[RhodoYolo]

hmmm... The fact that this comment is being downvoted shakes my believe in HN. Fair statements, fraud did occur.

The fact that a standing presidents twitter account was banned is also very unamerican, no matter what he's saying.

[Jochim]

The first two paragraphs are reasonable. It descends into conspiracy fueled guff from then on. By the final paragraph they're alleging that "mountains of fraud" took place.

Twitter has permanently banned people for far less. Showing that the President is an equal seems like a fairly American concept from over here.

[slumdev]

There are actual videos of these things taking place.

Dismissing it as "conspiracy fueled guff" is dishonest.

[Jochim]

It's entirely honest. There are "mountains" of legitimately confirmed votes, proportionally there are only a tiny number of cases where something objectionable may or may not have happened. In your original post you intentionally misrepresent how frequently potential wrongdoing may have occurred and jump straight to asserting "mountains of fraud".

It is perfectly fine to find irregularities and question them, it crosses into bad faith when those irregularities are explained[1] and they continue to be repeated as if they were not.

What we are seeing is people repeating points that appear compelling at first glance, but only when wilfully ignoring any context that comes with those points. Some extremely egregious examples of this have come from last night's Capitol incident where the same people claiming or incensed by "mountains of election fraud" were falsely claiming that the protestors were "communist Antifa"[2].

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-gwinnett-domini...

[2] https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-protester-capito...

[slumdev]

Here's what's going to happen when you read this and respond (if you choose to). In response to links 1 and 2, you're going to post some kind of "fact check" which is no more than a "he-said-she-said" rebuttal from the very people who must be prosecuted for the theft in the first place. And in response to links 3 and 4, you're going to insist that they're isolated events and don't represent a pattern. In both cases, I'll have presented evidence, and you won't have.

https://www.projectveritas.com/news/las-vegas-mailman-agrees...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVP_60Hm4P8

https://nypost.com/2020/11/02/dead-people-caught-voting-in-n...

https://100percentfedup.com/video-yes-dead-people-did-vote-i...

[Jochim]

1. Is evidence that the mail man should be disciplined or fired, not of a mountain of fraud.

2. You've literally proved my point about ignoring any kind of context with this one. The title intentionally misrepresents what is happening from the outset by misqualifying the containers ballots are regularly stored in as suitcases. It's not attempting to raise a concern about the election process, it's attempting to incense people with a particular ideology. This is further reinforced when you entirely ignore the testimony of anyone with any knowledge of how the ballot counting process is carried out, including ignoring the fact that any of the independent observers that the officials alleged to have left of their own volition could easily challenge that claim at any point.

3/4. All you've done here is prove that the methods already in place are effective at catching people who try to cast a dead person's vote.

Throughout this you've entirely ignored the fact that these discrepancies have been brought to people's attention and that they are either pure conjecture or on the level of individual misconduct. Any actions required to have /any/ effect whatsoever would be much more obvious and would have been put.

> I'll have presented evidence, and you won't have.

You've provided absolutely no evidence of the kind of mass fraud you're asserting has happened, once again isolated incidents will happen and in general they will be caught. Fraud mountain is a fiction of Trump's fucked up ego, and is evidenced by the fact that the absolutely overwhelming majority of votes have been agreed as legitimate by both independent and partisan observers.

[slumdev]

This is evidence of fraud. You're asserting without any evidence (as I predicted) that these are isolated incidents. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

We may never know the exact amount of fraud that occurred because the left, mass media, and establishment Republicans are intent on forging ahead with the so-called President-elect without conducting a robust investigation of the claims. At this point, it looks like the theft could be successful.