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

281–290 of 311 posts

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#281

Post by ciarannolan »

CapricornNoble wrote: post #246
ciarannolan wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Not 1 incident = 1 vote, but 1 incident = 1 criminal case affecting 1 election. This doesn't reason out. The question is "What impact does voter/election fraud have on elections?" You determine this by calculating the impact that these fraudulent votes had on the election. It doesn't make sense to say "because there was 1 fraudulent vote in one county in one state, we have to count all 500-100,000 (?) votes in that…

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 looking more like 0.000000000001%.

Edit: Did you even click through more than one of these? The first 20 that appear for my state show that no votes were actually cast fraudulently, meaning some portion of that 1,285 instances accounts for zero fraudulent votes. This gets more hilarious the deeper we go.

>Donald Dewsnup, a housing development activist in San Francisco, registered to vote using a false address.

>State Sen. Roderick Wright (D_Inglewood) was convicted of eight felony counts of perjury and voter fraud. He deliberately misled voters as to his residency in order to run for office in a neighboring district.

>Immigrant-Rights activist Nativo Lopez pleaded guilty to one count of voter registration fraud when it was discovered that he registered to vote in Los Angeles while living in Santa Ana.

>Jose Fragozo, a trustee on the Escondido Union School District Board, pleaded guilty to a felony charge that he voted in the 2014 general election while registered at an address where he did not live.

>Alexander Bronson, former Trustee for Manteca Unified School District, California, pleaded guilty to charges of voter fraud. He listed a false address in order to qualify for candidacy in the November 2014 Manteca Unified School District Board of Education election.

etc.

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#282

Post by kasey_junk »

throwaway122378 wrote: post #279
Tagbert wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yea, it really didn’t though

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 online communities you are part of?

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#283

Post by snowwrestler »

umvi wrote: post #269
snowwrestler wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Voting is not a structured intellectual exercise like taking a test or writing a paper. There's not a single "right" answer that you have to be smart to figure out. Voting is an exercise in representation. People vote based on what they want , not what they know. Desires, dreams, and concerns are not knowledge. Smart people, educated people, still have emotions, can still have hugely different values, and want wildly…

In an ideal democracy, that's how it works. But we see in a corrupt democracy, the elite politicians manipulate people that think with emotions, and buy their votes with false promises and handouts. And they can never be blamed because "4 years is not enough to accomplish much"

Somehow it's always other people who are too emotional or ignorant to vote properly.

I can't remember seeing someone raise their hand and say, "I'm too emotional and poorly informed, please take away my right to vote." Wonder why that is.

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#285

Post by techntoke »

techntoke wrote: post #284
Fjolsvith wrote: post #192

Twitter would just shit themselves if Trump set up a Mastadon server and moved there.

I think they'd be happy, dems would be happy and repubs would be happy. Let's make it happen.

Forgot that repubs don't just want free speech. They want everyone to have to see it and accept their opinion as facts.

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#286

Post by anonymouswacker »

blockmarker wrote: post #241

I am glad that unelected corporations are protecting us from the opinions of elected officials.

Twitter deserves our respect for stepping out of their lane (marketing/advertising) to ensure that all information on their website is 100% scientifically accurate. Thank you, selfless heroes!

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#287

Post by tylerhou »

blhack wrote: post #84
tylerhou wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's reasonable to wonder if mail-in ballots are susceptible to fraud, but there is not a lot of evidence that such fraud is widespread. In particular, Trump's tweet is completely off base with what election experts already know about voter fraud. > Now we're expecting that states will radically alter their voting system, in 5 months, and that it won't be vulnerable to interference? Are mail in ballots for ev…

>Are mail in ballots for everyone really a "radical alteration" of their voting system? Local governments already have the capacity to send and receive thousands of pieces of mail, and the method of counting ballots is the exact same. How would you set up this system if you were tasked with it?

The same as normal ballot counting, except instead of receiving in person ballots, volunteers count mail in ballots.

Sending mail and receiving mail is already a solved problem. The post office handles nearly half a billion pieces of mail each day, and 200 million pieces of first class mail.

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#288

Post by bosswipe »

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #261
krapp wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would that be worse than a few key districts in one or two swing states running everything? Presidential candidates can afford to ignore entire sections of the country because they don't matter. One could at least make the argument that the population centers should have more weight because that's where most of the people are, and those cities have the greatest financial and cultural influence. But why should, sa…

Because otherwise only New York, Texas and California matter, which the framers of the Constitution decided was a bad idea. I actually like the principle of the electoral college, it reminds me that the US is in fact, a Union of States. The real issue I see are the rampant gerrymandering of the congressional districts, which have a far greater skewing effect on the results than the electoral college (well, technicall…

The States are also gerrymandered, and we are stuck with it for ever. When states like Wyoming and the Dakatos were formed it was calculated based on the left/right debate of the day, slavery.

Re: Twitter tags Trump tweet with fact-checking warning

#290

Post by foogazi »

User23 wrote: post #119

Before 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

Post reply on HN