#NeverAnyElectionFraud

[PeteOlcott]

#NeverAnyElectionFraud --- Spread the Word!
This counter-propaganda must be endlessly repeated

NeverAnyElectionFraud.png (52.77 KiB) Viewed 286 times

[mickthinks]

But that in itself is a lie, Peter!

As such, it muddies the waters in the interests of the MAGA people. I wouldn’t post it if I were you.

[PeteOlcott]

(1) There never was any evidence of election fraud nearly
sufficient to change the outcome of the 2020 presidential election
summed up as the sound bite: #NeverAnyElectionFraud

(2) It is a verified fact that Trump keeps repeating this.

(3) Continuing to repeat this lie endlessly <is> the Nazi "big lie"
propaganda tactic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie

[PeteOlcott]

But that in itself is a lie, Peter!

As such, it muddies the waters in the interests of the MAGA people. I wouldn’t post it if I were you.

(1) There never was any evidence of election fraud nearly
sufficient to change the outcome of the 2020 presidential election
summed up as the sound bite: #NeverAnyElectionFraud

(2) It is a verified fact that Trump keeps repeating this.

(3) Continuing to repeat this lie endlessly <is> the Nazi "big lie"
propaganda tactic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie

[mickthinks]

There is a difference between the qualified and unqualified versions of the "no fraud" claim, Pete, and it's crucial. Omitting the "nearly
sufficient to change the outcome" qualification isn't summarising, it's traducing.

Instead of generating a useful discussion of the evidence for and against the big lie, it leads to a destructive counter-accusation of lying.

It's a f*cking own goal.

[PeteOlcott]

There is a difference between the qualified and unqualified versions of the "no fraud" claim, Pete, and it's crucial. Omitting the "nearly
sufficient to change the outcome" qualification isn't summarising, it's traducing.

Instead of generating a useful discussion of the evidence for and against the big lie, it leads to a destructive counter-accusation of lying.

It's a f*cking own goal.

Counter-propaganda must use the same sound-bite plus
emotional appeal as propaganda.

If I said: There never was any evidence of election fraud sufficient
to overturn the 2020 presidential election, Trump is just copying
Hitler's "big lie"

People only actually hear: Blah, Blah, Blah I DON'T CARE

Counter-propaganda must take into account that most
people have very short attention spans and very bad memory.

If I said: there never was sufficient evidence of
election fraud Trump is just copying Hitler's "big lie"

I will lose everyone that does not know what "sufficient" means
perhaps 20% of the target audience.

For all practical purposes there never was any evidence of election fraud.

[Age]

There is a difference between the qualified and unqualified versions of the "no fraud" claim, Pete, and it's crucial. Omitting the "nearly
sufficient to change the outcome" qualification isn't summarising, it's traducing.

Instead of generating a useful discussion of the evidence for and against the big lie, it leads to a destructive counter-accusation of lying.

It's a f*cking own goal.

Counter-propaganda must use the same sound-bite plus
emotional appeal as propaganda.

If I said: There never was any evidence of election fraud sufficient
to overturn the 2020 presidential election, Trump is just copying
Hitler's "big lie"

People only actually hear: Blah, Blah, Blah I DON'T CARE

Counter-propaganda must take into account that most
people have very short attention spans and very bad memory.

If I said: there never was sufficient evidence of
election fraud Trump is just copying Hitler's "big lie"

I will lose everyone that does not know what "sufficient" means
perhaps 20% of the target audience.

For all practical purposes there never was any evidence of election fraud.

This here is a prime example of why it took human beings to uncover, or find, the actual irrefutable Truth of things.

This one here is actually trying to defend its own use of a 'lie'.

And, to try and claim that 'a lie' will counter a so-called 'big lie' is about just as stupid as trying to claim that it is all right to tell 'white lies' is.

Whenever you tell 'any lie', then people will turn away quicker and, literally, will think, or say, 'I DON'T CARE'.

For me anyway, when I see or hear the word 'sufficient', then I will pay more attention and listen more attentively than if I saw or heard the word 'any'.

Also, and by the way, there is 'evidence' that the sun revolves around the earth, one just has to 'look up' to see and notice 'this evidence'. But, if 'that evidence' is 'sufficient', or not, is another thing.

People can find so-called 'evidence' for just about any thing, anywhere. So, to claim that there was not any evidence at all may well turn people away quicker than is wanted. Trying to 'counter' one thing with 'a lie' will never work, sufficiently, and only turn more people off listening to you, more often.

The way to, sufficiently, counter any and all 'propaganda' is with irrefutable proof, or just plain old Truth, only.

The fact may well be that there was no, yet presented, actual 'proof' at all of 'election fraud', in regards to one particular election, but to say that there was never any 'evidence' at all of 'election fraud', in that particular election, some will find very, very hard to believe.

If, as you claim, there never was any election fraud, in that election, then where is and/or what actual 'proof' do you have for this claim?

See, to me if, and when, a "politician" 'promises' something, but does not keep up 'that promise', then that is not just 'evidence' of 'election fraud' but is actually, irrefutable, 'proof' of 'election fraud', itself. But, you might be talking about 'election fraud' in some other sense. So, all of 'these things' have to be taken into account, and considered, when you say and use the 'any' word.

[Age]

For all practical purposes there never was any evidence of election fraud.

Do you mean this from:

your perspective?

Some people's perspective?

Every one's perspective?


Thus, is 'your claim' here:

your truth?

Some people's truth?

The actual irrefutable Truth?

[PeteOlcott]

For all practical purposes there never was any evidence of election fraud.

Do you mean this from:

your perspective?

Some people's perspective?

Every one's perspective?


Thus, is 'your claim' here:

your truth?

Some people's truth?

The actual irrefutable Truth?

I knew there was hardly any cases
I now know that the case total across the
whole USA was 1499 for the last several years.
https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud
Not enough to swing any election even
if the votes were not dispersed everywhere.

[Age]

For all practical purposes there never was any evidence of election fraud.

Do you mean this from:

your perspective?

Some people's perspective?

Every one's perspective?


Thus, is 'your claim' here:

your truth?

Some people's truth?

The actual irrefutable Truth?

I knew there was hardly any cases
I now know that the case total across the
whole USA was 1499 for the last several years.
https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud
Not enough to swing any election even
if the votes were not dispersed everywhere.

So, what is the actual irrefutable Truth here, was there never any evidence of election fraud? Or, was there some evidence of election fraud?

[mickthinks]

Pete, we are talking at cross purposes; I’m a philosopher, and it seems you are primarily interested in rhetoric. I happen to think your strategy is also weak from a propaganda point of view, but I am not skilled in rhetoric.

Instead of “There never was any evidence of election fraud sufficient to overturn the 2020 presidential election” or “there never was sufficient evidence of election fraud” or “For all practical purposes there never was any evidence of election fraud.” I would suggest something like this;

“There is no evidence that Trump won the 2020 election and that it was stolen by fraud”.

[Gary Childress]

Does the MAGA crowd argue with itself like we do? Maybe that's the problem. We're not even willing to engage in sound propaganda techniques. Honest people always lose.

[PeteOlcott]

So, what is the actual irrefutable Truth here, was there never any evidence of election fraud? Or, was there some evidence of election fraud?

The key fact here is that if we collected the total
of all of the voter fraud cases everywhere in the USA
for the last three years: 1499 that is not enough votes
to even nudge the closest 2020 lection race in Arizona
where Biden won by 10,457 votes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Unit ... in_Arizona

Another key fact that I just learned is the propaganda
works by repeating the same emotionally charged sound bite
because people generally have very short attention spans
and very poor memory. Counter-propaganda works this same
way, yet focuses on the truth instead of repeating a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie

[PeteOlcott]

Pete, we are talking at cross purposes; I’m a philosopher, and it seems you are primarily interested in rhetoric. I happen to think your strategy is also weak from a propaganda point of view, but I am not skilled in rhetoric.

Instead of “There never was any evidence of election fraud sufficient to overturn the 2020 presidential election” or “there never was sufficient evidence of election fraud” or “For all practical purposes there never was any evidence of election fraud.” I would suggest something like this;

“There is no evidence that Trump won the 2020 election and that it was stolen by fraud”.

Not emotionally charged enough.

#NeverAnyElectionFraud
There never was any evidence
of election fraud Trump just
copied Hitler's “big lie”

The total number of cases of election fraud everywhere in the USA
was 1499. They cannot be collected together because they are
different election in different places in different years. If they
could be collected together they would not even nudge the closest
2020 presidential election in Arizona where Biden won by 10,457 votes.


#NeverAnyElectionFraud --- Spread the Word!
This counter-propaganda must be endlessly repeated

[mickthinks]

Not emotionally charged enough.

Is that just your opinion or can you offer an argument and supporting evidence?