Election Do-Over!!!

[NauticalGent]

He did preface with it's "Anecdotal evidence"

True. I tried to convey that although I am not (openly) picking a side - there are good ways to support your debate and cast shade on others. His way was one of the better ways I have seen.

 

[jpl458]

Seems that you are making few logical fallacies. The first, you have provided no direct evidence that the study itself is/was actually flawed. You also neglect that the Rasmussen was a participant. So maybe the Heartland Institute is not to your liking, but the involvement of Rasmussen may add credence to the results.

The second logical fallacy is to jump to the erroneous conclusion that because they (as one example) "denied the negative health impacts of smoking" that this particular study must therefore be flawed.

There is also an implication of an Ad hominem attack. That the Heartland Institute is equivalent to "... the flat earth society". That being conservative and libertarian means rejecting science and climate change. Well, science is always incomplete and evolving, that means topics just as climate change are open to further evaluation. The tone of the response to the article, while derogatory does not provide a basis rejecting the results of the study,

Additionally, it is well known that a lot of scientific research is done to inappropriately legitimatize certain things such as smoking and climate change. A lot of scientific research is actually prostitution for money rather than a legitimate search for knowledge.

So smoking is safe? And there is no climate change?

 

[Steve R.]

So smoking is safe? And there is no climate change?

H'mm. Please highlight were I said that smoking is safe or that there is no climate change in this thread.
How did you arrive at the smoking/climate conclusions you made?
Have you been able to uncover facts that demonstrate that the study is somehow flawed?
Until you do, we can assume that the study is valid.

 

[jpl458]

H'mm. Please highlight were I said that smoking is safe or that there is no climate change in this thread.
How did you arrive at the smoking/climate conclusions you made?
Have you been able to uncover facts that demonstrate that the study is somehow flawed?
Until you do, we can assume that the study is valid.

So then Trump won the election despit 61`court failures to back that up, and most of his staff told him he lost, and he was quoted as saying |Don't tell anyone that I lost". And, his hired guns said there was no evidence of tampering that wouls chamge the election. The fact is Trump lost. As far as that poll was concerned, why would anyone who has broken the law answer "yes I did" to a pollster? Tha makes zero sense.

 

[Steve R.]

So then Trump won the election despit 61`court failures to back that up, and most of his staff told him he lost, and he was quoted as saying |Don't tell anyone that I lost". And, his hired guns said there was no evidence of tampering that wouls chamge the election. The fact is Trump lost. As far as that poll was concerned, why would anyone who has broken the law answer "yes I did" to a pollster? Tha makes zero sense.

You still have not supplied the evidence that the study is flawed. Instead of addressing that question, you simply regurgitate the same old tired meaningless Democratic party talking points.

PS: Evidently your Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) precluded you from noticing that the article did not disclose who benefited or who suffered from the fraudulent voting. All that we can conclude is that there were some fraudulent votes. Based on that, it seems your implied assertion that Trump benefited is baseless.

 

[Pat Hartman]

So then Trump won the election despit 61`court failures to back that up

Mischaracterization of facts as well as inaccurate count

Promoting American Election Integrity,

Promoting American Election Integrity — Advocating: Easy to Vote, Hard to Cheat, and Verifiable Results — The major components of the election...

election-integrity.info

https://election-integrity.info/2020_Election_Cases.htm

most of his staff told him he lost

Opinion.

he was quoted as saying |Don't tell anyone that I lost"

Hearsay

there was no evidence of tampering that wouls chamge the election

Opinion

The fact is Trump lost.

Let's say he didn't win due to election tampering If Hillary can say this, then Trump is entitled to the same opinion.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Most democrats say elections are rigged when they lose.

 

[moke123]

Mischaracterization of facts as well as inaccurate count

Pat your passing off John Droz again?

Droz, identified as “physicist, North Carolina,” was the only signatory on a two-page Feb. 5, 2021 report claiming that Trump, who lost 61 of the 62 lawsuits24 he and his allies filed seeking to overturn the results of the 2020 election, had “WON the majority of 2020 election cases fully heard, and then decided on the merits.” His report was cited by news sites including Christianity Daily25 and the Epoch Times.26

“The article was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed,” PolitiFact reported. Referring to an Epoch Times article that had used Droz’s 2-page “report” to allege that Trump “won two-thirds of election lawsuits where the merits [were] considered,” PolitiFact wrote, “That claim is literally not true.”27

 

[jpl458]

You still have not supplied the evidence that the study is flawed. Instead of addressing that question, you simply regurgitate the same old tired meaningless Democratic party talking points.

PS: Evidently your Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) precluded you from noticing that the article did not disclose who benefited or who suffered from the fraudulent voting. All that we can conclude is that there were some fraudulent votes. Based on that, it seems your implied assertion that Trump benefited is baseless.

I am saying that the source of the study is flawed. A source I wouldn't trust either way.

 

[Steve R.]

I am saying that the source of the study is flawed. A source I wouldn't trust either way.

Your are allowed not to trust a source, but your tirade was against only one of the two authors involved in the study. That does automatically make the study wrong. Additionally, your adversarial response is unforeseen as the study makes no assertion as to who benefited from the voting irregularities. Only that it occurred.

As a rationale person, shouldn't you investigate a little bit before condemning? Your automatic response of "poisoning the well" against the Heartland Institute further demonstrated that you had an adversarial closed mind concerning the study. That does not encourage the reader of your comments to agree with your point of view.

You did not explicitly state that you did not trust the Heartland Institute, instead you tossed-out a series of logical flaws with ad Ad hominem attacks, even going so far as making a baseless accusation: "So smoking is safe? And there is no climate change?" That is purposely twisting the narrative in a misleading manner, which diminishes your credibility.

 

[Isaac]

Since the 2000s, the Heartland Institute has been a leading promoter of climate change denial.

Yeah, but in all fairness, you could accurately describe many conservative groups like this.

And the opposite is true, I could take any liberal group on planet earth and say "they have been a leading promoter of climate alarmist conspiracies". It's just a matter of perspective and opinion.

 

[Isaac]

Your are allowed not to trust a source, but your tirade was against only one of the two authors involved in the study. That does automatically make the study wrong. Additionally, your adversarial response is unforeseen as the study makes no assertion as to who benefited from the voting irregularities. Only that it occurred.

As a rationale person, shouldn't you investigate a little bit before condemning? Your automatic response of "poisoning the well" against the Heartland Institute further demonstrated that you had an adversarial closed mind concerning the study. That does not encourage the reader of your comments to agree with your point of view.

You did not explicitly state that you did not trust the Heartland Institute, instead you tossed-out a series of logical flaws with ad Ad hominem attacks, even going so far as making a baseless accusation: "So smoking is safe? And there is no climate change?" That is purposely twisting the narrative in a misleading manner, which diminishes your credibility.

Don't let it bother you Steve. There are several people on this site who even when confronted with evidence will try to attack the people who did the study, no matter how legit the study is but because of what it proves. They have their pet sources (which laughably seem to include Wikipedia), but will attack a study sponsor like the Institute on Family even if the poll was done via Gallup - it makes no sense until you understand that their negative assertion bias is so strong it wouldn't matter if you presented the evidence in front of their eyes, they'd say they must be hallucinating. Some people have already decided the issue in their minds

 

[Pat Hartman]

@moke123 "Fake news" is anything that the left disagrees with.

which laughably seem to include Wikipedia

Wikipedia is "group edited" so it contains a lot of mis-information.

@jpl458 Since the 2000s, the Heartland Institute has been a leading promoter of climate change denial.

"Climate change denial" is a ridiculous term. No one denies the climate is in constant flux and has been since our atmosphere formed. At least you should be able to find a pejorative that represents the point. You are the one who is denying the science. The belief of the "climate alarmists" that CO2 is the only cause of global warming and humans are 100% at fault and humans can therefore control the climate at will is simply absurd. If the "climate alarmists" would take a more rational position, there could at least be collaboration on how to deal with the effects of warming. Because "global warming" isn't all bad. There are upsides, just not to people with beach front property as the seas rise.

How about all that "science" regarding COVID

 

[Isaac]

LOL Pat maybe what he means is the Heartland Institute is one of those people pointing out that climate alarmists' argument is constantly changing and being proved wrong. Maybe that is what 'denying' really means? And they just put out a new study claiming the culprit may not even be CO2. Oh, if only we'd "known" that little morsel 10 trillion dollars and a dozen freedoms lost ago!

 

[Pat Hartman]

I wonder if the crazies of California will lift their bans on gas powered appliances like stoves, water heaters, and furnaces. We won't even talk about banning gas stations and drive through restaurants. I sure like my furnace to keep working when the power goes out and it's 12 below.

 

[jpl458]

Your are allowed not to trust a source, but your tirade was against only one of the two authors involved in the study. That does automatically make the study wrong. Additionally, your adversarial response is unforeseen as the study makes no assertion as to who benefited from the voting irregularities. Only that it occurred.

As a rationale person, shouldn't you investigate a little bit before condemning? Your automatic response of "poisoning the well" against the Heartland Institute further demonstrated that you had an adversarial closed mind concerning the study. That does not encourage the reader of your comments to agree with your point of view.

You did not explicitly state that you did not trust the Heartland Institute, instead you tossed-out a series of logical flaws with ad Ad hominem attacks, even going so far as making a baseless accusation: "So smoking is safe? And there is no climate change?" That is purposely twisting the narrative in a misleading manner, which diminishes your credibility.

In your original post you put forth a source that stated that 1 in 5 votes were invalid. That would lead me to conclude that you think Trump won the 2020 election. On my side of this conversation is a mountain of emperical evidence the Trump lost. I went through all that in a previous post. An example is believing that there is a Santa Clause because you put out the cookies on Christmas eve, and in the morning they are gone. Any further conversation here is pointless.

 

[Steve R.]

Even though you believe that: "Any further conversation here is pointless.", I'm going to respond with a few concluding remarks to be on the record.

I did not use that study to make any claim that Trump "won". The study makes no assertion that Trump "won", only that 1 in 5 votes were invalid. It is therefore inappropriate and an unjustified jump in logic for you to assert that: "That would lead me to conclude that you think Trump won the 2020 election."

You assert that there: "is a mountain of emperical evidence the Trump lost." You are free to believe that. Conversely, there is a mountain of empirical evidence that the Democrats rigged the election to favor Biden. That was the impetus for this thread; to discus that. So where I actually do make statements that the Democrats rigged the election, feel free to challenge that.

 

[Pat Hartman]

The most important fact regarding election rigging is just how hard the Democrats fought to prevent any forensic audits, especially in the 6 swing states that stopped counting votes ~ 9:30 PM because they were tired and they just went home. If there was no "there there", why the fuss? Just let the Republicans waste their money performing an audit. No skin off your nose. Why was it so important to prevent/delay the audits? The answer is, they needed time to reprogram the machines and create/destroy evidence to support the counts. That is a fact you cannot argue with. Because of that obstruction, no actual forensic audits were ever performed. Just recounting ballots that had not been secured would only confirm the original counts but didn't prove anything. And that fact is why the suspicion will never die. So, keep that in mind for 2024. The machines and paper (all of it including the envelopes) MUST be secured so that forensic audits can be conducted if necessary. Don't worry. If Joe loses, we'll let you waste your money on audits Be prepared for concerned citizens to be camped outside the counting facilities watching and filming who/what enters/exits the facilities until the election is certified or there is no challenge.

 

[jpl458]

Show me actual evidence that the election was rigged. Real evidence. Not youtube, or other non verifiable sources. 61 Federal Courts said no. Trump hired 2 diferent companies to investigate and both said there was no fruad. Several states investigated and found that there was no fruad, I would ten to go along with that evidence.

Read this:

Because the 2020 presidential election results in several states were quite close, stakeholders took advantage of various state laws and procedures to allege incorrect vote counts and request recounts. The Trump campaign challenged the vote counts in some states and sought recounts in others. Georgia conducted a risk-limiting audit and two statewide recounts. Wisconsin, at the request of the Trump campaign, recounted votes in Milwaukee and Dane counties. Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania all faced lawsuits that alleged vote-count fraud and sought recounts. Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson agreed to conduct a statewide election audit. The Trump campaign and various Republican organizations, candidates, and voters filed 10 “election contests” in Arizona, Georgia, and Nevada. None of these lawsuits or contests succeeded, and none of the recounts or audits changed the results of the election. This report surveys the vote recounts and election contests in seven battleground states.

 

[moke123]

just let the Republicans waste their money performing an audit.

They did.

Arizona Republican ‘audit’ finds even bigger lead for Biden in 2020 election

Hand count of the 2.1m ballots cast in Maricopa county found that Biden actually won 360 more votes over Trump than was reported

www.theguardian.com

2020 Election Recounts and Audits - 2020Election.org

Last updated August 2022 Quick Facts: As of the 2020 election, 27 states and DC had provisions for an automatic recount for thin election margins and 43 states allowed requested recounts under certain circumstances. As of the 2020 election, routine post-election audits were required by law in 34...

the2020election.org