Steely_D wrote:

Here's what changed in Dinesh D'Souza's '2,000 Mules' book after it was recalled

 Alchemist wrote:
It's logical to assume that expansion of anything outside of the historical process is less secure, but the facts don't support it.  It's interesting that you are posting your "mail-in" ballot fraud potential in a thread built on a movie suggesting drop-box shenanigans.  A minority of these ballots are returned by mail.  The blanks are mailed, but the completed ballots are delivered to a secure box and handled by the same people who handle in-person ballot custody on election day.  In states that do not have polling stations on election day, roughly 75% of all ballots are returned to the exact same place that the voter would have to go on election day to place a vote.
The US has been voting remotely since the Civil War.  It is entirely possible that through the use of technology, elections are more secure than ever.  As others have said, if that's not correct... share the proof.

The real driver of these false claims is a Republican understanding that their positions are less and less popular, and that voting with ballots that are mailed increases voter turnout.  That's a bad mix for Republicans, so they are doing everything in their power to limit voting by making it harder for many to participate.

 Alchemist wrote:
Imagining that it might happen isn't the same as showing that it did. Show your work.

Here's the database from the Heritage Foundation, if that helps. Show where all the mischief occurred - but be warned we're looking for something significant.

 Alchemist wrote:

Please present proof of such mischief...

 Alchemist wrote:

Yes, and the security systems / protocols in place caught the malfeasance. As of yet, no one has shown any evidence of any fraud that would have had much impact. Also, the vast majority of fraud has been from the republican side. And most of the additional legislation proposed would do little to impact the kinds of fraud that have been exposed, and they have already been caught and handled by systems already in place.

So what other 'mischief' are you alleging happened? And do you think it swayed the outcome of the election?

 islander wrote: 
And yet we're told that the 2020 election was the "most secure election in American history".  Clearly the massive increase in mail-in ballots in response to Covid has created the opportunity for all kinds of mischief.  

 islander wrote:

But wait... there's more!

Look,  genuine election fraud:

https://www.pennlive.com/news/...

 Alchemist wrote:
2,000 is also unbelievable, but 54K is what they claim to make the case that it wasn't just a couple of key states, that it was widespread and that some otherwise bogus claims of stolen elections hold up. 2K is, they claim, enough, but when they open their criteria up wide enough they get the bigger number.

Not what I'm saying. If someone makes a fantastic claim a simple test of credibility is what else has to be true for this to be true?

If someone claims the sky is falling it's fair to go outside and look up.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
Yes, 54K mules would be simply unbelievable.  Of course the movie only claims 2K with their "10 drop-box" threshold, 54K was an example of what the result would be with a "5 drop-box" threshold.  But thinking about it, if the outcome is so vastly different it likely implies their data is very noisy, so accuracy is suspect.  What they should be able to do is correlate the results with security camera footage to prove (or disprove) the accuracy of their filtering of the location data.  Of course it's possible they've already done this, and the results weren't to their liking...    The argument that we would already have evidence so we should ignore evidence is circular, however.

 Alchemist wrote:
I didn't even bring up these points. I just think D'Souza is a crackpot, and has no legitimacy here (or anywhere else really). But I'll even allow he might have finally blind squirreled his way to a nut this time, but if so then show this evidence to a legitimate authority. To put it out in this manner (to this audience) is disingenuous at best, and more likely just a frothing money grab for teh gullible. I really hope you wouldn't fall prey to this trap, my faith in my fellow RPesians would be crushed. But I do recall being astonished at the turn of events over the last 6 years and have always wondered about it.   Turns out, good candidates lose elections, so we shouldn't be surprised when bad ones do as well. 

 Lazy8 wrote:
They are that good!

 kcar wrote:

agreed

 maryte wrote:
Dinesh being linked to any film in any of those roles listed above automatically disqualifies the movie from any link to reality.

And this website proves unequivocally that Paul McCartney is dead. Proves it!

Don't forget Room 237 that proves the Kubrick faked the moon landing.

Sigh.

 Alchemist wrote:
The trailer makes the claim that there were 54K mules dropping ballots in drop boxes. 54K.

And not a one of them has come forward. Not one deathbed confession, change of heart, bar stool brag, angry ex-wife. Not one car accident in all those trips by all those mules, where the stash of ballots is discovered in the car. Not one fat bundle of votes delivered to the wrong drop box.

No one who has ever managed a project would believe something this large, this complex, with this many participants would go off this smoothly. You can't organize an office birthday party with .1% of that many people without someone revealing the plan.

They would have had to come up with hundreds of thousands of blank ballots and have an army of people filling them out. Did they print them from scratch? Did they file hundreds of thousands of fake absentee ballot applications? If so, how were all those ballots collected? Who did that, and how did it evade detection?

The graphics show nice tidy lines of travel, pretending to a precision that cell tower data can't possibly represent. Did they apply the same technique to reliably red states, where there would be no point in stuffing ballot boxes? Have they tried it on days after the election, last week say? What would that show? If you can produce their ballot-stuffing pattern any day of any year then it doesn't mean what they claim.

So call me skeptical. This sounds like yet another desperate straw-grab.

 islander wrote: 
This has everything to do about the analysis of the data.  As the AP fact check was quick to point out, cell phone location pings aren't as accurate as GPS.  And knowing where someone was isn't the same as knowing what they were doing.  So it's not enough to look at one cell phone's location data and conclude what happened.  But that doesn't mean there isn't information available, especially when combined with large amounts of data from other phones and security camera footage.  Law enforcement does this all the time.  Just having an unnamed "expert" suggest that the methodology is flawed without stating how or why isn't particularly compelling.  Nor is finding a single person who attests that they had a legitimate excuse for putting multiple ballots in a box doesn't mean that video evidence of this happening on a widespread scale should be ignored.

I really hope none of this is true - my faith in our elections would be crushed.  But I do recall being astonished at the overnight turn of events in the 2020 election, and have always wondered about it.
 

 Alchemist wrote:

Okay, so you've got the cell phone data. So now what? Surely with this level of fraud you have many connections to the people that committed the fraud? And the organizations that coordinated it?  Where has all this evidence been the last year while all the other investigations and audits were occuring?

Fine, it has 'just come to light'. Okay, present away. But again, look at that messenger. If D'Souza is the only one you can find to sling that mud (and even fox backs away) then maybe the credibility is lacking. Still, welcome to drag it out a little more, but don't be surprised when you get a lot of yawns for the 347th new investigation with earthshattering new revelations. If it meets the standard for a conspiracy movie, but not that of a DA, then don't be surprised if a lot of people don't grab their pitchforks and join your parade.

 islander wrote: 
Yes, another one, because yes, this is a bunch of new evidence.  It shouldn't be hard to verify the veracity of the cell phone data.  If it's fake, then case closed.