Friday, December 25, 2020

Voter Fraud: A Note to Leftists Who Claim that "Not a shred of hard evidence has been produced"


A cranky reader advises me to "let it go," claiming that "There was no voter fraud, Eric. Not a shred of hard evidence has been produced."

Remember George W Bush being lampooned mercilessly for twangs and goofs (real or alleged), such as the way he pronounced "nuclear"? Then came Obama who spoke of the nation's 57 states, mentioned the "Austrian" language, and confused the Malvinas (more about the Falklands below) with the Maldives. 

Oh, that? said the country's — and the planet's — journalists. No big deal… And so those goofs were not, or barely, reported…  Not that I disagree, mind you (that they were/are no big deal). I just think if you refrain from making a big deal about the Maldives (about as far away from the Malvinas on this planet as you can get), then you refrain from making a big deal about "nuclear"; if you make a big deal about Dubya's goofs, then you make an equally big deal about Obama's goofs. It ain't complicated…

I don't think that the filter of the media's double standards is conducive to a neutral and objective citizenry or to their, i.e., to the nation's, well-being…

Leftists claim that "Not a shred of hard evidence has been produced" — this, after the MSM that you read and watch along with the social media companies, like Twitter and Facebook, that you perhaps follow have made a conscious and deliberate decision to refrain from reporting on that very subject; a subject that is remarkably uncontroversial.

It is not Holocaust denial, after all, is it? In that case, refusal to report on that subject makes more sense. No, it is more like saying that Obama made such wonderful speeches; never a single goof in any of them. How do we know? Well, that is what the MSM reported, never mentioning a single goof.

What is also amazing about the Left — not least the  very "objective" and "neutral" "seekers of truth" and "investigative" journalists in the mainstream media that we have been speaking about so far — is their utter lack of a single ounce of curiosity in the matter — simple, human curiosity.

There is absolutely no controversy whatsoever to say that corruption can be found in large cities, and — as I have been repeating on French radio and TV shows this past month or two — it is no more controversial to say that voter fraud exists in Philadelphia and Chicago than to say that it exists in Marseille and Nice (Nice is especially conducive to comparisons with Chicago since the latter's father-son tag team (the Daleys) can be compared to Nice's Médecin family.)

Lately, moreover, it has emerged that the narrative that existed for the Falklands War for 30 to 40 years is false, and that contrary to 1982 media reports — repeated for over three decades — that British soldiers stationed on the island had surrendered almost immediately to Argentina's invaders, they had in fact put up quite a long (and lethal) fight.

Many many years after World War II, it emerged that the British had uncovered the German secret codes, and rather than have the Germans figure that out, Churchill (far from wrongly) let an English city be bombed (Coventry?) instead of warning its inhabitants.

More to the point, perhaps, is Eisenhower's suggestion to his vice-president that Nixon challenge the 1960 election's results; because there had definitely been fraud in Illinois (see Chicago above) and in (LBJ's) Texas.

And yet, both in Europe and in America, we are told from the get-go that no fraud whatsoever took place in 2020; belief in voter fraud is proof of absolute insanity or conspiracy theory and must be dismissed out of hand. As if it were akin to suggesting that the pyramids of Egypt and Mexico were built by ancient extraterrestrials with the help of their spaceships…

And yet: Even with the pyramids, there is no attempt to silence the news… Leading to the question, "What are they scared of?"

Indeed, how can journalists in Paris or New York or even Milwaukee or Atlanta state that no fraud took place in, say, Wisconsin or Georgia? Without any attempt at investigation? And that within a week of the election? In Paris I was interrupted — almost shouted down — by, among others, a historian (!) (see three historical examples above) — all of whom (religiously) repeated the same phrase: "Il n'y a aucune preuve!"

In America, they feel a need to call the charges "baseless" again and again — even in New York Times headlines. There is no way that cheating can have occurred in 2020 and there is no way that the results of the election can be disbelieved. Although that is the exact same accusation that Democrats have been bringing for the past four years. And, indeed, bring every time a Republican emerges as the winner.

2016 was the Republican cheating with help from Russia's leader, 2000 was the Republican cheating with help from Florida's governor, and (way back) 1980 was the Republican cheating with the help of Iran's ayatollahs.

Where are the media reports (rightly) calling (at the time or in the years or decades following) Trump's Russian conspiracy a "baseless" hoax or the so-called Iranian deal with Ronald Reagan "baseless"?

Double standards, Crank. Double standards.

My all-time favorite Tea Party sign featured this message:

"It doesn't matter what this sign says, it will be called racist."

Likewise, it doesn't matter what evidence (or, rather, proof) we come up with.
We will be told that "Not a shred of hard evidence has been produced"… 

Update via Instapundit — Among this week's collection of Powerline memes
is the Journalists' Guide to Reporting on Politicians:



8 comments:

The New York Crank said...

>>Likewise, it doesn't matter what evidence (or, rather, proof) we come up with.
We will be told that "Not a shred of hard evidence has been produced"<<

It might matter if you came up with any. But you haven't. As for the failure to investigate in Wisconsin and Georgia, it seems to me there's nothing to investigate. It's as if somebody accused you of murdering a hooker in your apartment without producing a dead body, any indication that you had taken a hooker home or even been with one, any photographs of your assaulting anybody or of a dead hooker on your promises.

So now let me try again. There's nothing to investigate. Biden won the election — both the popular vote and the electoral college by a substantial margin. There is no significant and credible evidence to the contrary.

And once again I recommend that you let it go.

Yours very crankily,
The New York Crank

Anonymous said...

I have listened (I stopped) to the local MSM for the last 4 years "Russia Russia Russia).
Crickets when hit the real deal.

Shaihulud said...

You should overlook the geographically-challenged Obama's statement that he 'wished he could speak Austrian' for he thought he was in AUSTRALIA. (lol)

T Canker said...

There is more evidence than can be reviewed in three weeks.

Hardly any jot of it has been disproven.

It is offered and, to handle it right, the receiver should disprove a few parts of it and not just keep saying it is baseless.

https://thenationalpulse.com/news/navarro-report-conclusive-slams-media/

Kaiser Derden (aka TDL) said...

hard evidence has been produced in multiple states of dead people voting by the thousands in this election ...

Old Corps said...

I am not a lawyer, but I know a few. All say the same thing. An eye witness account is evidence. If person X says, under oath, that person Y shot person Z and Z actually has a hole in him/her/it - that is evidence. And there are may eye witnesses. But what court? Who will bring the charge? Who can bring the charge? What is the distance from tyranny to freedom?

The New York Crank said...

Anonymous: I love your comment. It's so Zen it's incomprehensible.

Shaihulud: Good for you. I herewith bestow upon you the Non-sequitur Award of 2020.

Canker: So, I followed the URL you offered and all I got was Peter Navarro saying there's lots of evidence. But still no real tangible evidence.

Kaiser Derden: I'd be more inclined to believe you if you could show me your work.

Old Corps: I agree with your reasoning, but you still haven't produced a shred of evidence.

The best "evidence" that I can find indicating a Trump win is a bunch of preachers saying God told them Trump won. You can watch the show here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfDouDlHM88&feature=emb_logo

Yours very crankily,
The New York Crank

MacArch said...

NY Crank - your response to Old Corps show a lack of understanding between evidence and proof. There has been plenty of evidence provided, MUCH more than there ever was of “:Russian Collusion”. Eye Witness Accounts from multiple people in multiple states, Video evidence, Statistical Analysis, Much of this is backed up by Signed Affidavits. ALL. THIS. IS .EVIDENCE.

The veracity of the evidence has not been judged in a court of law due to the courts political bias (Penn. Supreme Court) or outright cowardly refusal to address the issue for fear of the lefts backlash.

Right now Biden claiming there is no evidence of election fraud is like Al Capone claiming there was no evidence of his crimes in the 1920’s.