Read on Twitter
Has anyone even attempted to explain this? I saw it earlier, and have been waiting to see the first attempted explanation before RT'ing. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1329233502139715586
Not as far as I know. There was an initial attempt to pretend it didn't happen and since they've tried to memoryhole it. https://twitter.com/Mecha_conrad/status/1329235805215330306?s=20
Right, they got tired at the same time in several states and time zones, sent Republicans home, then had a second wind and found tens of thousands of Biden votes. Nothing fishy here. https://twitter.com/gotsomescraps/status/1329236407760658432?s=20
One of the excuses for the pause was a pipe burst in Georgia. Remember that? https://twitter.com/PereGrimmer/status/1329237629569822720?s=20
Yep, I remember that. Note that the USB drive also apparently had chain of custody issues!
https://twitter.com/Callicleez/status/1329237567112286210?s=20
https://twitter.com/Callicleez/status/1329237567112286210?s=20
This explanation that they waited until like 3am and after sending R observers out to input 100k+ Biden ballots with no pre-warning is both based on nothing afaict and an explanation that is at least as suspicious as what it is meant to explain. https://twitter.com/ennuigogo/status/1329240293900648449?s=20
I don't think I can follow Adam Ozymandias or whatever that bald economist guy's name is until he can give me an innocent explanation for this
The purpose of this thread is to try to elicit the genuine, innocent answer to that q. Nothing is forecoming. https://twitter.com/yaobviously/status/1329242830624223240?s=20
yep. that's what I was saying above but didn't spell it out. https://twitter.com/ciceromt63/status/1329243586370662402?s=20
My theory? Several groups of people were trying to rig the election, and they could not communicate well for obvious reasons. So they all had to rely on common sources of knowledge, such as the Edison data recording the tallies. https://twitter.com/hezdollah/status/1329245439569190913?s=20
They unfortunately put too much credence in the suppression polls, and so everybody freaked out in the evening since Trump was going to win despite hard-coded cheating and planned cheating (mostly in the form of 'glitches' in sleepy but not too-small districts).
When it looked like Trump was going to win, the main conspiracy people went into to do their things (adjusting tabulators in deep-blue dem districts with a core of hardened criminal conspirators having input on things - the dump) then arranged to paper the ballots and totals
by having election workers, partisans, mail-workers, etc., basically the local wastrels you can always pay off in any machine town, stuffing as many ballots as possible and also spoliating as much evidence as possible.
The big problem with all this
The big problem with all this
is that having that many hands trying to perform a complex task, and cover up any evidence, suffers from (i) o-ring problems, i.e., the inability of teams with low average IQ's to follow steps that need extreme precision, such as ensuring that you don't, say, make it obvious
that tabulators were running beyond their technical capacity when "counting ballots," etc.; and, (ii) coordination issues, viz., if you model this as a game where there is an optimal amount of cheating (common knowledge), but players do not have contemporaneous knowledge of one
... another's attempts to cheat, and too much cheating by any increases the probability of detection for all, you can rather readily see how we could be left with a scenario with an embarrassment of riches re cheating evidence.
That is why the media push has been so strong to coronate Kamala as our Kween for Life: this fraud is not the sort that was built to evade detection under prolonged searching scrutiny.
Note that the dynamic of partisans offering and then retracting specious explanations like this is also an instance of the same type of coordination issue described above. https://twitter.com/peterMelon8/status/1329247264754241536?s=20
Yep. Worse, right now it is this narrative vs. no coherent narrative for the left. That is, the Trump camp actually has a coherent story, though you'd never know it from reading mainstream media. What's the mainstream story that conciliates the facts? https://twitter.com/The_WGD/status/1329248348189155328?s=20
thank you!!!
Idk about you, but I've heard similar from a lot of people, and I am embarrassed that Dems, for all their internationalist and good governance rhetoric, have turned the United States into an international laughingstock. https://twitter.com/abyssonaut/status/1329249085061287938?s=20
Idk about you, but I've heard similar from a lot of people, and I am embarrassed that Dems, for all their internationalist and good governance rhetoric, have turned the United States into an international laughingstock. https://twitter.com/abyssonaut/status/1329249085061287938?s=20
This is why the media keeps losing at info warfare. If you're trying to keep people in ignorance, the best way to do it is to give them a coherent lie that they won't discover because it flatters them in some way. There's no _coherent_ lie on the Dem side https://twitter.com/keefer1369/status/1329251272445358081?s=20
First it was a pipe burst but that was fake, then it was it didn't happen, then it was "minorities always vote 100% Biden in Philly in late-discovered batches, why just look at how Obama beat Romney, and Biden ofc is way more popular with blacks," now it's mail logistics?
See, that's not a coherent story. It's also not a convincing lie; quite the opposite, each new explanation sounds fishier than the last. Trump, meanwhile, has had a coherent story this whole time: (i) Trump wave, I won; (ii) pervasive fraud, hard to prove but proof is coming.
FAQ: It's important to distinguish the type of defense case where you have a positive command on the true facts (a whitelist), vs. the type where you seek to show your opponent has not proved their vision of the facts such that you need to speculate about true facts (blacklist).
The whitelist is a theory: you have a hypothesis which emerging facts will either tend to disprove, or sync up with. You can build themes and narratives around the theory.
The blacklist approach is just skepticism: it can win cases and has won many, but it's not compelling.
The blacklist approach is just skepticism: it can win cases and has won many, but it's not compelling.
A reader sends me a link to this blog post giving a contemporaneous record of people noticing and commenting on the apparent vote-dumps on election night. https://arirechovah.wordpress.com/2020/11/07/some-possible-leads-for-voter-fraud/
The best "explanation" I've seen is above: Trump was winning then, in a fashion that greatly-resembled the classic Daley machine "wait for them to show you yours" plan, there was a massive absentee vote drop for Biden at 3am that put him over the top. https://twitter.com/WisVoter/status/1323895018948567040?s=20
In other words, the "explanation" is to just assert, "nothing to see here."
See @AGHamilton29, who notably was too much of a chickenshit to even apologize after he lazily repeated an erroneous WaPo story third-hand at me, for this theory.
See @AGHamilton29, who notably was too much of a chickenshit to even apologize after he lazily repeated an erroneous WaPo story third-hand at me, for this theory.
(See? Total chickenshit. I DM'd him to give him a chance. At least Dan Baseball Crank with his LAW CENTER [hahahahahahahahahahahahaha] degree was bold enough to to try to explain himself to my face.)
![(See? Total chickenshit. I DM'd him to give him a chance. At least Dan Baseball Crank with his LAW CENTER [hahahahahahahahahahahahaha] degree was bold enough to to try to explain himself to my face.)](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EnKCxDeW8AIvg9Q.png "(See? Total chickenshit. I DM'd him to give him a chance. At least Dan Baseball Crank with his LAW CENTER [hahahahahahahahahahahahaha] degree was bold enough to to try to explain himself to my face.)")
What a fucking pussy. Imagine trying to do this shit for a living, a living, when you don't even have the gumption to support your supposedly well-reasoned points when there's a possibility of being refuted. Don't give any money to this utter clown, please.
Edgar Allan Poe was a true polymathic genius. Gets not enough recognition. https://twitter.com/NoLongerBennett/status/1329269129422004226?s=20
Thanks!
The linked article doesn't in fact have an explanation, it again just brings us to the WEC and Megan Wolfe and says that's when they chose to count a flood of absentee ballots they'd held back. It also doesn't do anything to explain WHY the dump https://twitter.com/d_f_stone/status/1329269986960019463?s=20
The linked article doesn't in fact have an explanation, it again just brings us to the WEC and Megan Wolfe and says that's when they chose to count a flood of absentee ballots they'd held back. It also doesn't do anything to explain WHY the dump https://twitter.com/d_f_stone/status/1329269986960019463?s=20
happened in this temporal sequence, why it was so similar with other states, or anything about the process for actually validating that the huge bolus of Biden votes cast were adequately-vetted.
And, without going into the WEC too much right now...
And, without going into the WEC too much right now...
... I'll just preview that "fact checkers" are prob. gonna wanna wait until after she renders testimony, etc., to rely on her overmuch.
See: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/11/wisconsin-republicans-say-election-probe-likely-wont-change-results/6248225002/
See: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/11/wisconsin-republicans-say-election-probe-likely-wont-change-results/6248225002/
Just to refocus here, let's look at that Snopes article again.
Note how it doesn't actually address the actual claim that the timing and composition of the massive vote-drop is suspicious. Rather, the writer simply asserts "NO FRAUD BC ABSENTEE."
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wisconsin-vote-dump/
Note how it doesn't actually address the actual claim that the timing and composition of the massive vote-drop is suspicious. Rather, the writer simply asserts "NO FRAUD BC ABSENTEE."
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wisconsin-vote-dump/
Anyone with basic analytic ability is capable of asking basic questions, such as: (i) what was the reject rate for those absentees compared to the reject rate during, say, the primaries? (ii) what precisely was done to verify signatures, ballot totals, tabulators, etc.?
Just because you use phrases like, "there was no fraud because," does not mean you have actually offered an explanation that dulls the brightness of the red flags of fraud.
Good enough for NeverTrumpers with grifts like AG whatever, not enough for anyone with sense.
Good enough for NeverTrumpers with grifts like AG whatever, not enough for anyone with sense.
I'm comfortable with my summary of the snopes article above, but see this additional passage for yourself. https://twitter.com/d_f_stone/status/1329276526270025733?s=20
Exactly. They have the propaganda script about mail-in voting and a surge for Biden, which was arranged before the election, but the script is at too high a level of generality to paper over the lumpy fraud facts. https://twitter.com/L0m3z/status/1329284395249717248?s=20
