The Politics Megathread
- Thread starter Zephyrus
- Start date
- Status
@hazzack
Quite possibly. It's lead to a situation where he needs to keep asserting that 30 million people isn't really a lot in order to stay ideologically consistent, so now he's going to get hung up on defending that position as opposed to the actual point underlying the number: why he should be concerned about tens of millions of possibly armed morally and patriotically charged citizens believing they have just cause to do something about the situation. After seeing BLM get away with it for months.
Quite possibly. It's lead to a situation where he needs to keep asserting that 30 million people isn't really a lot in order to stay ideologically consistent, so now he's going to get hung up on defending that position as opposed to the actual point underlying the number: why he should be concerned about tens of millions of possibly armed morally and patriotically charged citizens believing they have just cause to do something about the situation. After seeing BLM get away with it for months.
Group Leader
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2019
- Messages
- 2,350
Let's do our best to get this thread locked again! Who's with me?
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2020
- Messages
- 1,740
Fed-Kun's army
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2018
- Messages
- 937
that 61% of republicans support the claim of fraud so there must be fraud... Thats not the number of actual people who support it. That just means statistically, they could have just asked 10 republicans if they believed it and 6 of them said yes (with a base "confidence" of 1, which modifies the range to be 59-61)
Because there is zero chance that a poll actually checked every registered republican. A "good" survey campaign, out of lets say 5000 people called, 4000 would say piss off, were on the do not call list, wouldnt answer the phone, voicemail, ect.
500 would be thrown out because they arent the group they wanted to contact or out of the desired age range. which leaves a sample size of 500.
Because there is zero chance that a poll actually checked every registered republican. A "good" survey campaign, out of lets say 5000 people called, 4000 would say piss off, were on the do not call list, wouldnt answer the phone, voicemail, ect.
500 would be thrown out because they arent the group they wanted to contact or out of the desired age range. which leaves a sample size of 500.
@Mr_Detective
We already are going to get the thread locked. Originally it was locked because of being laden in "conspiracy theories", being in reference to accusations of election fraud, this was one of the first things we started talking about after getting it unlocked.
@blackyawgdom
Thank you for explaining how statistical sampling works, although I didn't need it in the slightest.
Edit: Thank you for further clarifying how statistical sampling works and how there are errors. Again I did not need it. Until you find better data to work with though, I am going to actually cite things as opposed to make handwaivey statements.
We already are going to get the thread locked. Originally it was locked because of being laden in "conspiracy theories", being in reference to accusations of election fraud, this was one of the first things we started talking about after getting it unlocked.
@blackyawgdom
At no point did I claim the fraud was real, my point was that there is a significant amount of the population that *believes* fraud occurred, and that is a very dangerous position to be in.
Thank you for explaining how statistical sampling works, although I didn't need it in the slightest.
Edit: Thank you for further clarifying how statistical sampling works and how there are errors. Again I did not need it. Until you find better data to work with though, I am going to actually cite things as opposed to make handwaivey statements.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2020
- Messages
- 1,740
@blackyawgdom
Shh. Stop using mathematics above the average American's capabilities.
If even so-called "professionals and experts" can't get simple numbers right, what hope is there for the rest of America's red/blue patriots?
Shh. Stop using mathematics above the average American's capabilities.
If even so-called "professionals and experts" can't get simple numbers right, what hope is there for the rest of America's red/blue patriots?
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2019
- Messages
- 9,695
@axelTHEGREAT @Ceildric @Kanami-chan Just letting you bros know that thread's open again. Not obligated to post ofc.
Mr. @comeonnow0, your recent remarks concerning American citizens has been quite the buzz as of lately.
What inspired you to speak so staunchly about this matter?
The world is watching, Mr. comeonnow0.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2020
- Messages
- 1,740
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2018
- Messages
- 1,541
@Tamerlane
1) Were any of them NV and AZ? Two of those were effectively shut down late this afternoon. There've been so many republican cases I'm losing track. 45 or so? I wouldn't say the lower courts are unimportant. Upper courts, like the SCOTUS, are appellate courts. Meaning they don't take new evidence. So it's unlikely they'd rule any differently than the lower courts that are dismissing them based on lack of evidence.
2) I agree that observers should have been told that a few workers were told to stay back to scan ballots, but I've heard other observers at different locations knew that already. The observers assumed work was stopping when the cutters left. That's all though. They were scanning ballots that had been opened earlier and been processed. Observers aren't required to be present for scanning. It isn't Michigan law. There was an official monitor present.
3) If you'd like to give her that much leeway you can. I don't have to though. "Delete my social media" means all of it to me. Especially after she said she was being threatened online. I wasn't trying to say dismiss all the affidavits based on her wild ranting during the hearing. They can be dismissed on their own merits. She's already been deemed not credible once in court by a Michigan judge.
4) Everything I've seen has indicated that security officials have full confidence that the election was secure. Not media or politicians. Both international and domestic security officials.
More irony, because that's exactly what Trump & Co. are attempting.
@Chrona Wasn't really meant to be a convo ender. Just a funny observation that it was so quick. To answer your other comment, I'm not worried about the 30 million doing anything. Honestly, I think they may have some protests come 1/20 when Biden is inaugurated, but that's it. Even if they turn into riots (and I don't think they will) that still doesn't worry me. It's mostly property damage and that's mostly covered by insurance. That's not to say the growing extremism (as in terrorism) on the right isn't a worrying trend.
1) Were any of them NV and AZ? Two of those were effectively shut down late this afternoon. There've been so many republican cases I'm losing track. 45 or so? I wouldn't say the lower courts are unimportant. Upper courts, like the SCOTUS, are appellate courts. Meaning they don't take new evidence. So it's unlikely they'd rule any differently than the lower courts that are dismissing them based on lack of evidence.
2) I agree that observers should have been told that a few workers were told to stay back to scan ballots, but I've heard other observers at different locations knew that already. The observers assumed work was stopping when the cutters left. That's all though. They were scanning ballots that had been opened earlier and been processed. Observers aren't required to be present for scanning. It isn't Michigan law. There was an official monitor present.
3) If you'd like to give her that much leeway you can. I don't have to though. "Delete my social media" means all of it to me. Especially after she said she was being threatened online. I wasn't trying to say dismiss all the affidavits based on her wild ranting during the hearing. They can be dismissed on their own merits. She's already been deemed not credible once in court by a Michigan judge.
4) Everything I've seen has indicated that security officials have full confidence that the election was secure. Not media or politicians. Both international and domestic security officials.
More irony, because that's exactly what Trump & Co. are attempting.
Just curious, but what, in your eyes, would be an example of evidence that clears SFA of these allegations?
@Chrona Wasn't really meant to be a convo ender. Just a funny observation that it was so quick. To answer your other comment, I'm not worried about the 30 million doing anything. Honestly, I think they may have some protests come 1/20 when Biden is inaugurated, but that's it. Even if they turn into riots (and I don't think they will) that still doesn't worry me. It's mostly property damage and that's mostly covered by insurance. That's not to say the growing extremism (as in terrorism) on the right isn't a worrying trend.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2020
- Messages
- 596
@blackyawgdom The Don't Call List actually applies to telemarketing, not polling. However, the company I work for does honor the "Put me on the Don't Call List" request as people who say that won't answer our questions anyway.
For confused people who don't know why late votes favored Biden, here's how to stop yourself from being reelected:
For confused people who don't know why late votes favored Biden, here's how to stop yourself from being reelected:
Double-page supporter
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2020
- Messages
- 3,251
I’ve still got riots in my town
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2018
- Messages
- 1,139
@2SpiritCherokeePrincess
This meme was so close to being coherent, but whoever made it still managed to fuck up the format.
This meme was so close to being coherent, but whoever made it still managed to fuck up the format.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2019
- Messages
- 3,189
ooga booga ooga booga, idk about politics i just wanted to comment on this thread.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2019
- Messages
- 10,562
@BestBoy
1) Again, given the contentious nature of this election and political pressure placed on judges and other third parties, it's not unlikely that their rulings have been far from impartial and fair. Additionally, I don't care so much how many lawsuits have been filed that support Trump, and no one's arguing you have to keep track of all the lawsuits. Most of the cases haven't been dismissed on claims on the merits but issues with the legal framework or other factors. If the evidence presented in the hearings gives a fraction of the insight into how much evidence they have, then it's clear that being dismissed on lack of evidence is absolutely a partisan ruling.
2) This wasn't in Michigan, it was in Georgia where it was state election code to have observers present. (Normally I wouldn't be so harsh about little slip ups like this, but you are not applying that same standard, so I feel obligated to correct the misinformation) Additionally, the ballots that were placed under the table were not the same ones they had processed earlier. This entire point is both inconsistent with sworn eyewitness testimony, and other evidence, as well as pointing out things irrelevant to the case. The fact you even cited the wrong state indicates you are more looking to just dismiss without actually looking at the evidence, especially because the ballots they took out weren't overseen earlier according to the CCTV footage. You are objectively wrong about this.
3) She was not deemed "uncredible." That was misinformation. Besides nothing you have said in this point dismisses the point of her actual claims that are relevant to the case at hand. Again, relevancy to the actual point and not trying to poison the well and slander her character to attack her testimony.
4) Everything I have seen indicates that there's overwhelming evidence to suggest that the election was fraudulent and that the only responsible thing to do is to have a contingent election within the house of representatives. A lot of media narratives are going on around, for instance, the DOJ and Attorney General Bill Burr are still investigating, yet the media misconstrued when he said "To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election." Note that according to Rudy Giuliani they haven't investigated the evidence he has, and it also ignores that Bill Burr implies that there was fraud in this election. Yet the media continues to report "no evidence of voter fraud." It's clear if you actually listen to the case being presented from expert testimony and the affidavits that it's clear that there's enough to call the election suspect and have a contingent election.
This line I think is the biggest weakness of your argument. It's consistently filled with appeals to hypocrisy and sneaking the premise into the argumentation., rather than addressing the point being made.
The issue is that this point makes our argument come to an impasse, because it's basically me denying your point and you saying that it's true, and that helps no one. It also ignores how that at all the hearings Trump's team has presented evidence for their claims, and it's the reactionary media that tries to dispel it offhandedly using the same phrases and outright denying the claims, but never demonstrating how they're incorrect.
@2SpiritCherokeePrincess
If that were true, why is it overwhelmingly for Biden in specific swing states all of which happened at specific times, and, instead we should see some level of consistency for proportions across state lines?
For instance, the mail-in vote and early vote proportions for Biden and Trump were roughly proportional, and Florida in this instance would be a good litmus test as a swing state with its processes amended because of Bush v. Gore.
It's a justification after the fact that says that because Trump offhandedly said Mail-in ballots are prone to fraud (which was not in dispute before this election), that must be the reason that 90+ percent of the ballots are for Biden, ignoring that such statements are unlikely to reach most people as most people are low-information voters.
Also, this ignores the disparities in absentee-ballots. which are even more suspect.
1) Again, given the contentious nature of this election and political pressure placed on judges and other third parties, it's not unlikely that their rulings have been far from impartial and fair. Additionally, I don't care so much how many lawsuits have been filed that support Trump, and no one's arguing you have to keep track of all the lawsuits. Most of the cases haven't been dismissed on claims on the merits but issues with the legal framework or other factors. If the evidence presented in the hearings gives a fraction of the insight into how much evidence they have, then it's clear that being dismissed on lack of evidence is absolutely a partisan ruling.
2) This wasn't in Michigan, it was in Georgia where it was state election code to have observers present. (Normally I wouldn't be so harsh about little slip ups like this, but you are not applying that same standard, so I feel obligated to correct the misinformation) Additionally, the ballots that were placed under the table were not the same ones they had processed earlier. This entire point is both inconsistent with sworn eyewitness testimony, and other evidence, as well as pointing out things irrelevant to the case. The fact you even cited the wrong state indicates you are more looking to just dismiss without actually looking at the evidence, especially because the ballots they took out weren't overseen earlier according to the CCTV footage. You are objectively wrong about this.
3) She was not deemed "uncredible." That was misinformation. Besides nothing you have said in this point dismisses the point of her actual claims that are relevant to the case at hand. Again, relevancy to the actual point and not trying to poison the well and slander her character to attack her testimony.
4) Everything I have seen indicates that there's overwhelming evidence to suggest that the election was fraudulent and that the only responsible thing to do is to have a contingent election within the house of representatives. A lot of media narratives are going on around, for instance, the DOJ and Attorney General Bill Burr are still investigating, yet the media misconstrued when he said "To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election." Note that according to Rudy Giuliani they haven't investigated the evidence he has, and it also ignores that Bill Burr implies that there was fraud in this election. Yet the media continues to report "no evidence of voter fraud." It's clear if you actually listen to the case being presented from expert testimony and the affidavits that it's clear that there's enough to call the election suspect and have a contingent election.
This line I think is the biggest weakness of your argument. It's consistently filled with appeals to hypocrisy and sneaking the premise into the argumentation., rather than addressing the point being made.
The issue is that this point makes our argument come to an impasse, because it's basically me denying your point and you saying that it's true, and that helps no one. It also ignores how that at all the hearings Trump's team has presented evidence for their claims, and it's the reactionary media that tries to dispel it offhandedly using the same phrases and outright denying the claims, but never demonstrating how they're incorrect.
Well, the owners and employees of State Farm Arena probably didn't do anything wrong, it was the people working there on election night, specifically the four people who stayed behind counting ballots and taking the same batch and scanning them multiple times. At this point the only thing that could vindicate them would be a forensic investigation into the machines, but all the statisticians and data experts I have seen have argued its basically impossible to explain the spike in votes by chance alone, and that the evidence to vindicate these people is more unlikely given the other evidence in the case, which aligns to these findings.
@2SpiritCherokeePrincess
If that were true, why is it overwhelmingly for Biden in specific swing states all of which happened at specific times, and, instead we should see some level of consistency for proportions across state lines?
For instance, the mail-in vote and early vote proportions for Biden and Trump were roughly proportional, and Florida in this instance would be a good litmus test as a swing state with its processes amended because of Bush v. Gore.
It's a justification after the fact that says that because Trump offhandedly said Mail-in ballots are prone to fraud (which was not in dispute before this election), that must be the reason that 90+ percent of the ballots are for Biden, ignoring that such statements are unlikely to reach most people as most people are low-information voters.
Also, this ignores the disparities in absentee-ballots. which are even more suspect.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2019
- Messages
- 10,562
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2018
- Messages
- 1,139
Taking this out of context, I'd like to point out that the USA media machine has done their very best to present any Trump-related event (to the point that it sometimes bled to our own news channels), so while the US of A voters may be low-information ones, what they see in their TVs or hear in radios may make them at the very least aware of what Trump says.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2018
- Messages
- 1,541
@Tamerlane
1) Some of them are Trump appointed judges. If there were strong evidence, it doesn't make sense for them to rule against their party, especially when most republican officials seem to be toeing the party line in favor of trump. I learned that today and it was pretty surprising. The "partisan" ruling wouldn't be to dismiss based on lack of evidence.
2) You're right it was GA. I don't know how I got MI, but I'll blame it on the hot fudge concrete I had last night. Anyway, no I'm not wrong. The eyewitness testimony doesn't matter when the security footage shows clearly they were processed in front of observers earlier in the day. You are the one who's wrong. This video has been investigated weeks ago. It's not some new bombshell. Feel free to keep burying your head in the sand, though. There is nothing further to discuss regarding Fulton.
3) Misinformation? Let's ignore all she said during the hearing and focus on her affidavit because she wasn't under oath during the hearing and was free to say whatever she wanted. Her affidavit was included in the lawsuit in MI attempting to block certification of the vote. The judge denied the requests and said her and other witnesses', "interpretation of events is incorrect and not credible." Specifically for Melissa, "The allegations simply are not credible." (https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/Scanned-from-a-Xerox-Multifunction-Printer.pdf)
4) This entire point is sensationalist and ridiculous. I can't believe you think the only avenue of relief is to disenfranchise every single voter not to mention throwing out all the down ballot races. That's all you're going to get from me about it.
The hearings aren't worth a minute of your time. I don't even waste my time reading the news' reaction to the hearings. No one is under oath during them. They are glorified press conferences with the added benefit of republicans cannibalizing themselves on live tv.
They've already done a hand recount and a machine recount. Simply rescanning the same ballots over and over would have been revealed during the hand recount. Not sure what a "forensic" investigation into the machines would achieve.
Pretending fraud occurred here, the spike in votes wouldn't have done anything. Biden was already leading Fulton and wouldn't take the lead in GA until days later.
Please don't bother replying to me about election fraud anymore. It's a waste of both of our time.
Daily ping to @Zephyrus until he closes this thread until 1/20 or indefinitely.
1) Some of them are Trump appointed judges. If there were strong evidence, it doesn't make sense for them to rule against their party, especially when most republican officials seem to be toeing the party line in favor of trump. I learned that today and it was pretty surprising. The "partisan" ruling wouldn't be to dismiss based on lack of evidence.
2) You're right it was GA. I don't know how I got MI, but I'll blame it on the hot fudge concrete I had last night. Anyway, no I'm not wrong. The eyewitness testimony doesn't matter when the security footage shows clearly they were processed in front of observers earlier in the day. You are the one who's wrong. This video has been investigated weeks ago. It's not some new bombshell. Feel free to keep burying your head in the sand, though. There is nothing further to discuss regarding Fulton.
3) Misinformation? Let's ignore all she said during the hearing and focus on her affidavit because she wasn't under oath during the hearing and was free to say whatever she wanted. Her affidavit was included in the lawsuit in MI attempting to block certification of the vote. The judge denied the requests and said her and other witnesses', "interpretation of events is incorrect and not credible." Specifically for Melissa, "The allegations simply are not credible." (https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/Scanned-from-a-Xerox-Multifunction-Printer.pdf)
4) This entire point is sensationalist and ridiculous. I can't believe you think the only avenue of relief is to disenfranchise every single voter not to mention throwing out all the down ballot races. That's all you're going to get from me about it.
The hearings aren't worth a minute of your time. I don't even waste my time reading the news' reaction to the hearings. No one is under oath during them. They are glorified press conferences with the added benefit of republicans cannibalizing themselves on live tv.
They've already done a hand recount and a machine recount. Simply rescanning the same ballots over and over would have been revealed during the hand recount. Not sure what a "forensic" investigation into the machines would achieve.
Pretending fraud occurred here, the spike in votes wouldn't have done anything. Biden was already leading Fulton and wouldn't take the lead in GA until days later.
Please don't bother replying to me about election fraud anymore. It's a waste of both of our time.
Daily ping to @Zephyrus until he closes this thread until 1/20 or indefinitely.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2019
- Messages
- 901
@BestBoy i've just been following this thread, not posting. The below comments are not about whether there is fraud or not. Two quotes in reverse order.
Honestly your comment comes across as whiney. Your going to ping him until you get your way rather then just not reading? You're lucky I'm not a mod. If you threatened to harass me until you got you're way I would solve your problem by locking your account completely until 1/20.
Why a daily ping to @Zephyrus until he closes it? If you don't want to read it don't but there appear to be plenty of other people who do. Since it has been reopened posters are mostly being reasonable in terms of expressing themselves and what little that is slipping seems minor compared to other posts in other area and this despite it being a hot button topic,
Honestly your comment comes across as whiney. Your going to ping him until you get your way rather then just not reading? You're lucky I'm not a mod. If you threatened to harass me until you got you're way I would solve your problem by locking your account completely until 1/20.
If that is what you want I would give you a suggestion. I would in a separate post in this thread state the above all by itself so it is easier to see with @'s for those you have been getting replies from. I believe Tamerlane and most would respect your wishes.
- Status
Similar threads
