Mass voter fraud for dummies

pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Mass voter fraud for dummies

Post by pmward » Thu Nov 26, 2020 2:07 pm

Because, you know "blogspot.com" is the place to go to get real news... especially since he is using all kinds of quotes, but has not listed a single source... The bullshit meter is going off real strong on this one. Not that anyone should be surprised you would buy into complete fantasy bullshit.
User avatar
doodle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4658
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Mass voter fraud for dummies

Post by doodle » Thu Nov 26, 2020 5:45 pm

Tech, you are a pretty bright guy...why do you seem to consume mostly garbage tabloid fodder? I'm sure there has to be decent legit information out there with a right wing perspective. Is it just soothing entertainment? You don't believe any of that stuff you post is actually to be taken seriously, right?
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Mass voter fraud for dummies

Post by pmward » Fri Nov 27, 2020 7:54 am

doodle wrote:
Thu Nov 26, 2020 5:45 pm
Tech, you are a pretty bright guy...why do you seem to consume mostly garbage tabloid fodder? I'm sure there has to be decent legit information out there with a right wing perspective. Is it just soothing entertainment? You don't believe any of that stuff you post is actually to be taken seriously, right?
Tech is addicted to fear porn. Tech is addicted to conspiracy theories. Tech is that gold bug you hear people make jokes about with the bunker, the gold, the ammo, the MRE's, etc. Tech for decades has been planning for some massive crisis that has never materialized. He was the guy that was fooled into thinking Y2K would be the end of the world; he went out beforehand and spent massive amounts of money on survival supplies, he cashed in his PP for full physical gold, etc to prepare for the dystopian future he was sure was going to happen on Y2K. He has been on this forum talking about the imminent governmental crash and hyperinflation for years... in the meantime the U.S. has struggled to get even just 2% inflation. Tech has spent his entire adult life gullibly buying into one crazy conspiracy theory after another, all of which have failed to materialize. He has spent this entire adult life being wrong. He wants to bad to be right for once on one of his crazy conspiracy theories. I think he actually does want to see a dystopian future come in his lifetime just so he can say he was right. He is super gullible and buys into anything he reads online that itches this addiction he has. Nobody should ever listen to a word Tech says about anything. I have never once seen him be right about anything. He lives in a fantasy land full of fear and worry. Nothing he says should ever be taken seriously.
User avatar
I Shrugged
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2062
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:35 pm

Re: Mass voter fraud for dummies

Post by I Shrugged » Fri Nov 27, 2020 7:57 pm

I’m sure he’d like to provide an NYT link to an article covering the allegations. But guess what, those matters are verboten.

Glenn Greenwald can tell you about it.

The criticism you’re leveling about sources of one’s news can just as well apply to both of you.
User avatar
Cortopassi
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3338
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
Location: https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbL ... sWebb.html

Re: Mass voter fraud for dummies

Post by Cortopassi » Fri Nov 27, 2020 9:00 pm

"Biden can only enter the White House as President if he can prove that his ridiculous '80,000,000 votes' were not fraudulently or illegally obtained. When you see what happened in Detroit, Atlanta, Philadelphia & Milwaukee, massive voter fraud, he's got a big unsolvable problem!" Trump tweeted on Friday.

And Trump got the second most ever.

What ARE we going to talk about after Jan 20th???
User avatar
I Shrugged
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2062
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:35 pm

Re: Mass voter fraud for dummies

Post by I Shrugged » Sat Nov 28, 2020 11:46 am

Also, there is nothing inherently wrong with blogspot.com. It’s just a hosting site for blogs. Good grief.
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Mass voter fraud for dummies

Post by pmward » Sun Nov 29, 2020 8:00 am

I Shrugged wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 11:46 am
Also, there is nothing inherently wrong with blogspot.com. It’s just a hosting site for blogs. Good grief.
Yes there is when someone is quoting a "blog" as if it is truth. Blogs are low-quality non-credible sources. Go try to list a political blog as a source on a paper in law school and see how that turns out for you. I'm going to hammer anyone posts here trying to present legal evidence from a blog or any other non-credible source. There's too much bullshit and delusion out there on both sides, but especially the bullshit tinfoil hat right opinions that keep getting shared here lately.

Go see tech's post yesterday on PA and how that turned out. When we dug into the actual "credible" source material we found that the documents did not match the article Tech originally posted. It was quoted completely out of context and spun into something that was entirely fantasy. Not only that, but hours after Tech posted about this supposed win that was imminent in PA the judges in that case ruled against him. This is why we need to stick to credible sources. There is too much fantasyland here these days. The bullshit filter here needs to go up.
flyingpylon
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1102
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:04 am

Re: Mass voter fraud for dummies

Post by flyingpylon » Sun Nov 29, 2020 8:38 am

pmward wrote:
Sun Nov 29, 2020 8:00 am
I Shrugged wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 11:46 am
Also, there is nothing inherently wrong with blogspot.com. It’s just a hosting site for blogs. Good grief.
Yes there is when someone is quoting a "blog" as if it is truth. Blogs are low-quality non-credible sources. Go try to list a political blog as a source on a paper in law school and see how that turns out for you. I'm going to hammer anyone posts here trying to present legal evidence from a blog or any other non-credible source. There's too much bullshit and delusion out there on both sides, but especially the bullshit tinfoil hat right opinions that keep getting shared here lately.

Go see tech's post yesterday on PA and how that turned out. When we dug into the actual "credible" source material we found that the documents did not match the article Tech originally posted. It was quoted completely out of context and spun into something that was entirely fantasy. Not only that, but hours after Tech posted about this supposed win that was imminent in PA the judges in that case ruled against him. This is why we need to stick to credible sources. There is too much fantasyland here these days. The bullshit filter here needs to go up.
Clearly it’s not just blogs. Blogs are on the internet. Nothing on the internet is credible.
Simonjester wrote: lies damn lies and statistics..
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/elect ... id/998968/

don't even click on it.. it is just more fake media on the right.. nothing to see here no reason to even be curious..
if you cant dismiss this without looking you just don't understand politics...
User avatar
sophie
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1959
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: Mass voter fraud for dummies

Post by sophie » Sun Nov 29, 2020 9:50 am

pmward wrote:
Sun Nov 29, 2020 8:00 am
Blogs are low-quality non-credible sources.
Compared to what?

Unfortunately, journalism today is no longer the profession that you seem to think it is. The highest quality reporting these days comes from independent individuals or groups, who may or may not have degrees in journalism. These are presented in a variety of formats, from podcasts to Youtube to, yes, blogs. What you get on mainstream media outlets is little more than pure propaganda, with about 80% straight up opinionating and the remaining 20% an extremely biased selection and sometimes outright misrepresentation of information, carefully vetted to support the opinion narrative.

How did I decide that? Well for one, look at the voter fraud issue. It's just one of many examples of news-worthy items that are not reported at all in the mainstream media, Fox News and the WSJ being notable but only occasional exceptions. For another, I've seen articles posted by CNN that I was able to immediately confirm as fraudulent.

Example: an article where the title and the first paragraph said one thing, but if you read a few paragraphs down the data presented there completely contradicted those initial sentences. Obviously they figured very few people read beyond the first paragraph.

Another example: a series of articles on a number of major news outlets on one of Trump's tweets, all using the same wording and coming to the same conclusion about the meaning of the tweet. I went to Trump's twitter feed and read the tweet in question. It did not at all justify the conclusion and in fact when taken in context, it looked like it was saying the exact opposite.

I posted about both these examples at the time I saw them, not sure if that was before or after you guys appeared on the forum though.

This is all very worrying to me. We are now in a very similar situation to mainland China and Soviet Russia, except that alternative news sources are still mostly allowed here. Note I say "mostly" though, due to the recent and increasing censorship by the large Silicon Valley monopolies that control those alternative news platforms. If that trend continues, we'll soon be doing inventive things to escape the censors like the Chinese youtube author who mimicked the opening scene of Star Wars with their own text inserted.
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Mass voter fraud for dummies

Post by pmward » Sun Nov 29, 2020 10:58 am

sophie wrote:
Sun Nov 29, 2020 9:50 am
pmward wrote:
Sun Nov 29, 2020 8:00 am
Blogs are low-quality non-credible sources.
Compared to what?

Unfortunately, journalism today is no longer the profession that you seem to think it is. The highest quality reporting these days comes from independent individuals or groups, who may or may not have degrees in journalism. These are presented in a variety of formats, from podcasts to Youtube to, yes, blogs. What you get on mainstream media outlets is little more than pure propaganda, with about 80% straight up opinionating and the remaining 20% an extremely biased selection and sometimes outright misrepresentation of information, carefully vetted to support the opinion narrative.

How did I decide that? Well for one, look at the voter fraud issue. It's just one of many examples of news-worthy items that are not reported at all in the mainstream media, Fox News and the WSJ being notable but only occasional exceptions. For another, I've seen articles posted by CNN that I was able to immediately confirm as fraudulent.

Example: an article where the title and the first paragraph said one thing, but if you read a few paragraphs down the data presented there completely contradicted those initial sentences. Obviously they figured very few people read beyond the first paragraph.

Another example: a series of articles on a number of major news outlets on one of Trump's tweets, all using the same wording and coming to the same conclusion about the meaning of the tweet. I went to Trump's twitter feed and read the tweet in question. It did not at all justify the conclusion and in fact when taken in context, it looked like it was saying the exact opposite.

I posted about both these examples at the time I saw them, not sure if that was before or after you guys appeared on the forum though.

This is all very worrying to me. We are now in a very similar situation to mainland China and Soviet Russia, except that alternative news sources are still mostly allowed here. Note I say "mostly" though, due to the recent and increasing censorship by the large Silicon Valley monopolies that control those alternative news platforms. If that trend continues, we'll soon be doing inventive things to escape the censors like the Chinese youtube author who mimicked the opening scene of Star Wars with their own text inserted.
We are in agreement. My comparison was specifically to a right wing news source that tech posted about a judges comment spun to somehow mean that PA was likely to throw out all mail in ballots and award Trump the state. Yet, when we looked at the actual source document they were speaking about we saw that it was taken totally out of context, and that basically the whole news story was fantasy. So it goes both ways. It's not just the "left" media that does this, it's the right also. Moreover, within hours of Tech's post the official ruling came out of PA denying the motion. No news article is a credible source of legal investigations and rulings. The only real credible sources we have in regards to the "fraud" and other legal investigations are official court documents, or full transcripts (not isolated quotes that can be taken out of context) of on the record commentary made by judges or impartial investigators working on the case in some fashion.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Mass voter fraud for dummies

Post by glennds » Sun Nov 29, 2020 11:39 am

pmward wrote:
Sun Nov 29, 2020 10:58 am
sophie wrote:
Sun Nov 29, 2020 9:50 am
pmward wrote:
Sun Nov 29, 2020 8:00 am
Blogs are low-quality non-credible sources.
Compared to what?

Unfortunately, journalism today is no longer the profession that you seem to think it is. The highest quality reporting these days comes from independent individuals or groups, who may or may not have degrees in journalism. These are presented in a variety of formats, from podcasts to Youtube to, yes, blogs. What you get on mainstream media outlets is little more than pure propaganda, with about 80% straight up opinionating and the remaining 20% an extremely biased selection and sometimes outright misrepresentation of information, carefully vetted to support the opinion narrative.

How did I decide that? Well for one, look at the voter fraud issue. It's just one of many examples of news-worthy items that are not reported at all in the mainstream media, Fox News and the WSJ being notable but only occasional exceptions. For another, I've seen articles posted by CNN that I was able to immediately confirm as fraudulent.

Example: an article where the title and the first paragraph said one thing, but if you read a few paragraphs down the data presented there completely contradicted those initial sentences. Obviously they figured very few people read beyond the first paragraph.

Another example: a series of articles on a number of major news outlets on one of Trump's tweets, all using the same wording and coming to the same conclusion about the meaning of the tweet. I went to Trump's twitter feed and read the tweet in question. It did not at all justify the conclusion and in fact when taken in context, it looked like it was saying the exact opposite.

I posted about both these examples at the time I saw them, not sure if that was before or after you guys appeared on the forum though.

This is all very worrying to me. We are now in a very similar situation to mainland China and Soviet Russia, except that alternative news sources are still mostly allowed here. Note I say "mostly" though, due to the recent and increasing censorship by the large Silicon Valley monopolies that control those alternative news platforms. If that trend continues, we'll soon be doing inventive things to escape the censors like the Chinese youtube author who mimicked the opening scene of Star Wars with their own text inserted.
We are in agreement. My comparison was specifically to a right wing news source that tech posted about a judges comment spun to somehow mean that PA was likely to throw out all mail in ballots and award Trump the state. Yet, when we looked at the actual source document they were speaking about we saw that it was taken totally out of context, and that basically the whole news story was fantasy. So it goes both ways. It's not just the "left" media that does this, it's the right also. Moreover, within hours of Tech's post the official ruling came out of PA denying the motion. No news article is a credible source of legal investigations and rulings. The only real credible sources we have in regards to the "fraud" and other legal investigations are official court documents themselves.
I think you both left out one phenomenon that I would say is relatively novel as of the past decade or so in the US. In addition to changes in the objectivity and handling of official and unofficial news by the purveyors, there have been changes in the behavior of the recipients. By recipients I mean the public i.e. all of us.
The new phenomenon is that the public is heavily biased in its interpretation of the news based on what they wish it to be. It is VERY different than China and Soviet Russia. Think of it like a popularity contest, where the flavor of the news that is most popular is getting rewarded with market share and financial reward. See Alex Jones. There are market forces at work in our situation.

When we hear what we want to hear, there is a mini-high. Perhaps an analogy might be the gratification we get from a fast food burger or KFC, or most processed food, when we know a plate of broccoli would have been healthier.
Walter Cronkite was serving up a square meal of meat and vegetables based on what grew right out of the ground that day, but today's world of "have it your way" news is producing our food in a lab to our specifications, full of manufactured interpretations, opinion and sometimes performance art.
If what we hear and see is the flavor we want, we get a small high off it. And then our belief system, whether mildly, moderately, or radically delusional, is reinforced (or with our permission, manipulated). Which leads us to an increasingly divided society where we are living in different versions of reality, and doing so with incredibly tenacious conviction.

What happened yesterday with Tech's report of the PA lawsuit was fascinating and illustrative of what I'm saying. As pmward says, it evolved during the day from a "news" article proclaiming one thing, into a deeper dive that resulted in basically the opposite reality referring to not one but two Courts' own rulings as the comparison source documents. Reading Tech's article took seconds. Reading the Court documents and processing them took plenty of time.

So yes, the trend is worrying, but I am saying we all play a part in it. If recipients continue to attach credibility to what the hear only because it is what they want to hear, the trend will continue because we are bestowing market reward on the source. By the way, this applies to the Left and the Right. It applies to Social Media and blogs, as well as print news, as well as TV networks.

And back to the food analogy, you have to spend more money, do a lot more work, and go out of your way to eat healthy. Same thing with being objectively informed, including managing our own biases and expectations, unfortunately. Are we willing to do it?
Last edited by glennds on Sun Nov 29, 2020 11:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Mass voter fraud for dummies

Post by pmward » Sun Nov 29, 2020 11:54 am

glennds wrote:
Sun Nov 29, 2020 11:39 am
pmward wrote:
Sun Nov 29, 2020 10:58 am
sophie wrote:
Sun Nov 29, 2020 9:50 am
pmward wrote:
Sun Nov 29, 2020 8:00 am
Blogs are low-quality non-credible sources.
Compared to what?

Unfortunately, journalism today is no longer the profession that you seem to think it is. The highest quality reporting these days comes from independent individuals or groups, who may or may not have degrees in journalism. These are presented in a variety of formats, from podcasts to Youtube to, yes, blogs. What you get on mainstream media outlets is little more than pure propaganda, with about 80% straight up opinionating and the remaining 20% an extremely biased selection and sometimes outright misrepresentation of information, carefully vetted to support the opinion narrative.

How did I decide that? Well for one, look at the voter fraud issue. It's just one of many examples of news-worthy items that are not reported at all in the mainstream media, Fox News and the WSJ being notable but only occasional exceptions. For another, I've seen articles posted by CNN that I was able to immediately confirm as fraudulent.

Example: an article where the title and the first paragraph said one thing, but if you read a few paragraphs down the data presented there completely contradicted those initial sentences. Obviously they figured very few people read beyond the first paragraph.

Another example: a series of articles on a number of major news outlets on one of Trump's tweets, all using the same wording and coming to the same conclusion about the meaning of the tweet. I went to Trump's twitter feed and read the tweet in question. It did not at all justify the conclusion and in fact when taken in context, it looked like it was saying the exact opposite.

I posted about both these examples at the time I saw them, not sure if that was before or after you guys appeared on the forum though.

This is all very worrying to me. We are now in a very similar situation to mainland China and Soviet Russia, except that alternative news sources are still mostly allowed here. Note I say "mostly" though, due to the recent and increasing censorship by the large Silicon Valley monopolies that control those alternative news platforms. If that trend continues, we'll soon be doing inventive things to escape the censors like the Chinese youtube author who mimicked the opening scene of Star Wars with their own text inserted.
We are in agreement. My comparison was specifically to a right wing news source that tech posted about a judges comment spun to somehow mean that PA was likely to throw out all mail in ballots and award Trump the state. Yet, when we looked at the actual source document they were speaking about we saw that it was taken totally out of context, and that basically the whole news story was fantasy. So it goes both ways. It's not just the "left" media that does this, it's the right also. Moreover, within hours of Tech's post the official ruling came out of PA denying the motion. No news article is a credible source of legal investigations and rulings. The only real credible sources we have in regards to the "fraud" and other legal investigations are official court documents themselves.
I think you both left out one phenomenon that I would say is relatively novel as of the past decade or so in the US. In addition to changes in the objectivity and handling of official and unofficial news by the purveyors, there have been changes in the behavior of the recipients. By recipients I mean the public i.e. all of us.
The new phenomenon is that the public is heavily biased in its interpretation of the news based on what they wish it to be. It is VERY different than China and Soviet Russia. Think of it like a popularity contest, where the flavor of the news that is most popular is getting rewarded with market share and financial reward. See Alex Jones. There are market forces at work in our situation.

When we hear what we want to hear, there is a mini-high. Perhaps an analogy might be the gratification we get from a fast food burger or KFC, or most processed food, when we know a plate of broccoli would have been healthier.
Walter Cronkite was serving up a square meal of meat and vegetables based on what grew right out of the ground that day, but today's world of "have it your way" news is producing our food in a lab to our specifications, full of manufactured interpretations, opinion and sometimes performance art.
If what we hear and see is the flavor we want, we get a small high off it. And then our belief system, whether mildly, moderately, or radically delusional, is reinforced. Which leads us to an increasingly divided society where we are living in different versions of reality, and doing so with incredibly tenacious conviction.

What happened yesterday with Tech's report of the PA lawsuit was fascinating and illustrative of what I'm saying. As pmward says, it evolved during the day from a "news" article proclaiming one thing, into a deeper dive that resulted in basically the opposite reality referring to not one but two Courts' own rulings as the source documents.

So yes, the trend is worrying, but I am saying we all play a part in it. If recipients continue to attach credibility to what the hear only because it is what they want to hear, the trend will continue because we are bestowing market reward on the source. By the way, this applies to the Left and the Right. It applies to Social Media and blogs, as well as print news, as well as TV networks.

And back to the food analogy, you have to spend more money, do a lot more work, and go out of your way to eat healthy. Same thing with being objectively informed, including managing our own biases and expectations, unfortunately. Are we willing to do it?
Yes I agree with this as well. Internet tracking plays a big part. People that go to right wing websites get shown more right wing news sources all across the web; likewise true on people that go to left wing websites. We are fed what we "like" and what we click on, regardless of whether that info is accurate or not.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Mass voter fraud for dummies

Post by glennds » Sun Nov 29, 2020 11:58 am

pmward wrote:
Sun Nov 29, 2020 11:54 am


Yes I agree with this as well. Internet tracking plays a big part. People that go to right wing websites get shown more right wing news sources all across the web; likewise true on people that go to left wing websites. We are fed what we "like" and what we click on, regardless of whether that info is accurate or not.
We have the choice of controlling our diet and avoiding poisonous things. That agent of choice is called critical thinking.
Again, it goes both ways, left and right.
It does not go one way and NOT the other.
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Mass voter fraud for dummies

Post by pmward » Sun Nov 29, 2020 12:02 pm

glennds wrote:
Sun Nov 29, 2020 11:58 am
pmward wrote:
Sun Nov 29, 2020 11:54 am


Yes I agree with this as well. Internet tracking plays a big part. People that go to right wing websites get shown more right wing news sources all across the web; likewise true on people that go to left wing websites. We are fed what we "like" and what we click on, regardless of whether that info is accurate or not.
We have the choice of controlling our diet and avoiding poisonous things. That agent of choice is called critical thinking.
Again, it goes both ways, left and right.
It does not go one way and NOT the other.
Yep. And psychologically speaking, if a human is told the same thing over and over they come to believe it's true even if it is not. So these echo chambers on both sides are very dangerous.

It's easy for someone indoctrinated on the right to see some of the delusions of the extreme populist left.

Likewise, it's easy for someone indoctrinated on the left to see some of the delusions of the extreme populist right.

It's very difficult for someone indoctrinated to the right to see the delusions of the extreme populist right and it's very difficult for someone indoctrinated to the left to see the delusions of the extreme populist left.

Humans are generally very bad at judging themselves.
User avatar
sophie
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1959
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: Mass voter fraud for dummies

Post by sophie » Mon Nov 30, 2020 6:04 pm

Yes, can't disagree with you there, pmward. There are definitely some questionable sources on the right as well. It's just that when people say "reputable news sources" it's always a list of left-wing organizations like CNN, AP, MSNBC etc - and that list always somehow excludes the conservative news channels.

That is often followed by a demand to "show me the evidence" on one of the hose left-wing channels. Which of course you can't since they won't report it. It's a Catch-22.
User avatar
I Shrugged
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2062
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:35 pm

Re: Mass voter fraud for dummies

Post by I Shrugged » Mon Nov 30, 2020 8:23 pm

When it comes to making use of imperfect and incomplete information, I think I’m a lot more comfortable than are people of a more engineering or science bent. I think it plays a big part in being a successful entrepreneur. I probably wouldn’t be a good scientist because I’d be ready to act when something was clear enough and a decision needed to be made.

There are a lot of unproven as fraud yet very interesting alleged anomalies and coincidences in this election stuff. If you need proof one way or the other before being able to consider/discuss the issues, that doesn’t mean you’re right to just shout down and mock others who want to do it.
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Mass voter fraud for dummies

Post by pmward » Mon Nov 30, 2020 8:43 pm

I Shrugged wrote:
Mon Nov 30, 2020 8:23 pm
When it comes to making use of imperfect and incomplete information, I think I’m a lot more comfortable than are people of a more engineering or science bent. I think it plays a big part in being a successful entrepreneur. I probably wouldn’t be a good scientist because I’d be ready to act when something was clear enough and a decision needed to be made.

There are a lot of unproven as fraud yet very interesting alleged anomalies and coincidences in this election stuff. If you need proof one way or the other before being able to consider/discuss the issues, that doesn’t mean you’re right to just shout down and mock others who want to do it.
I mean, there are things it's beneficial to go with your intuition with. Legal issues are not one of them though. Legal issues are in the more scientific realm, you must stay objective. Being objective/analytical requires patience.

Side note, look how much more pleasant the conversations have been here the last couple days since people have been bringing higher quality sources about the legal stuff? We have discussed fact, not opinion. As such, there's been no drama. The bullshit filter has been much higher, and conversation has been more constructive.
User avatar
Tortoise
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2751
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:35 am

Re: Mass voter fraud for dummies

Post by Tortoise » Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:18 pm

pmward wrote:
Mon Nov 30, 2020 8:43 pm
Side note, look how much more pleasant the conversations have been here the last couple days since people have been bringing higher quality sources about the legal stuff? We have discussed fact, not opinion. As such, there's been no drama. The bullshit filter has been much higher, and conversation has been more constructive.
I think the lack of drama the past couple of days is mainly due to the fact that doodle hasn't posted anything since Friday. ;D
User avatar
Cortopassi
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3338
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
Location: https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbL ... sWebb.html

Re: Mass voter fraud for dummies

Post by Cortopassi » Tue Dec 01, 2020 9:27 am

Simonjester wrote:
sophie wrote:
Mon Nov 30, 2020 6:04 pm
Yes, can't disagree with you there, pmward. There are definitely some questionable sources on the right as well. It's just that when people say "reputable news sources" it's always a list of left-wing organizations like CNN, AP, MSNBC etc - and that list always somehow excludes the conservative news channels.

That is often followed by a demand to "show me the evidence" on one of the hose left-wing channels. Which of course you can't since they won't report it. It's a Catch-22.
Cognitive immunization
https://www.americanthinker.com/article ... itics.html

I only skimmed it, but seems quite easy to take all the times the author used left and leftist and replace with right and rightist and you could put that article out on a liberal site.

For example take these and replace left with right:

--In leftist circles, evidence holds no authority over strong belief.
--In other words, if it benefits an agenda, rather than embrace what is credible, the left consciously neutralizes any contradictory information that threatens their well-oiled propaganda machine
--In other words, what the left works hard to ensure entrenches itself in the mind of their victims is not necessarily reinforced by reality

And she still thinks sufficient evidence of fraud is forthcoming. Ok, entitled to her opinion.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Mass voter fraud for dummies

Post by glennds » Tue Dec 01, 2020 10:13 am

Cortopassi wrote:
Tue Dec 01, 2020 9:27 am
Simonjester wrote:
Cognitive immunization
https://www.americanthinker.com/article ... itics.html
I only skimmed it, but seems quite easy to take all the times the author used left and leftist and replace with right and rightist and you could put that article out on a liberal site.

For example take these and replace left with right:

--In leftist circles, evidence holds no authority over strong belief.
--In other words, if it benefits an agenda, rather than embrace what is credible, the left consciously neutralizes any contradictory information that threatens their well-oiled propaganda machine
--In other words, what the left works hard to ensure entrenches itself in the mind of their victims is not necessarily reinforced by reality

And she still thinks sufficient evidence of fraud is forthcoming. Ok, entitled to her opinion.
That article just reinforces for me that if BOTH left and right moved a standard deviation or two toward the center, we'd probably all be better off.

Disclaimer: I have a warped sense of humor, and with that, I thoroughly enjoyed the very last line where it says "Jeannie hosts an outdated blog at .......".
Ironic because I look forward to the day when some of these polarized ideas (again, both left and right) are outdated.

BTW, for anyone who gets Showtime, they are running a very interesting three part documentary on the Reagans. The interesting part looking through the lens of today, is the particular brand of conservatism that Reagan championed, how it differed from past, and how it evolved into the present interpretations of conservatism.
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Mass voter fraud for dummies

Post by pmward » Tue Dec 01, 2020 10:19 am

glennds wrote:
Tue Dec 01, 2020 10:13 am
Cortopassi wrote:
Tue Dec 01, 2020 9:27 am
Simonjester wrote:
Cognitive immunization
https://www.americanthinker.com/article ... itics.html
I only skimmed it, but seems quite easy to take all the times the author used left and leftist and replace with right and rightist and you could put that article out on a liberal site.

For example take these and replace left with right:

--In leftist circles, evidence holds no authority over strong belief.
--In other words, if it benefits an agenda, rather than embrace what is credible, the left consciously neutralizes any contradictory information that threatens their well-oiled propaganda machine
--In other words, what the left works hard to ensure entrenches itself in the mind of their victims is not necessarily reinforced by reality

And she still thinks sufficient evidence of fraud is forthcoming. Ok, entitled to her opinion.
That article just reinforces for me that if BOTH left and right moved a standard deviation or two toward the center, we'd probably all be better off.

Disclaimer: I have a warped sense of humor, and with that, I thoroughly enjoyed the very last line where it says "Jeannie hosts an outdated blog at .......".
Ironic because I look forward to the day when some of these polarized ideas (again, both left and right) are outdated.

BTW, for anyone who gets Showtime, they are running a very interesting three part documentary on the Reagans. The interesting part looking through the lens of today, is the particular brand of conservatism that Reagan championed, how it differed from past, and how it evolved into the present interpretations of conservatism.
I don't think Reagan would be happy with where conservatism has evolved to. It's clear George W. Bush is not a big fan of where it's evolved to either. You're totally right that both sides moving a standard deviation or two towards center (and away from populism) would be way better than this current populist mess.
User avatar
I Shrugged
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2062
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:35 pm

Re: Mass voter fraud for dummies

Post by I Shrugged » Tue Dec 01, 2020 8:39 pm

GWB was a war criminal. I hope we never get back to his ways of thinking.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Mass voter fraud for dummies

Post by vnatale » Tue Dec 01, 2020 8:43 pm

I Shrugged wrote:
Tue Dec 01, 2020 8:39 pm
GWB was a war criminal. I hope we never get back to his ways of thinking.
We CAN agree on that!

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
SomeDude
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:45 am

Re: Mass voter fraud for dummies

Post by SomeDude » Tue Dec 01, 2020 9:21 pm

vnatale wrote:
Tue Dec 01, 2020 8:43 pm
I Shrugged wrote:
Tue Dec 01, 2020 8:39 pm
GWB was a war criminal. I hope we never get back to his ways of thinking.
We CAN agree on that!

Vinny
That makes 3 of us
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Mass voter fraud for dummies

Post by Libertarian666 » Tue Dec 01, 2020 9:40 pm

SomeDude wrote:
Tue Dec 01, 2020 9:21 pm
vnatale wrote:
Tue Dec 01, 2020 8:43 pm
I Shrugged wrote:
Tue Dec 01, 2020 8:39 pm
GWB was a war criminal. I hope we never get back to his ways of thinking.
We CAN agree on that!

Vinny
That makes 3 of us
4.
Post Reply