What would it take to change your mind re: 2020?

This is a question I've asked people before and found the responses interesting: What, specifically, would change your mind regarding the legitimacy/illegitimacy of the 2020 election? Or, if a complete change is too much, what specifically would make you seriously question and reconsider your current view?

Is there any sort of evidence which you haven't seen so far that would change your mind if it turned up in the future? Or have our conclusions all become so absolute that they're immune to any possible evidence?

 

I can go first, since that's only fair. Three things I can think of that would change my mind or at least force me to significantly reconsider my position:


(1) Confessions

With “2000 Mules” floating around out there, it seems the conspiracy theory of the moment involves literally thousands of people across multiple states working together, at the least to improperly deliver ballots and possibly to deliver illegal ballots. That’s A LOT of people to all be keeping a secret this big, especially given that this allegedly occurred across so many areas. In my experience, that just isn’t how people work; it’s almost impossible to keep a secret on this scale, of this import. So if True the Vote had, say, even a dozen of those thousands of people ready to confess, testify, verify its allegations, and point out co-conspirators and paymasters in exchange for immunity, that would be a game-changer for me.


(2) Hand recounts not matching machine counts

There were SO MANY allegations of the voting machines (or the people using them) “cheating.” Maybe the poll workers were running some ballots through the machine over and over; maybe the machines had an algorithm to skew the final results; maybe they were for some unimaginable reason sending votes over the internet to foreign countries to be altered there?

If ANY of that had been true, it should have been obvious when the hand recounts turned out to be wildly different from the original machine counts. That hasn’t happened in any major recount yet* and I don’t know of any more attempts to do hand recounts, but if they do and it is wildly different from the machine count, that’s a game-changer.


(3) Democrat Govs and Sec. States expressing doubt

Thus far we’ve had a lot of GOP state officials who have [glumly] stood by the elections in their state as legitimate, even when crying “fraud” would have obviously been to their political benefit. I tend to find it very convincing when someone takes a position against their own interests. We don’t, as far as I have, have even one Democrat Sec. State or Governor suggesting, against their own interests, that the election was rigged. If that happened, that would force me to go back and seriously re-examine my position.


There are, I’m sure, other things which would make me change my mind. But those three are the ones that come most readily to mind and don’t seem beyond the pale of possibility.

What are yours?


* The one small-scale instance I know where the hand count showed a significant difference was Wyndham County, NH. Notably, in that case, the problem was limited to the county; it was the Democrats (not the GOP) that demanded the recount; and the difference didn’t end up changing the outcome.

 

How about "Move on"? Once 270 electors were slated for Biden the election was over. Look forward.

 

The only thing that would convince me that the election was rigged or fraudulent is actual evidence of fraud or conspiracy on a large enough scale to sway the election results.

 

This is a very interesting question. Thanks for posting it.

My position: Trump is a pathological liar and criminal.

Basis: I suspected that Trump would try to steal the election when he started gaslighting his rally supporters in the Spring of 2020. He basically abandoned his post as POTUS and campaigned full-time pumping them full of conspiracy theories and playing the downtrodden victim.

I knew my instincts were correct when he delayed the Stimulus checks because he wanted to send a letter and have his name printed on the checks. I found that insulting because people were really struggling during the early days of the pandemic and all of us knew he was the president. His name didn't need to be printed on them.

Then, he started being more overt by appointing DeJoy to cut overtime and remove mail sorting machines in counties that weren't likely to vote "R" among other efforts to deny or make voting difficult for people in those areas.

There would be no need to do any of that if he was as popular as he claims to be. That let me know that he knows he isn't all that popular and knew he wouldn't be re-elected. It has since come out that his advisors told him that he was going to lose the election because of his handling of the pandemic.

At that time, I was not too concerned because I believed that most rational and reasonable adults would see through his facade and not get pulled in. I was mistaken on that.​

-----------------------------

TURNING THE TIDE

At this point, I would only change my position if the following happened.

1. Trump presented hard evidence that "millions" of people voted fraudulently and it was enough to be heard in any court in the country and adjudicated as credible.

2. Someone at the top (the puppet masters) publicly stated that they framed him and manipulated voters to believe that he is a liar and cheater.

3. Dominion owners/managers came forward and said they were paid to alter the counters in their voting machines so votes weren't tallied correctly.

4. Former Vice-President Mike Pence publicly stated that he was a double-agent and actually working for Democrats to take Trump down.

5. Every media source publicly printed and/or stated they lied about his efforts to stop a legitimate election and takeover of our government.

6. Putin publicly stated that he helped Trump win in 2016 and helped him lose in 2020.

-----------------------------

AFTERMATH

I don't foresee any of the above happening. It is very telling that Ivana stated that she believed Bill Burr (who Trump fired because he told him that he found no evidence of widespread election fraud) and her father basically called her a liar by saying that she was not involved in election stuff because "she checked out".

Trump's actions on January 6, 2021 and subsequent efforts to block the investigation and non-cooperation (missing phone records and shreds of paper) don't make any sense if he is/was not involved in planning the Capitol riot.

I've stated many times that I do not believe the Capitol riot was his endgame. I think he wanted to demonstrate to decision makers (ie. law makers, courts, upper rank law enforcement officials, etc.) that he could get people to gather and cause problems just on his word (even when he's outright lying). He has already positioned more pawns to replicate the Capitol riot all across the country if he is convicted in any of his court cases. Just like he did in the Spring of 2020, he is setting the stage to keep his staunch supporters angry and suspicious and willing to cause problems far and wide if he is not acquitted.

There is absolutely NO reason on Earth to do that unless he already knows that his lifelong criminal behavior is catching up with him and throwing his favorite offspring under the bus clearly tells us that he's in panic mode. He was unstable before that. Now he is unstable and unpredictable. That's a dangerous formula.

 

if the next trump rally was interrupted by a blare of angelic trumpets, a blaze of glorious light, and the voice of james earl jones saying "this is my beloved son, in whom i am well pleased" i still would know that not only did the bastard lose, but cheated and lost anyway.

 

I'm already convinced.

https://rumble.com/v11qyxx-tgp-and-100dup-release-new-suspect-drop-box-video-from-michigan.html

https://rumble.com/v15had7-exclusive-video-from-detroit-shows-ballot-traffickers-in-action.html

https://rumble.com/v167esq-exclusive-2-women-putting-in-stacks-of-ballots-in-michigan.html

 

Well, I'm an historian, so it's technically my job to look backwards (usually a lot farther back than 2020). But, I agree that the election is settled.

However, I think it's important for me to make sure my opinions on things, past and present, stay rooted in facts and reason and I don't close off my mind to contrary possibilities. I say I don't believe the election was "stolen" because there's been no credible evidence to that effect. But if my opinion really is based on the lack of credible evidence, then I should be able to describe what that "credible evidence" would look like.

If I ever find myself in a place where I can't do that, then I've left reason and facts behind and I don't want to do that. Questions like this, especially about major controversial issues, help me avoid that.

 

Ok. What would change your mind?

To be clear, I'm not asking that you do change your mind, just curious as to what hypothetical new facts for information would change your mind. Or do you feel like your opinion is now locked-in, immune to all conceivable future evidence or facts?

 

I never voted for Trump or Joe the truth Biden they both lie. A lie is a lie

 

Good points. Our elections should be as trustworthy as our bankstatement, and easily audited. That goes a long way toward putting an end to any questions of legitimacy.

 

Nothing. Trump lost to an old demented man, and he is still whining about it, and not only that, he got his apologists to believe his lies and incited them to a violent attack on the Capitol. This country has never witnesses anything like it before.

 

A complete non governmental investigation would change my mind if it disagreed with me.

 

Facts not conjecture.

 

I can think of nothing beyond revision of actions and reality that would change my mind.

Welcome to PF.

 

I see no "conceivable" future evidence or facts that can change my mind.

And, believe me, I'm not swayed by lies and nonsense.

 

Wasn't it boss Tweed who once said,"You can have all the elections you want as long as I get to count the votes."?

 

I don't understand the question. Biden won in 2020, took office on the day he was supposed to, and has been president for about a year and a half now. And, Trump left to let Biden take office. Why are the left making such a big deal out of this? It is really hard for me to understand why the left question the results of the 2020 election when their man won and has been president for a year and a half. We've got numerous problems that need addressing in this country and the left want to waste time talking about an election that they already won and their guy is already president. It completely boggles my mind. Who cares what Trump and his followers say? Biden won and is president. The left simply have to accept this and move on. In this country people have the right to their own opinions. It's not like Biden is camped out in some underground cave somewhere just waiting for the other side to accept the election results. He's already in the White House for God's sake!

 

A full signature verification audit of one contested state would be ideal. If I couldn’t get that I’d want at least one county.

The issue is the type of fraud the democrats engaged in is ONLY verifiable or non-verifiable with a FULL signature verification audit. They introduced fraudulent ballots into the count. I believe the mules were just harvesting. Their real fraud occurred in the counting rooms.

 

I voted for my cousin Howie Hawkins.

 

The perception of fraud, in my opinion, has two primary foundations.

The first is that no major campaign in history is won by failing to campaign with intensity. You don't sit in your basement and win, you don't win when the crowds you draw are a hundred or two but your opponent draws tens of thousands. Nor when you bring nothing fresh- and being a twice-failed candidate with a boring mediocre political career spanning decades, Biden had nothing. The votes tally process also failed to show the patterns we have watched over and over- with sudden large shifts that couldn't be explained.... then, the blockage of oversight made it obvious they didn't want it examined.
Candidate and campaign both fell so far out of the window of possible election that the only viable explanation is fraud.

Now why would a substantial number of people believe otherwise? Two reasons. One is Trump hate, which has been continuously promoted by the left since the moment Trump announced he would run. Hate is relatively easy to promote if you have the ability to promote it, and the left had already gained a lot of media control. Hate over-rides logic, reason and integrity- and otherwise honorable people will do some stupid and ugly things when they are filled with hate. Second reason- While human nature has a wide spectrum, it can be divided into two general belief systems. One group believes in self-sufficiency and individual responsibility for itself- the other believes there should be a community responsibility that provides for them, which can include all the things from housing to guaranteed income to healthcare, and most of these people believe the allegation that they are somehow victims of an unscrupulous rich and powerful elite. This makes them dependent on others instead of themselves... That means they abdicate the power over their own lives, and that means they will sell freedom and control over themselves for the promise that governmental will care for them. Biggest liar gets their vote.

Unfortunately, they seem unaware that the politicians generally ARE the unscrupulous rich and powerful elite, and that unlike most of those who become rich in the private sector by inventing and marketing good products- our politicians become rich by selling influence and manipulating those same people. The human condition has many weaknesses, and politicians know how to use them. They also use their power to insulate themselves from responsibility and accountability as well, and we have failed ourselves by allowing that to happen.

The second is that the efforts to get any realistic audit of the election has been stonewalled by the dems as well as totally denying any possibility of fraud. IF there was no fraud- such an audit would be greatly to their benefit and dispose of most people's doubt. The only reason to prevent that is the knowledge it would uncover evidence supporting fraud, thus the rejection is virtually an admission that there was fraud.

Tie this to the facts that the DNC and candidate Hillary Clinton conspired to create, pay for and distribute false information (the dossier) to destroy the opponent's candidacy. Such things are measures of character; not isolated incidents in a normally moral life. This is what they planned and chose to do, and that was FRAUD. Why, with fraud on that level already proven to be something they chose to do- would anyone think they wouldn't try again? The lack of self-regulation to honorable values has to be totally absent for a person to contrive such a scheme as the dossier, and it wasn't just Hillary; the DNC knew and participated, as did many others. That WAS a conspiracy to rig an election.

I used to teach personal skills classes, showing people how to better manage their own lives, and part of that is learning from experience- and reading people to know what they are capable of. I sometimes posed this question to make the point:
How many times does a dog have to bite you before you realize the dog bites? Of course, the answer is "once".

We learn quickly when the mistake and the painful consequence are tied closely together. But when they are not, we don't learn well at all- we will buy from the same crooks over and over., trust the lies of a proven liar over and over, hoping it will be different this time.

Character is not a transient or fluid quality in people, it is deep and fundamental one- a self-regulator for good or evil. IF you have good character, you don't do things you know are wrong, even if nobody would ever know. If you have no character- the entire scope of conduct is fair, and the only regulator is the risk of exposure and consequence.

The 2000 election absolutely reeks of the total absence of character on the democratic side. Nothing can change that, it's history. The only thing that can change the perception of what controlled the outcome is total truth- in depth independent forensic audit verifying every vote and count and acts of the controlling officials.

Don't hold your breath. The dems behind this are like the people who call you 20 times a day trying to normalize making a living out of conning people. IF they actually respected people, IF they actually respected themselves, they wouldn't be doing what they are doing.

 

As others have mentioned we can go a lot further back than 2020 and as I often say, you can't unscramble an egg. The point is to prevent the problem going forward. The biggest issues in 2020 were mail in ballots, COVID emergency measures that bypass normal legislation and how the outcomes don't appear legitimate with regard to numbers and statistics outside of that election.

A couple of key events that raised my suspicion were articles before the election telling us what was going to happen during the election. There's an actual name for this. It is called PRIMING. We saw numerous articles about the RED MIRAGE and how the election night totals were not to be trusted.

To any rational person, that should be the cause for suspicion of foul play but it was portrayed as the opposite.

Most presidents who have a historic win have their party also partake of that historic win. We are supposed to believe that 81 million people voted for Biden but that his party lost 20+ House seats. That doesn't compute.

The bellweather counties were all wrong except for one. Now people can declare partisan intentions but the reason these are bellweather countries is they ARE NOT overly partisan. They pick the winner because their make up is middle of the road and reflects national sentiment. Somehow every single one of these were wrong.

Actually what 2000 Mules showed is it doesn't have to be that big. These Democratic votes are created very specific cities and counties that claim incompetence but actually are engaged in fraud. I think the big Democratic fear is that someone will wise up, clean them up and then they aren't close on election totals.

The most famous example I can think of is Broward County in Florida.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/br...unty-elections-supervisor-submits-resignation

We saw how cycle after cycle this county was a running joke. We can remember it being an issue during Bush v Gore. The issues are always the same. Everyone else gets done counting and then a county like this one takes WEEKS to finish counting. They can never tell you how many votes are left to count. They often keep "finding" additional votes to count. It's often a one very large Democratic district and they just keep pleading for time and claiming incompetence until they find the votes they need.

Trump barely won Florida in 2016. Ron DeSantis also barely won as governor. He cleaned up this problem and even though Trump lost in 2020 he carried Florida by a much larger percentage and that county in particular by a much larger percentage.

This isn't a big nationwide problem. It's a Maricopa and couple of other large counties problem.

The issue with the machines, and this was proven was that the proctoring was not happening in a public place. While the machines themselves may not have been on an open wifi connection and so on, the ability to proctor the ballots was largely done in backrooms, away from observers and could be done in a blanket manner.

Others have posted links but that doubt has been shown repeatedly in DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES.

I think the next election will be a red wave. I think there is a strong possibility of new legislation to clean up voter rolls which are magically very dirty and badly kept in blue states. Many counties in California have voter rolls that are above 100% of the total eligible voters. That shouldn't be happening.

Very little of this is about how the ballots are counted. It is more about how the ballots get in the box in the first place. Dirty voter rolls, drop boxes which allow no chain of custody, mail in ballots all over the place, those are where the fraud happens.

 

That's a fair question, good public dialogue.

I've already changed my mind, fairly early on, long before 2000 Mules. Not being a fan of Trump, I voted for the LP candidate, so I didn't really care which way it went, though I had thought Trump would win.

I noticed early on that quite a few ordinary citizens who had volunteered or otherwise been involved in the election itself had made public statements and signed affidavits regarding highly irregular events they witnessed. Then a few statisticians and mathematicians spoke out regarding the statistical irregularities. So I was suspicious about the official narrative that evolved.

Eventually 2000 Mules came out and basically confirmed my suspicions, at least in the 5 cities covered.

 

I actually don't disagree but the GOP are fund raising on it and also stacking the local electoral vote certification decks AND, the GOP flag bearer is still howling like a hit dog about it.

Regardless, it would appear that the next POTUS election will be a court battle and many will go to jail unless corruption owns the day.

 

I think the simple answer is- when we have a an explanation that covers all the irregularities as non-fraudulent.

In most things when you analyze a problem- the answer that allows all the irregularities to be explained is the right answer,
Just like a jigsaw puzzle, when all the pieces fit properly and form a picture, then you know it's right.