How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

[Chuck Naill]

I do think this is a form of radicalization where there is a sensitivity to a position followed by self identication with a qroup of like minded people. There is probably some difficulty in breaking away or separating yourself if those other radicals are your only contacts.

If you think Trump won the election and you find others who agree, then you have an authoriry figure that agrees with your thoughts, you're liable to fall into the radicalization trap. Something similar occurs with anti vaccine people. I knew of a woman who had her first child in her late 40's The child is autistic. She read the debunked study showing an MMR vaccine connection to autism. She convince many this was the reason her child developed autism.

I'm going to post a thread on it soon, but the former "conspiracy theory" of COVID 19 starting in a lab in Wuhan is now "approved" for discussion. Note that initially, anyone who suggested there might be an alternative explanation to the "wet market" hypothesis was shouted down, ridiculed, "fact-checked" etc...

This was also the case with treatment of COVID. The orthodoxy was whatever Fauci, Birx and The Who said. Point out that China influences the WHO? Point out other experts with credentials on par with Fauci that have differing opinions? Basically disagree at any level with the orthodoxy/"consensus"? You're ridiculed, removed from social media, etc... Now even liberal politicians are deciding that lockdowns and other measures might not be the best course of action. I believe it was Gov Cuomo who said "if we don't open, there will be nothing left to open", or something like that.

Now there is a similar circumstance with this election. Reasonable people may present the hypothesis of fraud. They may present circumstantial evidence (and perhaps some direct evidence) of fraud. The situation was certainly novel (election counting stopping, wide swings of several hundred thousand votes after counting restarted, and 4 cities in 4 states determining the outcome). Just like the two examples regarding COVID (and your words above), anyone who even presents the possibility of an alternative explanation is labeled, ridiculed, and dismissed. One explanation is chosen, its representatives assigned as immaculate arbiters of truth, and all others are burned at the proverbial stake.

If there are competing hypothesis in any other context, they're tested and evaluated and the facts and data determine the strength. When politics (or money) are involved, it's heretical to suggest the narrative might be wrong. Tsherbs couldn't even allow for the usage of "seems plausible" in questioning the election happenings without decrying it as dangerous, careless, or whatever term he used.

Perhaps there is a pattern that we should try to avoid.

I don't see the relationship between the virus and the election. If Fauci was making statements that were found to be incorrect, he was not trying to misinform or hide information. Given his career, he has had to follow the evidence or best evidence to date. Otherwise, he would not have risen to the level of respect that he has with several administrations.

Do you remember the MMR vaccine autism link? Wakefields work was published in The Lancet and later his work was debunked. The reason was that his methods was fraudulent. He was found out. This is what happens in medicine. It may take a while, but if it's bad science, it's rooted out.

The problem with calling the election a fraud is that the Republicans, of which I am a member, benefited from the election. So, how it the top of the ballot wrong and the bottom of the ballot correct? Also, if we want to take an eveidenced based approach for what we think is true, what evidence has been discovered that those four states conspired to alter the votes to give Biden the win and at the same time also allow Republicans to gain seats?

Often people make matter of fact statements that are based on anecdotal or hearsay evidence. I am not of Facebook, but I have hear that people repost information. This is no way to formulate a position.

[dneal]

The relationship isn't between the virus and the election. The relationship is the narrative that occurred in each instance.

One line of thinking was decreed as correct, and opposing views weren't allowed to be spoken (let alone investigated). In the case of the source of the coronavirus, we are now far enough along so see the error. We are perhaps far enough along to see the shortcomings of lockdowns.

We are only two months into the "contesting" of the election. From the beginning, the narrative was that anyone who thinks it was suspect is a crazy conspiracy theorist. That in itself is irrational. You consider all explanations for a phenomenon. You develop hypotheses for those. A hypothesis doesn't make a claim other than "here is one possibility". Evidence supports and refutes individual hypotheses.

What happened with the election is that one hypothesis was immediately rejected by one side. The same narrative used with covid was used (by the same party) to discount the "fraud hypothesis". They found their spokespeople and anointed them, ignoring potential conflicts of interest. To even have a legitimate curiosity (in my case) resulted in being labeled a secret Trumpist (by you too, in fact).

One side claims a certain amount of fraud took place, large enough to sway the election. They have their facts and figures to substantiate their argument. I don't know if their data is accurate or true. Some of it seems to be, and some of it doesn't. I'm skeptical. They have personal interest, and therefore a conflict of interest of varying degree, depending on the individual.

The other side claims no fraud took place. They have their facts and figures to substantiate their argument. I don't know if their data is accurate or true. Some of it seems to be, and some of it doesn't. I'm skeptical. They also have personal interest, and therefore a conflict of interest, depending on the individual.

Russell Ramstad is the CEO of the company that has made many assertions about the fraudulent numbers, and problems with Dominion systems. He's a Republican, and has interest in a Pro-Trump outcome. The Michigan Secretary of State is a Democrat, and has offered different numbers and discounts problems with Dominion systems. She has an interest in an anti-Trump outcome.

I still make no judgement whether or not the election was fair or fraudulent. I can see both sides. I see persuasive evidence from both sides, dubious evidence from both sides, and where each side has "shot holes" in the other's argument. I have taken a nuanced position.

As Eric Weinstein points out, there are "internet hyenas" that will not allow anyone to promote a nuanced position. He calls them cults, and names them "Wokestan" and "Magastan". He has a point. "Wokestan" is more prevalent here. It asks the question posed by the title of this thread, and rejects any answer that doesn't agree with some notion that 70million people are deranged lunatics that just need to shut up. I'm sorry, but in what universe is that a reasonable position? It's not. It is evidence of actual delusional thinking. There are plenty of delusional people in "Magastan" too, they just don't (or very rarely) post here.

[fountainpenkid]

Every election has fraud and imperfections—this one was no different. It was abundantly clear back in December that these discrepancies never had any chance of changing the outcome, so what is the point of all this? Is the answer to just declare Trump king for life, because the process will never be perfect? This is so ridiculous to still be worthy of discussion at this point.

[Chuck Naill]

If there is a similar narrative, for me, it came from Trump. I remember the Friday night he equated the COVID -19 virus to the flu. After the election he spoke of election fraud. Two statements unthethered with any evidence.

I would be surprised if some votes did not count for various reasons, but the issue for me is was there an effort to prevent voting or not count a voted cast.

[fountainpenkid]

All this is is a pathetic attempt to debase our electorate by uncoupling elections from any facts or truth. All in service of a narcissistic, evil, wicked, treasonous, shell of an excuse for a man. What the fuck?

[dneal]

Every election has fraud and imperfections—this one was no different. It was abundantly clear back in December that these discrepancies never had any chance of changing the outcome, so what is the point of all this? Is the answer to just declare Trump king for life, because the process will never be perfect? This is so ridiculous to still be worthy of discussion at this point.

All this is is a pathetic attempt to debase our electorate by uncoupling elections from any facts or truth. All in service of a narcissistic, evil, wicked, treasonous, shell of an excuse for a man. What the fuck?

Thank you for illustrating my point so clearly.

[fountainpenkid]

Your point that the other side thinks there was no fraud?

Oh, your point that the other side has a personal bias against rotten apricot? Honestly, if you don’t hate the motherfucker by now, I want nothing to do with you.

[Lloyd]

No (what you refer to as) liberals were shouting that the entire country should be under lockdown. You're (intentionally?) painting the COVID control recommendations in black & white terms. The multiphased approaches, defined regionally, that respond to localized levels was what was always discussed.... Not only Republicans care about the economy.

[dneal]

Your point that the other side thinks there was no fraud?

Oh, your point that the other side has a personal bias against rotten apricot? Honestly, if you don’t hate the motherfucker by now, I want nothing to do with you.

I still don't understand the anger.

My point is simply that each side has a narrative, and in their unbridled passion advocates it as absolute fact when there's no possible way they can have that level of certainty.

As soon as I posted a lengthier version of that, you essentially confirmed it with your posts.

[dneal]

No (what you refer to as) liberals were shouting that the entire country should be under lockdown. You're (intentionally?) painting the COVID control recommendations in black & white terms. The multiphased approaches, defined regionally, that respond to localized levels was what was always discussed.... Not only Republicans care about the economy.

No, I'm talking about narratives. I suppose I still haven't clearly explained, but I'm more inclined to believe people just aren't reading what I'm writing; or giving it a fair read - particularly when my post is strawmanned into a point I never made.

Not that it's relevant to my position, but liberals were indeed talking about shutting down the entire country, speculating on whether or not Biden would do that if elected President. It was in the news for a week at least.

One example from CNBC

[Lloyd]

He also said on that article -
In an interview with NBC News on Thursday, Osterholm clarified his comments, saying "it was not a recommendation. I have never made this recommendation to Biden's group. We've never talked about it."
"My only point was if we are going to keep making restrictions state-by-state, there is no compensation for the businesses that are being impacted," he added. "What we're doing right now is not working."
A Biden transition official told NBC News that a shutdown "is not in line with the president-elect's thinking."


IF Worldwide, we all quarantine for two months, COVID numbers would go down. No one (rational) is suggesting this though.

[dneal]

He also said on that article -
In an interview with NBC News on Thursday, Osterholm clarified his comments, saying "it was not a recommendation. I have never made this recommendation to Biden's group. We've never talked about it."
"My only point was if we are going to keep making restrictions state-by-state, there is no compensation for the businesses that are being impacted," he added. "What we're doing right now is not working."
A Biden transition official told NBC News that a shutdown "is not in line with the president-elect's thinking."


IF Worldwide, we all quarantine for two months, COVID numbers would go down. No one (rational) is suggesting this though.

So much deflection.

Newsweek
Huffpost
CBS affiliate
MSN

The media plants these narratives. Where did "Biden lockdown entire country" come from? Journalists posing loaded questions, and then pontificating about them for a week; just like starting the narrative on Trump won't leave the WH. Each side swallows the ones they think are tasty.

Narratives, not covid, not elections, not quarantines. Narratives.

[Lloyd]

Oh, you're taking about the REALLY biased pseudonews.

[dneal]

With the possible exception of Huffpost, Newsweek, CBS and MSN are hardly REALLY biased pseudonews.

They all do this. CNN, Fox, you name it.

The Eric Weinstein interview is worth a listen. You don't have to watch it on Youtube. You can listen to it as a podcast on your way to work or as you go about your day.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcas...=1000505484146
https://open.spotify.com/episode/4myTyggd4Lp5QiwrNFkAKm
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/the-g...tein-76321783/
https://www.stitcher.com/show/the-gl...dcast-80872777

[welch]

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/18/u...gtype=Homepage

By Sabrina Tavernise
Jan. 18, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON — For many Trump supporters, the inauguration of Joseph R. Biden Jr. this week will be a signal that it is time to move on. The president had four years, but Mr. Biden won, and that is that.

But for a certain slice of the 74 million Americans who voted for President Trump, the events of the past two weeks — the five deaths, including of a Capitol Police officer, the arrests that have followed, and the removal of Mr. Trump and right-wing extremists from tech platforms — have not had a chastening effect.

On the contrary, interviews in recent days show that their anger and paranoia have only deepened, suggesting that even after Mr. Trump leaves the White House, an embrace of conspiracy theories and rage about the 2020 election will live on, not just among extremist groups but among many Americans.

“I can’t just sit back and say, ‘OK, I’ll just go back to watching football,’” said Daniel Scheerer, 43, a fuel truck driver in Grand Junction, Colo., who went to the rally in Washington last week, but said he did not go inside the Capitol and had nothing to do with those who did. He said he did not condone those who were violent, but believed that the news media has “totally skewed” the event, obscuring what he sees as the real story of the day — the people’s protest against election fraud.

“If we tolerate a fraudulent election, I believe we cease to have a republic,” he said. “We turn into a totalitarian state.”

Asked what would happen after Mr. Biden took office, Mr. Scheerer said: “That’s where every person has to soul search.”

Trump campaign billboards displayed along Texas State Highway 71 near La Grange, Texas, on Election Day. Credit...Tamir Kalifa for The New York Times
He continued: “This just isn’t like a candidate that I didn’t want, but he won fair and square. There’s something different happening here. I believe it needs to be resisted and fought against.”

Mr. Scheerer said he was not advocating violence, nor was he part of any group that was. But he echoed the views of many who supported the events in Washington last week: A fervent belief that something bad was about to happen, and an instinct to fight against it.

Polls indicate that only a small fraction of Americans approved of the riot in Washington last week. A Washington Post-ABC News poll showed that 8 percent of adults and 15 percent of Republicans support “the actions of people who stormed the U.S. Capitol last week to protest Biden’s election as president.” That is far from most voters, but enough to show that the belief in a stolen election has entered the American bloodstream and will not be easy to stop.

“It’s a dangerous situation,” said Lucan Way, a political scientist at the University of Toronto who writes about authoritarian regimes. “The ‘election was stolen’ narrative has become part of the political landscape.”

The country’s political divide is no longer a disagreement over issues like guns and abortion but a fundamental difference in how people see reality. That, in turn, is driving more extremist beliefs. This shift has been years in the making, but it went into hyper-speed after the Nov. 3 election as Mr. Trump and many in his party encouraged Americans, despite all the evidence to the contrary, to believe the results were fraudulent. The belief is still common among Republicans: A Quinnipiac poll published Monday found that 73 percent still falsely believe there was widespread voter fraud.

Although Trump had sixty lawsuits in which his campaign could have provided evidence of voter fraud, and although judges reviewed every scrap of Trumpian evidence while dismissing every suit, the delusion continues. Trump, the delusion says, won by a "landslide" but an invisible conspiracy of "democrat cities" -- code words for black people -- plus "Communist" countries of North Korea and Venezuela plus "anti-Trump" Republicans in Georgia and Arizona has "stolen" the election. We saw them act out their delusion at the Capitol.

Where people absolutely believe in unreality, we would ordinarily say that they border on psychosis. As these people, unlike clinical psychotics, hold jobs, feed themselves, and otherwise function, this a disease unlike plain psychosis. Call it "social psychosis".

Yes, it is dangerous.

[dneal]

Trump didn’t have 60 lawsuits. Put down the kool aide.

--edit--

The counter narrative

Pennslyvania data, from the PA database

Their claim:

UPDATE: On December 16th, PA.gov released another update to the Mail Ballot Request database. This Fact List has been updated to include the data from the most recent release. This is ever evolving research and you can see past versions of this Fact List here.

FACT 1: OpenDataPA allowed anyone to download the Mail Ballot Request CSV database showing the life cycle of every mail-in/absentee ballot, which PA periodically updates.

FACT 2: There have been 4 known versions up this database so far. A Nov 6th Version, Nov 10th Version, Nov 16th Version, and Dec 16th Version. The changes between versions were never disclosed to the public.
Anomalies and irregularities have been a found in all versions. The Nov 10th Version showed 23,305 ballots having a “Returned” date before their actual “Mailed” date. The Nov 16th Version change most of the ballots, leaving only 185 ballots with this anomaly. The December 16th version has only 181.

With each updated version, ballots are deleted. There were 9,763 fewer ballot entries between the Nov 10th Version and Nov 16th Version. 3,687 fewer ballot entries between the Nov 16th Version and the December 16th Version.

The Texas Lawsuit lays out many of the impossible anomalies from the Nov 10th Version.


FACT 3: Access to the database was blocked on November 21st after viral videos drew public attention and then were unblocked on November 25th after Pennsylvania certified Vice President Joe Biden on November 24th.

FACT 4: On December 3rd, HereIsTheEvidence released the HereIsTheEvidence Analyzer to enable anyone (including journalists) to verify/find anomalies in election data.

1. 161,774 mail-in ballot records were changed between Nov 10th version and the Dec 16th Version. Of the changes, 116,840 ballots were given new return dates.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that any ballots without a postmark should “be presumed to have been mailed by Election Day” unless there was strong evidence to the contrary.

The evidence from official records show that 116,840 mail-in ballots have had changed “Return Date” entries between November 10th and December 16th.

2. 69,004 ballots were marked “Returned” after November 3rd.

Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar reported on November 10th that only 10,000 ballots were received after November 3rd. She declared that same number to the Supreme Court on November 30th.

3. 19,660 ballots were marked “Returned” after November 6th.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court usurped established Pennsylvania legislation to allow ballots to be counted if received by November 6th. Ballots received after the 6th were to be rejected.

Pennsylvania rejected 7,411 in the 2020 election, as of November 20th.

4. Counties allowed new ballots to be filled out after the election.

Pennsylvania’s deadline for mail-in applications was October 27th, yet new ballots were being filled out and submitted daily.

Berks county was filling out and submitting new ballots on November 16th.

5. OpenDataPA has a visualizer to explore the current dataset, but it hides ballots received after November 3rd.

Until Pennsylvania updates their Visualizer to show all ballots, you can use the HereIsTheEvidence Analyzer to verify these claims.

Check out the code, it’s open source.

6. As laid out in the Texas lawsuit, Pennsylvania’s mail-in ballot anomalies at 118,426 affected ballots. The anomalies from this December 16th version shows:

161,774 records have alterations
Of these alterations:
116,840 were Returned Dates changes
69,004 were marked “Returned” after Nov 3rd
19,660 were marked “Returned” after Nov 6th
13,450 ballots have been deleted since Nov 10th
10,415 Return Date with no Mail Date
5,052 Applications Returned after Ballot Mailed
1,034 Applications Approved after Application Returned

Totaling: 191,725 mail-in ballots were touched by alterations, illegality, or anomalies according to data.PA.gov.

In Pennsylvania’s response to the Texas lawsuit, they did not address the mail-in ballot anomalies.

[dneal]

Now that will trigger many ongoing cases of TDS, and I'll again be accused of being a "Trumpist" or some such nonsense, simply because I look at both narratives and provide the opposing one (since you guys aren't going to look for it).

You should probably reflect on your own emotional stability and bias as you type out your next two minutes of hate.

[dneal]

Why Do Most Countries Ban Mail-In Ballots?: They Have Seen Massive Vote Fraud Problems

Abstract
Thirty-seven states have so far changed their mail-in voting procedures this year in response to the Coronavirus. Despite frequent claims that President Trump’s warning about vote fraud/voting buying with mail-in ballots is “baselessly” or “without evidence” about mail-in vote fraud, there are numerous examples of vote fraud and vote buying with mail-in ballots in the United States and across the world. Indeed, concerns over vote fraud and vote buying with mail-in ballots causes the vast majority of countries to ban mail-in voting unless the citizen is living abroad.

There are fraud problems with mail-in absentee ballots but the problems with universal mail-in ballots are much more significant. Still most countries ban even absentee ballots for people living in their countries.

Most developed countries ban absentee ballots unless the citizen is living abroad or require Photo-IDs to obtain those ballots. Even higher percentages of European Union or other European countries ban absentee for in country voters. In addition, some countries that allow voting by mail for citizens living the country don’t allow it for everyone. For example, Japan and Poland have limited mail-in voting to those who have special certificates verifying that they are disabled.

France has made an exception this year to the ban on absentee ballots to those who are sick or at particular risk during the Coronavirus pandemic. Poland and two cities in Russia have adopted mail-in ballots for elections this year only, but most countries haven't changed their regulations.

France banned absentee voting in 1975 because of massive fraud in Corsica, where postal ballots were stolen or bought and voters cast multiple votes. Mail-in ballots were used to cast the votes of dead people. Examples for other countries are provided.

[Lloyd]

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/here-is-the-evidence/

[dneal]

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/here-is-the-evidence/

Ahh, the infamous liberal "fact check", leading to "it's been debunked!!!". This will end up as a novel logical fallacy (although it's really a form of "shoot the messenger" pseudo-argument).

The site offers state election data obtained from the state itself, among other types of data and sources. It allows anyone to examine and correlate that data and draw conclusions. That's how things like the scientific method and peer-review work.

Disagree with the data or the conclusions they drew? Do the work and disprove it. A site simply asserting questionability is hardly a refutation.

I'm not asserting that their conclusions are valid or invalid. I'm simply pointing out that there is an opposing narrative and that it has some evidence to support that narrative.