Now that the 2020 Election is over....

[peter_speckhard]

Fair enough. That is the sort of response that matters— it engages the question rather attack anyone who would have questions. I don’t think these competing stat analysis bloggers are offering pseudo-science. They’re analyzing statistics and trying to explain anomalies. It is also important to distinguish evidence from proof. There can be evidence that suggests something fishy happened that doesn’t in itself prove anything. If you find someone leaving a drug house with a big wad of cash, that doesn’t prove anything. It is awfully suspicious though. There are many aspects of this election that seem awfully suspicious. Those suspicions aren’t answered by people pointing out that such fishiness doesn’t prove anything. Obviously not. But it calls for a plausible explanation.

[JEdwards]

Fair enough. That is the sort of response that matters— it engages the question rather attack anyone who would have questions. I don’t think these competing stat analysis bloggers are offering pseudo-science. They’re analyzing statistics and trying to explain anomalies. It is also important to distinguish evidence from proof. There can be evidence that suggests something fishy happened that doesn’t in itself prove anything. If you find someone leaving a drug house with a big wad of cash, that doesn’t prove anything. It is awfully suspicious though. There are many aspects of this election that seem awfully suspicious. Those suspicions aren’t answered by people pointing out that such fishiness doesn’t prove anything. Obviously not. But it calls for a plausible explanation.

Fair points, and my use of the term "pseudo-scientific" was uncharitable.  But I also think you have inverted where the burden of proof lies.  I absolutely agree that deliberately tampering with the results in a close presidential election is catastrophically evil, and it is worth taking preventive and punitive action to avert such an outcome.  But it is also a disaster for our country if the default assumption becomes, "well, of course, partisans will cheat" and demanding that every alleged anomaly "calls for... explanation" in the sense that an election result is somehow  tainted for as long as people choose to dig through piles of data and suggest nefarious activity.  And yes, I get the irony that that is exactly what many Democrats have been doing for 4 years.  It wasn't healthy for the country when they did it, and it won't be healthy if Trump's partisans do something analogous.

As someone who reluctantly voted for Biden and is generally satisfied with the outcome of the election (both Presidential and Congressional, by the way), I probably need to be reminded that President Trump and his disappointed supporters are entitled to challenge and examine election results as provided by law, even if it takes some time.  I get that there is a difference between "evidence" and "proof", and that some evidence that falls short of proof is nevertheless worth a look.  But "evidence" exists along a broad scale from flimsy to compelling, and I would ask Trump and his supporters to be mindful of the potential damage to our country of relying on relatively weak evidence to suggest that hundreds or thousands of election workers in our country are corrupt.

Peace,
Jon

[Charles Austin]

JEdwards writes:
I would ask Trump and his supporters to be mindful of the potential damage to our country of relying on relatively weak evidence to suggest that hundreds or thousands of election workers in our country are corrupt.
I comment:
Good. But ask more, ask more loudly, because what you object to is exactly what they are doing.

[peter_speckhard]

JEdwards writes:
I would ask Trump and his supporters to be mindful of the potential damage to our country of relying on relatively weak evidence to suggest that hundreds or thousands of election workers in our country are corrupt.
I comment:
Good. But ask more, ask more loudly, because what you object to is exactly what they are doing.

And if there is one thing that has proven to build trust, it is meeting objections with the combination of repetition and volume. It is why Charles has always been such unifying, de-escalating presence in this forum.

[Charles Austin]

I know it doesn’t make any sense to you, Peter. But here’s my take.
When people are doing crappy things that are hurting the country, you ask them to stop doing those things.
When they keep on doing them, you ask them again. And again. And again. Until they stop.
No one has proven any serious voter fraud. No one expects to prove any serious voter fraud.
And yet your guy, many of his followers, and you keep claiming or suggesting voter fraud.
Your guy is holding up the transition to a new administration in ways that are seriously dangerous for our country.
Continued talk about voter fraud when none has been proven is dangerous for our country.
So as long as you and your guy keep doing these things, we will keep asking you to stop doing them.

[Brian Stoffregen]

I think it is so funny that some of you on this board insist that President-Elect Biden is a presumptive President-Elect only. Five seconds after Trump stepped over the magical 270 line in 2016 he was President-Elect and no one brought up this, "Oh, but he isn't until..."

Didn't the Department of Homeland Security state the other day that 2020 Election was the most secure and safe one ever? Yet, again some of you insist that there had to have been fraud, rampant or otherwise. Thousands marched today in DC insisting that the election was stolen. The Department of Homeland Security is under Trump's purview. How many attorneys have now walked away from being connected to this paranoia because there was no basis?

Mr Martin ... today there is far less respect for the press than anytime in the country’s history.  The press including Fox cuts away from Presidential statements because they have anointed themselves as ‘fact checkers’.  The media’s job is to report the news... not be the news. Facts can be checked after the speech is over ... they don’t have to interrupt it!

The press are not in the business of reporting lies as truth. A lie is not news. It's one person's mistaken opinion, or a purposeful attempt to deceive. διάβολος (diabolos) which is often translated "devil," literally means, "the slanderer." John 8:44 has Jesus saying: Your father is the devil [diabolos]. You are his children, and you want to do what your father wants. He was a murderer from the beginning. He has never stood for the truth, because there’s no truth in him. Whenever that liar speaks, he speaks according to his own nature, because he’s a liar and the father of liars.

If any news organization is not going to be the tool of the devil, it must seek to show the truth and avoid lies.

This is why half the country doesn’t trust the press. Precisely because they lie, and are therefore in your own words tools of the devil.

Whenever I've seen the mainline news agency discover that they reported an untruth, they apologize and correct the mistake.


Essentially, that's the difference between sin and evil, according to M. Scott Peck in People of the Lie. Sinners are willing to repent of their sins when they become known. Evil people refuse to admit that they have made any mistakes. They see no reason to repent.

[Bryan Anderson]

I heard a provocative comment the other day, "Democrats are very good at winning elections...at any cost."
And I remembered this incident:  https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/04/08/473548674/why-the-fbi-director-puts-tape-over-his-webcam.

Why is it so impossible for some to consider that our election can be compromised, especially when they spent the last four years saying so.

Democrats used the Pandemic to weaken the checks on an already questionable election system.  Pollsters made wildly inaccurate projections (again!) that played a large role in campaign fundraising and morale.  Most media did nothing but bash the president, all the while handling Biden with kid gloves.  Social media consistently censored conservatives. 

Now we know there are serious statistical anomalies with the 2020 election begging explanation.   Dead persons have somehow voted.  Non-residents have voted.  There is the questionable practice of ballot harvesting.  There have been different standards for the curing of ballots.  Not to mention the failure of signature checking and the decidedly low rejection rate of tainted ballots.  And numerous affidavits contending election observers were shut out from meaningful interaction with the election process.

While I’m reasonably certain that our new President will be Biden.  And I will respect and pray for him and his office.  Are some really that obtuse that they see nothing wrong with the 2020 election?

As Biden would say, “Come on man!”

[Julio]

There is very little chance working together civilly.

Of course, I hold out some limited and qualified hope that this may prove to be untrue in more cases than not, but seeing the televised clashes of Trump supporters and Biden supporters on the streets of DC, my optimism took a direct hit. If the anti-Trump loathing even on this forum is any indication of sentiment outside these limited discussions, my hope again takes more hits.  The division grows. Lord have mercy...

Anti-Trump opinions have been expressed on this forum as have pro-Trump opinions. Opinions on both sides reflected the division that exists in our country.  On what basis is the claim made that the anti-Trump posts on this Forum expressed personal loathing of the man?

Interestingly the front page of the Sunday New York Times called attention to the Rev. Fred Krebs, a Lutheran pastor in Mason, Texas. " "We pray for peaceful transition,' he told his congregation of 50 people."  Krebs continued, "Defining people strictly by their parties is not a good thing. And I've learned that sometimes people think more deeply when they get into a conversation than when we just start labeling one another."
 
Marie Meyer

Rev. Alfred Krebs has served St. Paul Lutheran (ELCA), Mason since August 2016.

[Julio]

When I started this thread I had hopes that we might pass from acrimony towards harmony both in the larger context and here on this venerable Forum.  Trump and his supporters will not concede.  Past Presidents have graciously congratulated their successors.   Trump, if he does not go on his own, might be escorted out by the Secret Service.    I do hope that the country will move on after Trump goes. I believe the the participants on the Forum are engaged in considerations of over-all good things and will move away from fear and hysteria.   I read with great interest how parish pastors continue to minister in the fact of great odds.    I do fear  that the misinformation and ugly comments which the 'Julios' perpetuate will continue.

Perhaps Mr. Teigen should specifically identify the “ugly”posts of which he speaks.  Routinely he and his sidekick fabricate accusations of “ugliness” and “personal attack” ..providing no specific examples of these egregious accusations.

Men ... the body of posts is available ...prove your accusations ... or admit such maliciously undocumented accusations are simply bogus lies.

[JEdwards]

Dead persons have somehow voted.  Non-residents have voted.

Such assertions can and should be evaluated according to our legal process. With its army of lawyers, I’m sure that the President’s team is capable of identifying credible evidence that this has happened and presenting the evidence to the appropriate court. I’m willing to concede that the courts are better equipped than you or I to determine the existence and magnitude of problems like this. Are you?

[peter_speckhard]

I know it doesn’t make any sense to you, Peter. But here’s my take.
When people are doing crappy things that are hurting the country, you ask them to stop doing those things.
When they keep on doing them, you ask them again. And again. And again. Until they stop.
No one has proven any serious voter fraud. No one expects to prove any serious voter fraud.
And yet your guy, many of his followers, and you keep claiming or suggesting voter fraud.
Your guy is holding up the transition to a new administration in ways that are seriously dangerous for our country.
Continued talk about voter fraud when none has been proven is dangerous for our country.
So as long as you and your guy keep doing these things, we will keep asking you to stop doing them.

How would one prove voter fraud without suggesting it or looking into it?

You keep saying it is seriously dangerous to our country (again, the correct, approved terminology is "extremely dangerous to our democracy") without saying what exactly is dangerous about contesting election results or pointing out instances of fraud or obvious security gaps in the process. Your side is the only proven violent side. You and yours, if you don't get your way, will burn down cities. Leftists riot and loot. Conservatives do not. You project your own violent impulses onto others when you assume others would do as your side would do. 

There is far greater danger to our nation and democracy if the populace gets conditioned to trust the system implicitly. Constant vigilance is the price of liberty. Critics of constant vigilance are not friends of liberty. But then, liberty as a value is on the wane. So when ballot counters do things like tell the GOP observers to go home because they're done counting for the night but then keep counting through the night, the presumption ceases to be of innocence. The only rational presumption is of guilt. Anyone even moderately interested in making sure everyone knew that the vote count was on the up and up would have refused in principle to continue counting votes until the observers had been called back. So can anyone prove something illegal happened? No. Is the rational inference that people doing everything in their power not to be observed by the legal observers are doing something that would not withstand legal scrutiny? Yes. 

[peter_speckhard]

Dead persons have somehow voted.  Non-residents have voted.

Such assertions can and should be evaluated according to our legal process. With its army of lawyers, I’m sure that the President’s team is capable of identifying credible evidence that this has happened and presenting the evidence to the appropriate court. I’m willing to concede that the courts are better equipped than you or I to determine the existence and magnitude of problems like this. Are you?

Agreed. The problem is that even hiring a team of lawyers and threatening to take it to court is now seen as dangerous to our nation. You must admit there is no proof and decry anyone who looks for proof in order to be a good citizen. 

[Charles Austin]

Bryan Anderson:
Why is it so impossible for some to consider that our election can be compromised, especially when they spent the last four years saying so.
Me:
I have not said it for the last four years. But I know elections can be compromised. The Russians tried, but failed.

Bryan Anderson:
Democrats used the Pandemic to weaken the checks on an already questionable election system.
Me:
How? Be specific.

Bryan Anderson:
Pollsters made wildly inaccurate projections (again!) that played a large role in campaign fundraising and morale.
Me:
Everybody, all sides, had their pollsters. So what?

Bryan Anderson:
Most media did nothing but bash the president, all the while handling Biden with kid gloves. 
Me:
If you mean pointing out lies, correcting errors, and chronicling awkward moments, that is not "bashing." It is doing what media is supposed to do. As for Biden, much was written about his age, his health, his past record in the senate and as vice presiden.

Bryan Anderson:
Social media consistently censored conservatives.
Me:
Hogwash.
Little restraints were put on social media postings until very recently. Social media cannot "censor," that is a term generally applied to government. But any publisher has the right to decide what goes in his publication. Social media are publications.

Bryan Anderson:
Now we know there are serious statistical anomalies with the 2020 election begging explanation.   Dead persons have somehow voted.  Non-residents have voted.
Me:
Maybe. Probably. But not as a massive campaign to steal the election. And not enough to change the results.

Bryan Anderson:
There is the questionable practice of ballot harvesting.  There have been different standards for the curing of ballots.  Not to mention the failure of signature checking and the decidedly low rejection rate of tainted ballots.  And numerous affidavits contending election observers were shut out from meaningful interaction with the election process.
Me:
All these things have been investigated and found wanting.

Bryan Anderson:
While I’m reasonably certain that our new President will be Biden.  And I will respect and pray for him and his office.  Are some really that obtuse that they see nothing wrong with the 2020 election?
Me:
There were things wrong with the 2020 election. The president sought to undermine it long before any votes were casts. Republicans and their sympathizers tried to minimize voting in areas where Democrats were statistically significant. Some states have inefficient and inept counting systems.
And - things have been investigated. But nothing - repeat nothing - has turned up any significant existence of massive voter fraud.

[Charles Austin]

Trump’s efforts to undermine our elections began before he was elected and sped up as his poll observers saw he was losing. This answers some questions raised by Bryan Anderson:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/15/us/politics/trump-voter-fraud-claims.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

[Julio]

I do fear  that the misinformation and ugly comments which the 'Julios' perpetuate will continue.

Point of clarification ... disagreement is not “ugly” ... disagreement is not hate ... disagreement is not personal attack ... and finally disagreement (or Having a differing opinion) is not misinformation.

However, incessantly speaking evil and lies about President Trump IS a violation of the eighth commandment as well as the Biblical admonition to pray for rulers and all in authority.

Guess other spell checkers foul up forum member names too.🤭