Wednesday, November 11, 2020

How can anyone deny what is now beyond reasonable doubt?

 

I've been astonished at the moral and ethical blindness of some of my left-wing acquaintances over the 2020 Presidential election.  These are people with whom I may disagree over politics, social policy, and other issues, but whom I'd believed were nevertheless rational, reasonable, thinking human beings who could weigh up both sides of an issue and recognize truth when it presents itself.  Instead, almost unanimously, they're denying the mathematical and statistical reality that confronts us, and insisting that "evidence" or "proof" must be provided before they'll admit that electoral fraud took place.  The same denial is evident in almost all the mainstream media.  They parrot the same nonsense about "no proof".

What more proof could they possibly want?  Anybody trained in even basic levels of mathematical and statistical analysis can look at several states and point to the indicators of fraud.  They're as plain as the nose on your face.  There is no doubt about it - none whatsoever.  We've covered the situation extensively in these pages over the past week, and others (for example, Larry Correia) have done so in far more detail.  It's all real.  Follow those five links for more information.  You'll find many more reports at links such as this one and this one.

As Joseph Kynaston Reeves, who blogs occasionally at Squander Two, points out when examining the statistical evidence:


Those graphs are evidence of something highly suspicious happening. Clearly and obviously, to anyone who understands numbers. That has nothing to do with what they're measuring. If they were graphs comparing the performance of two brands of dishwasher, they'd be suspicious. If they were exchange rates or share prices, the financial regulator would be demanding an explanation from the banks involved, and actively considering raiding those banks if such explanation was not forthcoming. The idea that those numbers are not suspicious is just preposterous. I shan't bother explicating why; one thing I've discovered this week is that those who can't already see it will determinedly continue not to. But the evidence honestly couldn't be much clearer. And yet the dominant claim, repeated all week throughout the world's media, is that there is "no evidence". Not that the evidence is, on balance, unconvincing, or that it can be explained, but that there simply is none. That so many millions of people are apparently willing to believe such a thing is the most damning indictment I have ever seen of the state of maths teaching.

. . .

There are various scenarios that could explain graphs like that. "This is normal; nothing to see here" is not one of them — but that's the one we've been given, again and again, smugly and condescendingly, by people insisting that even being suspicious of numbers like that is a sign of knuckle-dragging stupidity.

. . .

I currently work in financial regulatory reporting. If I were to see numbers like that and not investigate them, I could go to prison. And I'd deserve it.


There's more at the link.  It's an excellent article, and well worth reading.  You'll find another very detailed analysis of the evidence, statistical and otherwise, at The Red Elephants.

Yet, despite that mathematical reality, one still runs into adamant denial.  For example, here's the perspective of Earth-Bound Misfit, whose blog I read regularly, and with whom I've corresponded in the past.  She's one of many who are waxing vitriolic about any allegation of electoral fraud.  I'm merely using her blog articles as representative of many others out there, from many sources.


Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Proof

That's my message to those claiming massive fraud: Show your proof. If there's massive fraud, you should be able to easily produce massive evidence of that.

So far, other than the rage-tweeting of Soon-to-Be-Former President Trump, there's nothing. Oh, there's some fourth-hand rumors of boxes of fake ballots that turned out to be photography equipment and lies about the use of Sharpies, but all of that is smoke, mirrors and bullshit.

If you're claiming fraud, you must show real proof. Not innuendo, not conspiracy theory manure, real proof suitable for admission in a court of law.

Otherwise, quit wasting our time and shut the f*** up.


She added yesterday:  "If you are one of those parroting baseless claims of fraud, you are one of Putin's useful idiots."

Well, I'm sorry, but the claims of fraud are not baseless.  There's overwhelming evidence to show that.  As for "real proof", statistical and mathematical evidence has long been acceptable in court.  Why are they suddenly not sufficient?  Why are eyewitness affidavits, security camera footage, and admissions from some of those involved in electoral fraud, not convincing enough?

This is only one example of the sort of denial I'm seeing from bloggers, journalists and others whom I'd thought were more balanced in their analysis.  Comrade Misfit is a lawyer.  How can any lawyer, trained and experienced in the use of evidence, see the numbers that are pouring out of this election in a now unstoppable tide, and pretend that with so much smoke, there's no fire?  I wish I knew.  It's a willful blindness that, for the life of me, I simply can't understand.

I can only repeat Mr. Kynaston Reeves' observation, cited above:


If they were graphs comparing the performance of two brands of dishwasher, they'd be suspicious. If they were exchange rates or share prices, the financial regulator would be demanding an explanation from the banks involved, and actively considering raiding those banks if such explanation was not forthcoming. The idea that those numbers are not suspicious is just preposterous.


This has nothing to do with the people involved, or the political parties.  I'd be just as outraged if the situation were reversed, and President Trump and the Republican Party had manipulated the election in order to deny victory to Joe Biden and the Democratic Party.  It's got everything to do with the fairness and justice of our electoral process, and the constitutional foundation of our Republic.  Why is it so hard to admit that simple justice demands a detailed, thorough investigation when so much evidence points to the need for it?

Intolerance and vitriol are now dominating our political process.  It's reached such a fever pitch that even if the courts rule that electoral fraud took place, and take steps to correct the situation and produce an honest result according to the true, real will of the people, there will be many who reject that as a biased and corrupt decision.  The truth is no longer acceptable, unless it fits their prejudices.  That's a tragedy for our Republic, and may yet destroy us.

Peter


38 comments:

JaimeInTexas said...

Better wake up. Cannot be friends with them. Acquaintances, neighbors, sure, can't do anything about it. You cannot trust them.
How many ANC you were good friends with?
With only one exception that I am aware of, all Democrats support infanticide though they use the euphemism late term abortion. And the exception, Ms. Gabbard, just expressed some reservation.
We have reached the political goats and sheeps division.

Aesop said...

I've had this happen firsthand at work.

Otherwise intelligent and usually rational people digging in, with both hands over their eyes, saying, "I can't see ANY evidence of any electoral shenanigans whatsoever."

The entire left is gaslighting the other half of the country over the most brazen theft in US political history. Mayor Daley toting in boxes of ballots and shading IL to throw the 1960 election to JFK pales in comparison.

If the courts fail to do justice, there isn't any America left to save, and what comes after that will be Bracken's "Bosnia x Rwanda". And if anything, he was underselling it.

JaimeInTexas said...

I am in this situation with my wife. Yes, things are stressed.

have your Democrat friends define "gun control" and "what they think is an 'assault' rifle."
They are coming for your guns and they are coming for you.

Yeah, I do think that the Democrats are Communists.

ADS said...

My parents are both scientists who spent their lives analyzing data and running experiments - yet they see nothing wrong with the overwhelming statistical anomalies in the election data. They've spent the last 4 years snarling about Russian hacking and have pivoted, 1984 style, to the new party line that the elections are robustly safeguarded and their results unassailable. They're both sweet and generous people who are deeply involved in charitable works and are a blessing to everybody in their lives - but told me that Trump should be hung by his ankles and his throat slit for his crimes against humanity.
Trump Derangement Syndrome is a real thing and it scares me.

Skwab said...

"May Yet Destroy Us"
Try "Has Already Destroyed Us".
The only question now, is how long does the Walking Corpse that is the former USA, keep on going? This Country is now dead. That "Willful Blindness" you speak of, is a conscious choice on the part of those who display it. It is their 'religious faith', and is even more strongly believed than most so called Christian's in the USA. They want you imprisoned, or in many cases, dead because of Your Faith.
Do them the favor, of taking them seriously, when they tell you what future they want, and what place they see for you(and others like you) in that future.
They know about, and are perfectly okay with the rampant cheating that is occurring. As long as it benefits them and hurts you, they want it to happen.

I read EB Misfit too. She has very nice Airplane Links. But, here hatred of "the other" shines through in every post about her politics, and beliefs.
I've no doubt that she'd "Push the Button" on you, me and every commenter and reader of your blog. Not because she sees herself as bad, but exactly because she views herself as Good! Very Good, in fact. So much better than us, in fact, that it is her duty as one of the "enlightened", to rid the world of our troglodyte, backwards thinking, and belief in God. (amongst other things).
I'm sorry, but that is what I see her saying.

Chris Nelson said...

I work in a company full of accountants, statistical experts and data analysts that is in utter denial of the facts. Leftism is strong religion.

Sam L. said...

They're leftists; they BELIEVE.

Sam L. said...

Off topic, but I think you'd enjoy reading this, linked by Assistant Village Idiot:
https://quillette.com/2020/11/11/on-remembrance-day-celebrating-two-canadian-prisoners-who-took-down-an-entire-shipyard/

Arthur said...

What happens when the indictments and arrests start rolling?

The number of firings happening right now doesn't make it look like Trump is going to roll over and say, "Well shucks, I guess you guys got away with it again...."

What do your non-trump friends say when the people who have been shouting "TRUMP IS HITLER!!!" for 4 years get walked out in handcuffs? How much evidence of actual crimes would be enough?

Rob said...

Everything "those" people read, see or hear tells them this is a baseless complaint, that Trump just does not want to leave... everything they hear says that.
Then it's accompanied by "you can't prove it".


It's the big lie at work, they have no interest in the truth. Sad sad sad...

NITZAKHON said...

Several commenters have nailed it. Leftism is a FAITH, not a reasoned & rational belief.

I wrote* that IMHO it's a faith fueled by dopamine delusion from an overabundance of dopamine and being more sensitive to dopamine. But that's not something fixable; we need to deal with the facts on the ground.

NO amount of evidence, NO amount of data, NO amount of analysis, not even videoed confessions will shake them of the belief there was no fraud.

Divorce, as difficult as it may be. Or blood. There is no arguing with missionaries. And let me be 100% clear: I don't want that. I don't want CW2. But it's coming.

* https://redpilljew.blogspot.com/2020/10/essay-civilizational-collapse-closing.html

Beans said...

Ah, Comrade Misfit and others like her. Who believe in the "REEEEEEEEEEEE." Sad, so very sad. That they believe feelings over facts.

These are also the same people that deny religion, because there's no proof.

I've tried to engage them, including Ms. Misfit, in conversations on their blogs, and been shut out or shouted down when I ask for proof. Even worse is when I provide proof of malfeasance by their 'Dear Leaders' and 'Party Profits.'

I feel that it's one of the main defining differences between liberals and conservatives. That divide between feelings and facts.

Conservatives, when faced with facts that go against their feelings, knuckle down and deal with it. Liberals dismiss any facts that don't fit within their belief structure.

Conservatives are more likely to follow old-school scientific method - you know, hypothesis, theory, proof, repeat it or it isn't real.

Leftists are more likely to accept a hypothesis as a theory, and then manufacture or manipulate proof to fit. (IE: The Global Warming Climate Change kerfluffle. Or 'Green Energy.')

Sad. Ideology should not win out over facts.

But then again, from 2008-2016, 'They' had the best president and 'We' had to get over it. Then from 2016 to now, 'They' disavow the legitimacy of President Trump and 'We' are bad people for not believing 'Them.'

Cognitive Dissonance?

I've stopped trying to talk to anyone exhibiting leftist 'Reeeeeeee'ing. It isn't worth it. I'm willing to talk to them if they act like an adult and can follow logic and reasoning, but...

Ritchie said...

I have occasionally visited Comrade Misfit's site, drawn by the shiny flying things and put off by the hostility. In geology, I think her condition would be called a slip fault. The two sides don't match up, but you can walk right across. It would be interesting to know how someone in this condition can pilot a high performance aircraft and (presumably) balance a checkbook.

Ritchie said...

And just like that, after four years, evidence is important. Must be another slip fault.

The Lab Manager said...

I"ve been having fun with the 'educated' leftist dopes on LinkedIn. I can't believe I have to point out to allegedly 'educated' and 'professional' people that the media has no credibility announcing a winner when not a single election hardly has been fully certified.

I enjoyed Pompeo's smirking 'we are on smooth transition to a 2nd Trump administration' from yesterday.

Will said...

Yes, Leftism is a Belief System. A Religion, in other words. That is not something you can talk a person out of. How often have you heard of someone changing their religion? VERY rare circumstance. So, what are the odds of HALF the people of this country suddenly changing their religion? Overnite, no less. No, there is no quick fix for this problem. In fact, there is no PRACTICAL fix for it, that I can think of. Too many of them want to ruin our lives, when we just want to be left alone. Balkans, here we come.

Steve S said...

After years of watching them believe all the msm narratives how can you be surprised that they do so now?

tweell said...

I have been encountering the 'motte and bailey' defense. Point out the statistics showing widespread fraud, get "that's not proof of fraud". Counter that with examples of tampering, get "that's statistically insignificant". From the same person in the same conversation.

LastRedoubt said...

The answer they won't accept is that since there IS proven fraud, and repeated systemic failures failing in one direction (three times is enemy action applies even to determining the presence of a programming bug), it absolutely must be determined how many clean votes we had and how deep the fraud went.

You don't investigate when you know all the facts, you investigate when you know there's a problem and trying to figure out what it is.

Think: We knew Chernobyl blew up but now how and why until much later..., or even how bad the damage truly was right away.."

As to ignoring evidence - I've seen people dismiss as "deceptive" and "edited" uncut and in-context veritas footage. I've had people tell me I'm paranoid for showing them CNN's footage of trump and the Koi fish vs other stations, and comparing what was reported, or CNN's "burn their sh*t down" edit that was presented as a call for peace. This despite the fact that the countervideo showing the full context and how CNN butchered the framing or scene to report the opposite came from another "trusted" news source.

Robert Wood said...

The Left are becoming more and more like the Party portrayed in Nineteen Eighty Four. Orwell was right on the money when he compared the Party in the book to the bureaucracy in the BBC at the time, in that the workers had an alternative viewpoint on the world as the rest of us. And they were so-called "intelligent" people.

michigan doug said...

Half the country thinks the other half is crazy.

They are either both right or both wrong.

I'd say go buy some ammo but you all already did.

B said...

For most Leftists, "The ends Justify the Means" is a truism.

As long as Trump is removed, they care now why. Now will they bother to let things like principles stand in the way of getting the deed done. It is all about reshaping the country to a vision that they see. Socialism is just the start of the Utopia they seek.

And they really don't care what has to happen so they get there.

Chris Nelson said...

Dallas Count Election system compromised...

http://www.openrecords.org/stories/compromised2.html

Aaron C. de Bruyn said...

> Why are eyewitness affidavits, security camera footage, and admissions from some of those involved in electoral fraud, not convincing enough?

They've certainly been willing to accept a much lower standard of 'evidence' in the past...see the "me too" movement, russiagate, etc...

Mark said...

And yet, as these matters are presented to courts, they are thrown out as baseless.
That's why evidence (as opposed to rumours, opinions, allegations etc) and proof are so important.

Peter said...

@Mark: AFAIK, most of these matters have not yet been ruled upon by the courts. Almost all are still either pending, or in progress.

There's also the problem that some state courts have made biased and/or prejudicial rulings. That's why the Supreme Court has already had to intervene in Pennsylvania to segregate certain ballots, and may act upon that issue in future.

I guess time will tell.

Dave said...

Honestly, even if Trump prevails, I doubt anyone of importance will face jail time.

Mark said...

@Peter One of the characteristics of Australian humour is the love of irony.
I'm amused of the arguments that information based on rumours, use of selective data, allegations and hearsay, that anyone with any knowledge of statistics or modelling should be able to clearly see that election fraud occurred.
This is contrasted with the comments I often see here regarding the structured gathering of massive volumes of quality data from numerous sources across the world, followed by the analysis, reporting and modelling by a wide range of reputable organisations, that climate change is a hoax.
Talk about selective use of statistics as the basis for discussion.

Unknown said...

This is the most coherent explanation I've seen:
https://identitydixie.com/2020/11/02/glaring-into-the-abyss-a-southerner-contemplates-the-election/

Thx for giving me a daily dose of thought-provoking reading.
AL

Peter said...

@Mark: Careful. Your bias is showing.

You maintain that all the evidence provided so far isn't evidence at all: that it's hearsay, rumor, innuendo, and "selective use of statistics".

Others, including myself, maintain that all the evidence, put together as a whole, indicates the undoubted presence of shenanigans. What, precisely, those shenanigans were is going to differ from polling station to polling station, and precinct to precinct, and state to state: but their existence is not - cannot be - in doubt. The evidence for that existence is overwhelming.

The courts now have to sort that out. Some will doubtless maintain that they can only come to a conclusion for specific cases, where evidence can be presented that on this date, at that time, this person or persons did those things to fraudulently change the result of the election. That may well be the case in state courts, and even in lower-level federal courts. That's why the ultimate arbiter, the US Supreme Court, will have to rule on the issues as a whole, establish whether or not a pattern exists, and act to stop anything illicit or potentially fraudulent. They did so in 2000. They'll have to do so again in 2020.

Note that in 2000 they did not point the finger at any specific crime or action. They ruled on the process as a whole. To do so, they looked at all the evidence, overall, and figured out the balance of probabilities. That's what a high-level court does. They leave the nuts and bolts to lower-level courts to decide. In this case, where there's not enough time or detail to do that, they'll probably end up weighing everything in the balance and seeing whether it tilts one way or another.

I repeat what I said in the article:

"This has nothing to do with the people involved, or the political parties. I'd be just as outraged if the situation were reversed, and President Trump and the Republican Party had manipulated the election in order to deny victory to Joe Biden and the Democratic Party. It's got everything to do with the fairness and justice of our electoral process, and the constitutional foundation of our Republic."

If Joe Biden wins the election fair and square, I'll have no problem accepting him as my President, even if I disagree profoundly with his policies. I did that with President Obama, too. However, if the election is stolen through fraud and manipulation, I cannot and will not accept Biden as President, no matter what, and I will not obey any of his decrees. He'll be illegitimate, a tarnished figurehead of an equally tarnished party, neither of which can pass the smell test for corruption.

Mark said...

@Peter It's strange when I read all the other comments, these are treated as their "views", yet if an alternative view is offered it's "bias".

Peter said...

@Mark: You persist in evading the issue. You persist in obfuscating, evading, ducking and diving.

Either you admit that there is enough evidence, statistical and mathematical, to indicate that a problem exists: or you deny it. Stop trying to change the subject by talking about "views" versus "bias" and the like.

It's time to fish or cut bait. You can't do both. Is the evidence of a problem sufficient to convince? Or is it not? Either way - why do you say that?

If you aren't prepared to give a straight answer, then please refrain from further comments on this blog. You'll have demonstrated that you're only trying to muddy the water.

Mark said...

@Peter First of all settle down.
I'm amazed that in all of these postings, that my position hasn't been made clear to you, namely that there has been no evidence (as opposed to allegations, rumours etc) presented so far to courts that substantiate the claims of electoral fraud. Three courts to my knowledge (one each in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia) have so far thrown out the claims as baseless and unsubstantiated.
The so-called data and modelling used have largely been used as an attempt to substantiate existing views. An example of such, are the large number of votes counted at the end of the process in some states that seem to dramatically "overturn" the lead held by the sitting president. This is then conveniently seen to reinforce rumours circulating that marked Biden/Harris delivery vans (because Democrats are so dumb they'd have to use marked vehicles) were seen delivering votes to counting stations and this can be the only explanation.
Frankly, it's much more plausible that Republicans were largely encouraged to shun postal voting by the president, whilst Democrats were encouraged to use the system. So unsurprisingly, the majority of mail votes were Democrat (with the exception of states such as Arizona where mail voting has been used for a long time). States like Ohio who counted them first showed an initial surge for Biden, but this was overtaken by Trump's votes from the polling locations. In states counting mail votes last the reverse occurred.
Evidence demands the burden of corroboration from multiple sources before it becomes such. Up to that point anything else are simply allegations. As I've said before in these comments, I've only seen allegations, there have been no sworn affidavits, little forensic data, no credible, multiple witnesses of events occurring, no inconsistencies in voting registers, no CCTV of any misdemeanors that have been submitted to a court and have been shown to have credibility.
So, in direct answer to your question, evidence of a problem and the finding of such by a court, would be enough to convince me.
You may think I'm biased (interesting view given 19 paragraphs of your original posting supporting the position of fraud occurring only balanced by 2 sentences "This has nothing to do......"), but my main bias is towards letting what is generally a good system do its work and if anomalies have occurred, deal with them appropriately and legally.
The threats and the rhetoric currently being used as an attempt to discredit the democratic processes are destroying any remaining trust in the country's government and legal institutions. Sure, this may be what many people are looking for, but be very careful with these wishes.

Eisenhorn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Eisenhorn said...

Just as you cannot understand them, I cannot understand why people like you Peter haven't realized that you can't reason with these zombie npcs. Not only are they willing going down a path of destruction, they sure as hell are planning to drag all of down with them. Just accept it, stop trying to reason with the unreasonable. Yes, it's an extremely bitter pill to swallow. You cannot save those who do not want to be saved.

NobobyExpects said...

There is way more scientific evidence, in the form of data, of fraud in the last USA elections than of CO2 driving climate change in planet Earth. But that presumptive effect is enough to formulate policies that cripple economies.

Science has more uses that provide some people with false excuses to not believe in God.

Phil said...

I don't remember the source of this quote, but it has always stood with me:
"The Right think the Left are misguided. The Left think the Right are EVIL."

Anyone on the Left will attest that when fighting evil, anything is permissible. This explains why they allow the actions of Antifa and BLM to go unpunished, and why the blatant, arrogant electoral interference is being downplayed and dismissed. We are fighting fanatics, but we think we're debating rivals.
And that's going to get us crushed if we don't wake up.

John said...

Progressives have an untreatable mental disorder. It is not "stupidity" in the usual
meaning of the word. Rather, it is an inability to adjust to reality and facts
in that the brains thought patterns are actually rewired to "see" only what they
believe to be real. It is said that when Columbus discovered America, the first
indians he contacted were unable to see his ships even though they were anchored
just offshore. Their minds had no ability to understand what was there and so
refused to see them at all though they could see the waves as they splashed on
the hulls.