[condomhacker]

Lets consider this possibility: if there was systemic voter fraud [1] then this is again another action done to supress the information and prevent from more people learning about the possible voter fraud. Not only are social media platforms supressing voices, there is also the media which has the option to decide what to cover and what not to. These are the primary ways people stay informed.

Note: not an American.

[1]: https://hereistheevidence.com/

[Daishiman]

Take this garbage out of the way. There was no systemic fraud. You are peddling lies.

[condomhacker]

A hypothesis is not a lie.

[Daishiman]

It's about as much of a hypothesis as it is to say that my TV works because there's tiny elves in the electronics or that unicorns are real.

[condomhacker]

We're not kids to be arguing over silly examples like this.

[Daishiman]

No, but losing 60-something court cases, many of those with judges appointed by the very same administration fighting this, with many of the attorneys in questions getting their credentials questioned to the border of disbarrment... yeah, I have nothing else to add.

[logicchains]

>losing 60-something court cases

This is misinformation. They didn't lose 60-something cases, the vast majority of cases were rejected for lack of standing, i.e. the courts refused to even hear them.

[jumelles]

The lies you're repeating have now gotten people killed.

[condomhacker]

The supression of discussion has caused creation of echo chambers which lead to people being killed.

___

I do not advocate violence.

[netsharc]

Man, that site has pretty flimsy "evidence". Many of them are just links to news articles where people assert things. A news article from someone claiming between 120K to 305K votes might be faked is presented on the site as "expert witness" as a source for the "evidence" that "300K votes were faked"...

[condomhacker]

There are over a thousand links and not all of it is strong evidence but they surely suggest that there were irregularities in more than one location.

There are sworn affidavits under penalty of prejury [1], video showing dead people voting [2], votes in the trash [3], video evience [4] just to give you some examples.

[1]: https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2020-11/Miller_D... [2]: https://twitter.com/fleccas/status/1324237476186202113 [3]: https://lbry.tv/@CapitalistChile:0/shredded-ballots-have-bee... [4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ0xDWhWUxk

[harryh]

What you are doing here is a classic Gish Gallop.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

You're presenting a large number of unsourced claims with weak or non existent evidence that take time and effort to track down and debunk. In these sorts of situations the burden of proof is on the accuser and you aren't even close to that standard.

Let's just pick "video showing dead people voting" from above. It ignores the fact that two different people can have the same name. And often this happens in the same family with people living at the same address. In an election with over 150M votes cast, there is every reason to believe there would be plenty of instances of daughters with the same names as their dead mothers casting votes. There's no evidence that this isn't what happened here.

It's also worth noting that Trump and his associates brought a lot of the so called "evidence" to court and were nearly laughed out of court almost every single time.

[condomhacker]

Present few evidence - not widespread enough, "okay there were a few irregularities"

Present a large number of evidence - Gish Gallop

unsourced claims - Links and sources speak for themselves, it is not as if I have manufacured them out of thin air.

> burden of proof is on the accuser and you aren't even close to that standard

If me presenting over a thousand links with lets say 90% weak evidence doesnt come close to a standard I dont know what will.

> It's also worth noting that Trump and his associates brought a lot of the so called "evidence" to court and were nearly laughed out of court almost every single time.

You are right about this one. Though as far as I know, were not dismissed on the matter of the evidence itslef but on precedent, issues regarding the timing and other matters.

[harryh]

It's not a Gish Gallop because you've presented "a large number of evidence". It's a Gish Gallop because you've presented a large number of claims (you called out 4 specifically) each of which has extremely thin evidence and, in fact, when someone takes the time to investigate it, it's fairly easily debunked.

I already did #2.

For #1 this is information on Wikipedia about how the underlying data used by the professor was not sufficient to support his conclusions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_J._Miller#2020_Election

For #3 here is a reuters post debunking the assertion:

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-oklahoma/fact-c...

For #4 here is a post from some Georgia press (the assertion was about fraud in Georgia) debunking the assertions:

https://www.11alive.com/article/news/politics/elections/fact...