Sociopath Community

You think the country needs a return to traditional Christian values? 

Turncoat said: 

You think the country needs a return to traditional Christian values? 

That probably beats nihilistic materialism.

i was wondering where you got your opinions from, lol

Crimson said: 

 "they [Michigan] said any such errors in any county would be caught during the canvassing process, before results are declared official, when boards composed of two Democrats and two Republicans compare the numbers on the tapes printed from the tabulators to the unofficial results that were reported to the state." - article

So it sounds like these faulty voting numbers were never made official in the first place.

Inquirer said: 

 "they [Michigan] said any such errors in any county would be caught during the canvassing process, before results are declared official, when boards composed of two Democrats and two Republicans compare the numbers on the tapes printed from the tabulators to the unofficial results that were reported to the state." - article

So it sounds like these faulty voting numbers were never made official in the first place.

Perhaps so. However, that they would incorrectly count the votes at any stage of the process and report them (unofficially or otherwise) doesn't exactly increase people's faith in the electoral system.

AppleGenius said: 

Perhaps so. However, that they would incorrectly count the votes at any stage of the process and report them (unofficially or otherwise) doesn't exactly increase people's faith in the electoral system.

True, but if people took the time to actually check out the story behind fails or irregularities they'd find there is a robust system in place to handle them.

Inquirer said: 

True, but if people took the time to actually check out the story behind fails or irregularities they'd find there is a robust system in place to handle them.

Well, I'd say a part of that statement is fair. People should indeed check out the story behind the fails or irregularities.

However, I haven't seen much evidence of the robustness of that system you mentioned unless there's some metric to quantify that robustness. At least in science, we BS our way through with similar post-hoc rationalization when something in our papers get debunked `oh but it doesn't change our conclusions, so it's fine.`

AppleGenius said: 

However, I haven't seen much evidence of the robustness of that system you mentioned unless there's some metric to quantify that robustness. At least in science, we BS our way through with similar post-hoc rationalization when something in our papers get debunked `oh but it doesn't change our conclusions, so it's fine.`

We're never going to get actual indisputable evidence that an election (any election) is non-fraudulent. However, the metric in this case would be the systems in place to double check the voting process. Claims such as thousands of dead people voting, Biden getting a suspicious extra 100k votes overnight or that Wisconsin's vote is fraudulent because they had more votes than registered voters are all good examples of stories that would be cleared up if people understood the reasons why these things happened (or seemed to happen) and how they'd all be caught before making it into an official count.

Here's a good thread that debunks some common voter fraud claims.

Inquirer said: 

AppleGenius said: 

However, I haven't seen much evidence of the robustness of that system you mentioned unless there's some metric to quantify that robustness. At least in science, we BS our way through with similar post-hoc rationalization when something in our papers get debunked `oh but it doesn't change our conclusions, so it's fine.`

We're never going to get actual indisputable evidence that an election (any election) is non-fraudulent. However, the metric in this case would be the systems in place to double check the voting process. Claims such as thousands of dead people voting, Biden getting a suspicious extra 100k votes overnight or that Wisconsin's vote is fraudulent because they had more votes than registered voters are all good examples of stories that would be cleared up if people understood the reasons why these things happened (or seemed to happen) and how they'd all be caught before making it into an official count.

Here's a good thread that debunks some common voter fraud claims.

Not to start another 1-year debate, but you're doing the same thing I asked you to stop doing previously.

I mean, I appreciate the  debunk thread,  but you make claims A and B, I contest A, and you defend B, come up with a new claim C, and defend that too.

Read what I said.

AppleGenius said: 

Not to start another 1-year debate, but you're doing the same thing I asked you to stop doing previously.

I mean, I appreciate the  debunk thread,  but you make claims A and B, I contest A, and you defend B, come up with a new claim C, and defend that too.

Read what I said.

I think I responded to it by stating we can't really "prove" the robustness, we can only infer it by looking at the ways different issues and problems with the voting process are meant to be handled. That's not post-hoc rationalization; it's a deliberately set up system to ensure a non-fraudulent election. Or do you have a different metric in mind?