If there is one thing the Presidency of Donald Trump has exposed, it’s that most of the so-called “experts” are anything but, and much of cherished conventional wisdom is long on convention and very very short of wisdom.
Most of what we hear about voter fraud in general, and clear indications of substantial amounts of fraud in this election, falls into this category; received wisdom that is neither wise nor true.
Dishonest journalists – meaning every single person who works at the New York Times, Washington Post, AP, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, etc. – go as far simply denying that voter fraud exists, as if passing a selected stack of ballot papers multiple times through the same machine defies the laws of physics.
Others, in a good faith bid to sound “reasonable”, acknowledge that voter fraud does exist but then ape the talking heads on TV and simply mouth the received wisdom; “there is no evidence that voter fraud was enough to swing the election …”, “voter fraud has never turned election results …”, “voter fraud has never been proven in any election in America”, “voter fraud cannot be proven”, etc.
As Larry Correia notes;
… when we talk about specific incidents of fraud, they declare it statistically insignificant. But when we talk about the big picture of overall mathematical oddities, they switch and say but that doesn’t provide specific examples. They motte and bailey between the two, when in reality they’re the same thing.
Most infuriating is when the “reasonable” acknowledge the irregularities, statistical anomalies, sworn statements, etc. but then cite the margin and state that the volume of fraud is “not enough” to affect the outcome – as if the preceding facts do not by themselves call for further investigation to establish just how much of a role fraud played in the results.
It’s like your accountant demanding evidence that he’s been swindling you while refusing to hand over the books. Or a judge demanding a dead body before approving a warrant for the police to enter and search the house where the smell is coming from.
Worse, the logic of “not enough” actually creates an incentive for crooked vote counters to go big; it’s actually safer for them to manufacture more fake votes than otherwise.
If padding your preferred candidate’s tally by fifty thousand votes draws no more punishment than padding it by five thousand, why not go for fifty thousand? And if padding by fifty thousand and creating a bigger margin of victory means there’s far less likely to be recounts, discovery or investigations, then it’s only logical to pad more than less.
Bottomline; there’s enough circumstantial evidence, enough statistical/data red flags, enough documented irregularities, and more than enough sworn witness testimony to justify an in-depth audit of the election, up to and including forensic examinationS of ballots, whatever the conventional wisdom.
These talking points are specifically intended to discourage further investigation. They’re the election thief’s best friends.
So if you find yourself mouthing or typing these arguments, stop and take them back. You’re aiding and abetting voter fraud.