The Theories of the 2020 Election Conspiracy

[Lacius]

Speaking from my own experiences, the first time I saw political corruption with my own eyes was some 25+ years ago, when I was a young child. And what I saw was a politician get caught have homesexual relationships behind his wife's back using his power of office to do so.

It sounds like your issue is with cheaters, not homosexuality. Care to take back your statement yet?

 

[Seliph]

Speaking from my own experiences, the first time I saw political corruption with my own eyes was some 25+ years ago, when I was a young child. And what I saw was a politician get caught have homesexual relationships behind his wife's back using his power of office to do so.

Basically, if you have something to hide, become a politician so you have more power to hide it. If you have nothing to hide, stay away from politics because the corruption is seeded deep.

Dude just admit that you're homophobic

 

[Lacius]

Dude just admit that you're homophobic

Don't get your hopes up. This is a guy who created a thread about a conspiracy theory, called it a conspiracy theory, and won't admit to being a conspiracy theorist.

 

[tthousand]

Dude just admit that you're homophobic

I cannot. I never have been. But I am against lying and using the power of office to do things you should not be doing.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Again, I suppose I could have said hidden, but I figured that was implied. I apologize for the misunderstanding my assumption created.

 

[koim]

The point about Dominion's machines can be pretty much summed up by Sidney Powell's lawsuit in Wisconsin. Most counties she complained about DID NOT use them and the other two... were won by Trump ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

🤦‍♂️ Wisconsin's response to Sidney Powell's lawsuit points out that the Dominion voting machine she says were part of a big election-rigging plot weren't used in most of the counties she's complaining about, and in the two that did use them, Trump won. pic.twitter.com/XgZgHRYtVF

— Brad Heath (@bradheath) December 8, 2020

 

[djpannda]

The point about Dominion's machines can be pretty much summed up by Sidney Powell's lawsuit in Wisconsin. Most counties she complained about DID NOT use them and the other two... were won by Trump ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/1336116867845517312

oh... maybe thats why she being sued for 4. BILLION DOLARS ...

 

[Julie_Pilgrim]

For those who wish to have conversation... (if you do not want to listen, then do not expect to be heard)

The Theories of the 2020 Election Conspiracy

View attachment 245982 ​

Disclaimer: As with all theories, both sides of truth and lie can be argued. I make no claims that the below is 100% truth, but I recommend you seek the truth for yourself, as that is the only way to true understanding.

Where to begin... there are a lot of deep state theories of conspiracy in the US, and for that matter, around the world as well. History is often written by the victor, and many times in history facts have been hidden to coincide with the given narrative. Instead of listing previous theories that are still very relevant to this day, let's jump right into the 2020 election.

Firstly, there are many claims that there was some form of voter fraud, whether they be minor or widespread. Some have already been arrested for fraud this election, and at the same time there are both current cases and future cases that will help decide what really happened last year. With so many signed affidavits, it is at least worth questioning the validity of this election. If you look at the recent past, you see Democrats have constantly contested the election every single time their party was not elected President.

Why not look deeply into the election and lay to rest the claims of fraud? Why does media claim Trump "lost" all these court cases, when the truth of the matter is the court cases can neither be considered won or lost? I have heard that most of the cases that were actually heard were won. It is not hard to imagine why coverage is sparse, given the relationship with the left and the main stream media.

Let's talk about the Dominion voting machines. It is widely contested that these systems are not only easily hack-able, but also were not up to the government standards for use in the first place. The is a signed affidavit from an official in Italy that not only admits to using the Dominion system to hack the election, but in his confession he explains how it was done as well.

Is it really a coincidence there were two major power outages in Pakistan and Italy back to back, when those two countries were the main suspects in the vote fraud?

How long is the national guard going to stay in DC? Why is there no official answer to that question?

Why was there not more support for the Capitol police during the break-in on January 6th, when officials were told to expect an attack? Why, when more support was offered, was it denied?

Well, that is a start for now. I am sure there are some things I forgot to mention.

To somewhat quote Jon Stewart,"this is not even ignorant. This is like ignorance resin. Like, if you just take all of the stupid and just cook it down, and then scrape just the pure ignorance. Like crystal "duh." It's like crystal "duh."

 

[Plasmaster09]

To somewhat quote Jon Stewart,"this is not even ignorant. This is like ignorance resin. Like, if you just take all of the stupid and just cook it down, and then scrape just the pure ignorance. Like crystal "duh." It's like crystal "duh."

yeah honestly someone needs to call in a moderator
threads like this need to die before the dipshits behind them get any funny ideas about having won an argument they refused to even properly participate in

 

[Julie_Pilgrim]

Gay people don't care how you feel

LGBTQ(bi/non-binary to be exact)person here, can confirm

 

[Plasmaster09]

LGBTQ (bi/non-binary to be exact) person here, can confirm

ace here, second that- in fact, I specifically give less than zero fucks about the unstable emotions of delusional, fallacy-brained Trumpnuts whose entire being depends on the quotes of the day from their favorite alt-right talking heads whom simultaneously refuse to admit they are a) a Trumpnut, b) a Republican at all (somehow), c) a conspiracy theorist and d) not the center of the universe.

also ohhhh that's why the "nyan-binary" title

 

[notimp]

Firstly, there are many claims that there was some form of voter fraud, whether they be minor or widespread. Some have already been arrested for fraud this election, and at the same time there are both current cases and future cases that will help decide what really happened last year. With so many signed affidavits, it is at least worth questioning the validity of this election. If you look at the recent past, you see Democrats have constantly contested the election every single time their party was not elected President.

Why not look deeply into the election and lay to rest the claims of fraud? Why does media claim Trump "lost" all these court cases, when the truth of the matter is the court cases can neither be considered won or lost?

Layed out partly in here:
https://gbatemp.net/threads/donald-trumps-d-c-speach-01-06-2021.580449/#post-9321894

(We talked about it in the past. )

So here once more as a rough run down:

More than a third of his accusations (the most 'relevant' ones, from an outsiders (mine ) perspective, and also the ones Trump started his arguments with), are proposed (as in alleged) voter suppression, or reverse voter suppression cases.

So PR, or organisational action thats aimed at getting more (or fewer) people (in certain counties) to the polls.

Same thing that f.e. targeted facebook advertising does before elections (which is problematic btw. - when it concerns negative campaigning)

He then filled those up with anecdotes "as seen on TV" (but didnt point out, how telling those went down in court), and ongoing court cases (but didnt tell that he lost, 90+% of the ones he brought forward).

Then he used that - at the most inopportune time possible (the latest possible moment), to get crowd action going - to, arguably, topple the election, or at least produce a culminating, emotional mass event.

And in the end he produced, hundreds, literally hundreds of reasons, for why the election would be illegitimate - but did in no way differenciate, the likely ones, the at least probable ones, from by then refuted ones, lies, rumors (voting machine malfeasance, ...), ones the courts threw out, ones that didnt scale, ... and so on.


Looking at the reasons he gave that are hardest to completely refute (largely around voter supression, or reverse voter suppression) - on those he only stated the ones that would have benefited him. But there are known ones out there (voter registration incongruencies, gerrymandering) that are known, and in place 'on the other political side' - which he didnt highlight with even a word.

If you break it down - voter suppression is "fair game" - and on the legally actionable ones, he lost his argument in court, but didnt tell anyone. Then there are the ones that are very high emotion - but entirely made up ("Castro pigeons on dominion voting machines!"), which he mixed in, just to make the cocktail more tasty - and if you ignore all of that and look at the "structural fraud" claims (the ones, where access to one action would have altered many votes targetedly) there is nothing.

So in the end 100 different claims of fraud - add up to maybe 100 different claims of fraud, with maybe up to a few hundreds to a few thousand votes affected. And that includes stuff, like 'human error' (f.e. people in voting places not being instructed correctly by their supervisors). But you would have to take his point, to only look at those - and not instances, where that happend 'for' the other party, and only at exactly enough of those, for him to turn the election result in four states at once.

And thats not how this works.

Essentially - 'problematic' stuff happens, as a result of f.e. human error on all elections, statistically it usually doesnt matter. If you can prove - that you have identified an issue - thats 'big' statistically, thats very much an issue, and very much actionable. (Courts are there to intervene and issue repeat elections, or...) If you bring 100 separate cases that might, or might not have influenced small stuff by different means - and want it layed out in a way where it only affected you negatively - because, of something you cant prove... its different.

And on the voter suppression stuff - actions there, although immoral, are largely legal.

So you are welcome to bring that out - but please not on the day the election is ratified. Because that helps no one. And if you've listened closely - since that Trump speech, republicans largely havent helmed those as a huge issue, because there is other stuff (voter registration inconsitencies, gerrymandering), thats widely known, and that might show, that arguably their side is even more into that stuff. (Compared to alleged "everyone registered with a home address was sent a voting ticket, and not just everyone registered in the voting register" stuff.)


Also - overall, losing your case in the courts, and then trying to summon a mob, at the most inopportune time for the political system (the last possible date), is kind of problematic for democracy - because everything the democratic system is structured to do - takes time.

And Trumps case - specifically - was, 'at some point we might be able to send back the voter delegations in the states we want them to' tell people, that it is because of 'incongruencies', and declare, that that the governors of those states, are now able to pick their electoral votes, by party affiliation and not by voting results.

So the aim was not 'to make this process more transparent', but pressure people into ignoring the voting result, as a result of 'there is public unrest' - and we need to get a functioning administration on track, so we fall back on emergency regulation. At a time, where he failed to make the argument, in court, that there was structural voting fraud.

So... yeah. If you do that - even once - you send out the signal, that you cant have democracy anymore, because you cant hold fair elections. Which in a democratic system... kind of is an issue also.

So you look at how pressing the issues layed out are (some made up, some legal, most none structural) - and you compare that to the harm you would do to peoples believe in the democratic system - and you choose not to enact 'emergency laws' in exactly the four states the president wants you to.

That said, peoples believe in the democratic system just tanked (current polls) either way - because, they always saw democratic elections as 'city on a hill' stuff, where birds chirp, and nothing should go wrong, and where their votes were sacrosanct and... most of them where confronted with stuff like 'voter suppression' even existing for the first time.

Which isnt good - because the next time around they demand that they arent influenced by PR, and that there should be no human error at all, and then you'd have to explain to them, that thats impossible.


Its much the same problem as with 'what the News doesnt tell me the truthTM?" that we had in the fake news argument. People falling from the clouds, that certain problems exist - even within the most perfect system imaginable (separation of power, people looking into alleged mishaps), then losing trust, and complaining that they want better. But if you then tell them, that they demand, that supervisors not instructing their vote counting staff correctly in 2 cases out of a 30.000...

This is why the statistically relevant stuff (fraud that scales in the favor of one side only) is most important, and we didnt see that in this election.

 

[The Catboy]

I have still yet to see any evidence worth a damn to prove there was “mass voter fraud.” Most of the “evidence” doesn’t add up or is completely unreliable, like unverified “witnesses.” I feel like if there was some massive conspiracy we wouldn’t see people like Mitch McConnell getting re-election. It makes no sense to keep many of the same people in power if there was a conspiracy grand enough to overthrow the presidential election.

 

[notimp]

I feel like if there was some massive conspiracy we wouldn’t see people like Mitch McConnell getting re-election.

No one demands proof for feels, right? And you feel that if there was some massive conspiracy, it couldnt have also been complex - so ha, there your proof! Try to argue against that position!

I personally cant.

But it also has the exact same elements as conspiracy theories. Just that you prechecked, what was politically correct to say.

 

[Plasmaster09]

No one demands proof for feels, right? And you feel that if there was some massive conspiracy, it couldnt have also been complex - so ha, there your proof! Try to argue against that position!

I personally cant.

But it also has the exact same elements as conspiracy theories. Just that you prechecked, what was politically correct to say.

All the bullshit election fraud theories claim a vast and complex network of in-some-way fraudulent machines and/or corrupt individuals maintaining or altering them.
You're not even making an argument, you're deflecting to defend a batcrap insane position without admitting it.
Please try harder.

 

[The Catboy]

No one demands proof for feels, right? And you feel that if there was some massive conspiracy, it couldnt have been complex - so ha, there your proof! Try to argue against that position!

I personally cant.

But it also has the exact same elements as conspiracy theories. Just that you prechecked, what was politically correct to say.

I think it’s a reasonable concern to be confused as how the same people who could “steal an election” but then keep roadblocks like Mitch around. That just doesn’t make much sense to have so much power over the presidential election but then leave so many loose ends. It would have made more sense to also stack all branches, otherwise they aren’t really going to accomplish whatever plans they set out with in the process of overthrowing Trump. I am working off the logic that these conspiracy theories are working on. If there is some massive and powerful group of people who can steal a presidential election, then this group should have also stolen the rest of the election. Just taking the President and nothing else doesn’t add to the grand nature of their conspiracies.

LGBTQ(bi/non-binary to be exact)person here, can confirm

Genderfluid and bisexual as well, can also confirm.

 

[Lacius]

There is no evidence of widespread election fraud, and I think this thread should be allowed to die.

 

[notimp]

All the bullshit election fraud theories claim a vast and complex network of in-some-way fraudulent machines and/or corrupt individuals maintaining or altering them.
You're not even making an argument, you're deflecting to defend a batcrap insane position without admitting it.
Please try harder.

Ok. If I would try to spin up a conspiracy - I would try to not make it obvious at first glance.

That said - I'm merely here for semantics, not to indicate that there might have been a conspiracy, that was so complex Trump needed close to 100 reasons (at least a third of them manufactured), to make a point in his pre Capitol storming speech.

The best "thing" protecting you from inticrate "layered" conspiracies, where you drove multiple illicit elements towards a targeted outcome - is the electorals system that doesnt make it trivial to predict future 'key states'.

So hey, maybe the left wingers are correct, and it really was 'community campaigning' that brought the Biden win in the end this time around. Point being, you dont know - what it will be until after the fact. An due to this, you dont know, what states would be easy to win, with minimal additional effort.

Because your campaigning, up to the last week influences outcome.

Its easy to act like Trump and threaten officials after the fact to 'bring me 11.000 votes". Its hard to know where you only needed 11.000 before the fact.

So to drive schemes to layer conspiracies, that dont scale by themselves, in counties you dont know the outcome of, is the stupidest idea ever.

That said - none of this has anything to do with "I feel if it were true, the obvious person also would have won" - because, why?

Conspiratorial thinking is "having a feeling" (which you know is true and drives a large part of your action) and "complexity reduction".

Both of which you find in that statement.

If I'd wanted to be really contrarian, I'd point you at the first part of his Capitol speech, where he lists potential voter supression, and reverse voter suppression (get more people to vote, by sending out more ballots, even when not requested) schemes, that are harder to disprove - but Trump did so selectively. (So he didnt hint at the ones helmed by his party. Historically. Which is also why the 'but he told people how the system really works' argument doesnt fly. He told them, very selectively. (If at all, because I also agree, that at least one third of his accusations were entirely baseless.))

 

[Plasmaster09]

I think it’s a reasonable concern to be confused as how the same people could “steal an election” but then keep roadblocks like Mitch around. That just doesn’t make much sense to have so much power over the presidential election but then leave so many loose ends. It would have made more sense to also stack all branches, otherwise they aren’t really going to accomplish whatever plans they set out with in the process of overthrowing Trump. I am working off the logic that these conspiracy theories are working on. If there is some massive and powerful group of people who can steal a presidential election, then this group should have also stolen the rest of the election. Just taking the President and nothing else doesn’t add to the grand nature of their conspiracies.

yeah I don't get it
sure, Biden's win was a comparative landslide that hit so hard that the nation got geographically blue-balled just as much as every last person in it was metaphorically blue-balled waiting for it to finally end...
but we're still practically held hostage by the Republican minority due to not truly having the Senate.
look at a historical election that's actually been PROVEN fraudulent, or one in an authoritarian nation where they're basically just for show, and it's so painfully obviously one-sided that it's not even funny
like, 100% voter turnout with one candidate getting every last vote levels of ridiculous
nobody would go through with a vast, possibly international voter fraud scheme to win ONE presidential election and not even bother taking back the Senate majority for fucks sake

Ok. If I would try to spin up a conspiracy - I would try to not make it obvious at first glance.

That said - I merely here for semantics, not to indicate that there might have been a conspiracy, that was so complex Trump needed close to 100 reasons (at least a third of them manufactured), to make a point in his pre Capitol storming speech.

The best "thing" protecting you from inticrate "layered" conspiracies, where you drove multiple illicit elements towards a targeted outcome - is the electorals system what doesnt make it trivial to predict future 'key states'.

So hey, maybe the left wingers are correct, and it really was 'community campaigning' that brought the Biden win in the end this time around. Point being, you dont know - what it will be until after the fact. An due to this, you dont know, what states would be easy to win, with minimal additional effort.

Because your campaigning, up to the last week influences outcome.

Its easy to act like trump and threaten officials after the fact to 'bring be 11.000 votes". Its hard to know you only needed 11.000 before the fact.

So to drive schemes to layer conspiracies, that dont scale in counties you dont know the outcome, is the stupidest idea ever.

That said - none of this has anything to do with "I feel if it were true, the obvious person also would have won" - because, why?

Conspiratorial thinking is "having a feeling" (which you know is true and drives a large part of your action) and "complexity reduction".

Both of which you find in that statement.

the fuck are you even saying
I can't even interpret half of this because of how awful the syntax and grammar is, but I can SMELL the motte-and-baileying, ass-backpedaling, off-JAQing bullshit strong enough to functionally destroy the human brain at ten paces

 

[notimp]

I think it’s a reasonable concern to be confused as how the same people who could “steal an election” but then keep roadblocks like Mitch around.

How about "he is loyal"? But then I dont believe the election was stolen. I cant argue against logic, thats based on a feeling, that if there was such a thing as a conspiracy, surely they would have cut Mitch out based on, that hes seen as a roadblock (by whom?).

 

[The Catboy]

How about "he is loyal"? But then I dont believe the election was stolen. I cant argue against logic, thats based on a feeling and somehow knowing, that if there was such a thing as a conspiracy, because surely they would have cut Mitch out based on, that hes seen as a roadblock (by whom?).

The issue with that logic is that it still doesn’t make much sense. Mitch is an obstructionist and doesn’t seem to want to cooperate with Democrats. During the Covid talks he was a constant obstacle to the Democrats. He’s been an obstacle since taking office. If the election was stolen by Democrats, then keeping someone who constantly stands in their way makes no sense. The only way it would make sense is if this conspiracy goes even further back before 2020/2016 elections and he was just playing some long game here. That seems like a very serious stretch of the imagination. In short, it makes no sense to keep someone like him if their goals were some government takeover.