Debunked: Claim that the Electoral College Count On Jan 6 will Change the Election

econ41

Senior Member
The real reason we have an electoral college
Thanks - a useful reminder for me as a non US person.

However I suggest the more relevant question for 2020 is "Why do we retain the protocols and trappings of electoral college when what remains of the original intention can be achieved without it?"
 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
Because it gives Republicans an advantage that they will not give up. Demographic changes have made it virtually impossible for a Rep candidate to win the national popular vote.

It is retained for the same reason it came into being. There are two rival cultures. The rival culture with the lower population must have an artificial advantage..

An amendment to the constitution of the U.S. would be required.
  1. Congress may submit a proposed constitutional amendment to the states, if the proposed amendment language is approved by a two-thirds vote of both houses.
  2. Congress must call a convention for proposing amendments upon application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states (i.e., 34 of 50 states).
  3. Amendments proposed by Congress or convention become valid only when ratified by the legislatures of, or conventions in, three-fourths of the states (i.e., 38 of 50 states).
 
Last edited:

JMartJr

Active Member
Worth noting that the US Constitution has been successfully amended 17 times (not counting the first 10 in the Bill of Rights, which were sort of "baked in!") In spite of the difficulties, it can and has been done repeatedly, as recently as 1992 when the 27th, originally proposed in 1789 with no expiration date, finally was ratified by enough states.

There are four amendments that were submitted to the states by Congress with no time limit for ratification that are still out there, dealing with Child Labor, Apportionment of Members of the House among the states, the "Corwin Amendment" which would shield state "domestic institutions" from being changed by Constitutional Amendment (a pre-Civil War effort to protect slavery and possibly to put off the tensions leading towards the war, as I understand it) and one to strip you of your citizenship if you accept a Title of Nobility from a foreign country -- so don't do that, just in case it is ever ratified by enough states.

To my knowledge, there is no serious effort underway to submit and ratify an amendment to address the Electoral College.
 

econ41

Senior Member
Worth noting that the US Constitution has been successfully amended 17 times...
Yes. But it is not easy and I would suggest near impossible to make amendments that reduce the politicians' power to manipulate. Currently perceived problems are from Republicans but in a different situation it could be Democrat. Which is why - as a non-US person - I'm trying to be both rigorously objective and uninvolved in domestic US details.

Hence the framing of my recent question. Can the time delays associated with the "protocols and trappings of electoral college" be reduced administratively removing ONE aspect allowing the "dramas" to be prolonged?
To my knowledge, there is no serious effort underway to submit and ratify an amendment to address the Electoral College.
Do changes to administrative procedures require amendment of the constitution? The result of an election should be available within days. But the "fixed timings" of the US system leave a President departing after 2nd term or - this case - loser for second term - in office for a couple of months and with power to commit mischief. Is the two month delay mandated by the Constitution? OR is it one aspect contributing to the current on going farce which could be modified administratively without constitutional amendment?

And - yes - there are many such issues to be addressed. I am not suggesting that one issue will solve problems - the whole complexity needs to be addressed. And - yes again - much of it if not all will be politically contentious.
 

econ41

Senior Member
Because it gives Republicans an advantage that they will not give up. Demographic changes have made it virtually impossible for a Rep candidate to win the national popular vote.

It is retained for the same reason it came into being. There are two rival cultures. The rival culture with the lower population must have an artificial advantage..
Isn't that restating the problem and saying "It is too hard"? My starting position is that there are problems. That they derive in part from ~230 years of political and cultural evolution. And the associated administrative processes are deeply embedded in both US politics and US culture.

If the current situation is acceptable >> no point in debate.
If it is not desirable debate must consider options for change including how much can be achieved by administrative action and how much needs Constitutional amendment. And in both cases having regard to pragmatics.
An amendment to the constitution of the U.S. would be required.
I suggest that is premature at the start of a debate.
There are many factors contributing so it is not singular "it" needing one singular solution "an" amendment. And many of the details could well be amenable to administrative action.
 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
If the current situation is acceptable >> no point in debate.
If it is not desirable debate must consider options for change including how much can be achieved by administrative action and how much needs Constitutional amendment. And in both cases having regard to pragmatics.

I'm really struggling to understand what you're saying here. It almost seems you're saying that because the electoral college system causes problems, the problems should be fixed... as if everyone agrees that there is an objective problem or everyone agrees there is not a problem. Or as if the problem is whether people want to put in the effort or don't want to put in the effort to fix a problem.

The Republicans like it and want to preserve it because it gives them a political advantage. The Democrats don't like it but lack the power to change it. It's a part of the Constitution of the United States and the system must be followed in all detail. The end.


It seems as if you picture the political process as a method to come to an agreement on how to pragmatically solve problems.

Sort of like... The ship is sinking. How do we repair it? Let's talk about it and come to an agreement.



But politics is usually more like...

A: The ship is sinking. How do we repair it?

B: The ship should sink. Repairing it would be preserving a costly problem.

A: What? You're insane. Ships are the finest achievement of human history.

B: No, you're insane. Ships are the root cause of all mankind's problems. I hate all ships.

A: But if this ship goes down, we'll all die.

B: Nonsense. We'll get in the boats.

A: There are only enough boats for half of us.

B: There's room for all of us. (Meaning all of B Party.)

They have a vote. Result: Fifty point one percent of the votes go to "let the ship sink." The A Party tries to repair the ship anyway, and the B Party sabotages their efforts. And so on.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
But the "fixed timings" of the US system leave a President departing after 2nd term or - this case - loser for second term - in office for a couple of months and with power to commit mischief.

you keep bringing up this point, so it must be important to you. but ive never heard any party American complaining about the transition period. and i doubt it would have anything to do with the electoral college. even if we went full popular vote, there would be court deadlines set and a transition period.

Plus if we got rid of the Electoral College then who would call the winner? it would cost like 185 billion dollars to work out and restaff for the New Election Crier to call the election. and take about 123 years to work out the details. :p
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Do changes to administrative procedures require amendment of the constitution? The result of an election should be available within days. But the "fixed timings" of the US system leave a President departing after 2nd term or - this case - loser for second term - in office for a couple of months and with power to commit mischief. Is the two month delay mandated by the Constitution? OR is it one aspect contributing to the current on going farce which could be modified administratively without constitutional amendment?

The original date for the inauguration was March 4th. It was changed by the 20th amendment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_inauguration?wprov=sfla1

This was easily found using Google.
 

Mauro

Member
There is a way to change the electoral college dynamics and to redress the unfair advantage the system gives to Republicans, without the need for a constitutional amendment: enough states (with at least 270 electoral votes) could change their laws so that their votes go to the candidate who wins the national popular vote (I have read about an initiative to get this, sorry I cannot get a reference now). That would not be easy, but easier than a constitutional amendment I think.

A federal law against gerrymandering (invented by Democrats, but now mostly favoring Republicans for what I know) would be useful too, but this looks as difficult as reforming the electoral college, they're not going to give up their privileges easily.
 

Leak

New Member
There is a way to change the electoral college dynamics and to redress the unfair advantage the system gives to Republicans, without the need for a constitutional amendment: enough states (with at least 270 electoral votes) could change their laws so that their votes go to the candidate who wins the national popular vote (I have read about an initiative to get this, sorry I cannot get a reference now). That would not be easy, but easier than a constitutional amendment I think.

CGP Grey made an informative video on the topic of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact some time ago, which I'd suggest checking out.
 
Last edited:

Hevach

Senior Member.
WIll be interesting, if that comes into being, to see how long it can withstand states with a strong Red or Blue tint having to throw their electors to the candidate their own voters rejected strongly.
I fully expect it to be a house of cards. Legislatures can't bind themselves, most states aren't enshrining this in their constitution, and even if they do almost every state constitution is relatively easy to change.

The real test isn't just going to be states assigning electors against the local votes, I think. It's going to be a 2000/2016/2020 situation where the popular vote loser would win the per-state electoral college but loses due to the compact.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
The only hope for reform in the USA, as I see it... is if the republicans over reach and essentially self destruct.... and lose the majorities they hold in the small states. This is possible but how likely it is hard to know. But...
If the dems control both houses and the POTUS they would then be able to make fundamental changes like... make PR a state or DC... and perhaps pass new election law. However the republican base is getting radicalized and not prone to play by the rules these days. Hard to envision a path to a better USA.
 

econ41

Senior Member
However the republican base is getting radicalized and not prone to play by the rules these days. Hard to envision a path to a better USA.
I also see those as two of the dominating issues also Jeffrey. The move against democracy is strong. The Trump era and recent ongoing events boosting radicalisation. Effectively not possible to amend the Constitution. And no pragmatic way forward because so much of the administrative detail is tied to specific aspects of the Constitution.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Hopefully drama fatigue will set in soon for both sides and we can go back to trying to be somewhat reasonable and compromising.
I see the problem of achieving reason and compromise is the influence of the base of the republican party. Repubs are hostage to their base which will settle for not compromise and are agitating for a civil war. These R's will lose support. So this may lead to a dem majority in congress but a more agitated and out of control base and trouble in the streets.

Can the base ever be satisfied with democracy as we know it?
 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
Let's put this in the proper perspective.

This current maneuver - the subject of this thread - is a political struggle between Trump and Mitch McConnell and the factions they lead. And it's part of a larger struggle. The Trumpists - the leaders - have no belief that they can overturn this election. But the continuing effort to do so is a political badge. Trump wants followers who are willing to commit sedition against the U.S. constitutional government - a system which he has no allegiance to at all. That's all he sees it as; a system. A system which is obsolete at best.

This is a battle to preserve the republic against autocracy; and it's a serious battle. It's part of a worldwide battle of liberal democracy versus democratic autocracy. A battle which we are currently losing.

In another thread - and elsewhere - there's been a call for understanding and empathy and so on. Maybe the Grinch's heart will grow three sizes.

The autocrats have a neurotic hyper-masculine style. Kindness and understanding and so on are met with contempt, because empathy is weakness. Empathy is something which repulses them and is one of the things which makes them hate us. So being more empathetic - toward them - is a losing strategy.

This is why I'm so strongly against autocracy. It's wrong.

And by "us" I don't mean Democrat vs Republican. It's now between liberal democracy and democratic autocracy.

This is just the beginning, not the end. We just have to hope that the radicals will self-destruct, because there is currently no effective opposition to them. To a large extent because so many people are still in denial about what's really happening.
 
Last edited:

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
To be specific:

Republican members of Congress have been forced into this choice:
Support this effort - anti-democratic (but legal!) as it is - and face the consequences, or do not support it and face different consequences.

They risk being "primary-ed." (A neologism which doesn't yet have a standardized spelling.) Even Republicans in safe Republican districts/states will face defeat, not from a Democrat in the general election, but from a radicalized autocratic Republican candidate in the primary election.

The very fact that it is an anti-democratic effort is the point. One has to commit this radical act, which forever brands one as a radical anti-democrat, or face being branded as a RINO. It's a decision point.

That's the battle right now, and it's serious.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
We just have to hope that the radicals will self-destruct, because there is currently no effective opposition to them. To a large extent because so many people are still in denial about what's really happening.

I think the vast majority of non-radicals on both sides would agree with this statement. (not the rest of what you said, just this bit)

But if there is no effective opposition to them, why try strategies that just drive more people to radicalization?
 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
Because it doesn't do that. That's not how it works. The base is following the leaders of the anti-democratic movement. They have been isolated and indoctrinated into a mindset which is highly resistant to any form of logic... or of human feeling.

Again, that's why I am so passionately opposed to the autocrats. This is horrible.

The role of Russia under Putin in this process is highly underappreciated.
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
We just have to hope that the radicals will self-destruct, because there is currently no effective opposition to them.
I don't know what your standards for effectiveness are, but you probably noticed Trump has been voted out of office effective January 20th? That's pretty effective in my book. Of course, one always wishes for more sooner, but saying there is *no* effective opposition is an understatement that doesn't do the actual opposition justice. All Republican governors in the battleground states that voted for Biden have certified that vote. They've upheld the principles of democracy over autocracy. And this is happening worldwide, there's no established democracy that has succumbed to autocracy; the ones that did or are close to it (e.g. Hungary) are comparatively young.
 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
Voting out Trump is not nothing. Good. But the end of the Trump presidency isn't the end of the story. What I just saw in the last few weeks since the election was a shocking acceleration in the normalization of autocracy in the U.S. On January 6th we may well have another shocking display.

We also learned about the Russian Hack - how did that really happen? Who let it happen or helped it happen? What's going to happen next?

I don't want to be rude or confrontational... truly. But tell me about...
Alternative für Deutschland
Junge Alternative für Deutschland
Der fehlende Part
Compact – Magazin für Souveränität


I hear that this Russian backed party is on the decline. What can you say about this?
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
I don't want to be rude or confrontational... truly. But tell me about...
Alternative für Deutschland
They've been elected to some German parliament seats, but don't hold executive power anywhere on a national or state level; they're known to be affiliating with neo-nazis, and kind of dismantling themselves as a party over these issues.
You could say that they're encountering effective opposition.
 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
We now know it's on.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/30/hawley-challenge-biden-electors-forcing-vote-452319

One year ago Hawley was named as a potential presidential candidate in 2024.

Article on Hawley, from last January.
https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article239391873.html

Many people have commented that the real danger comes in the next election when the anti-democratic radicals run an intelligent, stable and competent presidential candidate. This political gambit may come to be seen as the first move in Hawley's campaign.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
Many people have commented that the real danger comes in the next election when the anti-democratic radicals run an intelligent, stable and competent presidential candidate. This political gambit may come to be seen as the first move in Hawley's campaign.

i'm not arguing with you, because to be honest i cant get a grasp on what you are scared of... but your politico article says this is kinda par for the course amongst Democrats. I dont understand why it is so bad now. ?

Article:
House Democrats have challenged the results of the 2000, 2004 and 2016 elections, but only after the 2004 election did a senator — California's Barbara Boxer — join in the challenge. That year, Democrats objected to Ohio's electoral votes, which forced a two-hour debate and was ultimately defeated by a wide margin.
 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
i'm not arguing with you, because to be honest i cant get a grasp on what you are scared of... but your politico article says this is kinda par for the course amongst Democrats. I dont understand why it is so bad now. ?

Article:
House Democrats have challenged the results of the 2000, 2004 and 2016 elections, but only after the 2004 election did a senator — California's Barbara Boxer — join in the challenge. That year, Democrats objected to Ohio's electoral votes, which forced a two-hour debate and was ultimately defeated by a wide margin.
Homework for you. Research the specific issues and goals in 2000, 2004, and 2016 and report them here. Was the goal in any of those years - or any year- overturning an election? [Edit to make the point clear: Was the goal in any of those years - or any year- a sham attempt to overturn an election through deliberate fraud?]
 
Last edited:

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
Republican Senator for Nebraska Ben Sasse has issued a condemnation in an open letter to his constituents.


Source: https://www.facebook.com/SenatorSasse/posts/3517705981660655


Excerpts...
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Homework for you. Research the specific goals in 2000, 2004, and 2016 and report them here. Was the goal in any of those years - or any year- overturning an election?
If you have an assertion to make you should make it an support it rather than handing out homework assignments. In the 2000 election 20 congressmen objected to Florida's vote. Was there another intention?
 

econ41

Senior Member
Many people have commented that the real danger comes in the next election when the anti-democratic radicals run an intelligent, stable and competent presidential candidate. This political gambit may come to be seen as the first move in Hawley's campaign.
That is the trend which I see of concern. My own interest from the perspective of an Australian whose country is suffering co-lateral damage as a possible consequence of the Trump era.

But also from the perspective of how can the USA reverse the underlying issues which have caused of the perceived problems.
Republican Senator for Nebraska Ben Sasse has issued a condemnation in an open letter to his constituents.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/SenatorSasse/posts/3517705981660655

Excerpts...
That looks like "one small step".
 
Last edited:

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
If you have an assertion to make you should make it an support it rather than handing out homework assignments. In the 2000 election 20 congressmen objected to Florida's vote. Was there another intention?
I put it this way to be as neutral as possible. Do you want me to express an opinion about motive?


The issue in the 2000 election was voter suppression perpetrated by the state of Florida, and this was based in fact.* A genuine violation of The Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Democrats did not force a vote in both houses in the year 2000. Al Gore, as president of the Senate silenced members of the Congressional Black Caucus by ruling their objections and parliamentary maneuvers out of order. Al Gore was the losing candidate that year for those unaware.

This is not equivalent in any way to the situation this year.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Central_Voter_File
*

The issue in 2004 was voter suppression perpetrated by the state of Ohio, and this was based in fact. A genuine violation of the The Voting Rights Act of 1965. Senator for California Barbara Boxer did join the challenge. This was not an attempt, sham or otherwise, to overturn the election. It was a gesture to highlight the issue of illegal voter suppression in Ohio and elsewhere.

The year 2016
https://www.npr.org/2017/01/06/5085...cting-to-electoral-college-results-it-is-over

No official challenge was made.
 
Last edited:

econ41

Senior Member
I put it this way to be as neutral as possible. Do you want me to express an opinion about the motive?
It is an interesting topic - and warrants it's own thread IMO.

And the topic runs parallel with the concerns I have been expressing without success.

As I see it you are identifying political manipulation of the system. I comprehend the points you make. I accept or agree with many of them tho they are not my area of interst or current expertise. My focus has been - still is - on the mix of Constitutional provisions and related adminstative processes which IMO underpin the recent events which I regard as farcical.

My theme - whether it fits the same OP or not - 'What options are available to minimise seditious and dishonest manipulation of the "system"?' So it is at least a partial approach to options for constraining the negative aspects of the trends you identify. The topics should be complementary.
 
Last edited:

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
I've found this.



Hawley
I have no problem calling this deliberately deceptive. I’ll just cut and paste a point Senator Sasse made.

He's also lying about the 74 million figure. He's claiming, by inference, that every person who voted for Trump believes the stolen election narrative. He knows this isn't true. This is intolerable.




Boxer reinforces the point I made simply from memory. My living memory.

I emphasize "my living memory" because I'm not going to tolerate this Room 101 effort to take Reality from me. I'm not going to say I don't know how many fingers.

This is intolerable, this is un-American, this is wrong.
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
i'm not arguing with you, because to be honest i cant get a grasp on what you are scared of... but your politico article says this is kinda par for the course amongst Democrats. I dont understand why it is so bad now. ?
It is so bad now because the objection is not based on reality. The "concerns" are a conspiracy theory.

No Republican has had their vote suppressed this year. There was no vote counted (with few exceptions, I hear there's a Republican who cast a second ballot in the name of his dead mother!) that wasn't by a legitimate voter with the right to vote; as becomes clear when you read the amicus brief that the congressional Republicans filed for the Texas lawsuit at the Supreme Court.

The 2021 objection is propaganda in support of a narrative that is founded on lies.

We have discussed the 2005 objection on this forum recently; you should have learned that it was to highlight the difficulties black voters faced in many counties in Ohio, which were provably real and not imagined. (Remember, you objected to me calling that sad?)

There is *nothing* the Republicans have shown about the 2020 election that compares. Their concern is, "we lost the election (like the polls predicted), therefore there must have been fraud". But the core of democracy is that we accept when others have a different opinion than we do; and that we submit to the majority when a decision needs to be made. The refusal to do that is at the core of the Republican objections; the single purpose of the amicus brief I mentioned was to throw out legitimate votes that did not favor the Republicans.

Today's push is not based on democratic principles; it does not champion anyone's right to vote; it is no more than a tantrum based on the fact that Trump did not succeed in getting re-elected, and it is calling the foundation of democracy into question because of it. The "concerns" are about losing an election fair and square. No politician who supports democracy should ever be concerned about that.

--

The objection in the electoral college will fail because the House will not support it. It won't have legal consequences, Biden will be elected. Z.W.Wolf should not be scared for Biden. Wolf is scared because one of the two big American parties has forgotten how to stand up for democracy. (There are many Republicans who remember! But they're in the minority in their party, it seems.)

The Democrat objections of the past, in the electoral vote counting, were standing up for democracy. They did not intend to call the outcome of the vote into question, they intended to highlight proven infringements of people's right to vote. These objections were fighting for democracy, not against it.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
i see. so standing up (checks and balances) for election integrity is good and noble when liberals feel the intent is justified, but is evil when liberals feel the intent is bad but conservatives feel the intent is justified. color me surprised.

Just because many of the complaints we see highlighted in the mainstream media have no evidence to back them up, or are outright conspiracy theories, does not negate the few legitimate issues that arose from this unique situation of untested mass mail-in voting or election officials illegally changing state voting law.

The right to vote isnt an open border situation. ie. i cant go to my townhall Nov 12th and say "i was too lazy to get my vote in on time so i have a right to vote now". or "I voted too late and the u.s. mail didnt deliver my ballot on time so i want it counted anyway because i have a right to vote" or "i have a right for my vote to be counted even though i didnt fill the ballot out properly because noone taught me how".

In every year, the right to vote is granted citizens WITHIN the laws (as determined by state legislators) that govern those rights. (you need to show ID, you need to get your vote in by 9pm, poll watchers must be granted access etc etc)


I'm glad Biden won but there were funky issues in a few states (as Barr said. Though, as Barr also said... not enough funky issues to change the election results.). I doubt any alleged suppression of the black vote in prior years was enough to change election results, but still most people would agree that any election integrity issues should be examined so people - of ANY color- feel confident in the election and post-election process.

Democrats should be thrilled the laws and protocols are being seen through in this election, it gives (checks and balances) much more credence to Biden's win.

I think people are too fixated on Trump and his sometimes over-the-top die hard supporters. The sun does not rise and set with Trump. Not every citizen with concerns is a die hard Trump supporter, and their concerns should not be just dismissed out of hand as conspiracy theories.

*and for the record, i would be defending Democrat right to lawsuits and recounts also if Trump had won. As i stated before the election. (and i guarantee you in this unique Covid year, and the utter hatred of the anti-Christ Trump, there would be lawsuits coming from Democrats. )

The Democrat objections of the past, in the electoral vote counting, were standing up for democracy. They did not intend to call the outcome of the vote into question, they intended to highlight proven infringements of people's right to vote.

and btw... no. they wanted the election win to go to Gore. which is fine and good and VERY American and VERY pro democracy.
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
standing up (checks and balances) for election integrity is good and noble when liberals feel the intent is justified, but is evil when liberals feel the intent is bad but conservatives feel the intent is justified.
Nobody said "evil".

"Checks and balances" are the judicial system, it's been employed, but even after these checks we're still waiting for a concession speech from Trump. That reads like the Republicans do not respect these checks.

The "funky issues in a few states", what are they? Do they discriminate against certain group of voters? Do they impact constitutional rights? Or are you treating this as a game, where rules matter more than constitutional rights?
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
"Checks and balances" are the judicial system
we have 3 branches of government. the judicial system is one.

That reads like the Republicans do not respect these checks.
are you sure you want to generalize like this, considering the majority, even McConnell has said Biden won?

Do they discriminate against certain group of voters?
why do they have to discriminate? why does it have to be against a certain 'group'?

where rules matter more than constitutional rights?

America is a land of laws. I don't know how you do things in Germany, and i don't care. it's not a matter of "more". and don't accuse me of treating this as a game. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw bricks.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
TEEJ Debunked: Claim that Joe Biden's hand passes through microphone during White House press gaggle, 16th March 2021 Election 2020 8
Mick West Debunked: Trump's Claim of "1,126,940 votes created out of thin air" in PA Election 2020 8
Jesse3959 FE Claim Debunked: JTolan Epic Gravity Experiment - Flat earther disproves Perspective! (or his instruments.) Flat Earth 0
TEEJ Debunked: Claim of Iraq/Syria ISIS Convoy with US Helicopter Escort 2015 Conspiracy Theories 0
Balance Debunked Claim: RH% too low for contrails Contrails and Chemtrails 22
Belfrey Debunked: Claim that injury makeup shows Alison Parker and Adam Ward as "crisis actors." Conspiracy Theories 8
Mike Fl Debunked: The Claim That the Envelope Was Found in the Lanza Home Sandy Hook 10
derwoodii Debunked: Claim MH 17 wreckage engine fan is wrong size Flight MH17 2
AluminumTheory Debunked: Infowars' & Mancow's claim that Harry Lennix trained Obama Conspiracy Theories 136
bird_up Debunked: "Interdimensional being" caught on CCTV in Neza, Mexico UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
M Debunked: Atmospheric pressure on Mars is 9 PSI, not 0.09 PSI as claimed by NASA Science and Pseudoscience 45
Patrick Gonzalez Debunked: missing cable on Perseverance landing footage proves it is fake. General Discussion 3
TEEJ Debunked: Biden's Oval Office "Coming Apart at the Seams" [It's a Door] Election 2020 19
derrick06 Debunked: UFO over California Highway (TMZ) UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 1
P Debunked: 7 Alleged photos of aliens UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 8
Mick West Debunked: Biden signing "Blank" Executive Orders Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Biden in "Fake" Oval Office Election 2020 27
P Debunked: UN hidden camera: the first UFO contact happened [Deep Fake] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 3
Mick West Debunked: 94% of Fulton County Ballots Manually Adjudicated [It's a Process all Batches go Through] Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: "Missile Strike" caused Nashville Explosion General Discussion 3
Mick West Debunked: Nashville Explosion was "Across the Street" from the RV General Discussion 0
Mick West Debunked: "Error rate of 68.5% Allowable is .0008%" [Neither is True] Election 2020 4
Rory Debunked: Einstein wrote "blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth" Quotes Debunked 12
Mick West Debunked: Navid Keshavarz-Nia's Claims of "A Sudden Rise in Slope" as Election Fraud Evidence Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Crowder's "Fraud Week" Title Graphic (and Why it Matters) Election 2020 1
JFDee Debunked: Democratic senators complained about 'vote switching' by Dominion voting machines in 2019 Election 2020 2
Mendel Debunked: The Democrats are trying to take away freedom of religion Election 2020 6
H Debunked: Dr. Shiva's Scatterplot Analysis of Michigan Precincts Election 2020 43
Mick West Debunked: Suspicious "Biden Only" Ballots in Georgia Election 2020 3
Mick West Debunked: "Nancy Pelosi's long time Chief of Staff is a key executive at Dominion Voting" Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: Wisconsin Turnout 89% Impossible High [Actually 72%] Election 2020 1
Mick West Debunked: Video of Poll Worker "Filling In" Ballots. Election 2020 3
Mick West Debunked: Pentagon has Evidence of "Off-World Vehicles Not Made on this Earth" UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 14
derrick06 Debunked: United Nations creates a "NWO" website Conspiracy Theories 2
N Debunked: Google Mail icon shows linkage to Freemasons Conspiracy Theories 4
Mendel Debunked: The WHO did not take the Taiwan CDC seriously Coronavirus COVID-19 0
A Why 9/11 Truthers Are Wrong About The Facts | (Part 1 w/ Mick West) 9/11 1
Mendel Debunked: Radar Waves Affect Clouds General Discussion 0
Pumpernickel Need Debunking: Foucault's Pendulum debunked through Mach's principle (the Earth is a static object in the center of the Universe) Science and Pseudoscience 16
M Ufos arrive to the central zone of Chile. (Debunked). Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Jesse3959 FE Debunked with water tube level - 187 foot building 21.2 miles away below eye level Flat Earth 0
H Debunked: Cadillac Mountain from 220 miles Flat Earth 7
Mick West Debunked: DoD prepares for martial law in CONUS: Conspiracy Theories 0
Oystein Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
A Debunked: NASA tampered with the original television audio of the Apollo 11 moon landing Conspiracy Theories 1
Greylandra Debunked: media headline "Judea declares war on Germany" [boycott] Conspiracy Theories 20
Mick West Discovery Channel's "Contact: Declassified Breakthrough" was debunked 2.5 years ago UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 8
Joe Hill Debunked: "The North Face of Building 7 Was Pulled Inward" 9/11 66
A Debunked : Fake Set Moon Landing with TV Camera and Stairs Conspiracy Theories 3
Mick West Debunked: Photo with Sun Rays at Odd Angles Flat Earth 0
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top