So they finally did something about his endless lies after four years. Well, well.
Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning
291–300 of 311 posts
Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning
#292Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Democrats fight hard to make voting as easy as possible because they are supported by people who are not engaged politically and by people who aren’t invested enough to vote if it takes any effort at all. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Fighting to increase voter turnout is infinitely preferable and authentic to the stated principles of the country than fighting to suppress voter turnout.
If increased voter turnout helps your political party, you are likely to support it. If it hurts your political party, you are likely to be against it. When talking about politics its hard to tell whether or not people "believe X because Y" or "believe X because it helps the party". Maybe they don't actually care about X but have meta-awareness and claim to believe X because it helps the party. This is what makes pol…
>If increased voter turnout helps your political party, you are likely to support it. If it hurts your political party, you are likely to be against it.
If you care about democracy in the slightest then you support an increased voter turnout regardless of how it affects your party.
Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning
#293If Twitter is going to do this to one they must do it to all. If not then they are not being a neutral platform.
Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning
#294Before I clicked on the link, I assumed this was yet another egregious lie. But this one really doesn't qualify. It falls squarely in the category of reasonable opinions. Let's look at the claim: "There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent". Clearly the veracity of the statement rests on the word "substantially." It's inconceivable that no one ever takes, for exam…
It's not an opinion, it's a statement. Therein lies the rub. There is no reasonable interpretation of "There is NO WAY (ZERO!)" to mean "there may possibly be". e: The President just helpfully tweeted out in support of my argument: "They are saying my statement on Mail-In Ballots, which will lead to massive corruption and fraud , is incorrect"
To be clear, it's a prediction of the future. Let's not pretend that predictions of the future are statements of fact.
Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning
#295Before I clicked on the link, I assumed this was yet another egregious lie. But this one really doesn't qualify. It falls squarely in the category of reasonable opinions. Let's look at the claim: "There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent". Clearly the veracity of the statement rests on the word "substantially." It's inconceivable that no one ever takes, for exam…
(Posted this in another thread) No what Mr. POTUS said was > There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent Translation: 100% certainty that Mail-In Ballots are substantially fraudulent He specified a 100% certainty of substantial election fraud
I think the place where this falls apart is that he's talking about future events. It's a prediction about the future. Unless you believe he's insinuating supernatural abilities to tell the future exactly, he's just expressing his personal level of confidence about his prediction... which is an opinion.
The real problem here is calling what Twitter did a fact check. Because what Twitter did was just promote opposing opinions/predictions about the same future event. Neither side can make statements of fact about the future, they can only state their opinion and express their level of confidence in that opinion.
Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning
#296Earlier quoted context omitted.
(Posted this in another thread) No what Mr. POTUS said was > There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent Translation: 100% certainty that Mail-In Ballots are substantially fraudulent He specified a 100% certainty of substantial election fraud
I think the place where this falls apart is that he's talking about future events. It's a prediction about the future. Unless you believe he's insinuating supernatural abilities to tell the future exactly, he's just expressing his personal level of confidence about his prediction... which is an opinion. The real problem here is calling what Twitter did a fact check. Because what Twitter did was just promote opposing…
People are held accountable for comments on future events all the time:
- medical claims - fiduciary - threats
If a doctor tells a patient that there is no way (ZERO!) that taking “the hydroxy” will be anything less than substantially successful - do we let it slide because there is a chance it might be true?
Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning
#297Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning
#298Earlier quoted context omitted.
And how about this https://www.localdvm.com/news/west-virginia/mail-carrier-cha... It’s come to a point that even the general public is aware that certain democrats are willing to lie, ignore the truth, or flat out say “it doesn’t matter” just to gain power.
Wow man. Your first link showed an in person voter location had 27 stuffed ballots and your last link show a mail carrier changed 8 ballots and your argument is that mail in ballots are _easier_ to have fraud on? At this rate if you keep going by the end of this thread you’ll get to some place where the evidence is clear that Republicans get dramatically more advantage from mail in fraud. Does this work in the other…
The point you are missing in the second source is that the mail in fraud is more likely, irregardless of party. Which is a fact supporting the president's tweet and ignored by Twitter's fact checking group.
Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning
#299Before I clicked on the link, I assumed this was yet another egregious lie. But this one really doesn't qualify. It falls squarely in the category of reasonable opinions. Let's look at the claim: "There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent". Clearly the veracity of the statement rests on the word "substantially." It's inconceivable that no one ever takes, for exam…
It's not an opinion, it's a statement. Therein lies the rub. There is no reasonable interpretation of "There is NO WAY (ZERO!)" to mean "there may possibly be". e: The President just helpfully tweeted out in support of my argument: "They are saying my statement on Mail-In Ballots, which will lead to massive corruption and fraud , is incorrect"
Next, Twitter will start fact checking every Bigfoot and UFO tweet.
Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning
#300Earlier quoted context omitted.
I found their webpage for their database! It's not 1 database record = 1 voter, they are listing cases of election abusers, often multiple criminal defendants in a single record, with multiple felonies and multiple votes per record. https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud Here's one entry for the state of Pennsylvania: "According to Wild Acres Property Manager Robert Depaolis, Cowher approached him and asked him to provi…
Wait a minute. That 1,285 total includes every case they could find since 1979? LOL This proves the point even more in the extreme that voter fraud is a non-issue. An extremely motivated source like the Heritage Foundation was able to find 1,285 instances over 41 years? About how many billions of votes cast in that time period are we talking about? Maybe my 0.000001% voter fraud estimate was too generous. It's lookin…
blows whistle
Flag on the play. Moving the goalposts. Five yard penalty. Repeat the first down. But more seriously, let's go allll the way back to your original post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23318100
>>in the complete absence of any actual fraud happening
That is an objectively false statement. Will you concede that?
>>>An extremely motivated source like the Heritage Foundation was able to find 1,285 instances over 41 years? >>>Did you even click through more than one of these?
Did you? California's list doesn't have a single entry pre-2000, and over half of them are post-2010. Texas? Same, nothing pre-2000. New York? One in 1983, one in 1999. Florida? Four entries pre-2000 (and a BUNCH 2002-2010, probably due to fallout of Bush-v-Gore).
So either election fraud enforcement has become significantly more vigilant post-2000, or election fraud incidents have seen an astronomical uptick. Or both. But what we DO know for certain is:
-The incidence rate is non-zero, especially in the past 10 years. -Some elections have in fact been swayed by fraud.
-We should probably spare at least some modicum of serious thought and allocate some resources to improving the process integrity and security of one of our most sacred civil institutions. We make it rain fiat currency for every other government boondoggle imaginable, why is there so much opposition to THIS?