Here you go, a “real” source. He said there were more bullet ballots than there likely really are, but there’s still a really suspiciously high number of them. How is this not at least worth investigating?

  • Alteon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Whew. I did, in fact, read it.

    There was no need to be rude in your post about it.

    Turns out the numbers are still being updated. They’ve gone up about since you posted (and funny enough, Trump no longer has above 50% of the vote - i.e. the mandate of the people). I’ll admit that I was getting my information from Stephen Spoonamoore, and that the data does not match up with the current results. I went and pulled the numbers as well and it looks like it’s even lower than what you found based on comparison to Senate data. However, I’m not a security specialist, nor am I a data analyst. I was deferring to people that have more experience than me.

    That said, I’m not saying that it was rigged - I am however saying that a bunch of weird shit happened, and I’m hoping that someone looks into deeper JUST TO BE SURE. It looks like Pennsylvania is actually doing a recount - if they come back with nothing, I’ll shut up about it. And yes, it’s entirely skepticism, I’m not in denial about Trump winning.

    I don’t get why there’s such a hesitation about being sure of something. It’s like smelling smoke, and being told to stfu about there being a fire…that everything is working as intended. Like, do I have “evidence” of there being a fire? No, but…why tf wouldn’t we just establish that nothing is on fire, just to be on the safe side.

    I 100% agree that none of the things suggested are “evidence,” but without some sort of investigation, no one will ever actually be able to get any evidence.

    If you actually wind up responding, try not to strawman me this time as some sort of election denier, “do your own research” kook. I didn’t do that to you, did I?