American election.

General chit-chat

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 27604
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: American election.

Post by Immanuel Can »

tillingborn wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 7:56 pm It may well be true, but what are your sources?
It was reported through AP, which is a major news agency, and picked up on multiple sites: but for your convenience, here's one. https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/opi ... rs/536784/

And here's stuff on the suppression of those facts by the media: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei5wdZMExQI
commonsense
Posts: 5380
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: American election.

Post by commonsense »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 9:26 pm
tillingborn wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 7:56 pm It may well be true, but what are your sources?
It was reported through AP, which is a major news agency, and picked up on multiple sites: but for your convenience, here's one. https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/opi ... rs/536784/

And here's stuff on the suppression of those facts by the media: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei5wdZMExQI
The first source you referenced here is clearly labeled as an opinion piece, not a report of facts.

The second source you cited is from a columnist, not a reporter.

Do you have any reliable sources, factual sources?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 27604
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: American election.

Post by Immanuel Can »

commonsense wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 9:57 pm Do you have any reliable sources, factual sources?
You don't like AP? Okay. But you can criticize any source, and all sources can be checked and scrutinized. This is why I wrote "if this is true." You may think it's not, and that's okay if you don't...you can also present your sources, and we can decide.

In any case, what the MSM clearly thought was that releasing the Biden scandal WOULD affect the election. So what we know for certain now is that they deliberately suppressed what they knew to be true: namely, that a laptop had appeared which was unquestionably Hunter Biden's; and on it was plenty of evidence of Hunter's own misdeeds, and also plenty of mention of how influence peddling was going on through his father, and of how his father was being remunerated for his time by foreign governments. And now, we know for certain that at least Hunter Biden is under an ongoing FBI investigation into his business dealings, and the Bidens have had to issue formal public statements as a result. So that's also a confirmed fact...confirmed, even if it had been by nobody else, by the Bidens themselves. :shock:

Under any other circumstances, all of that would be a major, earth-shattering news story. And before an election, it would a very hot story as well, one in which the electorate definitely had an interest.

So how come most Americans didn't know anything about it?
tillingborn
Posts: 1305
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm

Re: American election.

Post by tillingborn »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 9:26 pm
tillingborn wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 7:56 pm It may well be true, but what are your sources?
It was reported through AP, which is a major news agency, and picked up on multiple sites: but for your convenience, here's one. https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/opi ... rs/536784/
Thank you for the link. Having clicked on it, I could only access the content by subscribing; which I am unwilling to do. I would be grateful if you could quote the salient points.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 9:26 pmAnd here's stuff on the suppression of those facts by the media: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei5wdZMExQI
Is 'not reporting' the same as suppression? It seems to me that you wish the "MSM" could report things in a way that is commensurate with your personal experience. I gather that they don't, so as an outsider, what initial premise would you start from to persuade me of your interpretation?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 27604
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: American election.

Post by Immanuel Can »

tillingborn wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 10:20 pm Is 'not reporting' the same as suppression?
That depends. What do you think a "news agency" is supposed to do?

It is supposed to report important stories with objectivity? Is it to convey news that is interesting, important, relevant to the public interest, honest and frank? Is it to publish stories, sell advertising space, make money for shareholders and get clicks from the public? Is it to serve an informed electorate with good information?

If that's what you think the news agencies do, then suddenly, they didn't do that. And you really have to wonder why. They had that kind of story, after all. And they had it as cold, hard, confirmed fact...the FBI had a copy of the drive for a long time before the store owner reported that he also had the information. So the press knew it wasn't a rumour, and the Biden laptop existed. And even from the limited amount released, they were able to get even more information about Hunter's corruption and drug use. If the story had been, say, anti-Trump or had even been neutral, do you doubt that they would have been barking up that tree like a pack of hounds on a racoon hunt?

Why wasn't the press doing their job? Why were they "not reporting" what would ordinarily be a core piece of news...and why, then, are they suddenly starting to report it NOW, just after the election, but not before? :shock:

If you're not at all suspicious, then I've got a lovely plot of land in Florida that I could sell you for your next cottage. :wink:
tillingborn
Posts: 1305
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm

Re: American election.

Post by tillingborn »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 10:39 pmWhat do you think a "news agency" is supposed to do?
Is that not decided by the people supposing?
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 10:39 pmIt is supposed to report important stories with objectivity?
Do you believe that any source of news is objective? If so, by what criteria do you judge it?
commonsense
Posts: 5380
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: American election.

Post by commonsense »

commonsense wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 9:57 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 9:26 pm
tillingborn wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 7:56 pm It may well be true, but what are your sources?
It was reported through AP, which is a major news agency, and picked up on multiple sites: but for your convenience, here's one. https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/opi ... rs/536784/

And here's stuff on the suppression of those facts by the media: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei5wdZMExQI
The first source you referenced here is clearly labeled as an opinion piece, not a report of facts.

The second source you cited is from a columnist, not a reporter.

Do you have any reliable sources, factual sources?
IC, your sources of origin are not the Associated Press. They are not even examples of reporting. They are self-declared opinions. Your ranting is irrelevant to the core issue: you were asked to provide sources and you chose junk.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 16379
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: 🔥AMERICA🔥
Contact:

Re: American election.

Post by henry quirk »

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 27604
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: American election.

Post by Immanuel Can »

tillingborn wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 11:17 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 10:39 pmWhat do you think a "news agency" is supposed to do?
Is that not decided by the people supposing?
That doesn't even make sense. You mean you think journalists should do "whatever the public happens to suppose"? So propagandizing, hiding the truth, or even telling outright lies is "good" journalism, so long as that's what the public wants to believe?
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 10:39 pmIt is supposed to report important stories with objectivity?
Do you believe that any source of news is objective? If so, by what criteria do you judge it?
Objectivity is a journalistic value, a target, an ideal. But some of our best ideals are those we will never quite attain. Think of things like "justice" or "equity," for example. On the other hand, abandoning that ideal means that our media simply become tellers of wild tales, tales no more factual or true than fairy tales.

Is that what you think "good" journalism is?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 27604
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: American election.

Post by Immanuel Can »

commonsense wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 11:23 pm ...you chose junk.
So you think the Biden laptop doesn't exist, and Hunter Biden isn't a corrupt drug user, and Joe Biden hasn't taken bribes, and the FBI isn't even investigating?

Funny. The Biden family knows better. And I'll bet we'll find out whose sources are "junk."
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 8815
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: from American Thinker (take it as you will)

Post by FlashDangerpants »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 3:42 pm A Summary of the Texas Election Lawsuit

By Robert Madsen

Texas claims that the presidential elections as held (and as directed by government officials outside the legislature) in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan all flagrantly violated their own election laws by materially weakening or doing away with security measures. Further, according to the U.S. Constitution, the legislature (representing the citizens) of each state has absolute authority and responsibility for how presidential electors are chosen; the will of legislature being expressed through state law.

Texas claims that the violations of election law in these states created an environment where ballot fraud was enabled and likely to occur. The lawsuit lists the violations of law in each of the defendant states and provides evidence of fraud (the number of ballots handled unconstitutionally) in each of the states sufficient to change the outcome of the ballot counts.

-----

Pennsylvania

Facts:

Vote Tally: 3,445,548 for Biden and 3,363,951 for Trump - margin 81,597.
Requests for mail-in ballots 70% Democrats and 25% Republicans.
Mail-in ballots increased from 266,208 in 2016 to over 3,000,000 in 2020.

Violations of Election Law:

The Secretary of State unilaterally abrogated signature verification requirements for mail-in ballots.
PA supreme court changed existing deadline for receiving mail-in ballots from 8:00 PM on the day of election to 3 days after the election and adopted a presumption that non-postmarked ballots be considered as valid.
Election officials in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties did not follow state law permitting poll-watchers to be present for the opening, counting, and recording of mail-in ballots.
The Secretary of State directed election officials to remove ballots before 7:00 AM on the day of election in order to “cure” defective mail-in ballots. This was done only in Democrat majority counties.
Election officials did not segregate ballots received after 8:00 PM on election day breaking the promise made to the U.S. Supreme Court thus making it impossible to identify or remove those ballots.

Evidence of Fraud:

Ballots with no mailed date: 9,005 (no evidence they were sent to a voter)
Ballots returned on or before the mailed date: 58,221
Ballots returned one day after the mailed date: 51,200 (Perhaps not impossible, but highly unlikely for the average voter to receive a ballot, fill it out, place it in the mail and have it returned the next day.)
On Nov 2, the day before the election, PA reports that 2.7 million ballots had been sent out. On Nov 4 that number had increased to 3.1 million -- an increase of 400,000 mail-in ballots at election time with literally no reasonable chance of them being used by legitimate voters.

-----

Georgia

Facts:

Vote Tally: 2,472,098 for Biden and 2,458,121 for Trump - margin 12,670.
Mail-in ballots: 65.32% for Biden and 34.68% for Trump.
Mail-in ballots increased from 213,033 in 2016 to 1,305,659 in 2020.

Violations of Election Law:

The Secretary of State unilaterally abrogated signature verification requirements for mail-in ballots.
The Secretary of State authorized opening and processing mail-in ballots up to three weeks before election day when the law prohibits that until after the polls open on election day.
The Secretary of State materially weakened the security requirements for ballot rejection based on signature verification or other missing information.

Evidence of Fraud:

Mail-in ballot rejection rate for missing or inaccurate information or for non-matching signatures decreased from 6.42% in 2016 to .36% in 2020. Rejecting 2020 ballots at the same rate as 2016 would have resulted in a net gain of 25,587 votes for Trump – twice the number needed to overcome Biden’s count. With a six-fold increase in the number of mail-in ballots, reason would indicate that the rejection rate would increase, or at least stay the same, with so many first-time mail-in ballots.

-----

Michigan

Facts:

Vote Tally: 2,796,702 for Biden and 2,650,695 for Trump - margin 146,007.
In 2016 587,618 voters requested mail-in ballots. In 2020 3.2 million votes were cast by mail-in ballot.
Democrats voted by mail at a rate approximately two times that of Republican voters.

Violations of Election Law:

The Secretary of State unilaterally abrogated signature verification requirements for mail-in ballots.
The Secretary of State sent out unsolicited ballots to all 7.7 million registered voters contrary to election law which requires a voter to request a mail-in ballot through a process that includes a signature to be matched with the voter registration.
The Secretary of State also allowed absentee ballots to be requested online without signature verification.
Local election officials in Wayne County -- containing 322,925 more ballots for Biden than for Trump -- opened and processed mail-in ballots without poll-watchers present.
Local election officials in Wayne County also ignored the strict election law requirements of placing a written statement or stamp on each ballot envelope indicating that the voter signature was in fact checked and verified with the signature on file with the state.

Evidence of Fraud:

174,384 mail-in ballots in Wayne County had no valid registration number, indicating they likely resulted from election workers running the same ballots through the tabulator multiple times.
71% of Wayne County Absent Voter Counting Boards were unbalanced, where the number of people who checked in did not match the number of ballots cast.

-----

Wisconsin

Facts:

Vote Tally: 1,630,716 for Biden and 1,610,151 for Trump - margin 20,565.
Mail-in ballots increased from 146,932 in 2016 to 1,275,019 in 2020.

Violations of Election Law:

The Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) positioned hundreds of unmanned illegal drop boxes to collect absentee ballots. (The use of any drop box, manned or unmanned, is directly prohibited by Wisconsin statute. Any alternate mail-in ballot site “shall be staffed by the municipal clerk or the executive director of the board of election commissioners…” “Ballots cast in contravention of the procedures specified in those provisions may not be included in the certified result of any election.”)
The WEC encouraged voters to unlawfully declare themselves “indefinitely confined” in order to avoid security measures like signature verification and photo ID requirements. Nearly 216,000 voters said they were indefinitely confined in the 2020 election, nearly four times as many as in 2016.
Strict laws requiring mail-in voters to certify by signature including the signature of an adult witness were ignored or circumvented by election officials.

Evidence of Fraud:

One hundred thousand ballots were supposedly missing and directed to be “found” after election day.

-----

Conclusion

Significant violations of election law that were put into place to protect against election fraud is sufficient to invalidate the results of the elections, apart from whatever evidence is able to be gathered in a short time to show actual numbers of fraudulent ballots. Reason would indicate that there is a high number of fraudulent ballots that are impossible to identify, which is why the election laws pertaining to mail-in ballots were established to begin with.

There is no remedy to correct the Nov 3rd election because ballots that did not adhere to election law cannot be identified as separate from those that did. An accurate count of legal ballots that were cast cannot be made. Therefore, as directed in the Constitution, it falls to the legislature of each state to choose electors as has been done in the past. Failing that, each state may determine not to submit any presidential electors.

The Texas lawsuit claims the odds of Biden overcoming Trump’s lead and winning any of the states after the point indicated was one in a quadrillion. And therefore, the odds of winning all four was one in a quadrillion to the fourth power. The lawsuit did not provide information on how that number was determined. This may seem an exaggerated to some. It is enough to state that the odds of winning any one of the states was highly unlikely and the odds of winning all four were extremely unlikely. For example, if the odds of winning any one of the states was numerically much less extreme but still highly unlikely, say something like one in twenty, then the odds of doing that in all four states would be 1 in 160,000. Twenty beans in a jar: 19 white and 1 black. Reach in without looking and be lucky enough to pull out the one black bean. Chances of doing that again is 1 in 400. Clearly indicative of cheating if someone claims to have done that four times in a row. As I said the statistical analysis behind the claim of odds of 1 in a 1,000,000,000,000 are not given so I cannot speak to that. But even if the odds were orders of magnitude better than that, they were still astronomically small. At any rate, the merits of the lawsuit do not depend on any certain level of odds of Biden overcoming a lead that had been established by 3:00 A.M. the day after election.
This is the desperation I was referring to. Everybody knew this whole case was stupid and doomed. You responded to trump losing the election with talk of it being not that big a deal, and then you have filled the time since then desperately clutching at fantastical theories about how it can be turned around.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 16379
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: 🔥AMERICA🔥
Contact:

Re: from American Thinker (take it as you will)

Post by henry quirk »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Dec 12, 2020 4:05 am
henry quirk wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 3:42 pm A Summary of the Texas Election Lawsuit
This is the desperation I was referring to. Everybody knew this whole case was stupid and doomed. You responded to trump losing the election with talk of it being not that big a deal, and then you have filled the time since then desperately clutching at fantastical theories about how it can be turned around.
actually, I posted those links and articles (without any comment) cuz folks like common and antisburk(sic) asked about the particulars of the suit...but, if you wanna think otherwise, please do

and: five minutes of cut & paste ain't much of a time-filler, guy

I've spent way more time arguing with advocate, veg, and lace about, I think, more important things
Walker
Posts: 16383
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: from American Thinker (take it as you will)

Post by Walker »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Dec 12, 2020 4:05 am This is the desperation I was referring to. Everybody knew this whole case was stupid and doomed. You responded to trump losing the election with talk of it being not that big a deal, and then you have filled the time since then desperately clutching at fantastical theories about how it can be turned around.
:lol:

You have a flair for hyperbole that flairs up with the adjectives and adverbs.

Well, the lesson applicable to the reach of our control is that those who objectively follow historic events in the making, rather than shutting eyes and hollering no to the church of what's happening now, end up with a fuller, more rounded apprehension of reality; and when that apprehension is fully full and complete, compassion is the inevitable result, every time. It's the physics of being human. We observe with interest your progress and advancement on this path.
tillingborn
Posts: 1305
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm

Re: American election.

Post by tillingborn »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Dec 12, 2020 1:23 amYou mean you think journalists should do "whatever the public happens to suppose"? So propagandizing, hiding the truth, or even telling outright lies is "good" journalism, so long as that's what the public wants to believe?
What I think journalists should do has no bearing on what journalists actually do.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Dec 12, 2020 1:23 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 10:39 pmIt is supposed to report important stories with objectivity?
Do you believe that any source of news is objective? If so, by what criteria do you judge it?
Objectivity is a journalistic value, a target, an ideal. But some of our best ideals are those we will never quite attain. Think of things like "justice" or "equity," for example. On the other hand, abandoning that ideal means that our media simply become tellers of wild tales, tales no more factual or true than fairy tales.

Is that what you think "good" journalism is?
Do you mean to imply that I think wildly inaccurate reporting is "good"? It is simply the case that many news agencies have an editorial bias. It is also true that the less sophisticated the consumer, the more likely they are to judge objective the reporting that pleases them. Let me remind you of the point:
tillingborn wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 7:56 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 5:47 pmI hear that if the facts had been released before the election, one in six Democratic voters say they'd have changed their vote. If that's true,
That seems to me like a good time to pause and consider. From whom did you hear this? How did they gather meaningful data in what seems like very short order? It may well be true, but what are your sources?
In my view it is to your credit that you question what you heard, but intentionally or otherwise, by posing the rhetorical "Where, then, is "the will of the people"?" you will have given some people the impression that something happened that they should be angry about. Less scrupulous journalists will exploit such power of suggestion knowing full well that their target audience will ignore the fact that no one has cited the actual research, if such research even exists, but conveniently, should they face accusations of bias, they can point to the bit where they said "If that's true."
Walker
Posts: 16383
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: American election.

Post by Walker »

It’s interesting that now, any criticisms of Joe Biden will hasten both his departure and the installation of Kamala Harris.

The source for this information?

Logic.

Links on how to think? Not necessary.
Post Reply