Page 4 of 28 [ 440 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 28  Next

auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 97,260
Location: the island of defective toy santas

07 Nov 2020, 5:57 am

cyberdad wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.


That about sums up the type of men who rule the planet. We should focus on the few who break the mould.

have not seen a single GOPer with the possible exception of william weld, who is NOT like that.



Tempus Fugit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Oct 2020
Gender: Male
Posts: 971

07 Nov 2020, 6:03 am

uncommondenominator wrote:
Tempus Fugit wrote:
Or put another way, if you believed in the 2016 election conspiracy, you're being a hypocrite to put anyone down for thinking there's a 2020 election conspiracy.


You mean THAT ad hominem? I can see how it's easy to miss, since' it's not aimed at a specific individual, but rather anyone who takes that position. It's of the same nature of argument as "anyone who disagrees with me kicks puppies".

uncommondenominator wrote:
The issue in 2016 was never "russian voter fraud". It was whether or not trump cooperated with russia regarding their actual attempts to sway the election via propaganda. Russia did run a misinformation campaign, the collusion is just determining whether trump had any part in it.


Please show me where I'm saying that YOU said that. I'm not saying YOU said that. I'M saying that, to point out one difference between the issue then, and the issue now. Details matter. You want to compare them, I'm contrasting them. You making it out as though I'm saying that is a clever reversal though, in an "I know you are, but what am I", kinda way.

uncommondenominator wrote:
And since we know that russia was playing those games, regardless of trump involvement, we know to look for it now. You don't play the same trick twice, least of all when people are looking for it.

If you're making the argument that if it's ok to assume russia helped trump, then its ok to assume russia is helping biden, then why did / would russia help trump only to turn around and help biden *against* trump?


Nice of you to not clarify which part you are claiming is a strawman, or in what way. We do know that russia was playing games with troll farms and propaganda campaigns, and we know what to look for now. How is that a strawman? Not using the same move twice is basic entry level tactics. How is that a strawman? The last sentence is a *question* that assumes you are *right*. How is that one a strawman?

Your premise is "simply" oversimplified. By all means, please correct me if I am mistaken, but it seems like you're implying that all "conspiracies" are equally valid or invalid, and that if someone accepts one conspiracy as true, then they must accept all conspiracies as equally true (or else they're a "hypocrite") - or the inverse, that if you find one conspiracy implausible, then you should find *all* conspiracies implausible - both of which are all-or-nothing fallacies - which, again, correct me if I am mistaken, also seems to assume that conspiracies are either things you believe in, or don't believe in, and completely ignores the difference between a conspiracy THEORY, and an actual *proven* conspiracy, while falsely equating the two as though believing Watergate happened (lots of proof, that's how they got caught, even if the exact details are sketchy) is exactly equal to believing the earth is flat (not a lot of proof, lots of contrary proof).

I could give you all the "proof" in the universe - I can't make you believe it or accept it. I could say "liquid water is wet", and nothing stops you from saying "no it isn't", or coming up with some clever way to argue it. And while it's true that, in a formal debate setting, the burden of proof logically belongs to the person making the claim. But again, nothing prevents you from hopping onto google and finding contrary "proof" that says the opposite to use as a rebuttal - which yes, would contradict my "proof", but not DISprove it. As long as it casts doubt, it's done its job. Whatever proof you provide is "real" and whatever "proof" I provide will be "fake" in some way.

To be clear, I'm not saying you ARE doing that - I'm merely saying that these are things that anyone can do, and that I cannot prevent you, or anyone else, from doing, in theory, that can easily undermine any argument or "proof", no matter how solid or true the argument or "proof" is.

If I may be presumptuous, I don't think you want proof. I think you want me busy defending and explaining and "proving" myself - conversationally "pinned down", beholden to the things you want me to talk about, instead of pressing my own line of questioning. That's just my impression.


You're arguing with me by quoting yourself (like you are arguing with yourself instead) and it's quite difficult to assimilate what you are going on at such great length about. Plus this has gone way off topic.


_________________
neurovoice.org - ASD Forum


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 33
Posts: 1,491
Location: England

07 Nov 2020, 8:22 am

Tempus Fugit wrote:
Plus this has gone way off topic.


Yes. More grainy videos, whistleblowers, strange data and unsubstantiated rumours please.


_________________
Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don’t know because we don’t want to know. It is our will that decides how and upon what subjects we shall use our intelligence. Those who detect no meaning in the world generally do so because, for one reason or another, it suits their books that the world should be meaningless.


Tempus Fugit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Oct 2020
Gender: Male
Posts: 971

07 Nov 2020, 8:44 am

How's this?:

MAIL IN VOTER FRAUD (NPR says Trump is RIGHT)


_________________
neurovoice.org - ASD Forum


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 33
Posts: 1,491
Location: England

07 Nov 2020, 8:57 am

@Tempus Fugit

Much better. :D

---

Probably worth mentioning Benford's Law here too, another popular talking point at the moment. It's a method for detecting whether numerical, particularly financial data has been tampered with. Real data supposedly follows a particular distribution, tampered data does not. Whether (or how much) it applies to voting data is disputed. See some timely emergency edits to wikipedia here.

Image

Again how much this applies to voting data is disputed, but Trumps numbers are never far off the expected distribution, while Biden's appear to be all over the place in key states.


_________________
Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don’t know because we don’t want to know. It is our will that decides how and upon what subjects we shall use our intelligence. Those who detect no meaning in the world generally do so because, for one reason or another, it suits their books that the world should be meaningless.


magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,190
Location: Poland

07 Nov 2020, 10:17 am

From Wikipedia:

Quote:
Benford's law tends to apply most accurately to data that span several orders of magnitude. As a rule of thumb, the more orders of magnitude that the data evenly covers, the more accurately Benford's law applies. For instance, one can expect that Benford's law would apply to a list of numbers representing the populations of UK settlements. But if a "settlement" is defined as a village with population between 300 and 999, then Benford's law will not apply.[13][14]

Consider the probability distributions shown below, referenced to a log scale.[15] In each case, the total area in red is the relative probability that the first digit is 1, and the total area in blue is the relative probability that the first digit is 8.
Image Image
I find precincts and wards tallies very unlikely to span multiple orders of magnitude (at least for some demographics), so there's no reason these results would follow BL.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.
***** ***


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,391
Location: Reading, England

07 Nov 2020, 12:48 pm

Tempus Fugit wrote:
Redd_Kross wrote:
Tempus Fugit wrote:
...if you believed in the 2016 election conspiracy, you're being a hypocrite to put anyone down for thinking there's a 2020 election conspiracy.

Sorry, I'm too busy laughing that even with Putin's support he's somehow still managed to lose.

How much money does he owe now, I wonder?


How much did you see in the news about Putin's support this time around?

What about that enormous complex Russian troll farm network infiltrating the US? Where is it now?

Hmm... did it never exist in the first place?

The Wikipedia article on Russia’s interference with the 2020 election has over 160 references, which at a glance seem to mostly be from the mainstream media. So yes, they’re still doing it, and the media is still talking about it. Naturally news becomes less surprising and less discussed when it is no longer new. In 2016 Russia’s misinformation campaign probably swung the election, and this was surprising to people, but now most Americans aren’t surprised to hear that Russia is still interfering. I believe that interference is primarily done with the aim of poisoning political discourse and sowing havoc rather than getting a candidate elected who is loyal to Putin or anything like that, but it is extremely well documented and beyond reasonable doubt that the interference is taking place.

I would politely suggest that you refrain from insulting other users, as this is against WrongPlanet’s rules.



Tempus Fugit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Oct 2020
Gender: Male
Posts: 971

07 Nov 2020, 12:57 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
Tempus Fugit wrote:
Redd_Kross wrote:
Tempus Fugit wrote:
...if you believed in the 2016 election conspiracy, you're being a hypocrite to put anyone down for thinking there's a 2020 election conspiracy.

Sorry, I'm too busy laughing that even with Putin's support he's somehow still managed to lose.

How much money does he owe now, I wonder?


How much did you see in the news about Putin's support this time around?

What about that enormous complex Russian troll farm network infiltrating the US? Where is it now?

Hmm... did it never exist in the first place?

The Wikipedia article on Russia’s interference with the 2020 election has over 160 references, which at a glance seem to mostly be from the mainstream media. So yes, they’re still doing it, and the media is still talking about it. Naturally news becomes less surprising and less discussed when it is no longer new. In 2016 Russia’s misinformation campaign probably swung the election, and this was surprising to people, but now most Americans aren’t surprised to hear that Russia is still interfering. I believe that interference is primarily done with the aim of poisoning political discourse and sowing havoc rather than getting a candidate elected who is loyal to Putin or anything like that, but it is extremely well documented and beyond reasonable doubt that the interference is taking place.

I would politely suggest that you refrain from insulting other users, as this is against WrongPlanet’s rules.


Where and how did I insult Redd Kross?


_________________
neurovoice.org - ASD Forum


XFilesGeek
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,658
Location: The Oort Cloud

07 Nov 2020, 1:11 pm

Okie dokie. A better comparison:

2000: Bush won fair and square! Recounting votes is nonsense and democrats are just sore losers!

2020: RECOUNT! RECOUNT!!


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,391
Location: Reading, England

07 Nov 2020, 2:03 pm

Mikah wrote:
Image

Another interesting graph floating in the tsunami of disinformation.

There seems to be a strong correlation between how skewed a state's absentee ballots were and whether no-excuse absentee voting was already widespread in previous elections.

Unconventional voting and rules in 2016:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... eady-here/

Pennsylvania and Michigan made it significantly easier to get an absentee ballot this year. It makes sense that Republicans in these states would be more affected by Trump's anti-absentee rhetoric.

If the cause was attempted rigging, it seems unlikely that Georgia and Arizona and North Carolina would not be subject to the same force, and probably Minnesota too.

For comparison's sake, here are the state rules in 2020:
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/14/90933875 ... s-by-state



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 44,589
Location: Stendec

07 Nov 2020, 2:18 pm

Things Losers Say...

"I don't believe it! ... It's impossible! ... It's not fair! ... The rules are wrong! ... I should have won! ... They cheated! ... They bribed the refs! ... They'll be sorry! ... I'll take it all the way to the Supreme Court!"

I've heard these words said on every baseball diamond and football field since grade school.


_________________
 
Since there is no singular, absolute definition of human nature,
nor any ultimate evaluation of human nature beyond that which we project onto others,
individuals should be judged or defined only by their actions and choices,
and not by what we only imagine their intentions and motivations to be.


uncommondenominator
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 269

07 Nov 2020, 2:34 pm

To make it easier for you, since having to remember your OWN questions is apparently "confusing". Of course, now it's even longer, so you'll probably now claim it's too long and confusing. As for going off-topic, YOU PICKED this topic. But NOOOWWW you wanna change it. Funny that... :roll:

Tempus Fugit wrote:
uncommondenominator wrote:
Tempus Fugit wrote:
2016: There must have been Russian interference, Trump is Putin's puppet, collusion with the enemy is what got Trump elected.

This time around for some reason Russia doesn't seem to exist and rather the highly unpresented dragged out vote counts in the swing states is being called into question.

If it's okay for folks to believe that a huge foreign enemy conspiracy put the last president in office and required a three year investigation, then it's okay to question the current situation.

Or put another way, if you believed in the 2016 election conspiracy, you're being a hypocrite to put anyone down for thinking there's a 2020 election conspiracy.


That's a lovely false equivalency you've got there. It's even got a gooey strawman filling, and a flakey ad hominem crust. These layered fallacy cakes seem to be all the rage these days. By combining multiple flavors of misdirection, untangling it becomes more akin to opening a combination lock than simply counter-arguing a point. It also gives the ability to claim the counter argument is "absurd" based on the number of corrections (which they will call "assumptions", and claim it makes too many of them for it to be plausible) necessary to illustrate its fallacy.


How can there be an ad hominem when it's not directed at an individual?


Tempus Fugit wrote:
Or put another way, if you believed in the 2016 election conspiracy, you're being a hypocrite to put anyone down for thinking there's a 2020 election conspiracy.


You mean THAT ad hominem? I can see how it's easy to miss, since' it's not aimed at a specific individual, but rather anyone who takes that position. It's of the same nature of argument as "anyone who disagrees with me kicks puppies". I'm certain this is what Walrus is referring to as well.

Tempus Fugit wrote:
uncommondenominator wrote:
The issue in 2016 was never "russian voter fraud". It was whether or not trump cooperated with russia regarding their actual attempts to sway the election via propaganda. Russia did run a misinformation campaign, the collusion is just determining whether trump had any part in it.



I didn't say the issue was "russian voter fraud". You're coming up with something I didn't say in order to knock it down, and that's what a strawman is.



uncommondenominator wrote:
The issue in 2016 was never "russian voter fraud". It was whether or not trump cooperated with russia regarding their actual attempts to sway the election via propaganda. Russia did run a misinformation campaign, the collusion is just determining whether trump had any part in it.


Please show me where I'm saying that YOU said that. I'm not saying YOU said that. I'M saying that, to point out one difference between the issue then, and the issue now. Details matter. You want to compare them, I'm contrasting them. You making it out as though I'm saying that is a clever reversal though, in an "I know you are, but what am I", kinda way.

Tempus Fugit wrote:

uncommondenominator wrote:
And since we know that russia was playing those games, regardless of trump involvement, we know to look for it now. You don't play the same trick twice, least of all when people are looking for it.

If you're making the argument that if it's ok to assume russia helped trump, then its ok to assume russia is helping biden, then why did / would russia help trump only to turn around and help biden *against* trump?


That's another strawman.



Nice of you to not clarify which part you are claiming is a strawman, or in what way. We do know that russia was playing games with troll farms and propaganda campaigns, and we know what to look for now. How is that a strawman? Not using the same move twice is basic entry level tactics. How is that a strawman? The last sentence is a *question* that assumes you are *right*. How is that one a strawman?

Tempus Fugit wrote:

uncommondenominator wrote:
Right now, trump is trying to tell people to stop counting votes. Nobody in 2016 said STOP counting. Recount perhaps, but not STOP counting. Nobody was saying "don't count votes". There was one person I remember making a big fuss about illegal votes in 2016. Trump. Even after he won, claimed that clinton only won the popular vote due to illegal votes. He won, "if you only count the legal ones".

Most types of voter fraud are extremely difficult, and rarely have any effect. The more significant forms of voter fraud exist in the form of destroying ballots, or electronic tampering with voting equipment. The former reduces actual votes, not adds fake ones. The latter can do whatever it wants. Both are typically done exclusively by those who have direct access to the ballots or voting equipment. It's not something any random person can do. Polling locations typically have a bipartisan mix of redundant overseers which does it's best to ensure nobody can just wander on in and waltz out with a sack of ballots, or uninterruptedly tamper with an electronic machine.


Do you have any citations to offer regarding all that?

My premise is simply that if it's okay to have a conspiracy theory regarding the 2016 election, then it's okay to have a conspiracy theory regarding the 2020 election. If it's okay for the democrats to make claims and launch investigations regarding the election they lost, then it's okay for the republicans to make claims and launch investigations regarding the election they lost.


Your premise is "simply" oversimplified. By all means, please correct me if I am mistaken, but it seems like you're implying that all "conspiracies" are equally valid or invalid, and that if someone accepts one conspiracy as true, then they must accept all conspiracies as equally true (or else they're a "hypocrite") - or the inverse, that if you find one conspiracy implausible, then you should find *all* conspiracies implausible - both of which are all-or-nothing fallacies - which, again, correct me if I am mistaken, also seems to assume that conspiracies are either things you believe in, or don't believe in, and completely ignores the difference between a conspiracy THEORY, and an actual *proven* conspiracy, while falsely equating the two as though believing Watergate happened (lots of proof, that's how they got caught, even if the exact details are sketchy) is exactly equal to believing the earth is flat (not a lot of proof, lots of contrary proof).

I could give you all the "proof" in the universe - I can't make you believe it or accept it. I could say "liquid water is wet", and nothing stops you from saying "no it isn't", or coming up with some clever way to argue it. And while it's true that, in a formal debate setting, the burden of proof logically belongs to the person making the claim. But again, nothing prevents you from hopping onto google and finding contrary "proof" that says the opposite to use as a rebuttal - which yes, would contradict my "proof", but not DISprove it. As long as it casts doubt, it's done its job. Whatever proof you provide is "real" and whatever "proof" I provide will be "fake" in some way.

To be clear, I'm not saying you ARE doing that - I'm merely saying that these are things that anyone can do, and that I cannot prevent you, or anyone else, from doing, in theory, that can easily undermine any argument or "proof", no matter how solid or true the argument or "proof" is.

If I may be presumptuous, I don't think you want proof. I think you want me busy defending and explaining and "proving" myself - conversationally "pinned down", beholden to the things you want me to talk about, instead of pressing my own line of questioning. That's just my impression.

You don't want a real debate, you just want to sit on the wall and sling mud.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 44,589
Location: Stendec

07 Nov 2020, 2:38 pm

Already, I am seeing a lot of former Trump supporters starting to act like they have supported Biden all along.  I wish I had made video recordings of their more rabid moments when they were proclaiming Trump as the Messiah.  Those poor, pathetic, sycophantic cowards ...

:roll:


_________________
 
Since there is no singular, absolute definition of human nature,
nor any ultimate evaluation of human nature beyond that which we project onto others,
individuals should be judged or defined only by their actions and choices,
and not by what we only imagine their intentions and motivations to be.


Redd_Kross
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jun 2020
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 558
Location: Derby, UK

07 Nov 2020, 2:42 pm

Mikah wrote:
I wouldn't say I believe it, no. But there's enough irregularities there to warrant investigation.


Irregularities aren't evidence of fraud, necessarily. To be fraud they have to be deliberate and coordinated. Where's the evidence of that?

I agree any errors should be investigated, but I can't see any evidence that isn't happening already. The States know how close this election is, so they're being extra cautious. The lengthy press briefing from officials in Georgia was very revealing, in terms of how errors have arisen, how they've been dealt with, and whether they could have proven significant.

Certainly as far as Georgia are concerned the degree of error is the same as usual and doesn't indicate any foul play. Indeed you could argue given the very high postal vote due to C-19 they've actually done unexpectedly well, in the circumstances.



Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 33
Posts: 1,491
Location: England

07 Nov 2020, 2:49 pm

Redd_Kross wrote:
Irregularities aren't evidence of fraud, necessarily.


Indeed, they are "red flags" as per the OP.

Redd_Kross wrote:
To be fraud they have to be deliberate and coordinated. Where's the evidence of that?


That's what you go looking for when you find red flags.


_________________
Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don’t know because we don’t want to know. It is our will that decides how and upon what subjects we shall use our intelligence. Those who detect no meaning in the world generally do so because, for one reason or another, it suits their books that the world should be meaningless.


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 44,589
Location: Stendec

07 Nov 2020, 2:52 pm

Expressions of suspicion are not proof of claim.


_________________
 
Since there is no singular, absolute definition of human nature,
nor any ultimate evaluation of human nature beyond that which we project onto others,
individuals should be judged or defined only by their actions and choices,
and not by what we only imagine their intentions and motivations to be.