Any "news" article that uses the phrase "completely bulls*t" loses all credibility. That's not how reputable news is written, and this piece simply states what the author believes to be true, nothing more. You didn't like the Free Press because it's supposedly not objective, but you're willing to trust this source that doesn't even pretend to be objective (they describe themselves as "one of the top conservative news outlets in America)? This article is not proof of anything and doesn't even provide any actual information that is in conflict with what's in the Free Press article. It''s just doing exactly what you're doing: hearing the official explanation and then deciding, without proof, that the person giving the explanation must be lying. It doesn't provide any actual evidence that the official explanation is not correct, it simply claims that it isn't. It was also written before the investigation was completed, so it's literally expressing its position before all the information was available.Here you go. Since we are cherry-picking sources and examples.
REVEALED: Michigan Recount Uncovers Serious Voter Fraud in Detroit- VOTES COUNTED UP TO 6 TIMES | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft
More bad news for Democrats— Green Party candidate Jill Stein’s Michigan recount unintentionally exposed this major voting fraud scandal.www.thegatewaypundit.com
It's a little bit wrong, because, as stated in the Free Press article (despite it being biased, apparently), it was 307 and 52. Does that one box in one precinct being off by that much, say anything about what happened in other precincts? Apparently, most of the precincts with discrepancies were off by 1 ballot and almost all the rest were off by 2-5 (SOURCE), though that was BEFORE they were able to track down many of the specific errors and get the total discrepancy down to about 200 votes city-wide, as stated in the earlier article I posted. If it was fraud, it was really poorly conceived and executed.
Recounts in all elections routinely change the total at least by a few votes, even in Republican areas. This is proof that errors are not uncommon in vote tallying, so it is reasonable that the possibility at least exists that the Detroit problems were, in fact, errors. If errors never happened, there'd never be a reason to call for a recount. The fact that recounts exist is an acknowledgement that it is possible for errors to be made. With two candidate explanations for what happened in Detroit in 2016 (1. errors, which we know happen every election; 2. fraud, for which even the Trump election integrity commission found no evidence), you have simply chosen to believe the less likely of the two.
It was halted statewide, but it was never started in these particular precincts that were deemed ineligible for recount specifically because of these errors that were discovered at the beginning of the recount process. I didn't say anything about the final vote count, we're talking about total number of ballots cast in these precincts, not how many votes each candidate got. You don't need to do a recount (which is designed to verify how many votes went to each candidate) to compare the total number of ballots in the boxes with the number that there should be. I'm saying they were able to determine how many extra votes they counted (whether by mistake, as apparently seems to be true, or on purpose, as you believe). If they couldn't have known anything because they didn't finish the recount, then how do you know about the errors in order to be able to complain about them in the first place?
I'm done here, I know I won't change your mind and I doubt you have access to the type of evidence that it would take to prove that what occurred in Detroit in 2016 was, in fact, the result of fraud. Further, you haven't backed up any of your original claims (that democrats "demanded" recounts, that those recounts were halted because Trump was gaining, that this happened in "every" state in which there was a recount, and that the proof for all these things was in the "public record"). All you have done is point out a discrepancy in one city -- the existence of which is not in dispute and which, ironically, may not have been discovered if not for the recount that Trump tried to prevent -- for which a completely reasonable explanation has been proposed, but that you simply don't accept and that wouldn't have affected the election anyway.
What's more, when I pointed out all these things that were wrong with your claims, you focused in on Michigan only, without acknowledging that you were wrong about the other states. Then, you provided an incorrect timeline of events in Michigan, and when I pointed out this incorrect timeline, you attacked my source (from an unrelated point) as not being reputable without acknowledging that you were wrong about your incorrect timeline. Then, to attempt to prove that my source was not reputable, you provided an opinion article from an even less reputable source that actually used the same data point as my original source in order to support its position, which also happened to be your position. You'll notice that I haven't actually expressed an opinion regarding whether there was fraud in Detroit. I've simply pointed out that there's nothing in the public record that supports the claim that there was, and that those who looked into it determined that poor training of poll workers was to blame for the discrepancies. That's not my opinion, that's the public record, and until such time as there is actual evidence to refute it, there is no reason to believe that it is not accurate.
Aside from all of that, as I stated earlier, you're trying to use an election in which Republicans won the presidency, the house, the senate, 8 of 14 open governorships, and gained 43 seats in state legislatures across the country as evidence of Democratic cheating.
Last edited:
