101–110 of 311 posts
There is no way to be sure if mail-in ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent.
I think one of the issues with this will be how it is linking the correct information. I like the little inclusion before tweets, but there's no sources on them. Then when you scroll down on the tweets I see them in this order: The Hill, WaPo, CNN, a CBS News reporter, a Fortune Magazine reporter, a Vox reporter, Sr Political Reporter for Huffington, ACLU Nebraska, a CNN political correspondent. The issue here is tha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shareholder responsibilities. I would guess that a good chunk of Twitter users are there to read and interact with the president's tweets.
What do you mean "interact"? He virtually never posts any responses, the account is close to broadcast-only. There's also no real interaction in the replies: even if you manage to scroll past the kneejerk responses and product spam thriving on controversy, what are the chances you'll find anyone to actually interact with?
I'm finding the response people are having to this mail in voting thing to be...puzzling. It's not a ridiculous thing to wonder about how susceptible mail in voting is to fraud, and it seems like some of us are putting blinders on simply due to our distaste for the current president. If we were to hold a hackathon with a $100,000 prize for the most plausible path to exploit mail in voting in order to swing an electio…
Trump is not "wondering". His statement was unambiguous: "There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent." This is an unproven statement. Numerous elections experts disagree with it. Why is Twitter not within their rights to warn people of this?
"NO WAY (ZERO CHANCE) THE YANKEES ARE GOING TO WIN THE WORLD SERIES!"
Am I making a statement of fact, or stating an opinion here? Should twitter fact check this statement with some ambiguous "experts" who think that the yankees are the best team of them all and WILL win the world series?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> every poor ignorant impoverished There's some serious bias here. There are poor and impoverished people who are not ignorant. There are also ignorant millionaires. The moment you start saying who shouldn't be voting, make sure you realise how many people think you shouldn't be voting either. At an extreme of that, see what the threshold of "rich" is for people saying "eat the rich".
I thought someone might interpret it that way, which is why I quickly edited to say "or rich" as well. However, you must admit that the ignorant poor vastly outnumber the ignorant rich.
Trump is currently tweeting about how this warning message is taking away his 1st amendment rights to free speech, and constitutes interference in the 2020 election. Can't wait for these tweets to get the same warning. [1]: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/12654275381401886...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue is that mail in voter fraud doesn't scale and you need scale to turn a national election. So you can argue this is a concern in general, but someone arguing this is a real problem for the integrity of the 2020 presidential election is being disingenuous at best.
Is this true? I don't think it is, and I think that has been borne out in several of our most recent presidential elections. In the last election alone, Clinton won NH by a mere 2700 votes, for instance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think "preserving the words of the president" probably fits pretty squarely in the realm of public interest, even if they're blatantly false.
I know for a fact my aunt mails in ballots for her husband, her father and her mother. Claiming that there is no mail-in voter fraud among 300 million Americans is quite absurd in my opinion.
One, why haven't you reported your aunt for voter fraud? Voter fraud is a very serious issue and it seems to me that you're letting a criminal go free. This can be easily verified by telling the government and having the three others confirm who they voted for.
For two, if she is mailing in the ballots, then is she forging their signature as well as collecting their SSNs? Or are they simply signing on the ballots themselves agreeing to the votes? In which case is that truly fraud or not? If she's forging signatures then she's also committing identity theft which is a very serious issue, one that I hope you agree deserves reporting.
Trump is currently tweeting about how this warning message is taking away his 1st amendment rights to free speech, and constitutes interference in the 2020 election. Can't wait for these tweets to get the same warning. [1]: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/12654275381401886...
I'm glad we finally found a company to tell us what's true - no bias, no spin, just the facts! Thanks, twitter, you've saved the world!!!!
Why are you against people becoming more educated?