Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 311 posts

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#201

Post by dmode »

blhack wrote: post #33

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…

You could literally make the same argument about in person voting. How hard is it to get a fake id ? How about hacking ballot machines ? How about compromised ballot counters ? Yet, there is this weird focus on mailed ballots, which really should be default in a 21st century democracy. Trump is arguing in bad faith

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#202

Post by Fjolsvith »

slg wrote: post #107
blhack wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

OP edited their post, but they were talking about methods to change maybe one or two dozen votes at a time. The minimum number of votes that you would need to reverse the 2016 presidential election was 107k. That was if you had perfect polling going in and knew exactly what votes to change. In practice you would likely need to change several hundred thousand votes if not over a million. This process would need to be…

No one here is even considering a nation state working to change the outcome of an election. A spy network might get away with it.

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#203

Post by dmode »

CapricornNoble wrote: post #133
RobAtticus wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but the topic is mail-in voting fraud. He was physically at the polling place and stuffing the box. It's fraud and should be punished, but it has nothing to do with mail-in voting fraud.

The example is a demonstration that a member of the opposition party to the incumbent President was both willing and able to commit election fraud for even a paltry sum of money in a local election. The implication is that election officials from that party cannot be trusted to NOT fraudulently influence the election. If they are willing & able to exploit System A, then they are probably WILLING to exploit System B,…

Republicans have a long history of voter fraud. Here's an example from North Carolina

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-north-caroli...

Based, on this, Republicans cannot be trusted to hold impartial elections

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#204

Post by neotek »

zests wrote: post #58
baddox wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if that happens, take note of which political parties/groups fight tooth and nail because they know that voter turn out is bad for them. (It's not difficult to predict.)

Political posts aren’t pleasant for anyone. They are also often meaningless. Watch as I essentially take the contrapositive of your statement and say > See? Not pleasant. I’d wager a lot of people have problems with that statement and I’d also wager that I could use each of their counter arguments to my statements as counter arguments to yours. I see this pattern a lot. Its strange to me.

>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.

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#205

Post by sfj »

jolux wrote: post #177
Orou wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I disagree, giving certain folks a platform only raises them up and legitimatizes them. Who do you believe should have final say over which person or group of people can have a platform, and who can't? Should it be whoever owns that particular platform? Should it be the government? Should it be the court of public opinion? I've yet to see a compelling argument for deplatforming that answers this question, because w…

The point of deplatforming is not to change the minds of true believers in extremist causes, it’s to hinder their ability to recruit.

“The more you tighten your grasp, the more star systems slip through your fingers.”

Censoring the point of view of others merely lends credence to their point of view. Unless you find a way to censor them completely, you will cause more and more people to lose faith in your ideals.

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#206

Post by sfj »

Hankenstein2 wrote: post #45
godelski wrote: post #24

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…

The problem for me, someone who really wants to be in the middle, is that the only conservative leaning news outlet that I believe (no facts in my reporting) does fact based reporting is the Wall Street Journal. If I want news with data and facts I have to go with the "left" leaning papers. The Washington Examiner and Fox News have been burning their credibility on a daily basis.

> The Washington Examiner and Fox News have been burning their credibility on a daily basis.

Oh really? Name some things they lied about in the last 5 days.

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#207

Post by carapace »

zests wrote: post #58
baddox wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if that happens, take note of which political parties/groups fight tooth and nail because they know that voter turn out is bad for them. (It's not difficult to predict.)

Political posts aren’t pleasant for anyone. They are also often meaningless. Watch as I essentially take the contrapositive of your statement and say > See? Not pleasant. I’d wager a lot of people have problems with that statement and I’d also wager that I could use each of their counter arguments to my statements as counter arguments to yours. I see this pattern a lot. Its strange to me.

Logical gymnastics in a vacuum of facts avails naught.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/07/long-racist...

https://rooseveltinstitute.org/quick-history-lesson-voter-di...

https://www.nuorigins.com/the-historical-pattern-of-black-vo...

http://werehistory.org/disenfranchisement/

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#208

Post by sfj »

trophycase wrote: post #30
godelski wrote: post #24

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…

None of those news outlets you mentioned are "hard left". They are corporatist status quo. They are all in support of Joe Biden who is hardly "left" at all

He is the opposing candidate of the current president, however. And why should we trust news outlets that are blatantly in favor of one candidate over another, and bury stories that look bad for their favored candidate?

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#209

Post by CapricornNoble »

ciarannolan wrote: post #181
CapricornNoble wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>in the complete absence of any actual fraud happening Which of these examples of election fraud are...not examples of voter fraud? https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/datab...

So 0.000001% of votes were fraudulent if you take the Heritage Foundation's analysis as fact (1,285 votes fraudulent out of 119,000,000 who voted in 2016). Does 0.000001% fraud qualify as a problem in any reasonable sense? Republicans' electoral strategy is basically "the less people vote, the better". Is that good for democracy? Is that just?

>>>f you take the Heritage Foundation's analysis as fact (1,285 votes fraudulent out of 119,000,000 who voted in 2016)

That's not how I interpreted the data. Not 1 incident = 1 vote, but 1 incident = 1 criminal case affecting 1 election. So election fraud at Timbuktu County could have impacted 2 voters, or 500 voters, but either way is recorded as 1 incident. I'm not seeing a link to their actual database so we can't dig into the records to confirm either way, which is disappointing. But the narrative text seems to support this.

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#210

Post by CapricornNoble »

dmode wrote: post #203
CapricornNoble wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The example is a demonstration that a member of the opposition party to the incumbent President was both willing and able to commit election fraud for even a paltry sum of money in a local election. The implication is that election officials from that party cannot be trusted to NOT fraudulently influence the election. If they are willing & able to exploit System A, then they are probably WILLING to exploit System B,…

Republicans have a long history of voter fraud. Here's an example from North Carolina https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-north-caroli... Based, on this, Republicans cannot be trusted to hold impartial elections

Clearly both major parties in the US are guilty of fraud. All the more reason to implement objective, unbiased security measures to ensure the integrity of the process.
Post reply on HN