Author Topic: Election Results  (Read 37099 times)

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1300 on: January 16, 2021, 10:58:43 AM »
In an unexpected result of the election, and one that is being overshadowed by the rest of the sh!tshow that is this presidency, the current administration is rushing to execute as many people as possible in an orgy of killings before the Biden inauguration.

Since he lost the election, Trump has had more inmates killed than had been executed by other administrations in more than 60 years.  This is completely arbitrary, and completely obscene.

They're also adding a bunch of groups/countries to the terrorism watch list to make it harder for the Biden administration to engage in diplomacy. Cuba is an example. They are making waves in Taiwan with China as well.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1301 on: January 25, 2021, 09:04:25 AM »
And now Dominion has filed suit against Rudy. For the same 1.3 billion.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/dominion-voting-systems-sues-trump-124315010.html

I wonder how long before Trump gets sued.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1302 on: January 25, 2021, 12:38:02 PM »
I wonder if Rudy will opt for "trial by combat".  Supposedly, that's an option.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1303 on: February 02, 2021, 06:58:39 PM »

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1304 on: February 02, 2021, 09:18:16 PM »
Newmax censors the My Pillow Guy.

Ho cac!  They're trying to silence the My Pillow Guy.  Definitely a violation of his 1st amendment rights. 

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1305 on: February 02, 2021, 10:18:23 PM »
sounds like newsmax isn't eager to get a piece of the 1.3 billion lawsuit.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1306 on: February 03, 2021, 02:26:56 PM »
And it looks like Mike Lindell, the My Pillow Guy, is just begging for a piece of that lawsuit.  ;D

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1307 on: February 03, 2021, 02:41:18 PM »
I am almost sure it is coming. They have warned him to stop or they will sue. From what I understand to win a defamation suit you have to first tell the subject of the suit to stop what they are doing. If they do not then you can file.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/18/dominion-mike-lindell-mypillow/

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1308 on: February 03, 2021, 02:46:40 PM »
I doubt a cease request is required, it probably makes winning a lawsuit easier though.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1309 on: February 03, 2021, 02:50:18 PM »
I heard it said somewhere that it removed the defense of "We did not know the other people were upset with us".

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1310 on: February 03, 2021, 02:56:42 PM »
I heard it said somewhere that it removed the defense of "We did not know the other people were upset with us".

I don't think ignorance is a defense against defamation.
.
Doing some reading, it sounds like issuing a cease and desist, might help to establish actual malice.

So 'cease and desist your defamation - here is evidence that what you are saying is a harmful lie' - then you providing the evidence in a cease and desist now can be proof of actual malice if they continue.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2021, 03:02:16 PM by LetterRip »

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1311 on: February 03, 2021, 03:03:47 PM »
Who is this Mike Lindell that anyone thinks he has something to say and should be listened to?

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1312 on: February 03, 2021, 03:11:06 PM »
If you mean in real life, he is the MyPillow guy.  He has been one of the main supporters of the idea that the election was stolen and Trump could use martial law to fix it.

Other than that he has been accused of scams and false advertising for his product, he is a large Rep/Trump donor and used that for access.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1313 on: February 03, 2021, 04:01:21 PM »
If you mean in real life, he is the MyPillow guy.  He has been one of the main supporters of the idea that the election was stolen and Trump could use martial law to fix it.

Other than that he has been accused of scams and false advertising for his product, he is a large Rep/Trump donor and used that for access.

Why would anyone care to listen to his opinions. Are the media forums where he is interviewed making fun of him or do they really believe that he has something important to say.
Their used to be this idea of discernment and that a person you might seek advice from might have some qualification about what they are talking about. 

What the hell are we (society) doing when we are more appt to listen to or seek comment from someone that places their trust in some a shadowy anonymous (QAnon) persons prognostications on the dangers of trusting shadowy conspires. (like perhaps themselves)  A person that likely doesn't realize the absurdity of it all.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2021, 04:07:54 PM by rightleft22 »

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1314 on: February 03, 2021, 05:47:55 PM »
If you mean in real life, he is the MyPillow guy.  He has been one of the main supporters of the idea that the election was stolen and Trump could use martial law to fix it.

Other than that he has been accused of scams and false advertising for his product, he is a large Rep/Trump donor and used that for access.

Why would anyone care to listen to his opinions. Are the media forums where he is interviewed making fun of him or do they really believe that he has something important to say.
Their used to be this idea of discernment and that a person you might seek advice from might have some qualification about what they are talking about. 

What the hell are we (society) doing when we are more appt to listen to or seek comment from someone that places their trust in some a shadowy anonymous (QAnon) persons prognostications on the dangers of trusting shadowy conspires. (like perhaps themselves)  A person that likely doesn't realize the absurdity of it all.

When he's invited to speak at a podium bearing the Presidential seal, and the President of the United States is standing over his shoulder? When 40% of the country worships him as an entrepreneurial genius mostly because he's friends with Trump?mn bbb

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1315 on: February 08, 2021, 12:34:32 PM »
If you mean in real life, he is the MyPillow guy.  He has been one of the main supporters of the idea that the election was stolen and Trump could use martial law to fix it.

Other than that he has been accused of scams and false advertising for his product, he is a large Rep/Trump donor and used that for access.

Why would anyone care to listen to his opinions. Are the media forums where he is interviewed making fun of him or do they really believe that he has something important to say.
Their used to be this idea of discernment and that a person you might seek advice from might have some qualification about what they are talking about. 

What the hell are we (society) doing when we are more appt to listen to or seek comment from someone that places their trust in some a shadowy anonymous (QAnon) persons prognostications on the dangers of trusting shadowy conspires. (like perhaps themselves)  A person that likely doesn't realize the absurdity of it all.

When he's invited to speak at a podium bearing the Presidential seal, and the President of the United States is standing over his shoulder? When 40% of the country worships him as an entrepreneurial genius mostly because he's friends with Trump?mn bbb


the reason Mike Lindell is a target of the Left today is because he made the effort to find evidence of election fraud. The video is at https://michaeljlindell.com/?fbclid=IwAR35Ca2czgbJNCHHmDcoK7npXbdquOEKuvTZZNBVTf7sQET3yqvy8batfNg and is very good. He has legitimate experts and investigators, and their opinions are not easily debunked. Look at the presentation before you offer the normal knee-jerk reaction - then rebute what you can.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1316 on: February 08, 2021, 12:42:02 PM »
BTW; the reason to listen to those who are not Main Stream Media is because the MSM never investigated. Since the MSM ia no longer an honest source for news, all we had left was alternate sources - then the big Demcrat backers who own the servers decided to block it all.

Since this is the biggest scandal in the history of the country (a proved coup attempt by the intel community) it deserves real scrutiny.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1317 on: February 08, 2021, 12:57:41 PM »
How about you give us the goods that you "good guys" supposedly procured from the servers in Frankfurt and Spain instead after a fight between the DoD and CIA mercenaries?

Or are you trying to make us forget you ever claimed that?

I regret that you also never accepted the 1000:1 bet I offered about who'd get inaugurated as president. I'd be one dollar richer right now.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1318 on: February 08, 2021, 01:33:45 PM »
If you mean in real life, he is the MyPillow guy.  He has been one of the main supporters of the idea that the election was stolen and Trump could use martial law to fix it.

Other than that he has been accused of scams and false advertising for his product, he is a large Rep/Trump donor and used that for access.

Why would anyone care to listen to his opinions. Are the media forums where he is interviewed making fun of him or do they really believe that he has something important to say.
Their used to be this idea of discernment and that a person you might seek advice from might have some qualification about what they are talking about. 

What the hell are we (society) doing when we are more appt to listen to or seek comment from someone that places their trust in some a shadowy anonymous (QAnon) persons prognostications on the dangers of trusting shadowy conspires. (like perhaps themselves)  A person that likely doesn't realize the absurdity of it all.

When he's invited to speak at a podium bearing the Presidential seal, and the President of the United States is standing over his shoulder? When 40% of the country worships him as an entrepreneurial genius mostly because he's friends with Trump?mn bbb


the reason Mike Lindell is a target of the Left today is because he made the effort to find evidence of election fraud. The video is at https://michaeljlindell.com/?fbclid=IwAR35Ca2czgbJNCHHmDcoK7npXbdquOEKuvTZZNBVTf7sQET3yqvy8batfNg and is very good. He has legitimate experts and investigators, and their opinions are not easily debunked. Look at the presentation before you offer the normal knee-jerk reaction - then rebute what you can.

Why don't you refute one of these things, and then maybe I'd find it worthwhile to watch Lindell vomit up speculative fiction.

Quote
Over the course of the video, Lindell interviews a series of "cyber forensic experts," many of whom Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani featured as witnesses during his long campaign to overturn the election. Lindell’s guests include Russell Ramsland, a former Republican congressional candidate who authored an error-ridden affidavit that mistook Minnesota voting precincts for Michigan ones; Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai, who has spread conspiracy theories in the past and continues to call himself the inventor of email despite heavy pushback from technology experts; and Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, who has falsely claimed that COVID-19 was a biological weapon.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1319 on: February 08, 2021, 02:46:32 PM »
...Why don't you refute one of these things, and then maybe I'd find it worthwhile to watch Lindell vomit up speculative fiction.

Let me get this straight. You declare the facts have been debunked when they were never allowed to be presented in court?

You do not want to look at the Lindell video, not because your time is so valuable, but because your are afraid to even look at it. I see this as evidence that you bought into the democrat strategy of the Democrats with Big Tech to hide anything worth seeing so they don't need to confront it. Did you see in the video where the expert stated in a legal affidavit that he had the info on that server in Frankfort you claim doesn't exist? Here in Michigan, one of the limited efforts to get at true facts was allowed to go through, and the evidence was supported. Many people can be on the wrong side of history. Do you really want to be a party to this coup?

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1320 on: February 08, 2021, 02:51:31 PM »
I am going to try and watch it tonight, but just the first 5 minutes of that guy talking gave me a headache.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1321 on: February 08, 2021, 02:56:42 PM »
Quote
Did you see in the video where the expert stated in a legal affidavit that he had the info on that server in Frankfort you claim doesn't exist

SHOW US THE *censored*ING DATA ALREADY, and stop babbling about random liars spewing lies in "legal affidavits", as if that means anything.

No, I didn't watch your *censored*ing video, because I've repeatedly wasted my time debunking every single one of your claims, and they've all been easily debunked.

Brad R doesn't have a brother.
Ware county officials didn't find discrepancies
There wasn't a raid in Frankfurt or Spain.

You don't get any more freebies. You don't get a single minute of our time, to watch any more bull*censored* lies from your bull*censored* liars.

You have the data from the supposed server? Good, put them in a zip, upload them in an internet service, let us see them.

If not, shut the *censored* up. And *censored* your supposed "legal affidavits". Seriously *censored* them. The lies of your favorite liars don't mean anything. You can't even convince your own side about them.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1322 on: February 08, 2021, 03:00:17 PM »
And just to let everyone know, I do not expect to find any real evidence.  With the legal "Dream" Team Trump has if they had any real evidence they would have found the correct court where someone has standing and presented the evidence.  They have not. It has been 3 months and nothing.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1323 on: February 08, 2021, 03:10:23 PM »
Does someone know where I can look at the video without downloading it onto my computer?

That doesn't seem to be a safe way to view it.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1324 on: February 08, 2021, 03:12:11 PM »
WmLambert's link lets you watch it with out downloading it.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1325 on: February 08, 2021, 03:14:30 PM »
Here is more sfter-the-fact corroboration of the fraud: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/02/fact-checking-phony-fact-checkers-gateway-pundits-explosive-michigan-tcf-center-reporting-absolututely-shows-voter-fraud/

Of course anything that speaks against the Biden coup is cendsored.:

Quote
Fact-Checking the Phony Fact-Checkers: The Gateway Pundit’s Explosive Michigan, TCF Center Reporting ABSOLUTELY Shows Voter Fraud
By Ben Wetmore
Published February 7, 2021 at 4:22pm

On Friday The Gateway Pundit released newly discovered and explosive video from the TCF Center in Detroit, Michigan on election night November 4th.  The video shows vehicles making late night ballot deliveries after the 8 PM deadline in the state.

Two outlets performed so-called “Fact Checks” of the Gateway Pundit video exclusive which shows the van performing the 3:30AM Biden Ballot Dump in Detroit on election night. According to The Detroit Free Press, Politifact, and Deadline Detroit (the “Three Stooges”) the videos we released on Friday do not show fraud.

Their flawed reasoning:
This Day In History

TRENDING: EXCLUSIVE: Suspicious Vehicle Seen Escorting Late Night Biden Ballot Van at TCF Center on Election Night (VIDEO)

    Even though the ballots are nearly eight (8) hours past the lawful election deadline, they *might* have been collected at 7:59PM. And since City of Detroit official Chris Thomas signed an affidavit stating as much, then suggestions of fraud are “false.”

But there’s no evidence there was a proper chain of custody on the 3:30AM Biden Ballot Dump.  The stooges also refuse to consider several other eyewitness accounts showing these were highly suspicious and likely illegal ballots. And those eyewitnesses to voter fraud outnumber, and have better credibility, than Detroit Official Chris Thomas.

The media “fact checks” are carefully crafted hit-pieces used to discredit, and ultimately silence, the Gateway Pundit; and provide a basis for others to attack as well.  Yesterday, Twitter permanently banned Gateway Pundit Publisher Jim Hoft likely because of these videos.  Other entities like NewsGuard, Sleeping Giants, and others, use “fact check” propaganda like this to lobby the GP’s advertisers to abandon the Gateway Pundit.  This is how totalitarians operate: crushing dissenting truth-tellers.  This is how the ruling oligarchy in this country operates: Exposing the truth is a crime and must be punished.

But was the Gateway Pundit wrong in its claims or reporting?

No.

The Pundit was completely accurate. And Clara Hendrickson of the Free Press, as well as the authors of the cowardly unsigned article at Deadline Detroit, which relied solely on the Hendrickson/Free Press for its reporting, should be ashamed of themselves for such journalistic malpractice. Hendrickson’s reporting was copied and pasted into the Politifact fact check that was similarly wrong and relied entirely on Chris Thomas’ affidavit.

The Gateway Pundit has reported extensively on 2020 election fraud. Its TCF video and story showcases the uncovered evidence, documented and discussed in those stories. But the media when “fact-checking,” like to narrowly focus on one item and purposefully ignore the necessary context to properly consider whether or not the reporting is accurate.

Advertisement - story continues below

The claim is rated “false” by left-wing reporters because Hendrickson takes all nuance and context away from the story, and sloppily patches two simple facts together: (1) we don’t know when the ballots showing up at 3:30AM were actually received by the City of Detroit; and (2) City of Detroit official Chris Thomas says nothing was wrong.

Detroit City Official Chris Thomas is lying in his Affidavit, here’s how we know:

RELATED: "Leaving Them In is a Death Sentence" - Activist asks Trump to Pardon Conservative Political Prisoners

    Thomas claims there were only 45 boxes delivered, when the 3:30AM Biden Ballot Dump had 61 as observed by multiple witnesses and evident in the security camera footage. In the video you can observe and count 61 boxes, exactly as our witnesses described the week after the election!
    Most explosively, we now know there was not just one, but TWO Biden Ballot Dumps by the City of Detroit “Vote Mobile” arriving at 3:30AM and 4:30AM. These ballots were extremely suspicious, were all for Biden, and took Trump’s commanding lead in Michigan to a significant defeat.
    City of Detroit whistleblowers have come forward to say the City was pushing every ballot possible through and counting those ballots, regardless of whether they were valid or not, ignoring state law.
    Thomas claims the process was legitimate and secured throughout, and we now know that the process was flawed at almost every step, and that there was no secure chain of custody.

Chris Thomas has the most serious and obvious motive to lie: he’s Detroit Clerk Janice Winfrey’s assistant. None of the whistleblowers have the motive to lie, many of whom are very scared of career, economic and physical threats.

Advertisement - story continues below

But Hendrickson and others use Thomas’ affidavit to completely ignore any of these important witnesses. And she barely acknowledges at all that other witnesses and other evidence corroborates their statements.

Here’s the basic logic that Hendrickson lacks and the journalistic curiosity she never developed:

    Why would ballots be showing up to the TCF Center nearly 8 hours after the legal deadline?
    Did anyone on the ground witness what was going on?
    Were there witnesses inside the TCF Center who saw how those ballots were processed and whether they seemed legitimate
    Why did the media lie for months about the 3:30AM Biden Ballot Drop? At one point saying it was just “camera equipment” and at one point saying it was just chicken tenders? The “fact check” organizations even laughably rated any claim that there was a ballot drop as false at one point. Hendrickson gets to move the goalposts and doesn’t even tell her readers she’s doing it. They ‘debunked’ one wagon with cameras in the front of TCF and focused on that to cover up the white van delivering ballots in the cargo area of TCF, which is what every serious witness was saying.
    What if Chris Thomas is lying?
    What if the Pundit could prove Chris Thomas is lying?
    Would their entire “fact-check” bull**** narrative collapse if the Pundit could show Chris Thomas is lying?

TCF election witness Jose Aliaga has repeatedly said that the 3:30AM Biden Ballot Dump was almost all absentee ballots from what he observed.

Advertisement - story continues below

Aliaga noted that all the ballots were done in exclusively black ink, whereas earlier in the day they were in both blue and black ink.

All the ballots, Aliaga says, were for Joe Biden and Democrat Senate incumbent Gary Peters.

All the ballots were ‘undervoting’ the rest of the ballot, meaning they inexplicably left every other race blank.

And Aliaga said he felt the ballot selection boxes were filled in almost perfectly, whereas normal ballots had a more unpredictable look.

QR Code inventor Jovan Hutton Pulitzer has said perfectly-filled boxes is a major indication of fraud.

Absentees, as multiple TCF witnesses have said, were counted first on election day the day prior, not last as these ballots were counted. This means that this huge influx of absentees were way out of place, since they should have been the first and not last counted.

As well, courageous City of Detroit whistleblower Jessy Jacob came forward, by affidavit and by testimony, to say that the Detroit Zuckerberg ballot boxes were checked and cleared every single hour and then were supposed to be locked promptly at 8:00PM. Meaning there should *not* have been 15,000, 150,000, or more absentee ballots left remaining to be checked until 3:30AM.

The ballot deadline was 8:00PM as set by state law, and reiterated through court cases. The Democrats wanted to count every ballot no matter when it arrived, even if days later, and that was their position in court. But the court said that no ballot received after 8:00PM could be accepted as valid, this is why that time is so important.

Another credible City of Detroit whistleblower, afraid for repercussions and so not quoted on the record, has come forward to exclusively tell the Gateway Pundit that they personally witnessed people in Detroit stuffing the Zuckerberg boxes after the legal 8:00PM deadline and that the boxes were NOT locked as the City of Detroit has maintained in legal filings.

Hendrickson does not bother her readers with the relevant context that the courts had said, over Democrat objections, that late-arriving ballots after the 8:00PM deadline could not be counted. Thus there is a very strong incentive to claim that all ballots were received prior to the deadline, and we know that the preference of the clerks was to count and accept late ballots.

Jessy Jacob also said that virtually no controls were in place checking ballots for legal accuracy, primarily signature verification or checking addresses. She has maintained that they were told to push all the ballots through and not reject any. Indeed, the ‘rejection rate’ for ballots was at a record low, seeming to corroborate the substance of Jacob’s allegations.

Jacob says she was also told to backdate applications so that they would appear to have arrived earlier than the deadline for ballots.

In the affidavit that every fact check is relying upon, the one from Chris Thomas, who is the assistant to Detroit Clerk Janice Winfrey, he says there was one delivery of 45 boxes, including 16,000 ballots, early in the morning. Even though the video shows 61 boxes for the 3:30AM Biden Ballot Drop. He is admitting that because the Pundit reported the 3:30AM Biden Ballot Dump within a week of it happening, and documented it by publishing video testimonials from other similar witnesses.

The problem for Thomas, Clara Hendrickson, and for the City of Detroit is that we now know they’re all lying, or they are part of the voter fraud cover-up.

Chris Thomas is certainly lying and should be prosecuted for perjury.

We found that there were more than 45 boxes in that delivery as Thomas has claimed. Eyewitnesses say the number was over 50 and many say they counted exactly 61. In the video, we count 61 boxes.  This completely corroborates multiple eyewitness accounts.

But we also found more ballot dumps that we didn’t previously know about.

We know this because the Gateway Pundit spent nearly ten thousand dollars ($10,000) buying all the security camera footage from 3:00-5:00AM and found the 3:30AM Biden Ballot Dump on camera and examined (and still is examining) more than 1,200 hours of video. There wasn’t just one, there were apparently two early morning ballot dumps by the same white City of Detroit van ironically labeled the “Vote Mobile” by its signage entering at 3:23AM, leaving at 3:53AM. And then the SECOND ballot dump was at 4:32AM, where the van leaves at 4:58AM according to the timestamp on the TCF Security Cameras.

The TCF Center loading dock that they came into at 3:30AM had the door open, so people like reporter Shane Trejo and others could see what was happening and ran to report it to the Michigan Republican Party attorneys who were on site. But the door was closed at the other times, so the witnesses did not see them. Chris Thomas only admitted to the one ballot dump that we knew about, apparently never expecting anyone to check the video footage.

The Pundit was the first to report on the 3:30AM Biden Ballot Dump because we talked to NUMEROUS actual witnesses who described their anger and shock at witnessing voter fraud in front of their eyes.
Advertisement - story continues below

The mainstream media avoids having to admit there are eyewitnesses to the 3:30AM Biden Ballot Dump, because then readers would want to hear from those witnesses and determine their credibility. And those witnesses have largely said the exact same thing for months, people who did not know one another prior, who describe the same people, time, details, and specific details of the suspicious ballots. And with their statements on video, you can determine their credibility for yourself.

What’s also interesting is that this tactic of suspicious late-night ballot dumps of supposed absentees used to flip an election where the preferred candidate was behind in election day votes is well-known, so well-known in fact that in Janice Winfrey’s last Democrat primary election she used it against now-Lieutenant Governor Garlin Gilchrist. Gilchrist called the 2016 election process administered by Winfrey “a complete catastrophe.”

We were even concerned that perhaps reporter Shane Trejo and Jose Aliaga saw a different van, or perhaps different people coming out of the van, so we went back to them and asked them the same questions and showed them still pictures and video from the TCF security cameras, and both told the exact same stories they told in November and both said this was the 3:30AM Biden Ballot Dump they remember. Both of them feel completely confident that what they witnessed was the great steal that took Michigan away from Trump, and ultimately the systemic voter fraud that the mainstream media refuses to investigate and illogically (and maliciously) claims does not exist.

By declaring the Pundit’s coverage false these outlets take the question of whether the ballots were legal, an unknown, and declare it safe with no evidence to support that position other than a self-interested statement from one official.

There’s no credible chain of custody on those ballots presented anywhere. The witnesses who saw and ultimately counted those ballots expressed concern about their legitimacy and complained to officials on-site. They knew something was wrong with this late-night ballot delivery and wanted someone to credibly investigate. Now, reporters like Hendrickson are declaring everything false, but the depth of their reporting is to solely rely on one affidavit, talk to no one, and ignore the LEGIONS of witnesses.

Statements by self-interested government officials should be viewed with extreme skepticism. This is especially important when the alternative is an admission of voter fraud. With whistleblowers like Jessy Jacob risking their careers to tell the truth, they should be given at least a fair review and not arrogantly dismissed out of hand.  Instead, The Stooge “fact checkers” serve as the rubber stamp propagandists for Detroit – one of the most corrupt and mismanaged cities in the Western Hemisphere.  Say the Stooges to an doubting public: “nothing to see here, move along.”

The Thomas affidavit comes from the court hearing held before Wayne County Judge Tim Kenny, who weighed the various affidavits submitted and said that he found the Wayne County ones “more credible.”

Judge Kenny did not have a hearing, hear testimony, and take evidence. He merely disposed of the case based on the documents provided to him. He did such poor legal work, that the Michigan Supreme Court reprimanded him in this case and ordered him to have a real, substantive, hearing. None of the primary reporting that uses the hearing to dismiss witnesses, including Hendrickson’s, provides this important, relevant, and necessary context.

    …the trial court should meaningfully assess plaintiffs’ allegations by an evidentiary hearing, particularly with respect to the credibility of the competing affiants, as well as resolve necessary legal issues…

Judge Kenny has never held that substantive hearing.

These reporting oversights and mistakes are not minor or insignificant, and they are not facts that a reporter seeking to ‘debunk’ a story of this magnitude should do with one affidavit and one assumption that all government officials are ethical and honest. With so little context offered by Hendrickson, almost her entire article is lacking important context by virtue of the lazy work she provided. 

Let’s examine how bad Clara Hendrickson is at journalism.  Her article ‘debunking’ the Pundit was completely unbalanced and without context. She completely ignored the important testimonies of reporter Shane Trejo, Jose Aliaga, and Jessy Jacob. She never bothered emailing or calling these important witnesses. She didn’t bother reaching out to any author of these articles from the Pundit.  And she engaged in premature conclusions and wrongly assuming bad faith on behalf of the Pundit, ultimately defaming the Pundit for reporting accurately.

Her piece is so superficial and misleading.  She provides her readers with no context or meaningful examination of the evidence.  She pontificates that the Pundit article is false by nitpicking what should otherwise be obvious: ballots eight (8) hours legally late are presumptively suspicious!

And in what should be considered the cardinal sin of these presumptuous, arrogant mainstream media fact-checkers –  who don’t even deign to call reporters, publishers, witnesses or even to bring new facts to the situation – she declares something ‘false’ which is, using only the facts she cherry-picks, at best ambiguous. There is no way to know whether those ballots were legal unless she called as a journalist and found a valid, credible, chain of custody on those ballots. Instead, she relies on an affidavit from a source obviously motivated to lie: Chris Thomas from the City of Detroit.  She ignored all of the evidence, documentation and actual journalism performed by the Gateway Pundit.

When the entire weight of social media, big tech, multinational corporations, among others, are punishing, threatening, deplatforming those who dare to discuss FACTS and WITNESSES to the official narrative, you would think Clara Hendrickson would do more than rely on one affidavit from someone as compromised as Chris Thomas and summarily dismiss everyone else. But you’d be wrong, because that’s sufficient for her to label it all ‘false’ and tell readers to simply move on.

Clara Hendrickson is smarter than her story. Her strategy was to frame the story for people whose confirmation bias would allow them to write-off the obvious missing context in her story.

We rate her fact check as: journalistic malpractice, and complete disgrace to the field of journalism.
We exposed the fraud at the TCF Center.  These suspicious illicit ballots should NEVER have been allowed into the center and counted for Joe Biden for a number of legal reasons!

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1326 on: February 08, 2021, 03:16:58 PM »
BTW; the reason to listen to those who are not Main Stream Media is because the MSM never investigated. Since the MSM ia no longer an honest source for news, all we had left was alternate sources - then the big Demcrat backers who own the servers decided to block it all.

Since this is the biggest scandal in the history of the country (a proved coup attempt by the intel community) it deserves real scrutiny.

I'm not sure what qualifies as Main Stream Media anymore. I suspect you mean Media that can still be held accountable for the information in the stories they report on. 
Your right, better to trust some Joe Schmo Q who remains anonymous or someone that made money selling pillows.

How is that different then thinking opinions of Celebrities matter because their celebrities .. Next your going to tell me you think a Reality TV star would make a great President, someone you can relate to because he sounds and thinks just like you. Oh wait   

Search hard enough and you will find someone supporting your conspires theories, Someone who dresses them up just the way you want to see them. The probelm with echo chamers is that you can't hear anyone but yourself.  You might want to ask yourself who is gas lighting who?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1327 on: February 08, 2021, 03:31:47 PM »
Not worth my time trying to convince a brick wall, but others might find this amusing.

Quote
A video shared widely online shows a man closing the back of a white van early Wednesday and wheeling a box into a Detroit ballot-counting location with a red wagon. As he walks away, a woman recording says the box “looks like one of those lockboxes” and implies that he might be illegally bringing ballots inside.

That man was a photographer for WXYZ, Detroit’s ABC affiliate, and the box was the equipment he was transporting into the TCF Center.

The video, posted by the conservative website Texas Scorecard and allegedly filmed by a member of Lawyers for Trump, has been shared online thousands of times and viewed on YouTube nearly 200,000 times by Thursday afternoon.

That's the quality of the Trumpian eye witnesses across the board.

Then the most basic observation of all.

Quote
An article from the conservative news website The Gateway Pundit claims that a video from the TCF Center where Detroit election workers counted absentee ballots cast by the city’s voters "shows late night deliveries of tens of thousands of illegal ballots 8 hours after deadline."

The article claims that the video is "proof of fraud in Detroit." The video appears to show a white van at the TCF Center early in the morning on Nov. 4 containing ballots that were unloaded and brought into the counting room at the TCF Center. There is no evidence of anything nefarious.

In Michigan, voters had until 8 p.m. on Election Day to return absentee ballots. The deadline was for casting ballots, not delivering or counting them.

A sworn affidavit written by Christopher Thomas, the former Michigan Director of Elections who worked at the TCF Center, in response to a lawsuit against the city says that no late-arriving ballots were ever counted.

"No absentee ballots received after the deadline of 8 p.m. on November 3, 2020, were received by or processed at the TCF Center. Only ballots received by the deadline were processed," Thomas wrote.

If they were going to stuff the ballot box, I'm not really sure why they would irrationally wait to deliver them late at night, when fraudulent absentee ballots could easily have been delivered days earlier whether in a van or by US post. So keeping score, they are so clever nobody can deliver any significant evidence, but so stupid that they expose their nefarious deeds?

kidv

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1328 on: February 08, 2021, 06:59:01 PM »

WmLambert's wall of text above describes with colorful language that the courts and other journalists have relied extensively (or almost exclusively) on the affidavit of Christopher Thomas to overcome affidavits of others who claim fishy maneuverings in the counting or delivery of Detroit ballots.  I would say that in reviewing Supreme Court briefs and arguments and news stories I came across the affidavit of Christopher Thomas and found myself convinced that he knew what he was talking about and (for his part) dispelled concerns I had seen raised by people who didn't necessarily know what was going on.  So I am sure that if Mr. Thomas were completely lying, that would be a problem.  But I do think it would be worthwhile to read Mr. Thomas' affidavit and compare it to those statements of people raising issues he contests, as you struggle to discern who may be truthful.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163437/20201210163842796_City%20of%20Detroit%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf  You may find the affidavit of Mr. Thomas at pp. 69-83 of the linked pdf, which is the city of Detroit's amicus brief filed in the Supreme Court in Texas v. Pennsylvania.  If you're interested and read more of that document, you'll find a lot of other interesting material, including the opinions of the trial court, (and the Michigan Supreme Court) concerning voter fraud cases in Michigan.

Because I'd read the trial opinion that Mr. Thomas' affidavit was attached to, and as long as we're weighing credibility of people we don't know and haven't met, I was interested to see WmLambert's wall of text declare that the Supreme Court of Michigan as having excoriated the trial judge of that case (Costantino v Detroit, no. 162245), and that the case wasn't over!  Had the court really said that? I'd like to know! That would be something worth knowing:

"Judge Kenny did not have a hearing, hear testimony, and take evidence. He merely disposed of the case based on the documents provided to him. He did such poor legal work, that the Michigan Supreme Court reprimanded him in this case and ordered him to have a real, substantive, hearing. None of the primary reporting that uses the hearing to dismiss witnesses, including Hendrickson’s, provides this important, relevant, and necessary context." Ben Wetmore, Gateway Pundit, "Fact Checking the fact checkers . . ." via WmLambert (bold added)

Well, here's the opinion of the Michigan Supreme Court, sure enough!
https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/162245-2020-11-23-or.pdf

The actual complete opinion of the Michigan Supreme Court says:

"On order of the Court, the motions for immediate consideration and the motion to
file supplemental response are GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the
November 16, 2020 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED,
because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this
Court."  (id.)

There are 7 judges on the Michigan Supreme Court.  That was the complete majority opinion of 4 of those judges.  2 other judges wrote a concurring opinion (same link), in which I found no denigration of the trial court, but which urged him to quickly conduct an evidentiary hearing.  (The case is still pending; the trial court did not dismiss the case, but denied a preliminary injunction). [So we will get a formal day in court, if the plaintiffs pursue their case.  And then we'll get another formal opinion of the credibility of those witnesses.] And then there was 1 dissenting opinion, which while it does argue that the Michigan Supreme Court should immediately rule on the Michigan constitutional issue of what you need to do to audit an election, I don't find language in the dissent that I would think of as "reprimanding" the judge. [That's a big deal.  If an appellate court reprimands a judge, that is a big deal, and it's done in clear language.] 

For legal standards, saying that the Michigan Supreme Court ordered the trial court to do anything is a misrepresentation and almost certainly a lie, if the speaker purports to have any understanding of legal opinions.  The Michigan Supreme Court took no action except for dismissing the appeal.  Two of seven judges urged the trial court to move the case quickly.  For legal terms, saying the Michigan Supreme Court "reprimanded" the trial court judge is a fabrication and almost certainly a lie.  I would find it difficult even to argue that the 1 judge dissent contains anything that I would call a reprimand.

So. . . I find that to be a problem when we're asked to weigh the credibility of people who purport to "Fact check the fact checkers . . . "





Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1329 on: February 09, 2021, 11:55:35 PM »
I heard it was Bigfoot driving that truck full of fake ballots for Biden.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1330 on: February 10, 2021, 12:27:28 AM »
And Gateway Pundit is such a reliable source of info. Really.

What exactly is so hard about accepting that more people voted for Biden than Trump? Why continue to believe made up bull*censored* rather than just accept that Trump lost and that there were no widespread huge conspiracies with men in black hauling in millions of fake votes? 


TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1331 on: February 10, 2021, 08:36:54 AM »
Near as I can tell the argument really boils down to this.

"it cannot be proven that there could not have been widespread voter fraud, therefore there was widespread voter fraud, no matter how unlikely. The only way we can avoid widespread voter fraud is to eliminate anything other than id verified, in person voting by paper ballot"

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1332 on: February 10, 2021, 10:56:27 AM »
And Gateway Pundit is such a reliable source of info. Really.

What exactly is so hard about accepting that more people voted for Biden than Trump? Why continue to believe made up bull*censored* rather than just accept that Trump lost and that there were no widespread huge conspiracies with men in black hauling in millions of fake votes?

Biden went into the election day with a significant point lead so If anyone out performed expectations it was Trump.  I know polls aren't reliable however even with a large margin of error everything pointing towards a Biden win.

Trumps main claim to fraud was that a few hours into the counting he was ahead and then the counting continued and he lost. How does that happen? 

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1333 on: February 10, 2021, 01:52:59 PM »

"it cannot be proven that there could not have been widespread voter fraud, therefore there was widespread voter fraud, no matter how unlikely. The only way we can avoid widespread voter fraud is to eliminate anything other than id verified, in person voting by paper ballot"

Nahhhhh.  This is beyond faulty reasoning at this point.  These people and these sources have been discredited over and over and over again in actual courts.  The MyPillow nut has people walk out on him on Newsmax.  To show his crazy documentary they have to put a disclaimer on the front of it saying that none of it is true.  Gateway Pundit said that Raffensburger's brother worked for China.  The people making up the stuff are idiots or evil.  If the Perfect Caller said that the sun was coming up tomorrow in the east I'd start to fear for the safety of the world, his credibility is so low at this point. 

Yet some people still continue to feed at this teat of insanity, despite the sources being discredited again and again and again.  This is beyond faulty reasoning.  This is some form of cognative dissonance to an extreme degree.  This is madness. 

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1334 on: February 10, 2021, 02:08:31 PM »

"it cannot be proven that there could not have been widespread voter fraud, therefore there was widespread voter fraud, no matter how unlikely. The only way we can avoid widespread voter fraud is to eliminate anything other than id verified, in person voting by paper ballot"

Nahhhhh.  This is beyond faulty reasoning at this point.  These people and these sources have been discredited over and over and over again in actual courts.  The MyPillow nut has people walk out on him on Newsmax.  To show his crazy documentary they have to put a disclaimer on the front of it saying that none of it is true.  Gateway Pundit said that Raffensburger's brother worked for China.  The people making up the stuff are idiots or evil.  If the Perfect Caller said that the sun was coming up tomorrow in the east I'd start to fear for the safety of the world, his credibility is so low at this point. 

Yet some people still continue to feed at this teat of insanity, despite the sources being discredited again and again and again.  This is beyond faulty reasoning.  This is some form of cognative dissonance to an extreme degree.  This is madness.

I'm not even talking about any of their crazy specific claims. Its that a large number of people say, "well I can't prove that there was widespread fraud, but you can't prove there WASN'T"

fizz

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1335 on: February 10, 2021, 04:36:09 PM »
Yet some people still continue to feed at this teat of insanity, despite the sources being discredited again and again and again.  This is beyond faulty reasoning.  This is some form of cognative dissonance to an extreme degree.  This is madness. 

I watched that documentary about flat-Earthers, "Behind the curve": even if that one is a relatively innocuous conspiracy theory, I think some of the forces behind that one and the more nasty political ones is quite similar.

The need to give a sense to a world you don't understand, to have somebody to blame for everything that's wrong in your life, to feel the excitement of a radical black-and-white explanation instead of murky complex impersonal networks of cause and effects, and then to feel special, one of the few that really knows what's going on, and part of a community that treats you with respect and acceptance instead of constantly mocking you for your ideas, constantly pointing all the flaws and reasons why you're wrong.

And once you're in that community, the fear, if you ever admitted to be wrong, of what would happen: to be rejected by your new community and new friends and treated as a traitor, and dreading having to weather the "told-you-so" by the smug elitists that mocked your ideas before.

I can get it, and even empathize with it.

Still, indulging this kind of reality-avulsed thinking is dangerous for everybody.
I've no idea of what would be a working, proper way to address this. Logic does not work, that's for sure.
Maybe some psychologist trained in dealing with cult-deprogramming could give us some pointers.





Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1336 on: February 10, 2021, 06:04:08 PM »
It's more like, people know that various arcane and secret BS is going on under their noses, and they have no idea what it is, but can be easily misdirected into focusing their attention onto chimeras rather than the real trouble. The mistake is to suppose that because people believe stupid conspiracy theories that there are no conspiracies. The correct observation should be to note that it is very easy to redirect negative sentiment and send it in any direction one wishes, and that provoking the populace can be dealt with by placing their ire at random targets. This is something that was known quite well back in the 30's and 40's, not sure why it's so mysterious now.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1337 on: February 10, 2021, 08:06:16 PM »
Well Sydney Powell has finally been served with Dominions billion dollar defamation suit.  It looks like she has been avoiding the process servers for weeks and they finally caught up with her.  I think she is on record saying she welcomes the suit, but has still tried to avoid being served.  I wonder why?  Let's see if she keeps up the charade.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1338 on: February 10, 2021, 08:54:40 PM »
How can you both know something is happening and simultaneously have no idea what it is? I think probably you mean they *suspect* something is happening yet can't find any proof.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1339 on: February 10, 2021, 09:12:57 PM »
And once you're in that community, the fear, if you ever admitted to be wrong, of what would happen: to be rejected by your new community and new friends and treated as a traitor, and dreading having to weather the "told-you-so" by the smug elitists that mocked your ideas before.

I can get it, and even empathize with it.

Sorry.  Can't empathize.  I feel I know these people better than most.  I get to go to work with some of them.  Some are family.  I can't empathize because these people are not stupid.  Well, some of them are.  But they're the kind of stupid that reads a bunch and think they're brilliant. 

They bought into Trump hard.  Real hard.  And they're still in an information bubble where they get all their info from the same discredited nutjobs. 

Most of them I just really don't care.  But even if I wanted to help them I don't really know how. 

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1340 on: February 10, 2021, 09:22:27 PM »
It's more like, people know that various arcane and secret BS is going on under their noses, and they have no idea what it is, but can be easily misdirected into focusing their attention onto chimeras rather than the real trouble.

True.  They're so distracted by lies about the election result they can't properly focus on the Israeli space laser funded by Chase Manhattan and the Knights of Columbus. 

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1341 on: February 11, 2021, 07:00:18 AM »
It's more like, people know that various arcane and secret BS is going on under their noses, and they have no idea what it is, but can be easily misdirected into focusing their attention onto chimeras rather than the real trouble.

True.  They're so distracted by lies about the election result they can't properly focus on the Israeli space laser funded by Chase Manhattan and the Knights of Columbus.

As long as it isn't also a nuclear bomb orbiting Earth, the Israeli Space Laser is evidently perfectly legal.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1342 on: February 11, 2021, 11:37:46 AM »
How can you both know something is happening and simultaneously have no idea what it is? I think probably you mean they *suspect* something is happening yet can't find any proof.

Yes, this is an epistemology question. What is knowing? Currently the trend is that you only 'know' something if it came out of a lab or is verified by other people. In other words, you can only say you know something if someone else tells you you know it. Obviously that is an unworkable definition, and yet in practical terms it's the one most people fall back on. I am quite confident that people know all sorts of things that they cannot explain in words, can't identify in terms of structures in the world, and in one way or another don't understand. But they are aware something is there. Do people know they are conscious, for example, or even sentient? They feel something is going on there, but they have no 'proof' other than their feeling, and perhaps that other people confirm to them 'of course you're conscious'! For those of us looking for a better definition than defining knowledge as being merely the idol of the marketplace, it is not good enough to say a person doesn't know something unless we confirm it. They may well know a great many things on some level, and we'll never know for sure if they are making stuff up or really sensing something.

My gut instinct on this is to trust that if people say something stinks in the room, they're probably not crazy in supposing something's wrong. Most of the time their guess about what's the matter will be wrong, and if 'helped' by outside sources it will be really far off, or even ridiculous. But I'm not prepared to question when people feel something is rotten in the state of Denmark, even if they don't see the apparition with their own eyes.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1343 on: February 11, 2021, 11:38:57 AM »
It's more like, people know that various arcane and secret BS is going on under their noses, and they have no idea what it is, but can be easily misdirected into focusing their attention onto chimeras rather than the real trouble.

True.  They're so distracted by lies about the election result they can't properly focus on the Israeli space laser funded by Chase Manhattan and the Knights of Columbus.

...for example. I had to Google this to make sure you weren't fooling around, as I actually hadn't heard of it. I didn't check who funded it, but nothing would surprise me :)

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1344 on: February 11, 2021, 11:57:57 AM »
Know vs believe  - to know something requires evidence.  To believe something can be based on evidence but could also be based on faith or feelings or suspicions.

You can 'know' something that isn't true if you have bad evidence, misinterpret the evidence, etc.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1345 on: February 11, 2021, 01:22:19 PM »
Know vs believe  - to know something requires evidence.  To believe something can be based on evidence but could also be based on faith or feelings or suspicions.

You can 'know' something that isn't true if you have bad evidence, misinterpret the evidence, etc.

I think I 'know' what you are trying to say, but there is a huge linguistic problem with what you just wrote. Essentially you are creating a self-referential definition of knowing. In other words you're not really addressing what knowing is, you're only reiterating that knowing is when you have evidence, and you know you have evidence when you know it. Evidence in this case seems to be (I'm guessing) what I wrote above: when other people tell you that you have evidence. Why a person's feelings and instincts should not count as evidence I'm not sure, in order to separate 'belief' from 'knowledge'. How do you even distinguish between whether you really believe something, or only think you believe it? How do you acquire knowledge about which things are your beliefs and which are 'real knowledge'? The issue, epistemologically, goes far deep than just 'trust evidence.' You seem to be tacitly assuming that what constitutes evidence is self-evident, but I don't think it is. I think maybe where a lot of people are coming from - and this goes towards the kind of thinking we have in the Western tradition - is how to you make someone admit that you're right about something. That's the kind of 'knowing' people often mean. They don't actually mean whether you know it, but whether you can prove to someone else not only that you know it, but that they should believe you - or even more, that they must believe you or else be called irrational. But that's a whole other issue than whether you know something. That gets into transmission of information, the relationship between language and thought (do we accurately communicate our thoughts? can we?), and the specific topic of persuasion.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1346 on: February 11, 2021, 01:53:57 PM »
If you 'know' it - you should be able to articulate the source of the belief.  (My third grade teacher, I saw it on the news, I read about on facebook).

It should be possible to evaluate, at least in principle, the source of that knowledge.  Having a source of the knowledge that you can articulate is evidence.  The strength of the evidence is dependent on the source (repeatable experiment being strongest; an authoritative statement by a trustworthy expert being intermediate; source with strong motivation and history of falsehoods being among the weakest).




Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1347 on: February 11, 2021, 02:20:15 PM »
If you 'know' it - you should be able to articulate the source of the belief.

That is an interesting proposition, which I would actually call a bias rather than a principle. Why should be able to articulate the source of your knowing for it to actually be knowing? Note that I'm not asking whether it's useful to be able to do so; of course it is. But we are talking about whether you can know something that you cannot articulate. So that depends on what knowing means. If we simply set as an axiom that knowing is when you can articulate it and show where it came from, then tautologically that will obviously be what you have to demonstrate in order to say you know something. But that's only because you've axiomatically said so. That's why above I mentioned that your definition is self-referential.

But let me suggest a few scenarios and you tell me whether this counts as 'knowing' something:

1) You meet a stranger, get a weird vibe from them, and feel nervous and keep your guard up.
-Is this something you 'know' about them? Is this feeling information, or is it to be ignored as irrelevant? Putting aside whether you can prove to others you are right about that person, if you can't name the source of your knowledge (that person's pheromones? how he moves his eyes, which your instinct notes but you cognitively don't understand?) does that mean that in fact you do not know this after all? If not, what would you call it, believing it? But that sounds much too strong; if anything belief sounds like it's even harder to define in this context than knowing. And I think we would agree it would be foolish to say that you do not have any information, because then you'd be advocating for people to ignore their instincts, which is super dangerous advice.

2) Premise: there is a God, let's say the Christian one. So you walk along, and get the notion that something would be a mistake for you to do. Along with our premise, let's suppose this vibe is sent to you via guardian angel or from God directly. It is a direct transmission advising a better vs worse course for you. In such a metaphysics (i.e. where things like this happen) what would you call that pipeline going to people and guiding them? If it's not knowledge they gain, then it's...what? Information of some kind, to be sure, but I feel like we begin to mangle language by saying you can have correct and true information and yet decline to call it knowing something. And yet under this metaphysics it will be impossible to name the source, or to articulate where it came from or to show how you know it's right. This kind of information would be bad to enforce onto someone else, but good to accept for yourself; so bad for persuasion, but good for personal choices. So that's not knowledge? Again, calling it belief but not knowledge seems to mangle the language even worse.

3) What if our knowledge of physics is terrible right now (it is), and we one day learn that micro-wormholes connect all points in space immediately. Let's call this 'macro entanglement'. Actually this has already been suggested in physics theory, as the understanding of what entanglement even is, and what it means for remote things to be connected, is very new for us. So anyhow let's say that distance is in some respect an illusion; that all things are connected in a literal sense. If this is true then information transmission can occur in all manner of ways we don't understand at present. In fact, if it was true it would mean that our entire concept of information transmission is undeveloped to the point where it is effectively zero. So by strict standard of understanding where our information comes from we would have to say we all currently know nothing, since we cannot articulate where our knowledge comes from at a low level. We can make high-level approximations, but these could turn out to be inaccurate. And further, we may be receiving all kinds of information all the time that we cannot cognitively process. Maybe it's the collective subconscious; or the macro-organism called the human race; or the ether. Call it anything you like. Under such conditions, I would find it hard to believe that we are equipped to exhaustively say what is or isn't knowledge in a strict sense.

Quote
It should be possible to evaluate, at least in principle, the source of that knowledge.  Having a source of the knowledge that you can articulate is evidence.  The strength of the evidence is dependent on the source (repeatable experiment being strongest; an authoritative statement by a trustworthy expert being intermediate; source with strong motivation and history of falsehoods being among the weakest).

I get what you're on about, and I'm not opposed to what you are saying in general, but you are drawing the wrong boundary. It is useful and maybe even coherent for us to compare information sources and demonstrate that someone is basing a statement on little or nothing. "I read it on 4chan" is not a good way to source information, compared to "I used my own eyes, compared data, looked at the reality to see if my theory matches, etc etc." So yes, stupidity and wrong opinions are a thing. But at the same time while we can limit knowledge to things that actually exist and claim that someone doesn't know what they're talking about when they have a bogus source, we cannot additionally add in cases where someone does have a legitimate source but that's it's one they cannot name and say those also aren't knowing. One fails the reality test, but the other only fails the communicability test. Failing be able to communicate something doesn't make it false. It doesn't mean we should believe the person, but it also doesn't mean we can say they don't really know it.

Going back to my point above, if people feel like they're being taken advantage of, but don't really understand the mechanisms and systems doing so, it strikes me as being a double slap in the face to suppose they don't really know anything. Not only does the system that takes advantage of them work (we are supposing) because they don't understand it - since if they did it would fail - but then to say that since they don't understand it they don't know what they're talking about when they feel they're being taken advantage of - ouch! There is plenty a person can pick up on without being to articulate it. In fact it's a good bet that the Trumpers really do have something to be upset about, but it's also likely they can't articulate what it is so will lap up some explanation given to them by a demagogue. The danger isn't that they're wrong about being upset, it's that due to lack of transparency (since the system in question works by virtue of being unseen) the systems in place make it very easy to scapegoat or misdirect.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2021, 02:24:25 PM by Fenring »

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1348 on: February 11, 2021, 03:45:34 PM »
If you can't articulate it - then it is a belief but not knowledge.  Knowledge is belief justified by evidence.  True knowledge is justified by accurate evidence.  You can believe something you can't articulate but you can't know it.  The belief may be accurate but it won't be knowing. Of course language is flexible and people use know even if it isn't backed by evidence. Of course we are talking about others accepting a claim to know and when one can reasonably be said to know.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1349 on: February 11, 2021, 03:54:37 PM »
The articulate I was careful to say in principle - perhaps you have an anonymous source you are protecting.  Whether others should trust that it is a legitimate anonymous source is based on ones past integrity.

You can believe you know something but should realize that others shouldn't trust that you do unless you provide evidence.  You should rightfully be treated as having a likely erroneous belief unless you have evidence.  The bigger the claim the stronger the evidence (extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof).