Really just goes to show that the American left truly dominates the culture war that they can just publish articles like "yes we (((fortified))) the election" and "everything we said about Trump was a lie and we knew the guy that told us was a fraud".
Nothing will come of this and the journos at esteemed establishments like NYTimes will never have their credibility questioned.
My favorite is when people cite that "fortified" meme in a way that reveals they didn't even read the article and just saw the cut out headline on 4chan or twitter.
Hint: The article was actually about how everyone knew Trump would try to steal the election so they geared up to stop him from doing so.
It's not a mystery, fucktard. I was calling you the most predictable moron on earth and tried to be explicit for the benefit of our swarm of newfriends.
I dunno, maybe it's the part where you can be reliably triggered into words³ posting with minimal effort? You're basically an organ grinder monkey that dances for our amusement, except those occasionally flip out and bite someone whereas you can be poked day after day for years and still come back for more abuse.
I am absurdly secure as a person. There is literally not one thing anyone on the internet can say to me to ever have any impact on me on even a basic level.
I've dealt with bullies of a much higher caliber than this sub can produce, very easily.
All you have to do to get banned from a sub on this website is dunk a jannie. You not being banned from subs on this website is evidence you aren't well adjusted.
What do you gain out of questioning anonymous randos on the internet so much that it requires making new accounts every month? Is your life that devoid of meaning?
Well, I'm not surprised that you think spending every waking hour bothering people on reddit is meaningful, but I expected you to at least be proud enough to deny it. That's boring.
I suggest reading both, there's tons and tons of fun stuff, I especially liked their efforts to counter daddy's "bullying" of the lawmakers
On a call with his team on Nov. 18, Bassin vented that his side’s pressure was no match for what Trump could offer. “Of course he’s going to try to offer them something,” Bassin recalls thinking. “Head of the Space Force! Ambassador to wherever! We can’t compete with that by offering carrots. We need a stick.”
My favorite part though is not about election at all, it's about the fact that as it turned out there's a guy with an address book who can invite 900 people into a zoom call, have the "strategy committee" tell them to stand down, and then there would not be a single protest nationwide, not BLM, not Antifa (which as we know is not an organization btw), only
On Twitter, outraged progressives wondered what was going on. Why wasn’t anyone trying to stop Trump’s coup? Where were all the protests?
and
“Wednesday through Friday, there was not a single Antifa vs. Proud Boys incident like everyone was expecting. And when that didn’t materialize, I don’t think the Trump campaign had a backup plan.”
and
Since the violence of Jan. 6, progressive leaders have not deployed large-scale public protests at all.
The journalists shyly presented this as a good thing, look how measured the good guys were in this case! Of course there's an obvious next logical step: if the progressive leaders chose not to deploy protests in this case and no protests happened, then all other "grassroots" "fiery but peaceful" protests through the summer were deployed by these same leaders, through this same 900 people that can be rounded up into a single zoom call by that one guy. Now this is fucking interesting!
I mean the people doing the rioting weren't going to give Trump an excuse to "send in the troops" and cling to power, for obvious reasons.
Either way, nothing in those articles points to "conspiracy" or "stolen election" or anything like that.
Most of it was just stopping a Trumpian steal attempt.
I also doubt these people have all that much control over the protesters, but most people in the protest scene knew what was at stake so calmed down for a few days.
I mean the people doing the rioting weren't going to give Trump an excuse to "send in the troops" and cling to power, for obvious reasons.
The people on the ground who didn't have the foresight to wear masks while looting in the middle of a pandemic when everybody wears masks didn't have the mental capacity to make such strategic decisions.
Fortunately (for the good guys) it turned out that the people on the ground don't decide shit anyways and are tightly controlled by a small group of people acting in secret towards political goals.
Either way, nothing in those articles points to "conspiracy" or "stolen election" or anything like that.
Well, it depends on your viewpoint I guess...
A second odd thing happened amid Trump’s attempts to reverse the result: corporate America turned on him. Hundreds of major business leaders, many of whom had backed Trump’s candidacy and supported his policies, called on him to concede. To the President, something felt amiss. “It was all very, very strange,” Trump said on Dec. 2. “Within days after the election, we witnessed an orchestrated effort to anoint the winner, even while many key states were still being counted.”
In a way, Trump was right.
To me, trying to force a desired election result before it's actually determined sounds like an attempt to steal the election regardless of who is doing that, and orchestrating that in secret sounds like a definition of conspiracy. Of course if you believe that stealing an election from a bad guy is good actually and it's not a conspiracy if you're hiding it from bad guys then yeah, it was all on the up and up.
There was also an interesting issue of private entities doing stuff like "In August and September, [the Institute] sent ballot applications to 15 million people in key states, 4.6 million of whom returned them", private funding for election stuff etc.
On the other hand, there's an interesting side to all of it, from an insider perspective that's not a conspiracy, that's just people coordinating in order to achieve their goals more efficiently.
Of course nobody leaves to a protest entirely on their own, people coordinate between themselves, over time there appear specific people that coordinate many others, they probably also procure materials for signs, stuff like drinking water and so on using NGOs tangentially connected to Soros (because why wouldn't they, that's just common sense), exchange experience with other and older protest organizers and so on, form "strategic committees" because having a strategy is a good and sensible thing, compile lists of crucial people because being able to enforce a strategy is a good and sensible thing, and so on. And of course it happens in private, you don't want Proud Boys listening in. So after a while you get this tightly controlled secret network of organizers that everybody relies on to tell them when and where to protest.
Similarly there's nothing wrong with encouraging "key states" and key demographics to vote (after doing the research into how they are going to vote of course), or coordinating hundreds of business leaders to call the opposite candidate to concede. And of course it's not individual people coming up with these ideas independently, they plan, they discuss, they coordinate. So from this perspective it's not a conspiracy, it's just common sense, and Repubs should stop whining and start working on such stuff themselves instead of sitting on their asses and expecting victories to fall into their lap.
From a different perspective it's 100% a conspiracy and you'd call me a deranged lunatic if I proposed something like that without having the conspirators boast about their achievements in two papers of record.
The people on the ground who didn't have the foresight to wear masks while looting in the middle of a pandemic when everybody wears masks didn't have the mental capacity to make such strategic decisions.
The anarchists and people you're trying to invoke here have nothing to do with the group you're talking about.
Well, it depends on your viewpoint I guess...
No, it really doesn't. Business leaders calling on the loser of the election to concede as he flails around and tries to destabilize the country with election fraud conspiracies is actually expected.
Instability is not good for business.
To me, trying to force a desired election result before it's actually determined sounds like an attempt to steal the election regardless of who is doing that, and orchestrating that in secret sounds like a definition of conspiracy. Of course if you believe that stealing an election from a bad guy is good actually and it's not a conspiracy if you're hiding it from bad guys then yeah, it was all on the up and up.
Except the election was very clearly over by this point, it was beyond over. In fact, it was over at about 11:30 on election night for anyone that had a basic understanding of outstanding vote/partisan voting splits.
There was literally no scenario in which Trump could come back. The winner wasn't being "anointed" the winner was obvious. Anointed is when you go out on stage before even 50% of the votes are counted and declare victory, to the applause of a conspiracy cult.
From a different perspective it's 100% a conspiracy and you'd call me a deranged lunatic if I proposed something like that without having the conspirators boast about their achievements in two papers of record.
People organizing to stop an attempted election theft does not a conspiracy make, especially not when the organization amounts to educating voters and helping them vote.
Everyone knew Trump would try to steal the election, and that's exactly what he did.
Except the election was very clearly over by this point
Didn't you admit yourself that there was concerning weirdness like people at that place with a busted pipe stopping the count, waiting until all Republican observers went home, and then resuming the count at 2am and finding a shitton of votes for Biden? Like, that it might had been a simple fuckup and didn't mean that there was actual fraud, but the fact that there could have been fraud under this unsupervised condition is a valid reason for concern? Is that how Democracy is supposed to look like?
People organizing to stop an attempted election theft does not a conspiracy make, especially not when the organization amounts to educating voters and helping them vote.
Would you call me a lunatic conspiracy theorist if I said that there's private money going to selectively target several millions of "key" voters and make it easier for them to vote in the "key" direction?
What if I told you that all US protests are controlled by like 900 people and there's a guy who can get them into a Zoom call and tell them not to protest?
Didn't you admit yourself that there was concerning weirdness like people at that place with a busted pipe stopping the count, waiting until all Republican observers went home, and then resuming the count at 2am and finding a shitton of votes for Biden? Like, that it might had been a simple fuckup and didn't mean that there was actual fraud, but the fact that there could have been fraud under this unsupervised condition is a valid reason for concern? Is that how Democracy is supposed to look like?
I see! So now the weird election fraud conspiracies come out to play.
Just so you're aware, the claim you just made is false:
Not only because nobody "found a bunch of Biden votes" but because the pipe had actually burst at 6 am:
Fulton Commission Chairman Robb Pitts told the Journal-Constitution that the pipe burst occurred at 6:07 a.m. and was repaired within two hours.
"Around 6 am on Nov 3, a pipe burst in the room at State Farm Arena where absentee ballots were processed. Arena staff swiftly completed repairs. Work resumed in approx 2 hours," the tweet reads, noting that "no ballots or equipment were damaged" during the incident.
The votes that were put into the system were counted when every observer was in fact there.
This is why nobody can take you people seriously - you will lie, twist, and distort everything to claim fraud, no matter what the facts or evidence actually say.
Would you call me a lunatic conspiracy theorist if I said that there's private money going to selectively target several millions of "key" voters and make it easier for them to vote in the "key" direction?
I'd call you misinformed. Tons of counties requested grant money to help run their elections because the federal government/state government did not provide funding to run a clean election during a pandemic.
These grants went everywhere, if you'd like to read more about this:
This contains an entire map of where the grant money went, soundly refuting the claim you have made here. There was a scandal here - that scandal being the state governments and federal governments so badly under-funded election officials they had to seek private grants.
The reason these grants have attracted the attention of the Trump conspiracy cult should be obvious: they sped up the counting of votes giving Trump less time to lie and attempt to steal the election.
What if I told you that all US protests are controlled by like 900 people and there's a guy who can get them into a Zoom call and tell them not to protest?
Considering your constant repeating of outright lies about the election, where grant money went and the like, I'd guess you aren't someone that is capable of applying any critical thought to this topic.
The pipe burst and the events on the surveillance video occurred 17 hours apart and did not happen on the same night, local news outlet 11 Alive reported, noting that Biden was already leading in Fulton County before the absentee ballots were counted and he did not take the lead in Georgia until days later.
The claim that a pipe break on Election Day in Georgia resulted in a large dump of votes for Biden while officials were evacuated is FALSE, based on our research. The pipe leak happened early in the morning of Nov. 3, while ballot counting without monitors took place Nov. 4 and was not related to the pipe incident. Officials confirmed that no ballots were damaged and no poll watchers were ordered to leave.
LMAO fucking fact checkers!
Anyways, you claimed:
Except the election was very clearly over by this point, it was beyond over. In fact, it was over at about 11:30 on election night for anyone that had a basic understanding of outstanding vote/partisan voting splits.
No, it was not over at least until Nov. 4 and this bullshit was not clarified until much later, much less properly investigated, and it would have been kinda insane to just ignore it and concede.
Note that I'm not claiming that the election was stolen there and have no interest in relitigating that claim, I'm claiming that there was enough of really weird bullshit that having a conspiracy that assumed that Trump has lost fair and square and has to be pressured into conceding counts as an attempt to steal the election (even if it turned out later that he did lost it, I hope this doesn't break your feeble mind).
The full extent of the grants isn’t known. The Center for Tech and Civic Life declined repeated interview requests from APM Reports to discuss the funding and how it was used. In late October, the group listed the jurisdictions that received funding on its website but didn’t disclose dollar amounts or funding priorities for each jurisdiction.
But an APM Reports analysis of voter registration and voter turnout in three of the five key swing states shows the grant funding had no clear impact on who turned out to vote. Turnout increased across the country from 2016. The APM Reports analysis found that counties in Pennsylvania, Georgia and Arizona that received grants didn’t have consistently higher turnout rates than those that didn’t receive money.
LMAO fucking fact checkers! Pizza, when will you learn to recognize when someone is openly bullshitting you? "They refused to give us the actual data, the voter turnout increased everywhere, we found no proof that counties that received the money and used it to increase voter turnout actually succeeded in that", ha ha ha. Dude, seriously, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence especially if the evidence was withheld and the investigators didn't want to find anything.
Anyways, that's not even the initiative I was talking about: "In August and September, [the Institute] sent ballot applications to 15 million people in key states, 4.6 million of whom returned them". There was a lot of private money going around, and we have to trust the people who expected the fascist to attempt to steal the election that they were funneling it into swing states of course but otherwise totally unbiasedly.
As I said though I'm kinda of a split mind about it. On the one hand, if there's a Dem nonprofit that seeks to increase black turnout then what you're going to do, it's a Repubs' fault for not having a matching nonprofit that seeks to increase ruralcel turnout and so on. On the other hand, when it turns out that there's a web of Dem conspiracies doing that not-illegal-but-definitely-effective stuff and apparently no Repub conspiracies, just as a matter of fact about the actual world we are inhabiting, well, that's an interesting fact.
What dude? You specifically cited the burst pipe, there's also no evidence "ballot counting" took place without observers or anything, or anyone even told them to leave. The place was open, people deciding to go home for whatever reason isn't evidence of something nefarious or fraud. The GA elections office, as far as I remember, said the votes being added were counted while everyone was still there.
Either way, this is a weird argument because you're the person that tried to cite the pipe bursting/slowing of the count which happened at 6 AM.
No, it was not over at least until Nov. 4 and this bullshit was not clarified until much later, much less properly investigated, and it would have been kinda insane to just ignore it and concede.
I don't know how to break this to you, but Joe Biden did not need GA to win. The election was over before anything in GA was solid. Biden already had over 270 electoral votes locked up before GA even mattered.
Also how was it not properly investigated? What more should have been done? What evidence of fraud was presented?
Note that I'm not claiming that the election was stolen there and have no interest in relitigating that claim, I'm claiming that there was enough of really weird bullshit that having a conspiracy that assumed that Trump has lost fair and square and has to be pressured into conceding counts as an attempt to steal the election (even if it turned out later that he did lost it, I hope this doesn't break your feeble mind).
But you are claiming that. You're doing this thing where you try to claim something was amiss during the election without making any solid claims (the pipe claim was real I guess, but you still incorrectly claimed it was 2 am and votes were being voted or there was some kind of big biden dump, which is objectively false.)
And again: the election was over. Every lawsuit filed had filed, Biden had been over 270 safe electoral votes for days, there was no chance of Trump coming back. He had lost, he then refused to concede the election as he spammed Q-anon conspiracies on twitter.
LMAO fucking fact checkers! Pizza, when will you learn to recognize when someone is openly bullshitting you? "They refused to give us the actual data, the voter turnout increased everywhere, we found no proof that counties that received the money and used it to increase voter turnout actually succeeded in that", ha ha ha. Dude, seriously, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence especially if the evidence was withheld and the investigators didn't want to find anything.
What evidence do you have anyone is bullshitting you dude? Like on what basis, what proof on any level do you have? The sheer fact these grants went to counties all over the country, even in non-swing states alone is enough to soundly refute the claim you made.
Anyways, that's not even the initiative I was talking about: "In August and September, [the Institute] sent ballot applications to 15 million people in key states, 4.6 million of whom returned them". There was a lot of private money going around, and we have to trust the people who expected the fascist to attempt to steal the election that they were funneling it into swing states of course but otherwise totally unbiasedly.
Ok...? And sending ballot applications is what exactly? What is nefarious about mailing ballot applications to people. This is honestly some weird shit you're engaging in here. Lay this out for me, explain why mailing ballot applications is sketchy.
Also, which states were these ballot applications primarily mailed in? Also, they couldn't have been mailed to specifically democrats, which means ballot applications had to have been mailed to anyone in those states, so what's the issue?
As I said though I'm kinda of a split mind about it. On the one hand, if there's a Dem nonprofit that seeks to increase black turnout then what you're going to do, it's a Repubs' fault for not having a matching nonprofit that seeks to increase ruralcel turnout and so on. On the other hand, when it turns out that there's a web of Dem conspiracies doing that not-illegal-but-definitely-effective stuff and apparently no Repub conspiracies, just as a matter of fact about the actual world we are inhabiting, well, that's an interesting fact.
When your claims of conspiracy amount to voter-turnout operations and helping people vote, nobody is going to take you seriously man.
The fact you think Republicans didn't do anything either is hilarious, considering the all-out assault they launched on mail in voting and pandemic election funding in basically every state.
I'd love to see your explanation for how mailing ballot applications to everyone (including Republicans, btw) was some kind of anti-republican operation.
What dude? You specifically cited the burst pipe, there's also no evidence "ballot counting" took place without observers or anything, or anyone even told them to leave.
Your own source said that "ballot counting without monitors took place Nov. 4" but that's OK because it was not illegal according to GA laws and also nobody prevented monitors from observing, they just were tricked to leave, and also it was unrelated to the burst pipe so that makes it totes OK, conspiratards BTFO.
What evidence do you have anyone is bullshitting you dude?
Because the interesting question was whether the funds were allocated disproportionally to counties leaning Dem, just eyeballing the map is not enough for that, the investigators weren't given the actual data saying how much money went where, because of which they concluded that there's no evidence that $500 million (from Zuk alone) intended to increase voter turnout among other things did increase voter turnout, so nothing to see here, we investigated ourselves and found nothing suspicious.
They are not bullshitting me, by the way, they are bullshitting you.
Ok...? And sending ballot applications is what exactly? What is nefarious about mailing ballot applications to people.
Well, I'm trying to explain that there's this Necker Cube Conspiracy. On one hand, there are these ideals of how things should work without interference, like everyone just going and voting, or that when people are upset about police brutality or elections or whatever they just up and protest. Or, I don't know, that several journalists independently decided to write a bunch of "gamers are dead" articles. And anyone who suspects any conspiracies is a deranged loon.
Then it turns out that there was a ton of Democrat money going to increasing voting turnouts of specific places and demographics and you're a fool if you really believe the obvious bullshit about it being "bipartisan". Or that there's less than a thousand people responsible for all protests across the USA and you can ask that one guy to get them all into a Zoom call and order to not protest and there will be no protests, nor Antifa clashes with Proud Boys (despite all you heard about Antifa not being real). And that all those journalists were on a secret mailing list where they discussed talking points and shit.
And then the Necker Cube inverts and what used to be a deranged conspiracy becomes not just real but expected, common sense cooperation and organizing between likeminded individuals, nothing nefarious at all, and anyone who are upset about it are idiots who should've been organizing and working for their cause themselves.
What I'm trying to get at, I guess, is that this is really a fact of life and common sense and all that, and you should be much more open to the possibility of such "totally not nefarious" conspiracies whenever there's an opportunity for them to arise. Things are much more organized and orchestrated than they appear. Also, they are hilarious sometimes!
After Klein shut down JournoList, a new group, calling itself "Cabalist" was started by Jonathan Cohn of The New Republic, Michelle Goldberg and Steven Teles, a professor of political science at Johns Hopkins University. The group, which had 173 members by late July, was made up mostly of former JournoList members. Its existence managed to stay secret for several weeks, until The Atlantic magazine correspondent Jeffrey Goldberg revealed its existence in a blog post on July 21. Goldberg reported that one recent discussion concerned whether or not members should ignore the articles on The Daily Caller website. "In other words, members of Journolist 2.0 were debating whether to collectively respond to a Daily Caller story alleging—inaccurately, in their minds—that members of Journolist 1.0 (the same people, of course) made collective decisions about what to write."
Your own source said that "ballot counting without monitors took place Nov. 4" but that's OK because it was not illegal according to GA laws and also nobody prevented monitors from observing, they just were tricked to leave, and also it was unrelated to the burst pipe so that makes it totes OK, conspiratards BTFO.
I know what it says, but it was linked for the pipe bit, not that. According to what I read from the Georgia election office at the time, no votes were actually counted when observers weren't there. Votes that had already been counted were uploaded, which is where the confusion might be.
At the same time, as I said, the buildings were open. Some people leaving because they want to go home and go to bed happens fairly often.
This wasn't specifically "republican observers" as you insisted, either. Vote counting doesn't stop because bob wants to go take a nap.
Because the interesting question was whether the funds were allocated disproportionally to counties leaning Dem, just eyeballing the map is not enough for that, the investigators weren't given the actual data saying how much money went where, because of which they concluded that there's no evidence that $500 million (from Zuk alone) intended to increase voter turnout among other things did increase voter turnout, so nothing to see here, we investigated ourselves and found nothing suspicious.
The grants were open lmao. Literally anyone that applied for a grant got one. Any county out there that needed a grant could apply, list the things they wanted the money for, and were given a grant for said things.
Also the org that did the investigations isn't the orgs that gave the money as far as I know, so they didn't really investigate themselves.
Then it turns out that there was a ton of Democrat money going to increasing voting turnouts of specific places and demographics and you're a fool if you really believe the obvious bullshit about it being "bipartisan". Or that there's less than a thousand people responsible for all protests across the USA and you can ask that one guy to get them all into a Zoom call and order to not protest and there will be no protests, nor Antifa clashes with Proud Boys (despite all you heard about Antifa not being real). And that all those journalists were on a secret mailing list where they discussed talking points and shit.
I don't know how to word this in a way you can understand. The ballots applications were mailed to everyone, Republican, democrat, indie. There's no way to selectively mail ballot applications to democrats/republicans specifically.
So if the intent was to only increase turnout among democrats (which let's be clear, would be completely acceptable and is a standard electoral turnout operation) blindly mailing applications to everyone would be pretty dumb.
Even if we're applying the most conspiracy-addled understanding of what happened here: you're claiming private money being used on turnout operations are actually nefarious and conspiracies.
If democratic counties want to make it easier to vote, they're allowed to do that. Each county has broad authority over their election process.
This isn't wrong, or nefarious, or sketchy, or even suspect. And let's also be clear: this doesn't have to be bipartisan.
But it was, according to the available information. These people didn't have to give millions of dollars to rural counties, but they did.
What I'm trying to get at, I guess, is that this is really a fact of life and common sense and all that, and you should be much more open to the possibility of such "totally not nefarious" conspiracies whenever there's an opportunity for them to arise. Things are much more organized and orchestrated than they appear. Also, they are hilarious sometimes!
You keep trying to play off these weird conspiracies you're pushing as simple "common sense." I'm not sure what kind of reasoning you're engaging in here to reach this conclusion.
Let's also be clear here: I am open to "conspiracies" and evidence that proves the points made. But I've yet to see any of that evidence presented. It's all just blind assumptions without proof.
You assume something was amiss, therefore it was, and nothing will convince you otherwise.
After Klein shut down JournoList, a new group, calling itself "Cabalist" was started by Jonathan Cohn of The New Republic, Michelle Goldberg and Steven Teles, a professor of political science at Johns Hopkins University. The group, which had 173 members by late July, was made up mostly of former JournoList members. Its existence managed to stay secret for several weeks, until The Atlantic magazine correspondent Jeffrey Goldberg revealed its existence in a blog post on July 21. Goldberg reported that one recent discussion concerned whether or not members should ignore the articles on The Daily Caller website. "In other words, members of Journolist 2.0 were debating whether to collectively respond to a Daily Caller story alleging—inaccurately, in their minds—that members of Journolist 1.0 (the same people, of course) made collective decisions about what to write."
I know what it says, but it was linked for the pipe bit, not that.
Lol, "no, not like that". Anyway, my main point was that it was far from obvious that everything was all right for quite a long time.
So if the intent was to only increase turnout among democrats (which let's be clear, would be completely acceptable and is a standard electoral turnout operation) blindly mailing applications to everyone would be pretty dumb.
I think that it might be actually illegal in some states, as a form of ballot harvesting or something. Anyway, it's absolutely trivial to maintain the pretense of bipartisanship while only sending ballots to urban counties for example. It's same as increasing black turnout regardless of their affiliation tends to produce much more Democratic votes somehow!
And after all this conspiratorial stuff we have seen, I think we are justified in assuming that there's fuckery going on by default, unless proven opposite. If people spend a ton of money on shit, they will try to also further their agenda. If people can coordinate "grassroots" actions, they will.
Precisely because when it turns out that they did, you ask what's nefarious about it, it's just common sense. So they wouldn't see it as nefarious either.
What does this have to do with the election?
It shows the mindset of people engaging in a conspiracy.
Lol, "no, not like that". Anyway, my main point was that it was far from obvious that everything was all right for quite a long time.
You specifically claimed a pipe burst and that was used to count votes dude.
I think that it might be actually illegal in some states, as a form of ballot harvesting or something. Anyway, it's absolutely trivial to maintain the pretense of bipartisanship while only sending ballots to urban counties for example. It's same as increasing black turnout regardless of their affiliation tends to produce much more Democratic votes somehow!
It actually wouldn't be illegal because it's just a county-by-county basis. Unless it could somehow be proven the grants were being given out based on partisanship, they'd be completely fine.
That being said, if they had any evidence the grants were based on partisanship, they'd have presented said evidence and made their arguments. But they didn't, at all.
And after all this conspiratorial stuff we have seen, I think we are justified in assuming that there's fuckery going on by default, unless proven opposite. If people spend a ton of money on shit, they will try to also further their agenda. If people can coordinate "grassroots" actions, they will.
That's literally not how logic works man. I know you are not a stupid person, there's no way you actually believe this logic makes sense.
Precisely because when it turns out that they did, you ask what's nefarious about it, it's just common sense. So they wouldn't see it as nefarious either.
But no evidence has been presented at all, not even anything that hints at "fuckery."
It shows the mindset of people engaging in a conspiracy.
Some journalists completely unrelated are the election officials?
You're walking dangerously close to what I like to call the "pizzagate gambit."
Whenever you'd push them for evidence of pizzagate, they'd link some unrelated example of a pedophile existing and declare that it totally proved pizzagate true.
You specifically claimed a pipe burst and that was used to count votes dude.
I didn't follow burger elections all that closely and I was wrong about that. Does that change anything about my point that you were wrong to claim that the election was definitively over by election night, and so a conspiracy to gaslight Trump into conceding was a bit malicious?
You're doing the "factchecker" thing, point out irrelevant details that early reports on some story got wrong and rating it "mostly false".
That's literally not how logic works man. I know you are not a stupid person, there's no way you actually believe this logic makes sense.
That's literally how normal people's logic works. Imagine that you're commanding an army, your intelligence reports that the enemy is 50% likely to attack, and he will attack through one of the two mountain passes, and they scouted one of them and found no enemy presence, but were unable to scout the other one. So they suggest that you move your army to block the unscouted pass, but you respond nasally that noooo, you can't just believe things without eeeevidence, that's not how logic works, so until they can scout that pass the army ain't moving. Next thing you know you're being assraped with a knife by the enemy's advance forces.
"Don't believe things without evidence" is a good heuristic but not the be-all end-all of rationality. Rationality is an art of not getting assraped and if some heuristic results in you getting assraped half of the time then it's not rational and you should use a better one.
So based on my observation of how people naturally form conspiracies and justify it to themselves that it's not really a conspiracy if they are the good guys coordinating in secret to beat the bad guys, all other shady examples from the articles, and yes the Journolist too, I assign a prior probability of say 70% that that 500M fund was low-key conspiring to make it more likely that the money went to places more likely to vote Democrat. After all, there would nothing wrong with that and Republicans should stop whining and start their own voting support funds, right? And Tslur was a fascist?
So then I learn that some other organization investigated them and found no bias which is a point against, but they weren't given crucial data without which the analysis was meaningless (weakening the evidence), and they themselves were clearly biased seeing how the above didn't discourage them (weakening the evidence), and their conclusion was "absence of evidence" not "evidence of absence", so all in all my belief that there was a conspiracy dropped to 69%. It's sad that I can't get any more conclusive evidence this way or another but such is life in a world where conspiracies get investigated by further conspiracies.
I didn't follow burger elections all that closely and I was wrong about that. Does that change anything about my point that you were wrong to claim that the election was definitively over by election night, and so a conspiracy to gaslight Trump into conceding was a bit malicious?
I wasn't wrong man, this is you not understanding how elections work.
When I say the election was over at 11:30 on election night, I am saying that because the math clearly showed Trump had no way to win after that point. He wildly under-performed on election night. Let me phrase this another way.
At about 11:30 on election night anyone with a basic understanding of election data/out-standing vote knew that Biden had won the election and Trump had no path. All of the remaining out-standing vote in the relevant states was made up of mail-in ballots in heavily democratic areas.
Joe Biden had to win maybe 65% of those votes, and was easily going to win over 90% of them. And here's the kicker: If I knew this, and the data nerds all knew this, there's no way the data guys working for Trump did not know it. Which means when he refused to concede, when he went on stage and declared victory, he knew he was lying.
The question is why did he do it?
This isn't even getting into the fact as far as I can tell, this giant conspiracy to him to concede on the 4th isn't even real, the only mention I can find of business leaders calling for him to concede came on the 23rd:
You're doing the "factchecker" thing, point out irrelevant details that early reports on some story got wrong and rating it "mostly false".
I linked that article specifically in response to your claim about the pipe dude.
That's literally how normal people's logic works. Imagine that you're commanding an army, your intelligence reports that the enemy is 50% likely to attack, and he will attack through one of the two mountain passes, and they scouted one of them and found no enemy presence, but were unable to scout the other one. So they suggest that you move your army to block the unscouted pass, but you respond nasally that noooo, you can't just believe things without eeeevidence, that's not how logic works, so until they can scout that pass the army ain't moving. Next thing you know you're being assraped with a knife by the enemy's advance forces.
Your logic is quite literally "some people have done things before, therefore the default is to assume people are doing things now, no matter what the evidence says."
"Don't believe things without evidence" is a good heuristic but not the be-all end-all of rationality. Rationality is an art of not getting assraped and if some heuristic results in you getting assraped half of the time then it's not rational and you should use a better one.
Except not only is there no evidence, every single claim they have made is blatantly manufactured, based in mathematical illiteracy, or straight up didn't happen. Across the board the claims being made stand up to no scrutiny.
So based on my observation of how people naturally form conspiracies and justify it to themselves that it's not really a conspiracy if they are the good guys coordinating in secret to beat the bad guys, all other shady examples from the articles, and yes the Journolist too, I assign a prior probability of say 70% that that 500M fund was low-key conspiring to make it more likely that the money went to places more likely to vote Democrat. After all, there would nothing wrong with that and Republicans should stop whining and start their own voting support funds, right? And Tslur was a fascist?
Except you've yet to present any evidence of either conspiracy or fraud. Like what in the actual fuck are you talking about dude? You're pulling random probability out of your ass with quite literally no supporting evidence or even coherent reason to believe the things you are saying.
this is the same stupid argument you've tried to repeatedly make over the months. You've got it in your head that because Trump was called a fascist sometimes by random twitter radlibs that this somehow means election officials clearly conspired against him in some unfair or unreasonable way.
It's incoherent.
So then I learn that some other organization investigated them and found no bias which is a point against, but they weren't given crucial data without which the analysis was meaningless (weakening the evidence), and they themselves were clearly biased seeing how the above didn't discourage them (weakening the evidence), and their conclusion was "absence of evidence" not "evidence of absence", so all in all my belief that there was a conspiracy dropped to 69%. It's sad that I can't get any more conclusive evidence this way or another but such is life in a world where conspiracies get investigated by further conspiracies.
They don't need data from anyone to do a county by county comparison dude. We know which counties the grants went to. All we have to do is look at turnout in said counties and compare it to turnout in counties that did not ask for grants.
Turnout tends to be fairly stable across an entire state, if counties that got grants had higher turnout we'd see it in the data.
This isn't even getting into the fact as far as I can tell, this giant conspiracy to him to concede on the 4th isn't even real, the only mention I can find of business leaders calling for him to concede came on the 23rd:
OK, point taken, I don't remember which concerns remained valid by that time.
It's still a conspiracy though. Consider two worlds, in one worried CEOs ask Tslur to concede out of their own volition, in the other that Podhorzer guy has a secret working group that goes through Fortune 500 and asks the CEOs to make a statement, maybe even tries to contact them via acquaintances (I think one of the articles mentioned that but can't be arsed to reread). The second world would have a much higher number of statements, however anyone following your logic of not assuming conspiracies without evidence must believe that they are in the first world and that the level of CEO concern is much higher than it really is.
It's easy to see why someone like that would feel that they were fooled and get upset if the conspiracy ends up revealed by some overeager journalist. My conclusion from all that shit however is that it's usually more likely that I'm in the second kind of world even if there's no particular evidence (because of course the conspiracy is secret!) because of conspiracies naturally forming without any particular malicious intent, and that it's my own fault if I assume otherwise and get fooled.
Your logic is quite literally "some people have done things before, therefore the default is to assume people are doing things now, no matter what the evidence says."
* in the absence of evidence, but yeah, basically.
Except you've yet to present any evidence of either conspiracy or fraud. Like what in the actual fuck are you talking about dude? You're pulling random probability out of your ass with quite literally no supporting evidence or even coherent reason to believe the things you are saying.
Well, I can't convince you if your prior for that is different of course, so I guess the only thing I can do is make a bit more abstract point: it turns out that there was a private organization without any oversight that took $350m in a single donation from a Democrat donor (a third of the entire Tslur's campaign btw), refused to disclose the total amount, was working closely with a secret group of people intent on preventing Tslur's win, had ample opportunities to influence the results, and we only have their word that they didn't. And nobody was quite aware that this was the world we lived in. Now I for one am aware.
Turnout tends to be fairly stable across an entire state, if counties that got grants had higher turnout we'd see it in the data.
They didn't have the data on the amount of money and purposes of the grants. You can have a small number of key counties where you put large amounts of money into voter turnout measures and a large number of counties where you don't and you won't see shit in the data that only shows in which counties you did anything at all. And so they didn't see shit in the data, it was "inconclusive".
And they didn't even ask the right question, their logic was that putting money into voter turnout doesn't increase voter turnout (which is obvious nonsense, but, well, they didn't see shit so) so we shouldn't worry about looking into where that fund was putting the money.
If you call this evidence I swear by Allah I'll shoot myself right here, if this is evidence I'll abandon all evidence and become an electrician.
The short answer is no. To learn from the dossier episode, news organizations would have to examine their ties to private intelligence agents, including why they so often granted them anonymity. But as long as the media allows private spies to set the rules, journalists and the public will continue to lose.
Let's pretend that when the NYT did blowjob reporting on the steele dossier that it wasn't because of political bias, but handwave it away as an apolitical mistake somewhere within "the media's ties to private intelligence."
Imagine not being dumb enough to support Trump, nor be dumb enough to be an SRD poster. Imagine being in the middle ground that includes "most people". Gotta be a conspiracy.
85 comments
82 Rivea_ 2021-05-16
Really just goes to show that the American left truly dominates the culture war that they can just publish articles like "yes we (((fortified))) the election" and "everything we said about Trump was a lie and we knew the guy that told us was a fraud".
Nothing will come of this and the journos at esteemed establishments like NYTimes will never have their credibility questioned.
Rightoids btfo once again.
23 FoidBlaster 2021-05-16
"""American left"""
26 Islam_Was_Right 2021-05-16
DDD is the face of the american left sweetie 😘
1 [deleted] 2021-05-16
[deleted]
-20 Exotic_Ad7433 2021-05-16
My favorite is when people cite that "fortified" meme in a way that reveals they didn't even read the article and just saw the cut out headline on 4chan or twitter.
Hint: The article was actually about how everyone knew Trump would try to steal the election so they geared up to stop him from doing so.
Trump is the most predictable moron on earth.
58 trailerparkmalarkey 2021-05-16
I fixed that for you, Mr. P. Shill 😘
-8 Exotic_Ad7433 2021-05-16
Oh wow you figured out the big mystery bro good job.
41 trailerparkmalarkey 2021-05-16
It's not a mystery, fucktard. I was calling you the most predictable moron on earth and tried to be explicit for the benefit of our swarm of newfriends.
-4 Exotic_Ad7433 2021-05-16
What the fuck are you on about. You trying to show off for the plebes?
How am I the most predictable, be specific.
45 trailerparkmalarkey 2021-05-16
I dunno, maybe it's the part where you can be reliably triggered into words³ posting with minimal effort? You're basically an organ grinder monkey that dances for our amusement, except those occasionally flip out and bite someone whereas you can be poked day after day for years and still come back for more abuse.
14 Exotic_Ad7433 2021-05-16
I milk you and this sub for entertainment is the thing. Your "abuse" is more like some r slurs swinging at the wind.
Not that threatening or effective.
35 trailerparkmalarkey 2021-05-16
16 Exotic_Ad7433 2021-05-16
I am absurdly secure as a person. There is literally not one thing anyone on the internet can say to me to ever have any impact on me on even a basic level.
I've dealt with bullies of a much higher caliber than this sub can produce, very easily.
17 trailerparkmalarkey 2021-05-16
Even if this is true, you should really work on your rhetoric because it reads like pure c*pe.
2 Exotic_Ad7433 2021-05-16
I am what I am.
11 HeFuggsChiggs 2021-05-16
"I am absurdly secure" says man who throws tantrums and deletes his account every other months.
3 Exotic_Ad7433 2021-05-16
Lmao tantrums? I delete my accounts when they get banned from enough subs.
Yikes, you're not very bright.
6 HeFuggsChiggs 2021-05-16
And you get banned because you're a well adjusted individual of course lol
4 Exotic_Ad7433 2021-05-16
All you have to do to get banned from a sub on this website is dunk a jannie. You not being banned from subs on this website is evidence you aren't well adjusted.
4 HeFuggsChiggs 2021-05-16
I don't get banned from subs because I don't purposefully go to subs I don't like to pick fights lmao
3 Exotic_Ad7433 2021-05-16
I have been banned from subs for asking a jannie to define a word for me using their own words after they incorrectly used it.
You don't get banned because you don't question idiots.
3 HeFuggsChiggs 2021-05-16
What do you gain out of questioning anonymous randos on the internet so much that it requires making new accounts every month? Is your life that devoid of meaning?
3 Exotic_Ad7433 2021-05-16
Why not dude?
3 HeFuggsChiggs 2021-05-16
2 Exotic_Ad7433 2021-05-16
Who defines meaning?
4 HeFuggsChiggs 2021-05-16
Well, I'm not surprised that you think spending every waking hour bothering people on reddit is meaningful, but I expected you to at least be proud enough to deny it. That's boring.
1 The_Dramanomicon 2021-05-16
Why even live?
2 HeFuggsChiggs 2021-05-16
True
8 ch4p053 2021-05-16
Wait is this pizzashill?
15 Exotic_Ad7433 2021-05-16
I go by blake now. Shadowstalkerxxxyxxx is also acceptable.
7 ch4p053 2021-05-16
Good to know, thanks for the heads up, pizza.
3 IraqiLobster 2021-05-16
PIZZA CHROMOSOME REVEAL??????? 😳😳😳😳😳
8 Pokanot 2021-05-16
Anyone wanna take bets how long before pizza gets b& again
5 ch4p053 2021-05-16
Ill give him a month
6 SnappyIsMyWaifu 2021-05-16
Never would have guessed
2 Exotic_Ad7433 2021-05-16
Oh you misunderstand, I was the bully and often came into conflict with other bullies.
Needless to say more than 1 fat kid had to be dropped.
The point is, your ineffective fabricated bizarro world attacks have no relevance to me on any level.
This sub couldn't bully its way out of a wet paper bag.
7 SnappyIsMyWaifu 2021-05-16
Have you considered joining the other tough guy aspergers in arr sociopath?
3 Exotic_Ad7433 2021-05-16
Wow good one bro. Surely the guy with both snappy and waifu in his name is a social butterfly and has no social problems.
3 SnappyIsMyWaifu 2021-05-16
If only I had known this name wouldn't make me sound cool when I picked it.
I thought you were a bully? You get a C- for that one.
2 Exotic_Ad7433 2021-05-16
I don't bully anymore, it's something emotionally stunted children do.
4 SnappyIsMyWaifu 2021-05-16
Congratulations on graduating to emotionally stunted adulthood
2 Exotic_Ad7433 2021-05-16
I'm not emotionally anything. I have no emotions anymore.
2 IraqiLobster 2021-05-16
I don’t think that’s the only brain function you’re missing sweetie
1 JungleStirFry 2021-05-16
Cringe lol
2 Slipperiestman 2021-05-16
The way you typed this was so unbelievably gay that there is no way you weren't bullied
5 ohheckyeah 2021-05-16
You’re back! 🥰🍕
5 Funkyduffy 2021-05-16
Real snappy quote hours, who up?
1 shwoooooop 2021-05-16
ur pp small
1 GARGANTUAN_ANUS 2021-05-16
"Absurdly secure", is that what you call your daily sperg-outs on here?
17 UncleTedsBackup 2021-05-16
Have you started transitioning yet? You make a decently cute femboy, and we both know its the only way you'll ever get some lovin'
-5 Exotic_Ad7433 2021-05-16
Keep telling yourself that. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
13 Inevitable_Bag_3615 2021-05-16
Christ, it's like pizza but with less charisma
0 Exotic_Ad7433 2021-05-16
NPCs repeating the same dumb takes gets old after years.
25 The_Dramanomicon 2021-05-16
You're back 😲😲😯😯😮😮😦😦😧😧😨😨😰😰🤢🤢🤮🤮😵😵🥴🥴🤧🤧😪😪😓😓😥😥😭😭😧😧😦😦😟😟🥺🥺😳😳😤😤😠😠😡😡🤬🤬☹️☹️😒😒🙄🙄🧐🧐🤨🤨😴😴😴😔😔😑😑😐😐🙂🙂☺️☺️😊😊😏😏😌😌😉😉🤗🤗🥳🥳🤩🤩😍😍🥰🥰😘😘😃😃😆😆😅😅😂😂🤣🤣
14 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-05-16
First of all, there were two articles (at least):
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/24/us/politics/democrats-trump-election-plan.html
https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
I suggest reading both, there's tons and tons of fun stuff, I especially liked their efforts to counter daddy's "bullying" of the lawmakers
My favorite part though is not about election at all, it's about the fact that as it turned out there's a guy with an address book who can invite 900 people into a zoom call, have the "strategy committee" tell them to stand down, and then there would not be a single protest nationwide, not BLM, not Antifa (which as we know is not an organization btw), only
and
and
The journalists shyly presented this as a good thing, look how measured the good guys were in this case! Of course there's an obvious next logical step: if the progressive leaders chose not to deploy protests in this case and no protests happened, then all other "grassroots" "fiery but peaceful" protests through the summer were deployed by these same leaders, through this same 900 people that can be rounded up into a single zoom call by that one guy. Now this is fucking interesting!
4 Exotic_Ad7433 2021-05-16
I mean the people doing the rioting weren't going to give Trump an excuse to "send in the troops" and cling to power, for obvious reasons.
Either way, nothing in those articles points to "conspiracy" or "stolen election" or anything like that.
Most of it was just stopping a Trumpian steal attempt.
I also doubt these people have all that much control over the protesters, but most people in the protest scene knew what was at stake so calmed down for a few days.
7 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-05-16
The people on the ground who didn't have the foresight to wear masks while looting in the middle of a pandemic when everybody wears masks didn't have the mental capacity to make such strategic decisions.
Fortunately (for the good guys) it turned out that the people on the ground don't decide shit anyways and are tightly controlled by a small group of people acting in secret towards political goals.
Well, it depends on your viewpoint I guess...
To me, trying to force a desired election result before it's actually determined sounds like an attempt to steal the election regardless of who is doing that, and orchestrating that in secret sounds like a definition of conspiracy. Of course if you believe that stealing an election from a bad guy is good actually and it's not a conspiracy if you're hiding it from bad guys then yeah, it was all on the up and up.
There was also an interesting issue of private entities doing stuff like "In August and September, [the Institute] sent ballot applications to 15 million people in key states, 4.6 million of whom returned them", private funding for election stuff etc.
On the other hand, there's an interesting side to all of it, from an insider perspective that's not a conspiracy, that's just people coordinating in order to achieve their goals more efficiently.
Of course nobody leaves to a protest entirely on their own, people coordinate between themselves, over time there appear specific people that coordinate many others, they probably also procure materials for signs, stuff like drinking water and so on using NGOs tangentially connected to Soros (because why wouldn't they, that's just common sense), exchange experience with other and older protest organizers and so on, form "strategic committees" because having a strategy is a good and sensible thing, compile lists of crucial people because being able to enforce a strategy is a good and sensible thing, and so on. And of course it happens in private, you don't want Proud Boys listening in. So after a while you get this tightly controlled secret network of organizers that everybody relies on to tell them when and where to protest.
Similarly there's nothing wrong with encouraging "key states" and key demographics to vote (after doing the research into how they are going to vote of course), or coordinating hundreds of business leaders to call the opposite candidate to concede. And of course it's not individual people coming up with these ideas independently, they plan, they discuss, they coordinate. So from this perspective it's not a conspiracy, it's just common sense, and Repubs should stop whining and start working on such stuff themselves instead of sitting on their asses and expecting victories to fall into their lap.
From a different perspective it's 100% a conspiracy and you'd call me a deranged lunatic if I proposed something like that without having the conspirators boast about their achievements in two papers of record.
2 Exotic_Ad7433 2021-05-16
The anarchists and people you're trying to invoke here have nothing to do with the group you're talking about.
No, it really doesn't. Business leaders calling on the loser of the election to concede as he flails around and tries to destabilize the country with election fraud conspiracies is actually expected.
Instability is not good for business.
Except the election was very clearly over by this point, it was beyond over. In fact, it was over at about 11:30 on election night for anyone that had a basic understanding of outstanding vote/partisan voting splits.
There was literally no scenario in which Trump could come back. The winner wasn't being "anointed" the winner was obvious. Anointed is when you go out on stage before even 50% of the votes are counted and declare victory, to the applause of a conspiracy cult.
People organizing to stop an attempted election theft does not a conspiracy make, especially not when the organization amounts to educating voters and helping them vote.
Everyone knew Trump would try to steal the election, and that's exactly what he did.
2 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-05-16
Didn't you admit yourself that there was concerning weirdness like people at that place with a busted pipe stopping the count, waiting until all Republican observers went home, and then resuming the count at 2am and finding a shitton of votes for Biden? Like, that it might had been a simple fuckup and didn't mean that there was actual fraud, but the fact that there could have been fraud under this unsupervised condition is a valid reason for concern? Is that how Democracy is supposed to look like?
Would you call me a lunatic conspiracy theorist if I said that there's private money going to selectively target several millions of "key" voters and make it easier for them to vote in the "key" direction?
What if I told you that all US protests are controlled by like 900 people and there's a guy who can get them into a Zoom call and tell them not to protest?
Listen, can you take a W?
1 [deleted] 2021-05-16
[deleted]
1 Exotic_Ad7433 2021-05-16
I see! So now the weird election fraud conspiracies come out to play.
Just so you're aware, the claim you just made is false:
Not only because nobody "found a bunch of Biden votes" but because the pipe had actually burst at 6 am:
The votes that were put into the system were counted when every observer was in fact there.
This is why nobody can take you people seriously - you will lie, twist, and distort everything to claim fraud, no matter what the facts or evidence actually say.
I'd call you misinformed. Tons of counties requested grant money to help run their elections because the federal government/state government did not provide funding to run a clean election during a pandemic.
These grants went everywhere, if you'd like to read more about this:
This contains an entire map of where the grant money went, soundly refuting the claim you have made here. There was a scandal here - that scandal being the state governments and federal governments so badly under-funded election officials they had to seek private grants.
The reason these grants have attracted the attention of the Trump conspiracy cult should be obvious: they sped up the counting of votes giving Trump less time to lie and attempt to steal the election.
Considering your constant repeating of outright lies about the election, where grant money went and the like, I'd guess you aren't someone that is capable of applying any critical thought to this topic.
3 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-05-16
LMAO fucking fact checkers!
Anyways, you claimed:
No, it was not over at least until Nov. 4 and this bullshit was not clarified until much later, much less properly investigated, and it would have been kinda insane to just ignore it and concede.
Note that I'm not claiming that the election was stolen there and have no interest in relitigating that claim, I'm claiming that there was enough of really weird bullshit that having a conspiracy that assumed that Trump has lost fair and square and has to be pressured into conceding counts as an attempt to steal the election (even if it turned out later that he did lost it, I hope this doesn't break your feeble mind).
LMAO fucking fact checkers! Pizza, when will you learn to recognize when someone is openly bullshitting you? "They refused to give us the actual data, the voter turnout increased everywhere, we found no proof that counties that received the money and used it to increase voter turnout actually succeeded in that", ha ha ha. Dude, seriously, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence especially if the evidence was withheld and the investigators didn't want to find anything.
Anyways, that's not even the initiative I was talking about: "In August and September, [the Institute] sent ballot applications to 15 million people in key states, 4.6 million of whom returned them". There was a lot of private money going around, and we have to trust the people who expected the fascist to attempt to steal the election that they were funneling it into swing states of course but otherwise totally unbiasedly.
As I said though I'm kinda of a split mind about it. On the one hand, if there's a Dem nonprofit that seeks to increase black turnout then what you're going to do, it's a Repubs' fault for not having a matching nonprofit that seeks to increase ruralcel turnout and so on. On the other hand, when it turns out that there's a web of Dem conspiracies doing that not-illegal-but-definitely-effective stuff and apparently no Repub conspiracies, just as a matter of fact about the actual world we are inhabiting, well, that's an interesting fact.
1 Exotic_Ad7433 2021-05-16
What dude? You specifically cited the burst pipe, there's also no evidence "ballot counting" took place without observers or anything, or anyone even told them to leave. The place was open, people deciding to go home for whatever reason isn't evidence of something nefarious or fraud. The GA elections office, as far as I remember, said the votes being added were counted while everyone was still there.
Either way, this is a weird argument because you're the person that tried to cite the pipe bursting/slowing of the count which happened at 6 AM.
I don't know how to break this to you, but Joe Biden did not need GA to win. The election was over before anything in GA was solid. Biden already had over 270 electoral votes locked up before GA even mattered.
Also how was it not properly investigated? What more should have been done? What evidence of fraud was presented?
But you are claiming that. You're doing this thing where you try to claim something was amiss during the election without making any solid claims (the pipe claim was real I guess, but you still incorrectly claimed it was 2 am and votes were being voted or there was some kind of big biden dump, which is objectively false.)
And again: the election was over. Every lawsuit filed had filed, Biden had been over 270 safe electoral votes for days, there was no chance of Trump coming back. He had lost, he then refused to concede the election as he spammed Q-anon conspiracies on twitter.
What evidence do you have anyone is bullshitting you dude? Like on what basis, what proof on any level do you have? The sheer fact these grants went to counties all over the country, even in non-swing states alone is enough to soundly refute the claim you made.
Ok...? And sending ballot applications is what exactly? What is nefarious about mailing ballot applications to people. This is honestly some weird shit you're engaging in here. Lay this out for me, explain why mailing ballot applications is sketchy.
Also, which states were these ballot applications primarily mailed in? Also, they couldn't have been mailed to specifically democrats, which means ballot applications had to have been mailed to anyone in those states, so what's the issue?
When your claims of conspiracy amount to voter-turnout operations and helping people vote, nobody is going to take you seriously man.
The fact you think Republicans didn't do anything either is hilarious, considering the all-out assault they launched on mail in voting and pandemic election funding in basically every state.
I'd love to see your explanation for how mailing ballot applications to everyone (including Republicans, btw) was some kind of anti-republican operation.
2 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-05-16
Your own source said that "ballot counting without monitors took place Nov. 4" but that's OK because it was not illegal according to GA laws and also nobody prevented monitors from observing, they just were tricked to leave, and also it was unrelated to the burst pipe so that makes it totes OK, conspiratards BTFO.
Because the interesting question was whether the funds were allocated disproportionally to counties leaning Dem, just eyeballing the map is not enough for that, the investigators weren't given the actual data saying how much money went where, because of which they concluded that there's no evidence that $500 million (from Zuk alone) intended to increase voter turnout among other things did increase voter turnout, so nothing to see here, we investigated ourselves and found nothing suspicious.
They are not bullshitting me, by the way, they are bullshitting you.
Well, I'm trying to explain that there's this Necker Cube Conspiracy. On one hand, there are these ideals of how things should work without interference, like everyone just going and voting, or that when people are upset about police brutality or elections or whatever they just up and protest. Or, I don't know, that several journalists independently decided to write a bunch of "gamers are dead" articles. And anyone who suspects any conspiracies is a deranged loon.
Then it turns out that there was a ton of Democrat money going to increasing voting turnouts of specific places and demographics and you're a fool if you really believe the obvious bullshit about it being "bipartisan". Or that there's less than a thousand people responsible for all protests across the USA and you can ask that one guy to get them all into a Zoom call and order to not protest and there will be no protests, nor Antifa clashes with Proud Boys (despite all you heard about Antifa not being real). And that all those journalists were on a secret mailing list where they discussed talking points and shit.
And then the Necker Cube inverts and what used to be a deranged conspiracy becomes not just real but expected, common sense cooperation and organizing between likeminded individuals, nothing nefarious at all, and anyone who are upset about it are idiots who should've been organizing and working for their cause themselves.
What I'm trying to get at, I guess, is that this is really a fact of life and common sense and all that, and you should be much more open to the possibility of such "totally not nefarious" conspiracies whenever there's an opportunity for them to arise. Things are much more organized and orchestrated than they appear. Also, they are hilarious sometimes!
1 Exotic_Ad7433 2021-05-16
I know what it says, but it was linked for the pipe bit, not that. According to what I read from the Georgia election office at the time, no votes were actually counted when observers weren't there. Votes that had already been counted were uploaded, which is where the confusion might be.
At the same time, as I said, the buildings were open. Some people leaving because they want to go home and go to bed happens fairly often.
This wasn't specifically "republican observers" as you insisted, either. Vote counting doesn't stop because bob wants to go take a nap.
The grants were open lmao. Literally anyone that applied for a grant got one. Any county out there that needed a grant could apply, list the things they wanted the money for, and were given a grant for said things.
Also the org that did the investigations isn't the orgs that gave the money as far as I know, so they didn't really investigate themselves.
I don't know how to word this in a way you can understand. The ballots applications were mailed to everyone, Republican, democrat, indie. There's no way to selectively mail ballot applications to democrats/republicans specifically.
So if the intent was to only increase turnout among democrats (which let's be clear, would be completely acceptable and is a standard electoral turnout operation) blindly mailing applications to everyone would be pretty dumb.
Even if we're applying the most conspiracy-addled understanding of what happened here: you're claiming private money being used on turnout operations are actually nefarious and conspiracies.
If democratic counties want to make it easier to vote, they're allowed to do that. Each county has broad authority over their election process.
This isn't wrong, or nefarious, or sketchy, or even suspect. And let's also be clear: this doesn't have to be bipartisan.
But it was, according to the available information. These people didn't have to give millions of dollars to rural counties, but they did.
You keep trying to play off these weird conspiracies you're pushing as simple "common sense." I'm not sure what kind of reasoning you're engaging in here to reach this conclusion.
Let's also be clear here: I am open to "conspiracies" and evidence that proves the points made. But I've yet to see any of that evidence presented. It's all just blind assumptions without proof.
You assume something was amiss, therefore it was, and nothing will convince you otherwise.
What does this have to do with the election?
2 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-05-16
Lol, "no, not like that". Anyway, my main point was that it was far from obvious that everything was all right for quite a long time.
I think that it might be actually illegal in some states, as a form of ballot harvesting or something. Anyway, it's absolutely trivial to maintain the pretense of bipartisanship while only sending ballots to urban counties for example. It's same as increasing black turnout regardless of their affiliation tends to produce much more Democratic votes somehow!
And after all this conspiratorial stuff we have seen, I think we are justified in assuming that there's fuckery going on by default, unless proven opposite. If people spend a ton of money on shit, they will try to also further their agenda. If people can coordinate "grassroots" actions, they will.
Precisely because when it turns out that they did, you ask what's nefarious about it, it's just common sense. So they wouldn't see it as nefarious either.
It shows the mindset of people engaging in a conspiracy.
1 Exotic_Ad7433 2021-05-16
You specifically claimed a pipe burst and that was used to count votes dude.
It actually wouldn't be illegal because it's just a county-by-county basis. Unless it could somehow be proven the grants were being given out based on partisanship, they'd be completely fine.
That being said, if they had any evidence the grants were based on partisanship, they'd have presented said evidence and made their arguments. But they didn't, at all.
That's literally not how logic works man. I know you are not a stupid person, there's no way you actually believe this logic makes sense.
But no evidence has been presented at all, not even anything that hints at "fuckery."
Some journalists completely unrelated are the election officials?
You're walking dangerously close to what I like to call the "pizzagate gambit."
Whenever you'd push them for evidence of pizzagate, they'd link some unrelated example of a pedophile existing and declare that it totally proved pizzagate true.
You've basically done the same thing here.
1 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-05-16
I didn't follow burger elections all that closely and I was wrong about that. Does that change anything about my point that you were wrong to claim that the election was definitively over by election night, and so a conspiracy to gaslight Trump into conceding was a bit malicious?
You're doing the "factchecker" thing, point out irrelevant details that early reports on some story got wrong and rating it "mostly false".
That's literally how normal people's logic works. Imagine that you're commanding an army, your intelligence reports that the enemy is 50% likely to attack, and he will attack through one of the two mountain passes, and they scouted one of them and found no enemy presence, but were unable to scout the other one. So they suggest that you move your army to block the unscouted pass, but you respond nasally that noooo, you can't just believe things without eeeevidence, that's not how logic works, so until they can scout that pass the army ain't moving. Next thing you know you're being assraped with a knife by the enemy's advance forces.
"Don't believe things without evidence" is a good heuristic but not the be-all end-all of rationality. Rationality is an art of not getting assraped and if some heuristic results in you getting assraped half of the time then it's not rational and you should use a better one.
So based on my observation of how people naturally form conspiracies and justify it to themselves that it's not really a conspiracy if they are the good guys coordinating in secret to beat the bad guys, all other shady examples from the articles, and yes the Journolist too, I assign a prior probability of say 70% that that 500M fund was low-key conspiring to make it more likely that the money went to places more likely to vote Democrat. After all, there would nothing wrong with that and Republicans should stop whining and start their own voting support funds, right? And Tslur was a fascist?
So then I learn that some other organization investigated them and found no bias which is a point against, but they weren't given crucial data without which the analysis was meaningless (weakening the evidence), and they themselves were clearly biased seeing how the above didn't discourage them (weakening the evidence), and their conclusion was "absence of evidence" not "evidence of absence", so all in all my belief that there was a conspiracy dropped to 69%. It's sad that I can't get any more conclusive evidence this way or another but such is life in a world where conspiracies get investigated by further conspiracies.
1 Exotic_Ad7433 2021-05-16
I wasn't wrong man, this is you not understanding how elections work.
When I say the election was over at 11:30 on election night, I am saying that because the math clearly showed Trump had no way to win after that point. He wildly under-performed on election night. Let me phrase this another way.
At about 11:30 on election night anyone with a basic understanding of election data/out-standing vote knew that Biden had won the election and Trump had no path. All of the remaining out-standing vote in the relevant states was made up of mail-in ballots in heavily democratic areas.
Joe Biden had to win maybe 65% of those votes, and was easily going to win over 90% of them. And here's the kicker: If I knew this, and the data nerds all knew this, there's no way the data guys working for Trump did not know it. Which means when he refused to concede, when he went on stage and declared victory, he knew he was lying.
The question is why did he do it?
This isn't even getting into the fact as far as I can tell, this giant conspiracy to him to concede on the 4th isn't even real, the only mention I can find of business leaders calling for him to concede came on the 23rd:
1
I linked that article specifically in response to your claim about the pipe dude.
Your logic is quite literally "some people have done things before, therefore the default is to assume people are doing things now, no matter what the evidence says."
Except not only is there no evidence, every single claim they have made is blatantly manufactured, based in mathematical illiteracy, or straight up didn't happen. Across the board the claims being made stand up to no scrutiny.
Except you've yet to present any evidence of either conspiracy or fraud. Like what in the actual fuck are you talking about dude? You're pulling random probability out of your ass with quite literally no supporting evidence or even coherent reason to believe the things you are saying.
this is the same stupid argument you've tried to repeatedly make over the months. You've got it in your head that because Trump was called a fascist sometimes by random twitter radlibs that this somehow means election officials clearly conspired against him in some unfair or unreasonable way.
It's incoherent.
They don't need data from anyone to do a county by county comparison dude. We know which counties the grants went to. All we have to do is look at turnout in said counties and compare it to turnout in counties that did not ask for grants.
Turnout tends to be fairly stable across an entire state, if counties that got grants had higher turnout we'd see it in the data.
1 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-05-16
OK, point taken, I don't remember which concerns remained valid by that time.
It's still a conspiracy though. Consider two worlds, in one worried CEOs ask Tslur to concede out of their own volition, in the other that Podhorzer guy has a secret working group that goes through Fortune 500 and asks the CEOs to make a statement, maybe even tries to contact them via acquaintances (I think one of the articles mentioned that but can't be arsed to reread). The second world would have a much higher number of statements, however anyone following your logic of not assuming conspiracies without evidence must believe that they are in the first world and that the level of CEO concern is much higher than it really is.
It's easy to see why someone like that would feel that they were fooled and get upset if the conspiracy ends up revealed by some overeager journalist. My conclusion from all that shit however is that it's usually more likely that I'm in the second kind of world even if there's no particular evidence (because of course the conspiracy is secret!) because of conspiracies naturally forming without any particular malicious intent, and that it's my own fault if I assume otherwise and get fooled.
* in the absence of evidence, but yeah, basically.
Well, I can't convince you if your prior for that is different of course, so I guess the only thing I can do is make a bit more abstract point: it turns out that there was a private organization without any oversight that took $350m in a single donation from a Democrat donor (a third of the entire Tslur's campaign btw), refused to disclose the total amount, was working closely with a secret group of people intent on preventing Tslur's win, had ample opportunities to influence the results, and we only have their word that they didn't. And nobody was quite aware that this was the world we lived in. Now I for one am aware.
They didn't have the data on the amount of money and purposes of the grants. You can have a small number of key counties where you put large amounts of money into voter turnout measures and a large number of counties where you don't and you won't see shit in the data that only shows in which counties you did anything at all. And so they didn't see shit in the data, it was "inconclusive".
And they didn't even ask the right question, their logic was that putting money into voter turnout doesn't increase voter turnout (which is obvious nonsense, but, well, they didn't see shit so) so we shouldn't worry about looking into where that fund was putting the money.
If you call this evidence I swear by Allah I'll shoot myself right here, if this is evidence I'll abandon all evidence and become an electrician.
3 The_Dramanomicon 2021-05-16
I just want you both to know that I didn't read any of this bullshit lol
2 ArachnoLibrarian 2021-05-16
Thank you for your valuable input.
2 seenten 2021-05-16
I am also here to say they both need to take a walk or something; jeez
1 GARGANTUAN_ANUS 2021-05-16
obligatory words words words
21 GeminiRocket 2021-05-16
The article seemed interesting at first but we learned nothing new and that was way too short without anything juicy.
tl;dr : journocels will eat anything you feed them if you wear a MIB black suit and tie they will take you seriously
8 creamygoodnesspirate 2021-05-16
Bong accent will also get you into anyone's trousers in NY.
3 GeminiRocket 2021-05-16
Also Br*tish narrated animal documentaries
8 CulturalYogurt 2021-05-16
Let's pretend that when the NYT did blowjob reporting on the steele dossier that it wasn't because of political bias, but handwave it away as an apolitical mistake somewhere within "the media's ties to private intelligence."
7 Big_Iron_PP 2021-05-16
RIghtoid bros... Did we just lose?
5 Substantial-Offer-42 2021-05-16
Argh Conspiritard is that way. Even tho I hate journos with TDS, agenda posts out out outtttt
Or make them funny
5 jaredschaffer27 2021-05-16
The only agenda worth posting about is how best to fight the journalist menace.
2 PoliCanada 2021-05-16
Rightoid seethe
1 TitleNo8604 2021-05-16
Thankfully this revelation is freely available as it is not paywalled.
1 I_Shah 2021-05-16
Anyone going to post this in 🏴☠️/politics
0 lonewolfandsub 2021-05-16
Imagine not being dumb enough to support Trump, nor be dumb enough to be an SRD poster. Imagine being in the middle ground that includes "most people". Gotta be a conspiracy.