> When do we decide that our leaders are not elected?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We should wait for evidence to be produced, or for independent, non-partisan experts to publish their findings, before we jump to a conclusion that there was extensive election fraud or voter fraud (two different things, by the way). The Electoral Inegrity Project has done this analysis; they concluded that there are ways to make our system more democratic. The upshot? They endorsed H.R. 1 (ending gerrymandering, making election day a national holiday, and giving people more opportunities to vote early). Do you support that bill?
You might be interested in this news article (https://news.yahoo.com/russias-rigged-elections-look-nothing-132447580.html) that enumerates specific, robust methods by which we know that the Russian elections are frauduluent, namely state-owned media, direct pressure on local officials, central control over ballot tabulation, and early victory declarations, before all votes have been counted. (Amusingly, it is Donald Trump who declared "victory" extremely early in 2020, before the votes were counted, and then pressured local election officials about the number of votes he "needed.")
# 2020 general elections
> Most of it would be impossible to verify if it was valid, at this point. [...] We really can't verify it one way or the other.
@06:30-06:56
The argument you make so far (namely that we cannot recount all the votes) also applies to the 2004 elections, 2008, and 2012 elections. Would you use the same talking point about those elections -- that we "can't have a high level of confidence" that Bush or Obama won the Electoral Vote? How is the 2020 election any different to you?
## Re: Dinesh D'Souza with 2000 mules
Surely you are aware that Trump's Attorney General didn't find this evidence very persuasive.
“The cellphone data is singularly unimpressive. If you take 2 million cellphones and figure out where they are, physically, in a big city like Atlanta or whatever, just by definition, you’re going to find many hundreds of them have passed by and spent time in the vicinity of these boxes," he explained. "The premise that that’s a mule is indefensible.”
Look, I'm open-minded about this one, but what exactly did this show? That users contacted Twitter authorities to stop criminal revenge p\*rnography from being released?
Ultimately, this does not have anything to do with tampering with ballots, so it's far less direct and less criminal compared to actual voter fraud or election fraud.
> I don't care if people point at me and say "ELECTION DENIER!!" [...] Let's just talk about it.
@10:17
I fully agree with you on this one. I am not interested in labels; I'm interested in facts. My concern is that many people are putting their feelings over the facts because they wanted someone else to remain President after the 2020 general election.
> "[Twitter Files] would have according to all the polls, completely changed the outcome of the election"
@11:50
citation needed...?
> The only thing further is a sworn affidavit saying "I stole the election"
No. The "next step" would have been a successful lawsuit that alleged fraud, or a recount that actually showed that Trump earned more votes than Biden. But the Republican lawsuits were largely defeated or dropped, and Giuliani didn't allege fraud. Meanwhile, the recount in Maricopa County found a slightly larger margin of victory for Biden.
Putting facts over feelings, I think there is plenty of opportunities to find evidence of voter fraud, but the investigations found no such evidence... probably because it doesn't exist.
> When do we decide that our leaders are not elected?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We should wait for evidence to be produced, or for independent, non-partisan experts to publish their findings, before we jump to a conclusion that there was extensive election fraud or voter fraud (two different things, by the way). The Electoral Inegrity Project has done this analysis; they concluded that there are ways to make our system more democratic. The upshot? They endorsed H.R. 1 (ending gerrymandering, making election day a national holiday, and giving people more opportunities to vote early). Do you support that bill?
You might be interested in this news article (https://news.yahoo.com/russias-rigged-elections-look-nothing-132447580.html) that enumerates specific, robust methods by which we know that the Russian elections are frauduluent, namely state-owned media, direct pressure on local officials, central control over ballot tabulation, and early victory declarations, before all votes have been counted. (Amusingly, it is Donald Trump who declared "victory" extremely early in 2020, before the votes were counted, and then pressured local election officials about the number of votes he "needed.")
# 2020 general elections
> Most of it would be impossible to verify if it was valid, at this point. [...] We really can't verify it one way or the other.
@06:30-06:56
The argument you make so far (namely that we cannot recount all the votes) also applies to the 2004 elections, 2008, and 2012 elections. Would you use the same talking point about those elections -- that we "can't have a high level of confidence" that Bush or Obama won the Electoral Vote? How is the 2020 election any different to you?
## Re: Dinesh D'Souza with 2000 mules
Surely you are aware that Trump's Attorney General didn't find this evidence very persuasive.
“The cellphone data is singularly unimpressive. If you take 2 million cellphones and figure out where they are, physically, in a big city like Atlanta or whatever, just by definition, you’re going to find many hundreds of them have passed by and spent time in the vicinity of these boxes," he explained. "The premise that that’s a mule is indefensible.”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/bill-barr-scoffs-2000-mules-movie
This is not very persuasive.
## Re: Twitter files
Look, I'm open-minded about this one, but what exactly did this show? That users contacted Twitter authorities to stop criminal revenge p\*rnography from being released?
Ultimately, this does not have anything to do with tampering with ballots, so it's far less direct and less criminal compared to actual voter fraud or election fraud.
> I don't care if people point at me and say "ELECTION DENIER!!" [...] Let's just talk about it.
@10:17
I fully agree with you on this one. I am not interested in labels; I'm interested in facts. My concern is that many people are putting their feelings over the facts because they wanted someone else to remain President after the 2020 general election.
> "[Twitter Files] would have according to all the polls, completely changed the outcome of the election"
@11:50
citation needed...?
> The only thing further is a sworn affidavit saying "I stole the election"
No. The "next step" would have been a successful lawsuit that alleged fraud, or a recount that actually showed that Trump earned more votes than Biden. But the Republican lawsuits were largely defeated or dropped, and Giuliani didn't allege fraud. Meanwhile, the recount in Maricopa County found a slightly larger margin of victory for Biden.
Putting facts over feelings, I think there is plenty of opportunities to find evidence of voter fraud, but the investigations found no such evidence... probably because it doesn't exist.