Sorry but no, with voter fraud a single account of it being discovered is all you should need to justify a full audit of the election in the state it was discovered in.
If that's your standard then every single US election should have a full audit. I would say that all irregularities should be investigated, but a full audit is only required after a threshold of irregularities is reached.
Given I know for a fact you have spent the last 4 years believing random people on twitter who claim things about Trump, this probably isn't a hill you want to die on.
What on Earth are you talking about?
You have been shown mountains of evidence, yet you ignore it. You are just projecting, you are among the people denying the truth.
I'm sorry, but this is flatly not true. In this topic there hasn't been a serious effort to show me evidence, and while I read this and the fraud topic earlier, I have consistently failed to find credible evidence of large-scale fraud. If you think there's credible evidence, by all means present it, but so far in our discussion I will note that I have been regularly linking sources and figures, all of which you've cavalierly dismissed as 'biased', and you have... not been.
And all the pollsters have lost their credibility. I will accept data from someone who actually has a track record. And by "actual" data you mean unreliable data from proven unreliable sources.
Can you give me any examples of sources you would consider reliable? Gallup, Ipsos, and Reuters don't seem to qualify...
You are the one who has started with insults. So get off your high horse. You are not on SB anymore and your tactics won't work here. It very much is an argument, because it says that your claims are inaccurate and don't accord to reality. A thousand-thousand people could attest, and you would ignore them.
This is still not an argument. "NO U" is not an argument.
You mean the one that suddenly stopped counting in the middle of the night and then magic'd up exactly enough votes for Biden to win? Yes facts don't care about your feelings. You are wrong, and you ignore the facts because it conflicts with your warped sense of reality.
What, that again? The Associated Press has
been over such allegations. It's true that mail ballots came in during the counting process, and for obvious reasons mail ballots favour Biden, and there is nothing suspicious about either of those facts.
I want to note that you have thus far
not once tried to provide me with a link to data or reporting on that. I have to try to guess exactly what allegations you're referring to, because you haven't told me. "The one that suddenly stopped counting in the middle of night" - which one is that, exactly? Pennsylvania as a whole?
There is no evidence that the vote was falsified in Pennsylvania. If you believe you have such evidence, please tell me what it is.
Keep telling yourself that. It does not make it true. This board is not right-wing, this board is merely sane. Unless you are conceding that sanity is more particular to the right as of late.
...I would expect right-wingers to say that sanity is more common on the right, yes. I would also expect left-wingers to say that the left is much more sane than the right. That's obvious. But at any rate, I think it is demonstrably true that the Sietch's membership is heavily right-wing.
You mean the same magazine that had to alter the outcome of their trivial person of the year contest? I mean if they'd fudge a meaningless contest what else would they be dishonest about?
Yes or no - do you think
Time is lying about the outcomes of those lawsuits? Remember that the outcomes of lawsuits are public record.
Interfering with the electoral process is not trivial. It is proof of malfeasance. The fact that you would call it trivial is telling. Obvious signs of election malfeasance is trivial. If they cannot stand close enough, they cannot actually watch the polls be counted. That is not trivial. Again I am proven of your dishonesty.
Twenty feet versus six feet is a trivial procedural difference, yes. It will make zero difference to the outcome and has nothing to do with voting irregularities, should they exist.
And now, we get to your hypocrisy. Calling people mad. You are a rank hypocrite. You cry about ad hominem yet you use the exact same coinage.
I said that the idea that it's possible for thousands of people, with no coordination, to falsify a United States federal election is mad. I stand by that: it is mad. You will notice that this is a criticism of an
idea, not a person.
Do we need to go over what an
ad hominem is? An
ad hominem is ignoring an argument in favour of attacking the person who made it. "You're wrong because you're an idiot" is an
ad hominem. Not all insults are
ad hominem: for instance, "You're wrong because XYZ, you idiot" is not an
ad hominem, even though it contains an insult.
In this case I said that a particular idea - that it's possible for large-scale election fraud to occur entirely organically, without top-down organisation, in secret - is mad. That is in no possible sense an
ad hominem.
And yes it is an argument. How is it possible he managed to outperform Obama, a man who was a media darling, when he could not fill a parking lot. Could not fill a small room. That is an argument, because it points out the improbability of Biden doing that successfully. What is the odds that he was able to pull of a better margin legitimately than Barrack Obama. I ask you this and then you evade the question. I am done here, you obviously are not here to debate in good faith. And I dismiss them, because they all come from sources that have discredited themselves. Their performance over Trump administration is rpoof enough.
...what are you talking about? I answered that question directly and you ignored it! Look:
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.
You didn't respond to this: you just said that those polls were unreliable. That doesn't address the argument, though. Trump is a uniquely unpopular president, and election turnout is driven not only by positive partisanship (i.e. I like my candidate and hope he wins!) but by negative partisanship (i.e. I hate the other candidate and hope he loses). High turnout in the hopes of removing Trump from office is entirely plausible.
In the abstract, sure, I agree that Biden is not as charismatic as Obama, and I wouldn't expect to see as much positive partisanship there. But at the same time, I think that Trump is much more hated than McCain or Romney were, and I would expect to see much more negative partisanship there. So that's an entirely plausible factor that would increase turnout.
What really gets me here is the idea that the very fact of high Democratic turnout is evidence of fraud. That means that Biden winning is evidence that Biden isn't really winning. What on Earth?
And you call people out for dismissing your evidence and then you do the same out of hand, with much less justification. Yo are a hypocrite of the worst kind.
And you're currently accusing
me of
ad hominem, insults, and dismissing evidence and arguments?
