While I believe the concerns about mail-in voting fraud is vastly overblown, there are genuine security challenges with mail-in paper ballots. How would one design a mail-in voting system that ensures all votes are counted without fraudulent or duplicate votes while also providing voter privacy?
Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning
21–30 of 41 posts
Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning
#22Not a
How do you police a promise before it's fulfilled? Completely different from lying.
Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning
#23Earlier discussion:
Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning
#24Well, I think we have reached peak fact-checking. The president, regardless of his many demerits, made a prediction on what he think will happen. Regardless of one's views on mail-in voting, it is obvious to anyone with sense that a prediction is not and never will be a 'fact', and cannot be 'checked' by anyone until the event has passed, unless twitter is now also claiming the ability to read the future.
Regardless of what you believe, the upcoming US presidential election will be the most scrutinized and watched election in the world. Everyone will be watching. Any sort of tampering will be swiftly detected, and the parties responsible should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning
#25The full text of the tweet:
> There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent. Mail boxes will be robbed, ballots will be forged & even illegally printed out & fraudulently signed. The Governor of California is sending ballots to millions of people, anyone.....
Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning
#26Well, I think we have reached peak fact-checking. The president, regardless of his many demerits, made a prediction on what he think will happen. Regardless of one's views on mail-in voting, it is obvious to anyone with sense that a prediction is not and never will be a 'fact', and cannot be 'checked' by anyone until the event has passed, unless twitter is now also claiming the ability to read the future.
One reasonable interpretation is that the US President is saying that there is no way to legally perform mail-in voting without committing fraud. Is it in fact fraud? You may wish to check whether you're about to engage in fraudulent behavior.
Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning
#27Well, I think we have reached peak fact-checking. The president, regardless of his many demerits, made a prediction on what he think will happen. Regardless of one's views on mail-in voting, it is obvious to anyone with sense that a prediction is not and never will be a 'fact', and cannot be 'checked' by anyone until the event has passed, unless twitter is now also claiming the ability to read the future.
I agree. People are demanding social media companies fact check things that they can't know the state of.
Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning
#28Well, I think we have reached peak fact-checking. The president, regardless of his many demerits, made a prediction on what he think will happen. Regardless of one's views on mail-in voting, it is obvious to anyone with sense that a prediction is not and never will be a 'fact', and cannot be 'checked' by anyone until the event has passed, unless twitter is now also claiming the ability to read the future.
Regardless of what you believe, the upcoming US presidential election will be the most scrutinized and watched election in the world. Everyone will be watching. Any sort of tampering will be swiftly detected, and the parties responsible should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
> Any sort of tampering will be swiftly detected, and the parties responsible should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
But these kinds of affirmations are just wishful thinking. Voter fraud does happen, and while it is punished, the results (the elected officials being placed in office) are actually basically above scrutiny. For example, recently an elections judge (equivalent of an elections commissioner from what I understand) in Pennsylvania was sentenced for taking bribes to add votes to certain candidates. While he is now punished, are the judges he elected removed from office? As far as I can tell, no they are not.
Or what about the Bush/Gore fiasco? We never even had a proper resolution because American law demands that there be a president by Jan 20 following an election. The best hope is that the elections are secure, not that any wrongdoing is caught after the fact.
Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning
#29Well, I think we have reached peak fact-checking. The president, regardless of his many demerits, made a prediction on what he think will happen. Regardless of one's views on mail-in voting, it is obvious to anyone with sense that a prediction is not and never will be a 'fact', and cannot be 'checked' by anyone until the event has passed, unless twitter is now also claiming the ability to read the future.
One reasonable interpretation is that the US President is saying that there is no way to legally perform mail-in voting without committing fraud. Is it in fact fraud? You may wish to check whether you're about to engage in fraudulent behavior.
> no way to legally perform mail-in voting without committing fraud
That's not at all what he is saying. He said mail-in ballots will be 'substantially fraudulent'. The obvious interpretation is that the president believes that a substantial portion of ballots in a mail-in election are fraudulent, not that any one who votes for him via mail is committing fraud. I don't understand the need to read between the lines here.
Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning
#30While I believe the concerns about mail-in voting fraud is vastly overblown, there are genuine security challenges with mail-in paper ballots. How would one design a mail-in voting system that ensures all votes are counted without fraudulent or duplicate votes while also providing voter privacy?
How do all the mail-in ballots we already use work? They’re not exactly uncommon or new. For one thing, it’s how a decent chunk of the armed forces vote—and not just the ones overseas, those stateside vote in their “home” state, not where they’re stationed. That’d be a good place to start.