Would it also have to be a massive conspiracy for... hmmm let's say, just a random imaginary possibility here, for the Russians to interfere in elections?
I don't see where I made any claim about Russian interference. As such this is not a valid response to me.
You know what,
@random_boy232 ,
@Unhappy Anchovy,
@Xilizhra and all the others that disbelieve in widespread voter fraud? Give me a reason why would you oppose recounts and audits to lay the matter to rest once and for all.
Hm? Recounts are perfectly fine. Georgia's going to have a recount, and I have no objections. Close results should have multiple counts. That's just good practice.
I don't see how that changes anything I said? It is vanishingly unlikely that any recount would swing a state, much less enough states to make Trump win the election. As such, given the facts on the ground - that there is no real evidence of fraud, and that the chances of recounts altering anything are so infinitesimal - I think that Trump ought to do the right thing and formally concede.
Yes, that is always a possibility. But that is rather implausible, since Trump has already gotten the highest vote of any sitting president, and somehow Joe Biden of all people massively out preforms both Hillary and Obama. How plausible is it that Joe Biden, who is unlikable, uncharisma, scandal ridden, has a past of racist remarks, and is obviously corrupt would do that much better. So how likely is it that he genuine won, if he did so much better than he logically should have? The man talking to empty parking lots could some how pull in over 75 million votes?
We are in an age of hyper-polarisation and negative partisanship. It's not surprising that turnout was high. Remember that Trump is also one of the most hated American presidents of all time, and barring a short period slightly after inauguration,
has never had a net positive approval rating.
Over fifty percent of the country consistently disapproved of the way he did his job, over years. As such it is entirely plausible that there was massive turnout in order to get rid of him. That is to say that Trump is such a polarising figure that this election featured significantly boosted turnout, both for and against him.
However, I think the deeper issue here is that this and other arguments you make in the same post essentially boil down to, "Trump can't have lost the election because it feels wrong to me. I
feel like he ought to have won. Therefore he won." See also:
And really you think Georgia somehow voting for Biden is the will of the people? By such razor thing margins, in a contested election, in a clearly red state, that is full of Trump supporters. What is more likely a Republican state wants a Republican President, or they want an incredibly corrupt, unlikable, and uncharismatic democratic president. That sounds pretty unplausible to me, so I will reiterate it will be violence, because they dared to enforce the will of the people. And thus political terrorism.
This is absurd. You find it implausible that Biden might have won Georgia, therefore... what? No. Only one thing will determine whether or not Biden won Georgia, and that thing is the
number of votes. So far it
looks like Biden won Georgia, but there will be a recount, as it's really razor-thin and I don't know which way it will go.
But the point is that your gut feeling is not a reliable guide to election outcomes. See also:
I would say they do, I have actually seen MACA hats, and heard plenty of people being fellow travellers. And I would wager they polled the big cities and not the places where Canada's Trump supporters would most likely live. Such as smaller cities, or rural communities. Because face it, those communities are almost never polled and big cities are taken to be representative of the whole. And of course, they'd think a Biden presidency would be good for Canada, Biden is more pliable to our interests! And I will admit, I do have my own issues with Trump for the continuance of American economic aggression at my country, and many Canadians are going to be even angrier than me who can take it in proportion.
I note that I looked up polling data, made a quick calculation, clearly stated all my assumptions, and then chucked a 10% bonus for Trump on to the end just for the lulz. You... are citing anecdotes. Okay? I mean, you've seen a MAGA hat, congratulations. I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. Do you disagree with my conclusion that Canadians overwhelmingly dislike Trump, and that at a rough guess, only a quarter to a third of Canadians
at most are likely to be sympathetic to claims of voter fraud?
It is good you actually admitted some contrary evidence, and I'd say Israelis like Trump for the same reason many Canadians dislike him, political interest.
My guess would be that Trump's foreign policy has been unusually pro-Israel (cf. the embassy in Jerusalem), and that Israelis are unlikely to care that much about American domestic politics, so from their perspective Trump has been quite good for them.
Going back a bit now...
And now you are agreeing with someone calling for violence when he doesn't get his way. Good to know.
I said that he
and the National Review are correct that it would be disastrously awful if state legislatures were to ignore the votes and appoint electors in defiance of the will of the people. I explicitly said that I was not encouraging violence. Yeesh.
This forum is not right wing, nor is it meant to be.
As Joe Biden himself might say, "C'mon, man."
Actually, I think that is more like you. You ignore all the information, because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions. And a flawed map can get you killed, it gives you false confidence. So I'd rather have no map, then I am forced to think on my feet and use all my available knowledge to survive. Every trick and every rule of thumb, rather than relying on information that could get me killed. To me you are saying you'd rather rely on obviously flawed information that is told to you, than thinking for yourself.
I don't think you are using numbers? The closest you came above was saying that you don't find the turnout for Biden believable, but that's not an estimate you're basing on any actual numbers of data. It's based on your estimate of what's realistic for Biden, which is to say, another gut feeling.
Which ones have been laughed out? He just won in Pennsylvania big time. I am going to need a citation for that, because I am seeing Trump winning plenty.
...I cited Trump's lawsuits in
my opening post.
Here's
the link I included there. The vast majority of Trump's lawsuits have been dismissed. The one victory in Pennsylvania is too small to change the result of the election.
To be clear, he's filed over a dozen lawsuits. It looks like about eight have been outright rejected, a few are currently ongoing, and the only two victories are a trivial suit in Pennsylvania about standing a few feet closer to vote-counters, and one about ballots that didn't receive supplemental identification by the 9th. This will not change the result.
It doesn't need to be a massive operation, just many small operations and a larger one at the top. You don't need any large scale organizational efforts these days to organize things. Just look at ISIS, Antifa, and the Hong Kong protests.
One thing ISIS, Antifa, and the Hong Kong protests have in common is that none of them were trying to execute an extremely complex and subtle operation, in secret, across an entire nation of more than three hundred and twenty million people. Antifa doesn't have coordination problems because there's nothing to coordinate: all you have to do to be part of Antifa is put on a black hoodie and a mask and go punch some people.
But beyond that, it's important that
none of those groups are secret. ISIS has not been able to convince anyone that it doesn't exist. The Hong Kong protesters have not silently manipulated the Hong Kong Legislative Council from the shadows with impunity. The thing about the protests or Antifa or the like is that they
don't require massive coordination, because the main thing they're doing is turning out in public, being seen, and showing discontent. That is the opposite of what a giant, covert electoral fraud organisation would need to be.
@Unhappy Anchovy <deleted content>
No voter fraud?
If you check back, you will notice that I consistently said "no significant voter fraud and no election fraud". One random guy on Twitter alleging an individual irregularity is not evidence of widespread election fraud. Over a hundred and fifty million people voted in this election. You need to take scale into account: if, say, 0.01% of all votes are cast fraudulently, which is probably believable for clerical error, that's still fifteen thousand mistakes.