"Dozens of rallies are being organized across the country on Saturday as part of a movement called “Stop the Steal,” which falsely asserts that the presidential election was manipulated against President Trump.
Here are some of the unsubstantiated and inaccurate claims that you might encounter, and why they are wrong.
No, there was no widespread voter fraud.
Claim: Widespread voter fraud undermined the election and swung the vote against President Trump.
Fact: Neither election officials nor journalists have found any evidence to support that claim.
Background: This is the broadest claim being made by the Stop the Steal group. But reporters from The New York Times called voting officials representing both political parties in every state and found no evidence that fraud or other irregularities played a role in the outcome of the presidential race.
Many of the claims suggest that the alleged fraud involved mail-in ballots. Election experts have repeatedly asserted that mail-in ballots are safe. They calculated that in a 20-year period, fraud involving mailed ballots affected 0.00006 percent of votes, or one case per state every six or seven years.
No, tens of thousands of dead people did not vote.
Claim: Tens of thousands of ballots were cast in the names of dead people in Pennsylvania and Michigan.
Fact: There is no evidence that votes were cast in the names of dead people.
Background: The claim that dead people voted has been promoted by people close to Mr. Trump, including Rudy Giuliani, one of his personal lawyers.
In many cases, the claims have been bolstered by people conflating voting rolls, which list people who can potentially vote, with actual voting records. Those mistakes were often fixed before or during Election Day, and people who have passed away were removed from the voting roles. Lists that have circulated on social media sites sharing the names of dead people who supposedly voted have also largely been debunked by The Times and others.
No, voters are not casting hundreds of ballots under maiden names.
Claim: Voters cast unauthorized votes under maiden names.
Fact: There is no evidence that any votes were cast by impersonators using maiden names.
Background: This rumor was started when a woman tweeted that her mother’s maiden name had been stolen by someone who used it to vote. The tweet did not provide any evidence of the claim.
Election officials said there was no proof that individuals committed voter fraud by registering to vote, and then casting a vote using a maiden name. They added that they had received no individual complaints about specific cases.
No, a postal worker in Pennsylvania did not witness voter fraud.
Claim: A postal worker in Pennsylvania said he had seen his supervisor “tampering with mail-in ballots.”
Fact: The postal worker retracted his claims, and no evidence was found to support what he had said.
Background: The claims originated in a video released by Project Veritas, a conservative group that has repeatedly spread disinformation. The video featured a postal worker, Richard Hopkins, who said he had overheard a discussion about backdating ballots that arrived in the mail after Election Day.
The video did not provide evidence of any voter fraud, and Mr. Hopkins did not say that he had seen any fraud occur. Mr. Hopkins later recanted his allegations, according to a report by the inspector general’s office to Congress.
No, Dominion voting machines did not cause widespread problems.
Claim: A “software glitch” created by Dominion Voting Systems, a company that makes software used during the elections, changed vote tallies in Michigan and Georgia.
Fact: Election officials have found that software problems did not affect final vote counts.
Background: Two of the five counties that experienced software problems in Michigan and Georgia used Dominion voting systems and in both of those cases, the issues did not affect vote counts, according to election officials. The problems with Dominion’s systems were attributed to human error, such as incorrectly entering old files into the systems, and they were fixed before final vote counts were released.
Claims that Dominion is owned or controlled by high-profile Democrats, including the Clinton family and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have also been debunked. Dominion, originally a Canadian company that is now based in Denver, is largely owned by the New York-based private equity firm Staple Street Capital and Dominion’s chief executive, John Poulos.
u.s. house speaker election 在 李怡 Facebook 的最佳貼文
To Smash a Cracked Pot |Lee Yee
The national security honeymoon, the calm before the storm, is over. The sword of Damocles above our heads comes swinging down.
Against the professional recommendations of the Board of Education, the University of Hong Kong’s (HKU) governing council went with the majority’s decision and fired Benny Tai Yiu-ting, associate professor of the Faculty of Law. Certainly, no one would challenge Benny Tai’s comment that the decision to terminate his appointment was made by “an authority beyond the university through its agents”.
Three males and one female, aged between 16 and 21, were arrested on suspicion of “secession” in violation of the national security law. There was no action, only online speeches. Perhaps the few words by these teenagers are powerful enough to split a country of 1.4 billion people?
I had been pondering whether the Communists and their bootlickers would adopt the disqualification tactic or the postponement tactic in the upcoming Legislative Council election. The answer has been revealed that mass disqualifications would come first, and then a postponement may follow. Some said that the Communists are “braver” than I had predicted; but to borrow a young person’s words, which I find to be more suitable: rationality limits my imagination.
The three-part strike happened within a period of two days, putting an end to the honeymoon where the CCP had once sought dialogue, probed, soothed, and observed the global siege led by the United States. Now the CCP is addressing the US sanctions head-on while flexing its muscles by targeting Hongkongers.
This also illustrates that the attempt by the pan-democrats to navigate within the cavity of the national security law, to try to compromise on the confirmation letter to see a way out through election was an utter, complete failure. They could have followed my suggestion from a month ago, to run in the election with proud and loud opposition against the national security law, to welcome being disqualified and show the civilized world “what the CCP is plotting against Hong Kong”. That would have been more courageous. Yet some pushed their luck, and now they face the same fate of being disqualified.
CCP’s honeymoon period following the implementation of the national security law in Hong Kong was based on the assumption, by the CCP as well as other overseas observers, that Trump’s tough policy toward China was for his election campaign. Since the current projection of the election seems unfavorable to Trump, that there is hope for the Democrats to take over, and the US might change its policy toward China.
When the United States ordered the closure of the Chinese Consulate in Houston, and when the four top officials, especially Pompeo’s declaration of resistance to China, made it clear that the US ultra-cold war strategy towards China is unlikely to be reversible.
Stephen Young, a senior diplomat who had stationed in Beijing, Hong Kong, and Taipei, said that demanding other countries to close their consulates is a very drastic strategy. In the past, if a foreign diplomatic agency had a blunder, actions would usually have been taken against a person. The closures of the consulates suggest that the relationship is close to a break-up.
On July 25, the New York Times published the words of Ryan Hass, the President of the US National Security Council in the Obama era, that said, “They want to reorient the U.S.-China relationship toward an all-encompassing systemic rivalry that cannot be reversed by the outcome of the upcoming U.S. election. They believe this reorientation is needed to put the United States on a competitive footing against its 21st-century geostrategic rival.”
The two bills on Hong Kong, and the one on Xinjiang Uyghurs, were all passed almost unanimously in the US Senate and the House of Representatives. The Speaker of the House and Democrat, Pelosi, was particularly enthusiastic; left-wing media such as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, though have been critical of Trump, have both affirmed and even encouraged Trump’s anti-China policy.
This has been a 180 from Trump’s previous declaration of “America First” when he did not hesitate to offend the United Kingdom, the European Union, and even Asia-Pacific countries. Pompeo has recently been chummy with Europe and the Asia-Pacific to ally up, and emphasized in his anti-CCP declaration the need for the free world to act together. In fact, Trump’s unilateralism has pivoted, and the allies have returned to their positions one after another, and a global siege towards China has gradually been formed.
Has China been in touch with the US Democratic Party in private to probe whether its China policy will change if it wins the general election? There is no way of knowing. Even if so, the answer is apparent.
The US policy toward China leaves no room for maneuver, and the power-hungry CCP must now hold tight onto the hastily enacted national security law till the end. The longer they hold out, who knows how many more Hong Kong officials or pro-Beijing people would be affected along the lines of Bernard Chan and his sanctioned foreign bank.
What the CCP and its Hong Kong bootlickers are doing could be described with the Chinese idiom “to smash a cracked pot”. The pot is already cracked, then just smash it. It means that there are blemishes, and mistakes that cannot be corrected or will not be correct, then why not send the helve after the hatchet.
Lu Xun said, “When the brave is angered, he draws the sword towards the stronger; when the coward is angered, he draws the sword towards the weaker.” Disqualifications coupled with the postponement, is it “braver”? Or rather, “the coward is angered”.
u.s. house speaker election 在 美國在台協會 AIT Facebook 的最佳解答
美國講者談數位年代的民主
史蒂芬‧克里夫特曾在2013年獲得美國白宮開放政府改變使者的殊榮,但早在20多年前,他就已經開始從事網路創新工作。1994年,他自願發起了全球第一個選舉資訊網站E-democracy.org;自1998年起,他就以網路策略家與創新先鋒的身分在世界各地演講。克里夫特在6月11日和12日兩天為台灣政黨、司法部門、非政府組織與公民團體、以及學術機構進行了多場簡報,並與他們一同討論社群媒體與公民的政府參與。此外,他也分享了如何建立由地方與社區居民組成的線上社群網絡和網路工具,以及在政府與民間部門對於隱私和開放之間的拉鋸與爭議。
U.S. Speaker on Democracy in a Digital Age
Honored as a White House Champion of Change for Open Government in 2013, Steven Clift started innovating online over two decades ago. In 1994 as a volunteer, he launched E-Democracy.org, the world’s first election information website. An online strategist and continuous idea generator, since 1998 he’s spoken around the world. On June 11-12 Mr. Clift delivered presentations to members of Taiwan’s political parties and judicial sector, as well as NGO and civil society groups and academics, discussing the use of social media and citizen participation in government. Clift discussed strategies for creating local and neighborhood-based online social networks, online tools, and tensions between privacy and openness in both the government and private sphere.