Why Trump Will Win: “Absolutely frightening” evidence of entrenched fraud

[Tom 1]

Here’s a small sample for you:

FEC chairman debunks the no voter fraud claims: FEC chairman debunks MSM claims of ‘no fraud’, says counting illegal votes can make election ‘illegitimate’ | One America News Network


Williams College Mathematician Flags up to 100,000 Ballots in Pennsylvania:

Williams College Mathematician Flags up to 100,000 Ballots in Pennsylvania


Retired Air Force general blows whistle on CIA vote hacking:

Dominion voting systems under scrutiny for security:

Dr. Shiva email inventor Michigan election fraud:

Part 1

Part 2

Patrick Byrne evidence of rigged election

Election 2020 Was Rigged: The Evidence – Deep Capture

Election fraud expert affidavit on MI voter fraud

BREAKING: Election Fraud Expert Files Affidavit Claiming Michigan Election Results Were Physically Impossible

This is more of the same - I'm not sure if you've read the links? People making accusations and claims are not evidence. A person or persons says they think such and such a thing happened, this would be an accusation, allegation, guess or whatever you want to call it. Evidence is a different matter. What would be an example of evidence of a case of fraud in the election - ? Evidence would be something that could be submitted to a judge and taken as a real indication of something that actually happened. This is different to someone simply saying they think something happened. However it is phrased or dressed up or whatever else, an accusation is not evidence. IF there is evidence, the next step would be to make a case, which could then be prosecuted. This stage has not yet been reached, due to an absence of evidence. If it needs saying again, a lot of people simply repeating the same things without evidence is not evidence.

Back to the original question - can you provide an example of actual fraud for which you can present evidence showing that fraud happened? Exactly what happened, where/when/by who, why you think it is an example of fraud and so on. Just posting links to lots of people saying they think there was fraud with no evidence of fraud is not evidence of fraud. You can find the same kind of stuff 'proving' the earth is flat or that aliens like to probe people's nether regions. Do you see the difference?

People saying things - not evidence
No evidence = no case
No case = no case

 

[Erik Nelson]

More claims of fraud with no evidence.

If direct firsthand eyewitness testimony, sworn under penalty of perjury charges, is "not evidence"...

everyone else's talk is even cheaper

 

[Erik Nelson]

 

[Tom 1]

If direct firsthand eyewitness testimony, sworn under penalty of perjury charges, is "not evidence"...

everyone else's talk is even cheaper

It's really very simple - you simply have to listen to what is being said.

Some of it - such as Giuliani's claims of 'massive fraud' - is quite simply not true. It refers to things that have not happened, they don't exist, they are made up, untrue, not real.

The vast majority however is made up of endless assertions that what they saw 'wasn't right' or they didn't like it, or that distorts reality - e.g. claims that no observers were allowed are flat out lies, there is an obvious difference between this particular person or persons did not observe something and claiming 'nobody did', or that is just outright bizarre - oh they did this thing and I don't know what it was but it sort of looked like it wasn't right I don't know why it just did. Please find one single thing in any of the sworn testimony that actual shows actual fraud actually happening. Is that too much to ask? One single instance of some actual provable instance of fraud, there has to be at least one.

 

[Erik Nelson]

CNN: 2006 Lou Dobbs Investigates - Democracy at Risk Smartmatic, Venezuela - YouTube

 

[Erik Nelson]

It's really very simple - you simply have to listen to what is being said.

Some of it - such as Giuliani's claims of 'massive fraud' - is quite simply not true. It refers to things that have not happened, they don't exist, they are made up, untrue, not real.

The vast majority however is made up of endless assertions that what they saw 'wasn't right' or they didn't like it, or that distorts reality - e.g. claims that no observers were allowed are flat out lies, there is an obvious difference between this particular person or persons did not observe something and claiming 'nobody did', or that is just outright bizarre - oh they did this thing and I don't know what it was but it sort of looked like it wasn't right I don't know why it just did. Please find one single thing in any of the sworn testimony that actual shows actual fraud actually happening. Is that too much to ask? One single instance of some actual provable instance of fraud, there has to be at least one.

No evidence of climate change, either

 

[Tom 1]

No evidence of climate change, either

Sure there is, there is evidence you can look at and decide if you think it is accurate or not, if you are able to interpret it. People go out and test things, like this:

'Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels'

This is an example of evidence. More here: Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

This is what evidence is, actual things that can be observed that match up with a hypothesis.

If the entire science of climate change was based entirely on people saying things like 'oh but it was really hot last week' or 'I saw some ice melt' or 'I wanted to see the ice melt but THEY wouldn't let me' and so on, then you would have a valid comparison. The comparison you are actually making however is between analysis of decades of carefully collected data to which established scientific procedures have been applied and a load of people saying they think 'something's not right'. That is not a valid comparison.

 

[Tom 1]

CNN: 2006 Lou Dobbs Investigates - Democracy at Risk Smartmatic, Venezuela - YouTube

Do you understand that there is a difference between a country like Venezuela where the whole state apparatus is under the the control of a handful of people (much like Trump has been trying to establish in the US - although it would take several decades to really change things that much) and a country like the US with an established infrastructure (the dreaded 'deep state') through which the business of government is carried out? Do you understand why something that can easily happen in a place like Venezuela would be impossible in the US? Is that really so difficult to understand?

 

[Erik Nelson]

Sure there is, there is evidence you can look at and decide if you think it is accurate or not, if you are able to interpret it. People go out and test things

Like State voter registration data?

 

[Tom 1]

Like State voter registration data?

As you know, or should, it is entirely normal, usual, ordinary, happens in every election, for people who have moved out of state (students, military personnel etc) to vote in their home state elections. This is not fraudulent, illegal, dodgy or anything else. It is a normal, established procedure that occurs every time there is an election.

 

[Tom 1]

Like State voter registration data?

Here's the key phrase: 'two pretty key indicators that something may have happened'. That is the full extent of the allegations - 'indicators', on the face of it entirely legal and standard events, which, if interpreted in the widest possible stretch of imaginative thinking, lead predisposed people to think 'something may have happened'. This is not evidence.

 

[Erik Nelson]

As you know, or should, it is entirely normal, usual, ordinary, happens in every election, for people who have moved out of state (students, military personnel etc) to vote in their home state elections. This is not fraudulent, illegal, dodgy or anything else. It is a normal, established procedure that occurs every time there is an election.

You cannot vote in two places

Nor can you conceal a PO box as your "apartment" or "suite"

 

[Erik Nelson]

Do you understand that there is a difference between a country like Venezuela where the whole state apparatus is under the the control of a handful of people (much like Trump has been trying to establish in the US - although it would take several decades to really change things that much) and a country like the US with an established infrastructure (the dreaded 'deep state') through which the business of government is carried out? Do you understand why something that can easily happen in a place like Venezuela would be impossible in the US? Is that really so difficult to understand?

"You cannot fool all of the people all of the time" - Abraham Lincoln

 

[Erik Nelson]

Here's the key phrase: 'two pretty key indicators that something may have happened'. That is the full extent of the allegations - 'indicators', on the face of it entirely legal and standard events, which, if interpreted in the widest possible stretch of imaginative thinking, lead predisposed people to think 'something may have happened'. This is not evidence.

[12:20]
Q: What you're talking about now is hard data, hard evidence?
A: Yeah, it doesn't get any harder than this. This is legit data

 

[Tom 1]

You cannot vote in two places

Nor can you conceal a PO box as your "apartment" or "suite"

Where is the proof that anyone did either of those things? Hint - allegations are not proof. Proof would be, well, proof. Maybe you have something you can prove? Please, go ahead.

 

[Tom 1]

"You cannot fool all of the people all of the time" - Abraham Lincoln

Well, Trump and co are having a pretty good go at it. Several million may not be 'all the people' but it's certainly up there.

 

[Tom 1]

[12:20]
Q: What you're talking about now is hard data, hard evidence?
A: Yeah, it doesn't get any harder than this. This is legit data

Allegation = allegation
Proof = proof

This person has some data. He has interpreted the data to allege that it shows something illegal. For some reason you take this to be proof, well that's your prerogative. To me it seems obvious he is clutching at straws - after all there are some enormous cash rewards at stake - taking ordinary voting procedures and bending them out of shape to make them seem illegal.

The court case will tell, that is what courts are for.

 

[Erik Nelson]

 

[Erik Nelson]

More claims of fraud with no evidence.

You have evidence...

that all sworn testimony...

is perjury?

 

[Tom 1]

Seriously man, why do you think this 'proves' there was fraud? Someone points out some data and calls it a 'prime indicator of fraud' - so what? Do you seriously believe that 'proves' something? That it is simply the only possible interpretation of that data? If so, why?