patrick.net

DeficitHawk says

The topic of whether we can improve the election process to build transparency and trust without violating anonymity or systematically excluding groups of potential voters is important and constructive.

Nobody is being excluded unless they exclude themselves, there is no reason to discuss systematic exclusion, it doesn't exist in this context. It's a real issue when you start debating whether convicts should be able to vote, which they should imo, regardless of their crime. With regard to the election process it's a non issue.

DeficitHawk says

But throwing allegations that "I only lost because you cheated" is quite a different thing.

After the fact I somewhat agree with this, barring any smoking gun evidence. 2000 mules comes very close, but it's not good enough after the fact, particularly because the left made sure to obfuscate the process enough, shutting out observers etc. so that hard evidence will almost be impossible to find. One very easy common sense part of the fix to this is to declare ballot harvesting illegal, punishable under the law with lenghty jail time. Ballots can only be dropped off by family members or registered care takers, or the voter themselves. Done.

Mell,

I don't think I am twisting words. I'm trying to say my perspective on things. I am telling you that I have some degree of trust in public officials to do their duties as long as they are not making decisions that directly impact themselves and create a conflict of interest.

I don't want the president who is up for re-election to be telling me who won the election. That is why I want the individual secretaries of state doing that job. Maybe a secretary can be corrupt, sure... But not 50.

I just simply don't take the losing guy saying "the other guy cheated" at face value when 50 secretaries of state representing the whole swath of political spectrum are all agreeing that trump lost. That's just how I process and contextualize information. I weigh the motives of who said it along with the statement.

I voted by absentee ballot, and put it in the mailbox for the mailman to pick up. Should my mailman go to jail?

DeficitHawk says

I just simply don't take the losing guy saying "the other guy cheated" at face value when 50 secretaries of state representing the whole swath of political spectrum are all agreeing that trump lost. That's just how I process and contextualize information. I weigh the motives of who said it along with the statement.

True, but most of them are saying Trump lost with the reasoning that there was cheating but not to the extent that it could have swayed the election outcome, and that's not valid imo. That's like saying, yeah there is shoplifting, but it's mainly smaller items, it doesn't really affect the success or failure of a business, so let's let it happen. But I was pointing out that you used meddling to describe my example of the president arranging fair and free and transparent elections, that's not meddling with the election outcome itself, it's just setting fair rules and setting it up for success. Comparable to Democrats crying "jim Crow 2.0" when voter id laws are introduced. It's not meddling, it's giving the election validity and fairness in the first place.

If you guys are tired of circle-jerking, maybe consider the many insulting responses in this thread, and how you've treated the other side for years now.

You all know I'm not a Democrat, but I'm also NOT a Republican. If you just want an anti-Republican to debate, I can certainly share an opposing perspective. But I'm sure you're all sick of hearing from me by now.

DeficitHawk says

I voted by absentee ballot, and put it in the mailbox for the mailman to pick up. Should my mailman go to jail?

I would only allow absentee ballots if they are verifiable, tamper proof etc. That takes the mailman out of the question. If he doesn't deliver it, it's a risk you take, Democrat or Republican (unless one can prove they purposely didn't deliver it knowing your party preference etc. which is almost impossible to prove). If they tamper with it, they should go to jail.

FredH says

DeficitHawk says

I imagine that is some batch of votes getting added as the count goes on. I don't really know. Maybe someone was sorting into piles and the feeding into machines. But if all the votes are counted and tallied, then I'd go with the outcome, even if I lose.

To be honest, I take the statements from the secretaries of state who manage elections at higher value than my own speculations on how counting/batches is done.

I tend to interpret information by discounting people who highlight information that would benefit their position, and putting more weight on neutral parties. Even more weight on the statements by people who's interests are not served by information they highlight. Such as the secretary of state of Georgia etc. So given all the motivated trump supporters who never found any clear evidence... And gop secretaries of state affirming that the allegations are not ...

I consider that very shallow thinking. And again naive. You don't seem to be able to grasp or even ask why the Georgia or the AZ Secstate would not be credible. That being because both were part of the election compromise. You also seem to think the dissemination of information is a "position". You also seem ignorant of what is happening to the country in an overall sense. That you mention "trump supporters" without capitalizing Trump's name is a clue that you are in fact a leftist. That you still say that there is no clear evidence only points to a HUA position held by many leftists.. It is this seemingly low iQ approach leftists use, like you are doing showing your lack of give a shit for the country. Recounts in which the same ballots are counted again are not going to give any new information. But to the low IQ leftist that is just too far over their heads. Quirks in data are important just not to leftists as they are all programmed by the same retard bot programmer having a Fetterman level stroke. They under no circumstance want to ask questions or even act curious about things far more obvious that "quirks" like the FBI furthering the Hillary instigated Russia hoax or the FBI calling the Hunter Biden laptop "Russian misinformation". Nor do they care that social media platforms are interfering with political speech. In fact I consider every leftist on the planet either so corrupt or so stupid that removing them would be the best thing for all.

DeficitHawk says

Maybe a secretary can be corrupt, sure... But not 50.

How about just the four swing states that determined the outcome? Still impossible?

And even then, the government officials do not have to be corrupt except to the extent of allowing drop box voting and voting software from China, eg:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/04/technology/election-software-arrested.html

I don't want anybody to sway or intimidate others to change the election outcome. I just want in-person, id-verified, ballot driven, election-day only, elections, with few exceptions for absentee ballots for those who aren't near a voting place. No ballot harvesting, only family members or care takers can drop off, id-verified. Done. How difficult is it to agree on these handful of simple rules to keep it fair, transparent, observable, and verifiable? Again, most Western countries follow these rules, we MUST too.

I know it was delivered because the envelopes have individual bar codes and I get email when it is received by election officials. But I did place trust that my mailman would not alter my votes covertly and it have no way to verify that.

I would love to see a proposed election system that allows me to verify my vote was counted as cast, and that no one was stuffing ballot boxes with ballots not tied to any registered voter... But I don't know how to do that without sacrificing voter anonymity.

If anyone has proposals, I'm game for that. People should have trust in elections. If there is no trust in elections, there is no democracy.

personal

I'm anti deliberately-insulting speech.

If someone happens to be offended when you did not intend to offend them, that's their problem.

But if you're deliberately offending someone, then you're not debating at all, and in fact have just made it completely impossible to have a debate.

Patrick. Not impossible for 4 people to be corrupt, but unlikely in my mind. Also no motive or evidence.

I don't know why a republican secretary of state would engage in systematic fraud against his own vote preference. I just doesn't make sense to me.

So again, people with microscopes who lost but wish they won can spend time until the cows come home looking for anomalies. But that doesn't mean there was fraud, and it doesn't mean the election outcome isn't legit.

I am not going to spend the same amount of energy chasing and investigating anomalies people highlight because I simply don't think there is enough credible motive or evidence to support the allegations. Only hard proof will make me reconsider, and no one has any.

@DeficitHawk Do you have any concern at all about the 200,000 votes that appeared late at night, almost entirely for Biden, and changed the result?

https://patrick.net/post/1377632/2022-11-10-can-anyone-find-some-democrats-willing?start=35#comment-1896497



Would you have any concern about that anomaly if it were almost entirely for Trump?

DeficitHawk says

Only hard proof will make me reconsider, and no one has any.

I'd say the math is hard proof. This statistical anomaly is as close to impossible as it gets. The math alone should have triggered a run-off or recount in battelground/close states, in person only, possibly the entire election. It's ok to redo elections if the math doesn't support the outcome.

In 2000 we all were hyper focused on hanging chads in 1 state for a couple week. But at the end of the day it was a super close election and one person won and one person lost. And it has to be that way for the government to function.

In 2020, it wasn't anywhere near as close. But still the debate rages. And still the truth is it was a close election and one person won and one person lost and it has to be that way for the government to function.

Also, do you have any concern about Trump getting yet more votes than his first election, and then Biden, who essentially campaigned from his basement, getting the most votes of any presidential candidate in history?

It doesn't seem odd to you?

Mell, it's not. Sorry. I have multiple hypotheses of people stacking ballots in piles and feeding them to machines by bins, and aggregating them that I outlined above. I don't know what happened there. I didn't investigate. But it is definitely not hard proof. It is circumstantial evidence that can be cast with allegation, or explained with no fraud.

DeficitHawk says

In 2000 we all were hyper focused on hanging chads in 1 state for a couple week. But at the end of the day it was a super close election and one person won and one person lost. And it has to be that way for the government to function.

As much as I loathe gore, and equally boosh, boosh stole the election by removing any doubt and recount by force, regardless of whether the final count would have favored gore or not.

DeficitHawk says

In 2020, it wasn't anywhere near as close. But still the debate rages. And still the truth is it was a close election and one person won and one person lost and it has to be that way for the government to function.

2020 wasn't close because Trump would have won in a landslide, had they not stopped the counting at 10 pm and crafted the fix. What country does stop counting because it's bed time, only to return at 3 am with mysterious data dumps with 100% of votes for the same candidate?! Simple math, which doesn't lie, pretty much proves the cheating.

DeficitHawk says

Mell, it's not. Sorry. I have multiple hypotheses of people stacking ballots in piles and feeding them to machines by bins, and aggregating them that I outlined above. I don't know what happened there. I didn't investigate. But it is definitely not hard proof. It is circumstantial evidence that can be cast with allegation, or explained with no fraud.

It's an as close to impossible statistical anomaly as it can get. At the minimum it should trigger fierce investigations (instead of shutting down any dissent and zero investiagtions). We have to agree to disagree here. Moving forward, let's work on the system which prevents cheating and allows, free, transparent, observable and verifiable, in-person, election-day only (with few exceptions for absentees) elections ;)

Patrick it does not seem odd to me at all. It was a very polarizing election and lots of people had strong opinions. No surprise turnout was high.

Again, I'm not going to deep dive into every anomaly someone highlights and create a detailed explanation. I don't really have responses to every claim. But what I am trying to say is that I am not persuaded by weak circumstantial evidence plus interpretations/allegations because there is a long history of 'smoke but no fire' on this topic.

lets be fair democrats don’t debate, just look at arizona chick. they can’t handle debates.

DeficitHawk is a Democrat debating, so he's an existence proof of at least one.

But I agree that in general Democrats do not seem to be interested into digging into anything which might lead to an uncomfortable conclusion.

mell says

Not really, this discussion is fairly easy. If you don't support changing the election from cheating banana republic style to in person, id-verified, ballot/paper supported elections only, you have lost the argument and support the cheating by the left. You can be left leaning without supporting the cheating by purposely obfuscating the election process.

Discussion here is about proving that Trump was screwed out of Presidency by election night shenanigans. Evidence is circumstantial yet (in my mind) compelling. Changing election process is a different issue and it seems that no one in zir right mind would oppose it unless they want to cheat, but opposing is not direct evidence of cheating again.

About vaxx and shutdowns there is plenty direct evidence.

Bd6r says

mell says

Not really, this discussion is fairly easy. If you don't support changing the election from cheating banana republic style to in person, id-verified, ballot/paper supported elections only, you have lost the argument and support the cheating by the left. You can be left leaning without supporting the cheating by purposely obfuscating the election process.

Discussion here is about proving that Trump was screwed out of Presidency by election night shenanigans. Evidence is circumstantial yet (in my mind) compelling. Changing election process is a different issue and it seems that no one in zir right mind would oppose it unless they want to cheat, but opposing is not direct evidence of cheating again.

About vaxx and shutdowns there is plenty direct evidence.

Agreed

Patrick says

DeficitHawk is a Democrat debating, so he's an existence proof of at least one.

But I agree that in general Democrats do not seem to be interested into digging into anything which might lead to an uncomfortable conclusion.

I think it's a step in the right direction to have both sides debate. If one side does not want to dig into investigating something (maybe because it may unearth inconvenient truths), one can still move forward by making sure this situation does not repeat and agree on needed reforms, in this case, election reforms.

OK, @DeficitHawk do you think it is acceptable to mandate the injection of drugs with no long-term safety data into healthy people?

Patrick says

OK, @DeficitHawk do you think it is acceptable to mandate the injection of drugs with no long-term safety data into healthy people?

That is a loaded question.

My question would be: why do Democratic localities insisted on masking and business-killing and child development-retarding lockdowns when there was plenty scientific evidence that none of those help and are in fact harmful?

Bd6r says

That is a loaded question.

I don't know how to get to the point more directly. It is the question I want to ask, because it is the essence of my complaint about mandates.

Patrick says

I don't know how to get to the point more directly. It is the question I want to ask, because it is the essence of my complaint about mandates.

Problem is that your question contains a (negative) answer within itself so there is no room for discussion.

I do not think that anyone should be able to mandate injection of any drugs, even with extensive safety information, into adults.

I agree that there should be no mandated injections of anything, ever.

@DeficitHawk Do you have any opinion about mandates?

Patrick says

I want to see the reply of True The Vote

Well, they just got out of jail so that is good news.
Here's a video where they claim that when they put up their data, it got hacked by the Chinese actors and the servers were wiped. Ryan Grimm at Intercept/Rising took that to mean the data has vanished. I'm not so sure. I believe their website is open.ink that is supposed to host election data. Haven't seen any independent corroboration about mules and cell phone data.
See 9:38:50

original link

Huh, that video won't play for me.

Patrick says

Huh, that video won't play for me.

enable javascript for imasdk.googleapis.com (That usually gets the Rumble vids going for me).

Patrick I think you are talking about vaccines.

If somebody wants to live in the boonies and not be vaccinated that's their business. But if they want to come to my house, they better not bring polio.

I think most people agree its ok for people not to be vaccinated if they are in a shack in the mountains, and aren't going to be mixing with people. And I think most people agree that a private house or club can set inclusion requirements like vaccine. Do we agree up to that point?

So really the controversy is things like schools and employers, where you don't technically have to be there if you don't want, but it is pretty impactful if you are excluded.

This is a judgement call honestly with a sliding scale for risk benefit, maturity and impact of both the disease and the vaccine. For example if we had a lot of smallpox, high death rate, high impact disease and a mature vaccine, I support applying such mandates as a requirement for attending schools and places that are controversial. Mist people will want that and the few who don't can be excluded from that setting.
On the other hand, if the disease impact is lower, or the efficacy and maturity of the vaccine is lower (like flu which has lower severity and lower efficacy of the vaccine) I don't support such mandates.

Your question is really about COVID. I got the vaccine. And I also got COVID (and lived) So I'd bin that with the lower severity less effective category and would not want to mandate the vaccine for schools. But again this is a sliding scale, and these decisions are always controversial. I do know someone who died of COVID, a co worker, and I do not agree with the characterization that it is a low risk disease... Just lower than smallpox and polio etc.

Patrick I have also seen some of your comments on this topic which I regard as over the top... Hanging people etc.... So while I actually agree with you on the point of mandates, I think your position is missing the nuance of risk benefit analysis and is pretty stark rhetoric.

mell says

the only way forward is to adopt stringent voter id laws with in person id-verified voting with paper ballots only to prevent cheating in the future and restore trust in fair elections. The fact that democrats oppose this underscores they have been and are actively cheating.

This

People united, how will this address the concerns Patrick raised in his chart above? If you believe that is fraud, how do ids at the voting booth fix that?

I don't really have a problem with ids at voting booths, but I think there is a reason why this is the item that t GOP folks focus on it, and that's because it comes with the side benefit of disproportionately excluding low income folks who don't drive... It's all in the margins either way.

But it won't fix the concerns Patrick raised even if you do it.

In 2020, Biden was a bumbling, stumbling fool with Dr. Jill's finger in his mouth. He couldn't even fill a high school gym for a campaign 'rally.' Kommiela Harris was even worse.
Her poll numbers prior to dropping out of the primary ended up below 3%. No one liked her. The Biden/Harris ticket was probably the worst in modern history.

Yet, we're asked to believe that Biden actually received 81 MILLION votes, almost 16 MILLION more votes than Hillary Clinton in 2016??

Sure he did.

How come I walked to the polling place my whole life?

No ID is okay with me if they use facial recognition like US Customs and Border Patrol use now.

Vote fraud by mail is absurd.
Ballots should be paper and scanned.

Patrick says

I'm anti deliberately-insulting speech.

If someone happens to be offended when you did not intend to offend them, that's their problem.

But if you're deliberately offending someone, then you're not debating at all, and in fact have just made it completely impossible to have a debate.

It is impossible not to offend a leftist when speaking the truth.