a good parent can correct their character.

 

Yep, this is actually quite common, every year there are counties with registration rates exceeding active registrations. However, if someone is still listed on a particular county's registration list after dying or moving, that doesn't mean they voted in said county. We know the names of every person who voted, where they voted, and when they voted. We know if they are listed as voting after they died, or if they voted twice in two separate counties. Also note that this is a census based study, so some of the individuals may not even be examples of registrations that are no longer eligible, but simply people who were not residing in their registration location at the time of the census

An example of this would actually be Donald Trump in 2020, although his main residence at the time was in Washington DC, he was registered to vote in Florida. Some people own residencies in multiple locations, and as such they are allowed to choose the location of their voter registration. Other examples of this would be people temporarily living in another location for school, work, or military services. Said individuals would not be on the census, but would still be eligible to be registered.

That being said, there are also going to be individuals who are still on the registration list who are no longer eligible. The bigger question is did any of said individuals vote? We can easily get the answer to this question from the voter lists, but this particular study doesn't seem to make an attempt to look into this, or if they did, they didn't bother including it in their study, possibly because they found none

Which is not the basis of this study whatsoever. This study is based on registrations, not votes.. if a poll book or ballot envelope is signed and dated after someone's death, that would be clear cut evidence of what you are describing, however there are no examples of this being brought forward by this study. It's definitely not unheard of, however it's never been a common enough occurrence to change the outcome of an election. Also, the vast majority of those occurrences are usually the result of a son with the same name as their father voting under their father's registration without realizing it.

 

Sure, and Trump eagerly ran with the birther conspiracy to suggest Obama wasn't qualified to be president. I'm still not saying this kind of thing doesn't happen, I'm just not convinced it's suddenly a bigger problem than it has been in the past (against or by Trump), though there could be a factor of us being more aware of it.

And even if you did actually demonstrate an increase in corruption (and again, that requires multiple measures across a time period, not isolated examples), that in itself wouldn't be evidence of an actual conspiracy to fix the 2020 election, especially if you can't (or won't) present any kind of meaningful hypothesis for how that would be planned and arranged.

Note that I'm not saying there definitely wasn't any such conspiracy, only that there has never been any meaningful evidence presented to support that specific allegation, officially or unofficially, and you're just continuing that pattern here.

I'm not a "leftie". I'm just a person living in the world with a natural interest in the governance of one of the most powerful and influential countries out there. If there has been a conspiracy, I'd want to know and want it to be dealt with. If there wasn't, I'd want it to stop being used for political capital and stirring division.

And so yet again, as per your thread topic, do you have any logical reasoning that inconsistent voter registration is grounds to believe there was a specific conspiracy against Trump in the 2020 (or 2016) presidential election? Not that a "no" doesn't mean no conspiracy, only that you're be wasting your time raising this as evidence.

 

Not that a person who refuses to open their mind can see. If you don't see it, it's obvious you have no intent of seeing it.

 

Virtually everyone, across the spectrum, knows that election fraud is common in the US.

NBC NEWS, ELECTIONS, Democrat Stacey Abrams ends bid for Georgia governor, accuses winner of voter suppression
"Democracy failed in Georgia," she said of a race marred by allegations of discrimination affecting African-Americans.
Democrat Stacey Abrams, who has acknowledged defeat in her quest to become the country's first female African-American governor, speaks to supporters on election night, Tuesday, Nov. 6, 2018, in Atlanta.John Amis / AP file
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/el...-georgia-governor-race-blasts-process-n937356

Some partisans still pretend to believe that elections are "free and fair" whenever their side wins.

 

I'll jump into this discussion with a review of facts. The "conspiracy" began in earnest in the fall of 2019 when Democrat operatives began a concentrated, large, and focused effort to change the voting process in the states. They focused on maybe a dozen or so states at the administrative and the legislative level. Their aim was wide spread use of mail-in balloting, reduced identification requirements, unrestricted mail-in balloting (hopefully universal and automatic for every registered voter), greatly expanded ballot drop boxes around cities, expanded and legalized ballot harvesting, and a few other smaller examples. This came long after Obama led the charge to not allow states to verify registrations between states. All of these aims are well known greatly expanded opportunity for fraud and misuse. The Democrat principals certainly were aware of that but of course did not profess it or openly discuss it.

Their efforts did not get very far until the Easter Bunny gave them an Easter egg called COVID in March, 2020. All of a sudden many states were more than willing to follow those schemes as "part of the COVID response," though the most (five to eight) that did anything were all Democrat states.

There were other efforts, camouflaged to look benign, like directing Mark Zukerberg where and how to spend his hundreds of million dollars on local and state election support efforts.

There ostensibly were other or related clandestine indicative efforts that were observed like telling the observers they could go home just before "surprising" boxes of late ballots showed up (GA and maybe PA IIRC), the people who went drop box to drop box ostensibly depositing many ballots in each (GA again IIRC), the more open actions like the PA supreme court unconstitutionally making changes in the voting process at a late minute, the very odd and suspicious action of Trump being way ahead in many states at 11pm election night only to fall far behind by 6am the morning after.

Hope this helps.

 

This is the universal excuse among all conspiracy theories. Flat earthers. Holocaust deniers. Election deniers. 9/11 Truthers. All birds of the exact same feather.

 

Sometimes Democrats and Republicans pretend to believe that elections are not rigged in the US.
Sometimes they think it is more politically expedient to just tell The Inconvenient Truth.

“WASHINGTON — Minnesota Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who is pushing a bipartisan election security in Congress meant to harden defenses against interference, said Sunday that she fears the 2018 midterm elections are still vulnerable to hacking.
"I'm very concerned that you could have a hack that finally went through. You have 21 states that were hacked into, they didn't find out about it for a year," she said in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press.”
Amy KlobucharU.S. Senator for Minnesota
Amy in the News, Top Democrat Klobuchar says she remains 'very concerned' about a midterm election hack, NBC News, By Ben Kamisar, August 5, 2018.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...very-concerned-about-midterm-election-n897756
https://www.klobuchar.senate.gov/pu...-very-concerned-about-a-midterm-election-hack

 

Again, how can you say I'm being blind to something you're refusing to show me? If you just presented your clear evidence and I still didn't accept it, you'd have a point. You're the one who flatly refuses to accept that you might be wrong, and you're not even willing or able to explain exactly what it is you believe happened. I don't see any point in continuing unless you change your approach.

 

That kind of thing didn't start in 2019 though. There have always been partisan political interference in US elections, such as gerrymandering, moving or closing polling places, changing voter registration etc. Both parties have bene guilty of promoting or supporting changes they think will benefit them and opposing ones they don't, regardless of any other relevant factors. There is probably even an element of that in the actual OP topic (remember that) of long-running failures to clean up voter registration records. If you want to seek out specific examples from one party at one time, you could probably do that anywhere and anytime (As an aside, this is one of the reasons I've long said the US needs some form of politically independent electoral commission).

A lot of claims and allegations have been thrown around but few have been supported and several have been outright refuted, to the point of successful lawsuits from election workers and the voting machine companies. This scatter-gun approach of isolated claims and accusations may have been very effective at convincing the Trump supporters, it isn't anywhere close to proving any specific conspiracy to fix the election.

Not much, since you're making the same mistake as the OP. You've not established exactly what you believe the conspiracy involved or how it was managed. You're presenting evidence to support an incomplete hypothesis. There are plenty that wasn't right with the 2020 election (much we will probably never know about) but the idea that there was something specific or bigger in this case or that it was sufficient to flip the result of the electoral college, remains unsupported. You're free to believe that yourself, but you can't expect the independent minded to blindly believe it too.

 

This stuff has been all over the place in the news for years. Most everything that has been openly found has been disclosed. The question is your threshold, the point at which you recognize that the indications are acceptable as proof of events. You could see big clouds of smoke in the distance, and say- that's no proof of fire; show me the fire. You go there, you see stumps and charred ground- but you don't see fire there now, so you say you still have no proof. And I have, in many posts, explained why I believe as I do. And it's because the observable, the known events point to the extreme improbability of anything else. If we were flipping a coin on a bet and I got 20 heads in a row.... against odds over a million to one- would you suspect it might be a two headed coin , or do you just say "shucks, lost again..."
At what point does your skepticism wake up and kick in?

This is a question of perception and gullibility. There are many things that can't be proven to the point where someone dedicated to denial of them would be forced into submission- but developing a rational capacity to ascertain what is obvious is the responsibility of the individual. If you refuse to see, nobody can show you. That is totally within your control, not mine.

Most people making your argument would (and have) dismissed many documented incidents of fraud as isolated incidents that don't constitute proof. There's no threshold for that either, no point at which the accumulation of factors becomes proof, and changes minds.

I'm sure you have heard of "conspiracy theories". Yes, they do exist. However, real conspiracies also exist, and are far more common. YOU have to be wise enough to recognize when one does exist, and the claims labeling it a "conspiracy theory" and associating it with delusion- are part of the way it protects itself from recognition.

We still have people insisting the earth is flat. Not just a few- a great many. And not fools or morons, some quite intelligent. A belief in a flat Earth would make sense if there was genuine evidence of a worldwide conspiracy to fake decades of space exploration, a denial of many branches of science, or discoveries of new forces and laws of nature. But it doesn’t really take any of this—all it takes is a mindset that completely disregards truth and genuine evidence. In other words, all it takes is bullshit. All you have to do is deny anything that opposes your beliefs.

This is a psychological phenomenon. One reason it's growing is that the number of people in society capable of critical thinking and root cause analysis is declining.

I don't believe the sun will rise tomorrow morning. Prove it will- and prove it by my standards of proof, not yours. Should be easy.

 

It's only been all over the news in recent years because Trump and his supporters pushed the narrative. A lot of the things talked about (even the truly bad ones) aren't unique to the 2020 election or Democrat run/supporting areas (like the out of date voter registration records issue you started the thread on but are now ignoring). Some of their claims have been actively disproven, to the point of defamation lawsuits being brought against them. There are certainly real examples of fraud, malpractice or mistakes, but you can't just lump "everything in the news" together to generate a weight of evidence. You need to limited yourself to specific valid claims.

Do you accept that, with a perfectly managed election without any fraud, it is possible that Biden could have won anyway? I'm still not refusing to accept the possibility of some kind of conspiracy that was sufficient to switch the presidential election result, I've just not seen anything to support such a concept.

Proof of what?! They're isolated incidents because they involved different times, places and people. It is the literal definition of isolated. If you want to link them together, you need something to link them with.

You're the equivalent of the flat earther on this topic though. You're the one offering an alternative narrative to the status quo and, with an interesting similarity, unwilling (or unable) to present any single definitive hypothesis for your claims, just the same old scatter-gun of claims, allegations and assertions.

 

Just to clear this up in my own mind, stating the obvious, the following equation should ALWAYS true for any election, or shenanigans are afoot:

Votes cast <= registered voters <= eligible voters.

You cannot have more votes cast that you have registered voters, and you cannot have more registered voters than you have eligible voters (assuming "being alive" is a component of the "eligible" requirement, as it should be).

So, in the discrepancy between eligible voters and registered voters lies an avenue for cheating; eligible voters who are not registered could be registered and votes cast in their name without their knowledge. Absent some way to audit this, this is an AVENUE for cheating.

Same is true for the difference between registered voters and votes cast; votes could be cast in the name of people who are registered but don't vote. Another avenue for cheating.

At the very least, these avenues should be shut down, or closely monitored in such a way as cheating via those avenues is not possible, or can be detected, audited and proven.

Unless we can devise a way to unquestionably verify election results, there will always be questions. And, allowing there to be obvious broad avenues to reasonable doubt in the integrity of our elections is existentially dangerous for our nation, as we have seen.