By what authority did five major US States simultaneously stop counting votes?

[HarryStotle]

phil3:

This election was stolen. There is evidence but you have to be willing to look under the rug where is was swept.

That statement takes a form that many conspiracy theories have taken. It makes a claim and directs someone to use confirmation bias to validate the claim. That’s not an epistemological method that tends to be reliable for finding truths.

Conspiracies happen. Referring to all conspiracies as “conspiracy theories” is one way to not have to explain what evidence there is that actually exists. No credible evidence can possibly be permitted to give the theory credence because it is a conspiracy theory and it is a conspiracy theory because no credible evidence has been found. Clear thinking in a circle just there.

Certainly a sure way to make sure conspiracies are never discovered: by denying they exist to begin with. Just what those engaged in conspiracies would want us to believe.

There is a great deal of evidence already being assembled but many are working very hard to make sure that evidence is never given credence. You are doing your part, I see.

That ten thousand dead people in Michigan have voted is now documented from ballots cast and voter rolls. And if that many dead people have conspired to vote completely absent the capacity to have the means, motive or opportunity to commit fraud one has to ask who are the live people with the capacity to have committed the fraud on their behalf and on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of live people who voted but may not know they did?

Clearly you are highly motived to discover the truth about what is going on to make sure the election was indeed free and fair.

Oh, wait a minute…

 

[HarryStotle]

This election was stolen. There is evidence but you have to be willing to look under the rug where is was swept.

In the case of Michigan the evidence isn’t under the rug, it is six feet underground.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Referring to all conspiracies as “conspiracy theories” is one way to not have to explain what evidence there is that actually exists.

I’m afraid I’m not with you there. “Conspiracy theory” is a label applied to a a claim of bad action by a sinister and powerful group where the claim is lacking in evidence.

No credible evidence can possibly be permitted to give the theory credence

In the message to which I replied, a claim was made and no evidence was provided. Before evidence can be evaluated as credible or not, it first must be provided.

That ten thousand dead people in Michigan have voted is now documented

I am aware of a tweet and a Facebook post that makes that claim. Both referred to an alleged list of dead people that was uploaded to PasteBin. I am also aware that if one starts to check the names against the Michigan voter registration system ( Your voter information ) that many of the names on the list don’t show as having even received a ballot, and many of the names on the list are of people that are still alive. It just appears to be a random list of names of people that were in Michigan.

It is possible that the list that I looked at was different than the one to which you are referring. But you haven’t shared whatever documentation to which you are referring. Until such a time that documentation is shared, I treat that claim as I would any other claim of bad action by a sinister and powerful group where the claim is lacking in evidence.

Related Thread​

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

That ten thousand dead people in Michigan have voted is now documented

I am aware of a tweet and a Facebook post that makes that claim. Both referred to an alleged list of dead people that was uploaded to PasteBin. I am also aware that if one starts to check the names against the Michigan voter registration system ( Your voter information ) that many of the names on the list don’t show as having even received a ballot, and many of the names on the list are of people that are still alive. It just appears to be a random list of names of people that were in Michigan.

It is possible that the list that I looked at was different than the one to which you are referring.

Not the same list.

These are just under 10 000 absentee ballots that were confirmed to have been returned.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1325580085215236097

The question - and I may have jumped the gun on this - is how many of the returned ballots were actually included in the counts.

Technically, the dead tried to vote. The success of their attempts to vote remains in question.

Each was meticulously checked and verified against official election lists by Richard Barris, a professional pollster from Florida.

 

[Balto1]

Does this guy publish findings anywhere or does he just tweet things with no details?

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Referring to all conspiracies as “conspiracy theories” is one way to not have to explain what evidence there is that actually exists.

I’m afraid I’m not with you there. “Conspiracy theory” is a label applied to a a claim of bad action by a sinister and powerful group where the claim is lacking in evidence.

No credible evidence can possibly be permitted to give the theory credence

In the message to which I replied, a claim was made and no evidence was provided. Before evidence can be evaluated as credible or not, it first must be provided.

Then the proper next step is to request the missing evidence rather than merely dismiss the claim as conspiracy theorizing. How could that be determined a priori absent evidence?

Or are you asserting that all claims made prior to the presentation of evidence are conspiracy theories by default?

Does that include all opening statements by lawyers in a courtroom? Or just those referring to “sinister and powerful group” like the mafia.

Good to know that the claims by Schiff, Schumer, Mueller and Co regarding the “sinister and powerful” Trump campaign colluding with Russia is now a known conspiracy theory, in your estimation, since no evidence to support that claim has ever been presented.

Now a “claim of bad action by a sinister and powerful group,” namely the FBI against Michael Flynn had been presented by the DOJ in the court of Judge Sullivan and is pretty damning. Somehow some still can’t accept the evidence in that case or even Mueller’s conclusion of no evidence. Yet your principle on such theories seems to fall by the wayside when the left determines what is or is not a conspiracy

 

[HarryStotle]

Does this guy publish findings anywhere or does he just tweet things with no details?

He publishes prolifically.

Digital Subscriptions | People's Pundit Daily

Election polling is his specialty. He correctly predicted the 2016 election because he polls independently and judiciously at the ground level.

Here was his three hour pre-election analysis on Youtube where he explains in fine detail his predictions nationwide.

He is also tracking 132k change of address violations in Georgia that could invalidate many of those votes because they have moved out of jurisdiction and are ineligible to vote.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1325581205673287682

Part of the reason he is now fired up to uncover possible fraud is because his data showed that the way election night ended up was closely tracking with his data. What happened overnight was something else entirely. That has to be explained.

There are a number of certified forensic data analysts who are questioning what went on because it doesn’t make sense statistically. You might want to prepare yourself that there is a lot you are not aware of that is developing.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Then the proper next step is to request the missing evidence rather than merely dismiss the claim as conspiracy theorizing. How could that be determined a priori absent evidence?

I did that step 3 days ago. Since the second question is premised on me not having asked, and since I did ask, I think the second question isn’t applicable.

These are just under 10 000 absentee ballots that were confirmed to have been returned.

That gives me hearsay evidence; that the claim was made on Twitter by this Twitter ID (@Peoples_Pundit). The ID doesn’t provide any names and birthdates of those that are said to have voted and to have died. I can’t use the tweet to substantiate anything.

That’s not to say he is correct or that he is incorrect. Only that it has not provided for me anything to evaluate.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Then the proper next step is to request the missing evidence rather than merely dismiss the claim as conspiracy theorizing. How could that be determined a priori absent evidence?

I did that step 3 days ago. Since the second question is premised on me not having asked, and since I did ask, I think the second question isn’t applicable.

These are just under 10 000 absentee ballots that were confirmed to have been returned.

That gives me hearsay evidence; that the claim was made on Twitter by this Twitter ID (@Peoples_Pundit). The ID doesn’t provide any names and birthdates of those that are said to have voted and to have died. I can’t use the tweet to substantiate anything.

That’s not to say he is correct or that he is incorrect. Only that it has not provided for me anything to evaluate.

It is being submitted to those who actually can do something with it. Stay tuned though.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

It is being submitted to those who actually can do something with it. Stay tuned though.

And that’s fine. Until such a time as evidence is made public, I’ve only encountered unsubstantiated claims of cheating. Thus far the claims that I’ve encountered have either been false information spreading on social networks and court cases that have not survived general questioning by a judge.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

It is being submitted to those who actually can do something with it. Stay tuned though.

And that’s fine. Until such a time as evidence is made public, I’ve only encountered unsubstantiated claims of cheating. Thus far the claims that I’ve encountered have either been false information spreading on social networks and court cases that have not survived general questioning by a judge.

So every evidentiary claim you have encountered fits into those two categories? Perhaps that says something about your sources of information? There is a great deal of evidence making its way through verification and eventually to the courts. The process takes time.

I suppose if you trust big tech you might presume they are censoring false information and not merely to push an agenda. I can see how such a presumption would be reaffirming.

On the other hand some who rely on the media are still convinced Hunter Biden’s laptop was hacked and contains Russian misinformation. I suppose his two business partners have been hacked also and are merely spewing the same. Funny how curiosity can be so non-existent when certain names are involved.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

It is being submitted to those who actually can do something with it. Stay tuned though.

And that’s fine. Until such a time as evidence is made public, I’ve only encountered unsubstantiated claims of cheating. Thus far the claims that I’ve encountered have either been false information spreading on social networks and court cases that have not survived general questioning by a judge.

The supposed paucity of solid evidence may be because of the time crunch. The priority is to get it assembled to be presented as evidence in the courts. It isn’t necessarily to present it to the public. Although that, presumably will come.

 

[Petra202]

Thank you! I wanted to say “HarryStotle,” thank you and I love your screen name!

 

[ThinkingSapien]

On the other hand some who rely on the media are still convinced Hunter Biden’s laptop was hacked and contains Russian misinformation

My view is a lot more nuanced, but not something I wish to detail here.

I suppose if you trust big tech

Neither trust or distrust of technology companies is at issue here. Given a person that trust a service provider but has not been presented evidence of malfeasance, and a person that distrust a service provider but has not been presented evidence of malfeasance, neither person has seen evidence of malfeasance. Further, the “information” shared that has previously been labeled as evidence has not stood up to examination. The alleged list of 14,000 dead voters that voted is one such example, where one can compare the list to publically available information and find that the list is not consistent with the claim it is said to support.

So every evidentiary claim you have encountered fits into those two categories?

There may be some other items that might be put in the category of “bad inferences.” Ex: “There was a court filing, so there must have been malfeasance.” The actual content of the court filing and the interactions with the judge (there is public record for these) doesn’t support claims of malfeasance. A video of an exchange for one such case follows. In it, those that represent Trump present as the foundation of their claim that they have an affidavit that they know someone that heard from some other unnamed party that there was bad behaviour. Not that the attempted use of double-hearsay was the only problem in the presentation of the case. It didn’t stand up well to simple questions.

The supposed paucity of solid evidence may be because of the time crunch.

I don’t think that speculations on why evidence is lacking to be productive. Such speculations do not compensate for the lack of evidence.

The priority is to get it assembled to be presented as evidence in the courts. It isn’t necessarily to present it to the public.

The above is a hypothetical, that “if there is supportive evidence that has not yet been seen by the courts or the public…” I’d prefer to stick with the actual. What evidence has been presented to the courts and the public that supports claims of malfeasance in ballot counting?

 

[ProVobis]

There is evidence

Show real numbers. The courts aren’t going to do your job.

 

[ProVobis]

Mueller’s conclusion of no evidence.

40 indictments say otherwise.

 

[RidgeSprinter]

40 indictments say otherwise.

With maybe more when 45 exits on 1/20/2021.

 

[ProVobis]

they have moved out of jurisdiction and are ineligible to vote.

Trump was ineligible to vote?

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Mueller’s conclusion of no evidence.

40 indictments say otherwise.

Actually they say nothing of Russian collusion by Trump. Those that have stuck are process crimes or unrelated to the campaign. In other words, they say exactly nothing and if Mueller had found anything substantial in 2+ years you bet it would have been shouted from the rooftops.

 

[HarryStotle]

ProVobis:

40 indictments say otherwise.

With maybe more when 45 exits on 1/20/2021.

Why don’t you provide some names to AOC? Apparently she has a full scale purge of opposition in mind.