Once more into the breach…

Okay. Obviously, I need to clarify some things for family and friends. Or at least those I have left. First of all, yes, I think there has been a great deal of vote fraud in this election. Second, no, I am not wearing a tinfoil hat. I will explain why I believe that fraud has occurred. Before I do that, I will also say that I read a great deal and a wide variety of sources. I read the NYT, WaPo, CNN, CNBC, National Review, Epoch Times, Daily Wire, NY Post, and Real Clear Politics, among a variety of blogs. So, I read across the political spectrum, which I know is not usual for many people; especially those who argue that CNN, NYT and WaPo are the only truly accurate sources. I know that some are going to claim that Epoch Times and Newsmax are “far right-wing”. Well, yeah, if by “far right wing” you mean news sources that disagree with CNN et al. The National Inquirer broke the story about John Edwards and they were correct.

Relying on only one or two news sources leaves one open to becoming prey to not only confirmation bias, but an extremely narrowed world-view which is decided for you by others. Many of my friends and family are busily trying to convince me that I need to stop reading some of my sources because those sources are obviously melting my brain. I disagree. Reading those other sources is allowing me to see different interpretations of the same facts. It is also reporting additional information that is overlooked by some sources. For example, Fox News is now calling Georgia for Biden before the hand recount has barely started! Who green-lighted that? Many of those additional sources are actually reporting on the allegations of fraud in vote counting in the contested states. Epoch Times and Newsmax also admit when they’re wrong and put that admission in writing on the front page. Try to find that with the NYT or WaPo. I challenge you.

A classic sort of exercise in asking probing questions is the “when did you stop beating your wife?” question. Embedded in the question is the assumption that you are a wife-beater, and that you’ve recently stopped. Saying “there’s no proof of fraud” does the same thing. No proof/evidence does not mean it didn’t happen. Answering “I don’t beat my wife!” doesn’t mean you have not done so in the past as can be implied in a story.

LBJ once argued for putting out a rumor that his opponent was sleeping with strippers or something like that. When told by a staffer that it wasn’t true, Johnson replied, “yeah, but we’ll make the sonofabitch deny it.” That’s what is happening now. Spread stories of “unsubstantiated” fraud accusations and make Trump et al deny that they’re unsubstantiated.

So, why do I believe that fraud took place? Well, I live in Philadelphia which right now is ground zero for vote counting. Philadelphia is a city, as I have mentioned before, that is built on fraud. Philadelphia city government is a full blown, classic Tammany Hall-style Democratic political machine. As a political scientist I was blown away when we moved here and I watched it in action. I honestly thought this kind of machine politics had disappeared long ago. And, I lived in Chicago for six months.

Starting at the local level, my previous state representative is in jail for fraud and accepting bribes. My previous state senator is in jail for fraud, bribery, and accepting bribes. My previous Congressional representative is in jail for accepting bribes. The previous DA is in jail for accepting bribes and stealing from his mother’s accounts. At the state level, the previous AG is in jail for fraud and bribery. Are you getting the picture? Fraud and bribery are a way of life for politicians in this city. On a bigger scale is the DROP program where city employees could retire, collect their retirement pension and then return to work two days later at the same salary while still collecting the retirement pension. Do you really believe that city bureaucrats who came up with that scheme are above fixing an election?

So, hell yeah there’s fraud. Can it be proven? That remains to be seen. But again, just because something isn’t proven, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. In this case I see enough affidavits and auditing red flags to believe it’s there.

I don’t know that this will convince people that I haven’t gone around the bend, but then again, I’m not sure I care any more. Those people who are currently doubting me know me well enough to know that I wouldn’t be saying these things if I didn’t think there was something to it. And, they are offering no evidence to the contrary other than reports from sources that have already indicated their preferred candidate.

Finally, bear in mind…Al Gore fought for 37 days in 2000. We’re not there yet. There are still about 20 or so days to go. And remember, the National Inquirer might be wrong about Elvis sightings, but they were right about John Edwards.

8 Replies to “Once more into the breach…”

  1. As a lifelong Philadelphian, who only just Bevan a suburbanite, after having her heart broken one too many times by Philadelphia in the past year, I will cosign everything the good professor has written about Philadelphia and Pennsylvania. Lincoln Steffins observed about a 100 or so years ago…”Philadelphia, corrupt and content…” and not a damned thing has changed!

  2. While any one piece of the puzzle might not be fraud, the probability that all these pieces aren’t fraud and that they all help one party is highly unlikely. You’ll notice that many of those doing the gaslighting have moved the goal posts from “there is no fraud” to “the fraud isn’t widespread,” or “the fraud isn’t enough to change outcomes,” or “the fraud wasn’t coordinated from a single source.”

    1. It really is impressive how quickly it goes from “there’s no reason to suspect fraud” to “there isn’t much fraud” to “the fraud didn’t change the outcome.”

    2. Exactly. Most of the arguments I’m getting in response are “there’s no fraud in that place” which of course does not take into account the additive effect. Like Larry Correia said in his piece on red flags, there are so many red flags that it becomes willful blindness to not see them.

    3. “Prospiracy” (see esr for that, I think) doesn’t need formal co-ordination. It “just happens”… or seems to, when the environment is ripe for such.

  3. Reblogged this on Head Noises and commented:
    A very good blog post that could be largely paraphrased with “you know that argument ad homen is a fallacy, right? Can you argue on the facts, please?”

    1. “Argue On The Facts”?

      That’s White Supremacy! [Very Big Sarcastic Grin]

Comments are closed.