|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On October 26 2024 21:11 oBlade wrote:
3 fraudulent votes uncovered thus far in one case.
3/636000 = 0.00000471698.
I'm pretty good with a calculator.
|
|
|
On October 26 2024 20:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2024 20:52 oBlade wrote:On October 26 2024 20:30 Sadist wrote:On October 26 2024 19:59 oBlade wrote:On October 26 2024 19:27 Sadist wrote:On October 26 2024 13:07 oBlade wrote:I'm not a conservative so I have a vested interest in a free and fair and secure election which is the cornerstone of democracy, and don't find that controversial.
Pennsylvania uncovered a fraudulent registration scheme of at least 2,500 fake registrations.Colorado which we will all remember has universal no excuse mail-in voting is now dealing with people intercepting and returning other people's ballots that they filled out. In other news the 5th Circuit ruled Mississippi can't take ballots after Election Day (previously 5 days after) Congress statutorily designated a singular "day for the election" of members of Congress and the appointment of presidential electors. Text, precedent, and historical practice confirm this "day for the election" is the day by which ballots must be both cast by voters and received by state officials. Because Mississipppi's statute allows ballot receipt up to five days after the federal election day, it is preempted by federal law. We reverse the district court's contrary judgment and remand for further proceedings. His entire post is built on a false premise about the 2020 election. You seriously dont think that post is concerning? Yes, I seriously don't. Election fraud does not become more or less bad depending on your reason for opposing it. O'Keefe has also stated he has people watching and reporting undercover. You guys are terrible. Seriously. If you want to live in a fascist state get the fuck out of the US. If theres any election fraud going on its being done by lunatic republicans who have been wound into a frenzy by the repeated lies. Are you talking about the case in PA I already linked? Do you have any evidence of who was behind it? It would help the authorities. Mesa County, CO had a dozen ballots reported intercepted and filled out by others. 3 were counted already, and once counted cannot be reversed. Presumably you would be opposed to election fraud as well so there's no reason to stoop to calling for deportation of American citizens. While 0 is the ideal number of fraudulent ballots cast, let's keep in mind that we're comparing 3 potentially-fraudulent votes in Colorado to the over-600,000 votes in Colorado cast so far (as of a few days ago): https://www.coloradopolitics.com/elections/colorado-ballots-turned/article_16e69370-917c-11ef-a97b-b7ffb897ff24.html In 2020, Colorado saw over 3 million votes cast, and Biden won by over 440,000 votes. 3 (or 30 or 300) will not matter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_Colorado
This comment needs to be seen way more. It's another classic example of the right-wing style of making a mouse into an elephant. 3 ballots out of likely 3 million votes in a state of >4 million eligible voters.
And we don't even know who the fraudulant ballots are in favor of, Trump or Harris. That isn't even known! It could be all Trump, it could be all Harris, or maybe even a mix of both.
|
On October 26 2024 21:25 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2024 21:15 Sadist wrote:
Hey dipshit admit Trump lied about the 2020 election and Democrats in his truth social post.
He's entitled to his opinion. Mine is I think universal mail-in ballots and early voting are anathema to a secure election and the democratic process, which the Founders specified as election day, not election season. I mean just look at how many TENS of millions of votes have already been cast. This is why complaints about the lack of debates are laughable. In a normal year we'd be doing debates still at this point. That's kind of pointless if half the country has already rubber stamped their guy through the mail anyway. He thinks Democrats are cheaters, you think Republicans are insane/maniac cheaters, ironically in both accusing the other sides should emerge the perfect balance of security.
Except:
1. Stating that there was widespread voter fraud in 2020 isn't an "opinion". It is a fact-based claim with a truth value, and it is false. Trump is lying, he knows he's lying, and his falsehoods shouldn't be dismissed as merely opinions that we can agree to disagree on, like our favorite colors or favorite ice cream flavors.
2. Republicans - especially Donald Trump - were caught cheating and trying to rig the election over and over and over and over and over again, while Democrats were not. What needs to matter is if either side was actually trying to steal the election, not whether or not the other side believes it to be true. We need to operate in reality, and there is a difference between "one person killed a man and a second person didn't kill anyone, so the former is guilty and the latter is innocent" and "both people think the other person killed someone, so they're both equally guilty regardless of the truth".
|
On October 26 2024 21:25 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2024 21:15 Sadist wrote:
Hey dipshit admit Trump lied about the 2020 election and Democrats in his truth social post.
He's entitled to his opinion. Mine is I think universal mail-in ballots and early voting are anathema to a secure election and the democratic process, which the Founders specified as election day, not election season. I mean just look at how many TENS of millions of votes have already been cast. This is why complaints about the lack of debates are laughable. In a normal year we'd be doing debates still at this point. That's kind of pointless if half the country has already rubber stamped their guy through the mail anyway. He thinks Democrats are cheaters, you think Republicans are insane/maniac cheaters, ironically in both accusing the other sides should emerge the perfect balance of security. Real question, are you JD Vance? You seem as unable as him to state an objective fact. There was no widespread fraud in 2020 and Trump lost a fair election.
|
On October 26 2024 21:25 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2024 21:15 Sadist wrote:
Hey dipshit admit Trump lied about the 2020 election and Democrats in his truth social post.
He's entitled to his opinion. Mine is I think universal mail-in ballots and early voting are anathema to a secure election and the democratic process, which the Founders specified as election day, not election season. I mean just look at how many TENS of millions of votes have already been cast. This is why complaints about the lack of debates are laughable. In a normal year we'd be doing debates still at this point. That's kind of pointless if half the country has already rubber stamped their guy through the mail anyway. He thinks Democrats are cheaters, you think Republicans are insane/maniac cheaters, ironically in both accusing the other sides should emerge the perfect balance of security.
It's not an opinion, it's slander. An opinion is that Democrats don't actually care about their voters and they're just going with the flow to stay in power. Slander is to accuse Democrats of stealing an election when no evidence of a crime exists. Trump is lying about Democrats cheating to steal the election. The reason why we think Republicans are delusional is because they're supporting Trump who has lied roughly 5-10 times more than the second biggest liar in US presidential history.
Trump's slanderous claims undermine people's confidence in America's democracy. Because of this (and for many other reasons such as being Putin's lapdog) he's a threat to the country.
|
Oblade thank you for responding why you feel a certain way about mail in ballots. At least thats a starting place for discussion and can potentially be fruitful.
I do really want to understand your response to DPB. I dont honestly understand how you can say what Trump says about the 2020 election and Democrats in his truth social post can be an opinion. You cannot have an opinion about something that is factually untrue (For example, if I said Flash played zerg and ALL of his televised matches in his career as zerg that would not be an opinion)
|
On October 26 2024 21:35 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2024 20:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 26 2024 20:52 oBlade wrote:On October 26 2024 20:30 Sadist wrote:On October 26 2024 19:59 oBlade wrote:On October 26 2024 19:27 Sadist wrote:On October 26 2024 13:07 oBlade wrote:I'm not a conservative so I have a vested interest in a free and fair and secure election which is the cornerstone of democracy, and don't find that controversial.
Pennsylvania uncovered a fraudulent registration scheme of at least 2,500 fake registrations.Colorado which we will all remember has universal no excuse mail-in voting is now dealing with people intercepting and returning other people's ballots that they filled out. In other news the 5th Circuit ruled Mississippi can't take ballots after Election Day (previously 5 days after) Congress statutorily designated a singular "day for the election" of members of Congress and the appointment of presidential electors. Text, precedent, and historical practice confirm this "day for the election" is the day by which ballots must be both cast by voters and received by state officials. Because Mississipppi's statute allows ballot receipt up to five days after the federal election day, it is preempted by federal law. We reverse the district court's contrary judgment and remand for further proceedings. His entire post is built on a false premise about the 2020 election. You seriously dont think that post is concerning? Yes, I seriously don't. Election fraud does not become more or less bad depending on your reason for opposing it. O'Keefe has also stated he has people watching and reporting undercover. You guys are terrible. Seriously. If you want to live in a fascist state get the fuck out of the US. If theres any election fraud going on its being done by lunatic republicans who have been wound into a frenzy by the repeated lies. Are you talking about the case in PA I already linked? Do you have any evidence of who was behind it? It would help the authorities. Mesa County, CO had a dozen ballots reported intercepted and filled out by others. 3 were counted already, and once counted cannot be reversed. Presumably you would be opposed to election fraud as well so there's no reason to stoop to calling for deportation of American citizens. While 0 is the ideal number of fraudulent ballots cast, let's keep in mind that we're comparing 3 potentially-fraudulent votes in Colorado to the over-600,000 votes in Colorado cast so far (as of a few days ago): https://www.coloradopolitics.com/elections/colorado-ballots-turned/article_16e69370-917c-11ef-a97b-b7ffb897ff24.html In 2020, Colorado saw over 3 million votes cast, and Biden won by over 440,000 votes. 3 (or 30 or 300) will not matter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_Colorado This comment needs to be seen way more. It's another classic example of the right-wing style of making a mouse into an elephant. 3 ballots out of likely 3 million votes in a state of >4 million eligible voters. And we don't even know who the fraudulant ballots are in favor of, Trump or Harris. That isn't even known! It could be all Trump, it could be all Harris, or maybe even a mix of both.
Those are good points. Also, just to re-establish what 2020 was actually like, there were "fewer than 475 potential instances out of more than 25 million votes cast, a number that would not have come close to changing the outcome", and these numbers came from "the six states that were disputed by President Trump and his allies" https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/exhaustive-fact-check-finds-little-evidence-of-voter-fraud-but-2020s-big-lie-lives-on
475/25000000 = 0.000019.
You could combine all the confirmed cases of election fraud in 2020 across the entire country, and even if you moved them all to whichever state was the closest to flipping, it still wouldn't be close to changing the outcome of the election.
While wanting to make sure that election fraud is as minimal as possible is a noble pursuit, we should be resting assured that our elections have consistently been incredibly safe and accurate. Instead, these allegations of widespread fraud have been coming from a liar who's an incredibly sore loser and trying to make the election as insecure as possible, so that he can steal it if he loses:
"Election officials and election security experts have long been clear: voter fraud is extraordinarily rare and our system has strong checks in place to protect the integrity of our voting process. These are the facts. But the facts have not stopped bad actors from trotting out baseless claims of “systemic voter fraud” to suppress votes and undermine trust in our democracy for political gain.
By all measures, the 2020 general election was one of the most secure elections in our history. Voters turned out in record numbers to cast their ballots by mail and in person, and the votes were counted in a timely manner. This success, however, did not dissuade President Trump and his enablers from loudly claiming fraud when the race did not go his way. In a brazen attempt to overturn the results, he unleashed an onslaught of outlandish claims about widespread fraud in the election, shamelessly targeting the votes of Black and Latino citizens in several cities. The severity of the allegations by the president and his allies, however false, has elicited a resounding rebuke of the myth of widespread voter fraud from officials at every level of government."
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/its-official-election-was-secure
|
On October 26 2024 21:26 Sadist wrote:
How he entitled to his opinion when we know its a lie? Its not an opinion!
I think you're making an epistemological mistake in this case. If you say you found fraud in 3 ballots, it doesn't exonerate the other 600,000, for example. The default amount of fraud is not zero until proven otherwise, it's an unknown, it's an unknown I might hope to be low but otherwise it's not accurately knowable in a deductive sense. God could know or technically you could do some kind of really exhaustive, but ultimately infeasible, method of checking. His claim is basically unfalsifiable - there's a bunch of stuff ("rampant") that was undetected by its very nature of not being detectable. That doesn't mean it's impossible, or false, but to the extent he sincerely believes it it's not my problem, you can ask him to apologize though.
This is also why we can call conspiracy theories conspiracy theories and not conspiracy lies, because they are crafted and presented to exist in the gaps where they preempt their own falsification.
For example James believes the rape rate is 2x more than reported, Bob believes it's 3x more than reported, Alex believes it's 100x more than reported. They're all incorrect liars inasmuch as their claim differs from our objective assessment of the reported value - or even our agreed objective estimate of the "true" rate, but because it's uncertain to begin with Alex's opinion isn't a lie as such just because it's an outlier or looks less reasonable than what the other people think.
|
On October 26 2024 21:50 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2024 21:26 Sadist wrote:
How he entitled to his opinion when we know its a lie? Its not an opinion! I think you're making an epistemological mistake in this case. If you say you found fraud in 3 ballots, it doesn't exonerate the other 600,000, for example. The default amount of fraud is not zero until proven otherwise, it's an unknown, it's an unknown I might hope to be low but otherwise it's not accurately knowable in a deductive sense. God could know or technically you could do some kind of really exhaustive, but ultimately infeasible, method of checking. His claim is basically unfalsifiable - there's a bunch of stuff ("rampant") that was undetected by its very nature of not being detectable. That doesn't mean it's impossible, or false, but to the extent he sincerely believes it it's not my problem, you can ask him to apologize though. This is also why we can call conspiracy theories conspiracy theories and not conspiracy lies, because they are crafted and presented to exist in the gaps where they preempt their own falsification. For example James believes the rape rate is 2x more than reported, Bob believes it's 3x more than reported, Alex believes it's 100x more than reported. They're all incorrect liars inasmuch as their claim differs from our objective assessment of the reported value - or even our agreed objective estimate of the "true" rate, but because it's uncertain to begin with Alex's opinion isn't a lie as such just because it's an outlier or looks less reasonable than what the other people think. No
Trump lies. period. full stop. end of conversation.
we're not spending a dozen pages talking about how much lying Trump is allowed to do.
|
On October 26 2024 21:50 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2024 21:26 Sadist wrote:
How he entitled to his opinion when we know its a lie? Its not an opinion! I think you're making an epistemological mistake in this case. If you say you found fraud in 3 ballots, it doesn't exonerate the other 600,000, for example. The default amount of fraud is not zero until proven otherwise, it's an unknown, it's an unknown I might hope to be low but otherwise it's not accurately knowable in a deductive sense. God could know or technically you could do some kind of really exhaustive, but ultimately infeasible, method of checking. His claim is basically unfalsifiable - there's a bunch of stuff ("rampant") that was undetected by its very nature of not being detectable. That doesn't mean it's impossible, or false, but to the extent he sincerely believes it it's not my problem, you can ask him to apologize though. This is also why we can call conspiracy theories conspiracy theories and not conspiracy lies, because they are crafted and presented to exist in the gaps where they preempt their own falsification. For example James believes the rape rate is 2x more than reported, Bob believes it's 3x more than reported, Alex believes it's 100x more than reported. They're all incorrect liars inasmuch as their claim differs from our objective assessment of the reported value - or even our agreed objective estimate of the "true" rate, but because it's uncertain to begin with Alex's opinion isn't a lie as such just because it's an outlier or looks less reasonable than what the other people think.
True: we don't know how many fraudulant ballots exist.
Also true: we don't know to what degree the fraudulant ballots would shift the outcome of the election.
Also also true: we cannot assume that one or the other candidate is overall favored by fraudulant ballots.
Conclusion: your argument leads to no meaningful conclusion.
|
On October 26 2024 13:07 oBlade wrote:
I'm not a conservative
oBlade, how would you identify yourself, politically, and why?
|
As far as "skullduggery" the 51 intel agents signing a letter saying the Biden laptop was Russian disinformation, the 60 Minutes saying there was no evidence it was real, Twitter blocking the NY Post and social media in general blocking discussion of it - that is basically undisputed, the only question is ultimately how big the effect was.
On October 26 2024 21:57 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2024 21:50 oBlade wrote:On October 26 2024 21:26 Sadist wrote:
How he entitled to his opinion when we know its a lie? Its not an opinion! I think you're making an epistemological mistake in this case. If you say you found fraud in 3 ballots, it doesn't exonerate the other 600,000, for example. The default amount of fraud is not zero until proven otherwise, it's an unknown, it's an unknown I might hope to be low but otherwise it's not accurately knowable in a deductive sense. God could know or technically you could do some kind of really exhaustive, but ultimately infeasible, method of checking. His claim is basically unfalsifiable - there's a bunch of stuff ("rampant") that was undetected by its very nature of not being detectable. That doesn't mean it's impossible, or false, but to the extent he sincerely believes it it's not my problem, you can ask him to apologize though. This is also why we can call conspiracy theories conspiracy theories and not conspiracy lies, because they are crafted and presented to exist in the gaps where they preempt their own falsification. For example James believes the rape rate is 2x more than reported, Bob believes it's 3x more than reported, Alex believes it's 100x more than reported. They're all incorrect liars inasmuch as their claim differs from our objective assessment of the reported value - or even our agreed objective estimate of the "true" rate, but because it's uncertain to begin with Alex's opinion isn't a lie as such just because it's an outlier or looks less reasonable than what the other people think. True: we don't know how many fraudulant ballots exist. Also true: we don't know to what degree the fraudulant ballots would shift the outcome of the election. Also also true: we cannot assume that one or the other candidate is overall favored by fraudulant ballots. Conclusion: your argument leads to no meaningful conclusion.
Wouldn't it only matter if the winner was favored?
Oh, also it's actually it's not one but at least 460~ elections at one time.
|
On October 26 2024 21:59 oBlade wrote:
As far as "skullduggery" the 51 intel agents signing a letter saying the Biden laptop was Russian disinformation, the 60 Minutes saying there was no evidence it was real, Twitter blocking the NY Post and social media in general blocking discussion of it - that is basically undisputed, the only question is ultimately how big the effect was.
Ah yes, the next right-wing tactic. When one claim blatantly fails, shift to the next claim that's inevitably gonna fail. Rinse and repeat. How did I not see this coming, I know the playbook so well I should see it coming from a mile away by now.
|
On October 26 2024 21:59 oBlade wrote:As far as "skullduggery" the 51 intel agents signing a letter saying the Biden laptop was Russian disinformation, the 60 Minutes saying there was no evidence it was real, Twitter blocking the NY Post and social media in general blocking discussion of it - that is basically undisputed, the only question is ultimately how big the effect was. Show nested quote +On October 26 2024 21:57 Magic Powers wrote:On October 26 2024 21:50 oBlade wrote:On October 26 2024 21:26 Sadist wrote:
How he entitled to his opinion when we know its a lie? Its not an opinion! I think you're making an epistemological mistake in this case. If you say you found fraud in 3 ballots, it doesn't exonerate the other 600,000, for example. The default amount of fraud is not zero until proven otherwise, it's an unknown, it's an unknown I might hope to be low but otherwise it's not accurately knowable in a deductive sense. God could know or technically you could do some kind of really exhaustive, but ultimately infeasible, method of checking. His claim is basically unfalsifiable - there's a bunch of stuff ("rampant") that was undetected by its very nature of not being detectable. That doesn't mean it's impossible, or false, but to the extent he sincerely believes it it's not my problem, you can ask him to apologize though. This is also why we can call conspiracy theories conspiracy theories and not conspiracy lies, because they are crafted and presented to exist in the gaps where they preempt their own falsification. For example James believes the rape rate is 2x more than reported, Bob believes it's 3x more than reported, Alex believes it's 100x more than reported. They're all incorrect liars inasmuch as their claim differs from our objective assessment of the reported value - or even our agreed objective estimate of the "true" rate, but because it's uncertain to begin with Alex's opinion isn't a lie as such just because it's an outlier or looks less reasonable than what the other people think. True: we don't know how many fraudulant ballots exist. Also true: we don't know to what degree the fraudulant ballots would shift the outcome of the election. Also also true: we cannot assume that one or the other candidate is overall favored by fraudulant ballots. Conclusion: your argument leads to no meaningful conclusion. Wouldn't it only matter if the winner was favored?
Did you miss the point I was making? You can't prove either way which of the candidates is being favored (by fraudulant ballots). It could be Trump who was favored, not Biden. How do you prove otherwise? Show me your method.
Even if we assume a greater number of fraudulant ballots, this would not substantiate Trump's claim of election crime by Democrats or Dem voters in any capacity whatsoever.
|
On October 26 2024 22:01 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2024 21:59 oBlade wrote:
As far as "skullduggery" the 51 intel agents signing a letter saying the Biden laptop was Russian disinformation, the 60 Minutes saying there was no evidence it was real, Twitter blocking the NY Post and social media in general blocking discussion of it - that is basically undisputed, the only question is ultimately how big the effect was. Ah yes, the next right-wing tactic. When one claim blatantly fails, shift to the next claim that's inevitably gonna fail. Rinse and repeat. How did I not see this coming, I know the playbook so well I should see it coming from a mile away by now.
You should have seen it by reading the Truth that started this discussion when he posted "CHEATING AND SKULLDUGGERY."
On October 26 2024 22:03 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2024 21:59 oBlade wrote:As far as "skullduggery" the 51 intel agents signing a letter saying the Biden laptop was Russian disinformation, the 60 Minutes saying there was no evidence it was real, Twitter blocking the NY Post and social media in general blocking discussion of it - that is basically undisputed, the only question is ultimately how big the effect was. On October 26 2024 21:57 Magic Powers wrote:On October 26 2024 21:50 oBlade wrote:On October 26 2024 21:26 Sadist wrote:
How he entitled to his opinion when we know its a lie? Its not an opinion! I think you're making an epistemological mistake in this case. If you say you found fraud in 3 ballots, it doesn't exonerate the other 600,000, for example. The default amount of fraud is not zero until proven otherwise, it's an unknown, it's an unknown I might hope to be low but otherwise it's not accurately knowable in a deductive sense. God could know or technically you could do some kind of really exhaustive, but ultimately infeasible, method of checking. His claim is basically unfalsifiable - there's a bunch of stuff ("rampant") that was undetected by its very nature of not being detectable. That doesn't mean it's impossible, or false, but to the extent he sincerely believes it it's not my problem, you can ask him to apologize though. This is also why we can call conspiracy theories conspiracy theories and not conspiracy lies, because they are crafted and presented to exist in the gaps where they preempt their own falsification. For example James believes the rape rate is 2x more than reported, Bob believes it's 3x more than reported, Alex believes it's 100x more than reported. They're all incorrect liars inasmuch as their claim differs from our objective assessment of the reported value - or even our agreed objective estimate of the "true" rate, but because it's uncertain to begin with Alex's opinion isn't a lie as such just because it's an outlier or looks less reasonable than what the other people think. True: we don't know how many fraudulant ballots exist. Also true: we don't know to what degree the fraudulant ballots would shift the outcome of the election. Also also true: we cannot assume that one or the other candidate is overall favored by fraudulant ballots. Conclusion: your argument leads to no meaningful conclusion. Wouldn't it only matter if the winner was favored? Did you miss the point I was making? You can't prove either way which of the candidates is being favored. It could be Trump who was favored, not Biden. How do you prove otherwise? Show me your method. Even if we assume a greater number of fraudulant ballots, this would not substantiate Trump's claim of election crime by Democrats or Dem voters in any capacity whatsoever.
A larger amount of fraud would increase the associated variance and make an outcome where fraud had a decisive outcome more likely.
You missed my point which is ultimately you only need to check if there was more fraud on the winner's side, if the loser had more fraud but still lost it didn't matter.
|
On October 26 2024 22:04 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2024 22:01 Magic Powers wrote:On October 26 2024 21:59 oBlade wrote:
As far as "skullduggery" the 51 intel agents signing a letter saying the Biden laptop was Russian disinformation, the 60 Minutes saying there was no evidence it was real, Twitter blocking the NY Post and social media in general blocking discussion of it - that is basically undisputed, the only question is ultimately how big the effect was. Ah yes, the next right-wing tactic. When one claim blatantly fails, shift to the next claim that's inevitably gonna fail. Rinse and repeat. How did I not see this coming, I know the playbook so well I should see it coming from a mile away by now. You should have seen it by reading the Truth that started this discussion when he posted "CHEATING AND SKULLDUGGERY."
You're right, I should've seen it coming. My bad for having an iota of confidence that Trump supporters could ever be acting in good faith.
I ask you to source your claims of skullduggery so we can dispel them as we always do. It's your turn to provide the evidence, then it's our turn to disprove your claims.
|
On October 26 2024 22:04 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2024 22:01 Magic Powers wrote:On October 26 2024 21:59 oBlade wrote:
As far as "skullduggery" the 51 intel agents signing a letter saying the Biden laptop was Russian disinformation, the 60 Minutes saying there was no evidence it was real, Twitter blocking the NY Post and social media in general blocking discussion of it - that is basically undisputed, the only question is ultimately how big the effect was. Ah yes, the next right-wing tactic. When one claim blatantly fails, shift to the next claim that's inevitably gonna fail. Rinse and repeat. How did I not see this coming, I know the playbook so well I should see it coming from a mile away by now. You should have seen it by reading the Truth that started this discussion when he posted "CHEATING AND SKULLDUGGERY." Show nested quote +On October 26 2024 22:03 Magic Powers wrote:On October 26 2024 21:59 oBlade wrote:As far as "skullduggery" the 51 intel agents signing a letter saying the Biden laptop was Russian disinformation, the 60 Minutes saying there was no evidence it was real, Twitter blocking the NY Post and social media in general blocking discussion of it - that is basically undisputed, the only question is ultimately how big the effect was. On October 26 2024 21:57 Magic Powers wrote:On October 26 2024 21:50 oBlade wrote:On October 26 2024 21:26 Sadist wrote:
How he entitled to his opinion when we know its a lie? Its not an opinion! I think you're making an epistemological mistake in this case. If you say you found fraud in 3 ballots, it doesn't exonerate the other 600,000, for example. The default amount of fraud is not zero until proven otherwise, it's an unknown, it's an unknown I might hope to be low but otherwise it's not accurately knowable in a deductive sense. God could know or technically you could do some kind of really exhaustive, but ultimately infeasible, method of checking. His claim is basically unfalsifiable - there's a bunch of stuff ("rampant") that was undetected by its very nature of not being detectable. That doesn't mean it's impossible, or false, but to the extent he sincerely believes it it's not my problem, you can ask him to apologize though. This is also why we can call conspiracy theories conspiracy theories and not conspiracy lies, because they are crafted and presented to exist in the gaps where they preempt their own falsification. For example James believes the rape rate is 2x more than reported, Bob believes it's 3x more than reported, Alex believes it's 100x more than reported. They're all incorrect liars inasmuch as their claim differs from our objective assessment of the reported value - or even our agreed objective estimate of the "true" rate, but because it's uncertain to begin with Alex's opinion isn't a lie as such just because it's an outlier or looks less reasonable than what the other people think. True: we don't know how many fraudulant ballots exist. Also true: we don't know to what degree the fraudulant ballots would shift the outcome of the election. Also also true: we cannot assume that one or the other candidate is overall favored by fraudulant ballots. Conclusion: your argument leads to no meaningful conclusion. Wouldn't it only matter if the winner was favored? Did you miss the point I was making? You can't prove either way which of the candidates is being favored. It could be Trump who was favored, not Biden. How do you prove otherwise? Show me your method. Even if we assume a greater number of fraudulant ballots, this would not substantiate Trump's claim of election crime by Democrats or Dem voters in any capacity whatsoever. A larger amount of fraud would increase the associated variance and make an outcome where fraud had a decisive outcome more likely. You missed my point which is ultimately you only need to check if there was more fraud on the winner's side, if the loser had more fraud but still lost it didn't matter.
You could tentuple the amount of fraudulant ballots (I think even more) and it still wouldn't have affected the outcome of the Trump-Biden election. It's on you to provide mathematical proof that it likely would've.
|
Oblade can you please stay on the opinion topic? Can we acknowledge that you cannot have an opinion on something that is a verifiable fact? I understand you may have some heartburn over this because there are instances in things like science or other fields where things once thought true but later proved false or incorrect. But this is not one of those instances.
What Trump said is verifiably not true about 2020 or democrats. Infact, the opposite has more evidence for being true, that republicans and trump voters are more likely to commit voter fraud.
|
Why are you even bothering with clowns like oBlade? He's not posting in good faith. He's trying to derail the thread. Whenever his nonsense gets debunked, he fails to acknowledge it and moves to another nonsense talking point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
