We would have confirmed cases of dead people voting in the tens of thousands
There were lists thousands long.
So to be clear, when I trust qualified experts and people who are speaking from positions of trust in which the words they speak could end their careers or land them in jail... I'm being a mindless sheep.
You're right that the words they speak could land them in jail, if they had doubts and voiced them they might be in Big Fani's (or similar) sights right now.
What makes you a sheep is that you wait for CNN to tell you who the experts are, that you assume anyone who makes it into government is an expert (unless they're too loyal to Trump), and that you suddenly lose all your worldy savy when contemplating the motivations people might have to go along with state propaganda regardless of the facts. I know you have the ability because you were able to comprehend that Shokin might have personal motivations for making a claim.
But when you trust internet conspiracy theorists compiling data from their moms basement... That means you are thinking for yourself.
Compiling from county level public APIs that can be spot checked (which I did)... Yes.
Again, you haven't done any of the research yourself.
I did enough to confirm the technique and confirm some examples.
You didn't go out and interview anyone
I sort of did, I was an election judge to meet the people involved and interface with the voters.
you didn't hold up the ballots to the light or search them for traces of bamboo
The ballots are real, the fraud is that the same people fill out multiple ballots. That's why printing enough for everyone on the voter registry and sending them out blindly helps fraud.
You are just sitting there from your phone or PC just like every one of us relying on your own ability to put 2 and 2 together, and every piece of data you are using to reach your conclusions came from someone else - that you trust.
Except that if the data sources I used were untrustworthy (Google maps, cameras, county APIs, court discovery, testimony of election officials), I'm still right.
If I were to move on to areas requiring trust I 2000 mules comes in.
So you're worldview comes from those you trust just like everyone else, the difference is that you seem to think you are better than everyone because you trust people who don't know what they're talking about rather than those who do,
Begging the question aren't you? If the sources I trusted (hypothetically) didn't know what they were talking about in my opinion I wouldn't really trust them. Rather it's that you trust your sources and I trust mine. There is no way to resolve the issue. This is what appeals to authority always come to, that's why I don't use them; or at least I don't use them as anything but correlated evidence.
or because you think it's fashionable to just reject all knowledge altogether.
That's just pure strawman.
If we're really trying to make progress the next natural step in this conversation would be to discuss things like what makes someone credible, but you have disregarded that conversation every time it's come up. I am curious as to why.
Is this a joke? Have I not ranted not less than five times at great length on this site about this very issue?
The only measure of credibility is rational confirmation (looking at the argument). Rational confirmation renders authority irrelevant. Authority/credibility is only relevant when a large number of assertions can be confirmed but not the particular one in question.
So if weathermen predict the weather accurately (within certain margins of error) for the past 300 days, but it's too complicated to understand their science; there is utility in trusting them about tomorrow.
If however, you went on a debate site being clueless about the science of weather and you tried to argue you would fail because debate is where proxies are insufficient and true reasoning belongs.
If you want to talk about the credibility of the government by past objectively verified correctness in the midst of controversy, weathermen will seem prophets by comparison.
I have never seen those lists debunked
Yes you have
lol, what did you say "I accept your concession"
Here's just one example you will claim is meaningless. I could provide literally hundreds more but that would be a monumental waste of time as you've already demonstrated:
Honestly, this example couldn't have been more on point seeing as we were just discussing how the propagandist indoctrinate sheep like yourself. How you refuse to see the pattern. How you continue to trust even as example after example is debunked. "Oh I never said there was whipping, nobody cared if there was whipping" ROFL! That's why the headlines were "migrants whipped" right?
So, once again: they put the lie in the headline, they put the propaganda in the first couple paragraphs, and then; to cover their ass they put the facts at the end (where no sheep read to), but hey not everyone does that anymore either.
In one case, a 74-year-old widow submitted an absentee ballot on behalf of her husband, William Nelson, after he died in September 2020.
“He was going to vote Republican, and she said, ‘Well, I’m going to cancel your ballot because I’m voting Democrat.’ It was kind of a joke between them,” Barry Bishop, an attorney for Sharon Nelson of Canton, told the State Election Board. “She received the absentee ballot and carried out his wishes. ... She now realizes that was not the thing to do.”
Georgia election officials said there need to be consequences, even for a mistake.
So... William Nelson died before the election. He was a dead voter. Dead voter confirmed...
In another case, a ballot was submitted for deceased Augusta voter Leon Rowe. Investigators found that the signature on his absentee ballot envelope matched the handwriting of his mother, Alline Rowe, who died in October 2020.
Dead voter confirmed.... fraud confirmed....
Earlier in the year, the State Election Board found evidence that Sherry Cook of Trion had submitted an absentee ballot for her husband, Donald Cook, who died several months before the election.
Dead voter confirmed...
Cook told investigators that she and her daughter had returned the ballot after Donald Cook signed it before he died, but investigators said that was impossible because the ballot wasn’t issued until after his death.
Fraud confirmed...
The board also moved forward with a case in which the widow of Herman Robert Jackson of Covington, Glynda Jackson, told investigators she filled out his ballot because she knew how he wanted to vote.
Dead voter confirmed.... fraud confirmed....
“What I tell people is what really happened in Georgia, because we proved that none of that was what happened,” Raffensperger said.
"Trust me"
Previously, the Trump campaign had
cited the vote of James Blalock of Covington, who had died in 2006, as evidence of fraud. His widow, whose legal name is Mrs. James Blalock,
confirmed that she voted, not her deceased husband.
1 false positive, that's all you need to know about sheep; move along.
Next, the attorney general’s office will further investigate the cases of ballots cast in the names of deceased voters.
... but I thought "we" proved that none of that was what happened already?
[Double_R] The possibility of fraud is not sufficient for anything
vs
[Double_R] No one is resisting secure elections, that's hoarseshit.
and your circumstantial evidence had all been debunked.
lol, yea I can see that rofl "Here are all some examples, one wasn't correct; Brad says it's fine"
Do you have any examples you'd like to provide?
I think you did a fine job. You may now proceed to the sheeplike and obtuse pretense of being unaware of the fundamental theorem of statistics by saying something like "but four examples don't make up for 18,000 votes!".
Could it perhaps be something a bit more simple: The propagandist you trust told you it was rigged?
BTW... You never did answer my question; do you believe the elections in Stalin's Russia were legitimate? YES or NO?
Your question was whether I thought it was comparable, the answer was: YES.
Was it legitimate? NO
It must not be treated as accurate so long as significant fraud was possible. To call it legitimate is to treat it as accurate. There is circumstantial evidence that significant fraud occurred compounding the illegitimacy with the very real probability it was stolen.
