64
She Won. They Didn't Just Change the Machines. They Rewired the Election.
(thiswillhold.substack.com)
this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2025
64 points (87.2% liked)
Politics
10607 readers
158 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Again, no, conservatives have ZERO fucking evidence. Trump got laughed out of courts by judges he appointed. He didn’t even try to lie he brought like tweets of pictures of people carrying boxes and said ‘look! Fraud!’
It was completely brain dead.
There are at least three independent groups who have been publicly researching it since just after the election. The group i linked also gave it to two separate independent researchers and made sure they came to the conclusions. The odds Trump could’ve won the way he did is one in 50 octillion
You telling me the guy who done a fake elector scheme, tried to solicit fake votes from states, and turn over the election illegitimately didn’t fucking try to cheat in every way possible? Give me a break. The dems didn’t check or knowingly turned a blind eye.
It wouldn’t have taken hundreds of people, very few. The lawsuits will progress, the bar for me giving it credibility is lack of a coherent debunk.
https://dissentinbloom.substack.com/p/im-not-saying-pennsylvania-was-stolen
https://www.wjbf.com/business/press-releases/accesswire/1033393/retransmission-2024-presidential-and-senate-results-called-into-question-as-lawsuit-advances/
https://thiswillhold.substack.com/p/she-won-they-didnt-just-change-the
https://dissentinbloom.substack.com/p/the-machines-were-changed-before
The breathless reporting and big numbers immediately set off my BS detector. Usually, when a stat says something like "the odds of this happening purely by chance are 1 In a hojillion!" it's just bad statistics, for example saying "even if each of my windows had a 75% chance of breaking in the hurricane, the odds that all of them would break is less than 1%, so clearly someone sabotaged my house!" No, they were all in the same hurricane, not independent random hurricanes, you can't just multiply the probabilities like that. It's very easy to do bad stats and come up with wild results.
It also looks like this is mostly focused on Pennsylvania, where there's actually more to look at. Again, sure! It's worth looking into. Let's see evidence that this crosses state lines and isn't just Pennsylvania. Let's see evidence that the machines really were vulnerable and not just that they could've been. Let's find someone who will name names and give specifics about this conspiracy. If this stuff is true, it'll get picked up by more sober voices that aren't yelling "it was stolen, it was stolen, don't you all see???" and then it might be worth tuning in.
Alright you don't trust math people, so what science is your opinion based on? Vibes?
When did I say I don't trust math people? I do, but not when they're saying "these numbers don't look quite right, so here's an entire story about how maybe they used satellites to steal an election." I've said repeatedly through the thread that this stuff should be looked at, but we need to keep in mind that stealing an election is very hard to do and not immediately dismiss contrary evidence like the fact that many elections that absolutely could not be manipulated the same way showed a similar result of a giant swing to the right, or that independent exit polls didn't report anything unusual.
You are basically saying "I didn't do the work of understanding what they published, but they are wrong"
I only have so many minutes to spend on this plane of existence, so if I look through something and decide "this isn't enough to go anywhere", then no, I'm not going to spend more time on it. I'd be happy to be wrong and see Trump and his cronies get brought down by a ragtag group of statisticians who found the truth and didn't give up until justice was served, but I really don't think that'll happen.