A glittering generality or two and praxis is persuaded.

oh, well that's the question I asked that you were answering. I was pretty explicit about that.

I was reposting the argument to which you replied. Why would you ask about “falsifying votes”?

Because that's what matters. That's the conspiracy. That's the only way the election could be stolen - by falsifying votes for Biden, or by throwing away votes for trump. If one those two things didn't happen, then the election wasn't stolen, and trump just lost fair and square.

I’m arguing the election was rigged. Everything from changing election laws behind the backs of Americans, flooding the system with dark money, threatening riots should they lose, suppressing and controlling information…it’s all there

I don't see how it can be rigged unless one of the two things I mentioned above happened, or there was insane gerrymandering or voter suppression. How else could you rig it?

A glittering generality or two and praxis is persuaded. — NOS4A2

Persuaded to what? You’re the one pointing to the article as truth.

If you believe one can only rig an election by falsifying votes and/or throwing them away then I’m not going to satisfy you.

I’m arguing the election was rigged. Everything from changing election laws behind the backs of Americans, flooding the system with dark money, threatening riots should they lose, suppressing and controlling information…it’s all there — NOS4A2

“The President [Trump] spent months insisting that mail ballots were a Democratic plot and the election would be “rigged.” His henchmen at the state level sought to block their use, while his lawyers brought dozens of spurious suits to make it more difficult to vote–an intensification of the GOP’s legacy of suppressive tactics. Before the election, Trump plotted to block a legitimate vote count. And he spent the months following Nov. 3 trying to steal the election he’d lost–with lawsuits and conspiracy theories, pressure on state and local officials, and finally summoning his army of supporters to the Jan. 6 rally that ended in deadly violence at the Capitol.”

Your argument seems to include that Trump attempted to rig the election from his position as president and, like so many other failures, he bungled it.

I pointed to the article to show that certain actors admitted to a conspiracy to alter election laws behind the backs of Americans, to use dark money to election infrastructure, to suppress and manipulate information, and so on. The whole article is a propaganda piece and an admission of guilt all in one. You’re simply repeating the propaganda, while avoiding their admission.

You’re simply repeating the propaganda, while avoiding their admission. — NOS4A2

So you’re claiming that the portion of the article describing Trump’s efforts to rig the election is false?

How do you think you can rig it? I gave some more options than those two. I'm open to hearing more.

I’m saying it’s propaganda, written by Nancy Pelosi’s biographer, no less.

I’m saying it’s propaganda, written by Nancy Pelosi’s biographer, no less. — NOS4A2

According to your understanding of election rigging, the article describes both sides as guilty of it, so how could it be considered propaganda if it doesn’t favor one side or the other?

Do you think nos is right, that this article is them confessing to rigging the election? I'm looking for an explanation of how it's a confession of that.

From his position as president Trump did spent months insisting that mail ballots were a Democratic plot and the election would be “rigged.” We all witnessed that.

Without trying to check it’s easy to think that Trump’s henchmen at the state level sought to block mail-in ballots, while his lawyers brought dozens of spurious suits to make it more difficult to vote–an intensification of the GOP’s legacy of suppressive tactics.

I don’t know how true it is that Trump plotted to block a legitimate vote count before the election, but it wouldn’t surprise me.

Of course we all witnessed Trump spending the months following Nov. 3 trying to steal the election he’d lost–with lawsuits and conspiracy theories, pressure on state and local officials, and finally summoning his army of supporters to the Jan. 6 rally that ended in deadly violence at the Capitol.

Of course, it all favored one candidate, and that candidate was Trump himself.

This is what NOS considers rigging an election. I guess he counts this as another Trump failure.

I think you misunderstood what I was asking, but that's okay brother. Don't worry.

I don't think that's a particularly interesting scenario. Of course people react differently to different things. — flannel jesus

Not a big fan of diversity, it seems

more of a diver United supporter really

On election night, I had some money placed on the result. When the vote count paused, I jotted down the interim count numbers for the key states. Below are the numbers when the count stopped and then the final result.

Pennsylvannia Votes when the election count paused
Total counted 5,250,192 - 78% of count complete
Trump 2,964,097- 56.5%
Biden 2,286,095 - 43.5%


Counting Resumes
Total Counted 1,511,630 - 22.4% after Resumption
Trump 385,070 -25.5%
Biden 1,125,560 - 74.5%

FINAL RESULT
TOTAL ALL VOTES 6,761,630 - 100%
Trump - 3,349,167 - 49.55
Biden - 3,411,655 - 50.45

Something like the same occurred in Wisconsin, Michigan and Georgia

Putting aside the inexplicable pause, the official argument is that the mail in ballots favoured Biden heavily and must have been counted last. The problem with this argument is that in all these states, the mail in vote was something close to or over 50% of the total vote. But at the time of the pause 78% of the total vote had been counted already in Pennsylvania, meaning over half the mail in ballots had already been counted and the counting up to the moment of the pause had revealed no sudden shifts either way.

The odds of this happening in one state is akin to winning the lottery - so it's possible.
For this to occur in 4 states is like winning the lottery four weeks in a row with the same numbers.

There is evidence a plenty, but you need to want to look

If the election was stolen from Trump, why is he running again? Why will his supporters bother voting for him? If the rascally Democrats could steal an election out from under Trump WHILE he was president, aren't they going to do a much better #steal now that they have the Whitehouse?

But at the time of the pause 78% of the total vote had been counted already in Pennsylvania, meaning over half the mail in ballots had already been counted and the counting up to the moment of the pause had revealed no sudden shifts either way. — yebiga

The mail in ballots were breaking for Biden the entire time. It was more pronounced at the end, since they were the only ones remaining. It was also required that they not be counted until Election Day, so were bound to be slower.

The odds of this happening in one state is akin to winning the lottery - so it's possible.
For this to occur in 4 states is like winning the lottery four weeks in a row with the same numbers. — yebiga

Why are you making things up?

This was talked about and predicted months in advance: it would take longer to count the mail ballots. They would be overwhelmingly Democratic— but that’s Trump’s fault. He was telling his supporters to vote in person.

So the odds of WHAT happening, exactly? The most obvious thing in the world? That’s hardly like winning the lottery.

Watching Trump cultists try desperately to prove the election was stolen is very entertaining. And cringe-y.

On election night, I had some money placed on the result. When the vote count paused, I jotted down the interim count numbers for the key states. Below are the numbers when the count stopped and then the final result... — yebiga

Something like the same occurred in Wisconsin, Michigan and Georgia... — yebiga

Amazing! And thank you for showing your evidences and proofs.

I experienced the same issue in the elections of my country regarding mail voting. The country I live in is poorer and less democratic than yours, but it is interesting how the socialists used the same pattern.

As much as I could find out reliable data because this is controlled by the government, the count numbers go as follows:

The socialists asked the people in the July 2023 elections to put into practice the voting system. 2,622,808 mail-in ballots were accepted. Surprise! 53.6 % of those mail ballots favoured the leftists, who will set up the government in November.

Sadly, our political system doesn't allow the most voted list to rule on. The conservatives "won" the number of poll ballots (eight million) but due to the mail ballots, the socialists ended up receiving more seats than expected. Suspicious, opaque, cheating, etc. I know that there are many differences in the voting system between the U.S. and Spain, but I see that the mail system only favoured one party in both cases. :chin:

Of course, it all favored one candidate. — NOS4A2

If making it easier for people to vote favours one candidate then that candidate just has more popular support.

The notion that we should allow voter suppression and disinformation so that the less favoured candidate has a better chance at winning is absurd.

It is almost inevitably the case that making it easier to vote tends to favour the left, and making it harder favours the right, because people with mobility problems are more likely to be poorer, and poor people are more likely to be left wing.

But the democratic principle must be to let everybody vote as easily as possible, not to put barriers in the way of, say, people who have to use public transport during a pandemic.

So postal voting is only a 'steal' tactic if fraud is taking place, not if it favours one candidate. Rather, measures to limit the vote, even if disguised as 'security measures' are an attempt to steal, unless there is evidence of widespread fraud that needs to be curtailed.

Bingo. These guys see that when voting is made easier, a lot of people vote left. They see this as evidence of corruption on the left, they completely discount the possibility that it's evidence of corruption on the right.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/10/31/conservative-republicans-are-least-supportive-of-making-it-easy-for-everyone-to-vote/

Conservatives don't want it to be easy for people to vote.

Conservatives don't want it to be easy for people to vote. — flannel jesus

It is literally the contrary. When people have more access to voting, the number of votes turns right because the citizens tend to be more conservative than leftists statistically.

It is literally the contrary. When people have more access to voting, the number of votes turns right because the citizens tend to be more conservative than leftists statistically. — javi2541997

It literally isn't, because citizens tend to be more leftist than conservatives statistically. But literally provide any evidence of what you say, because all the evidence I see is that the right wants to restrict the vote and the left wants to expand it in every case I know of, whether it is blacks, postal votes, women, young people, whatever.

you have two examples to the contrary and that doesn't give you pause.

If making it easier to vote were good for conservatives, why in the world did Donald trump talk so much smack on mail in voting? Shouldn't he be a big fan?

Did you know Donald trump himself does mail in voting?