We'll see if Trump can illustrate any actual significant fraud.
The long nightmare has just begun: Inauguration of a fraud.
- Thread starter annabenedetti
- Start date
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
...(trump's)own lawyers argued against him in seeking to stop voter recounts in 3 states that decided the election by razor thin margins.lain:
why do you think they buried the recounts?
The difference between those situations is that there is a general consensus among the intelligence agencies that Russia was involved and there is a general consensus that there is not voter fraud on the scale that Trump is alleging.
Another difference is that there are national security reasons to keep certain information about Russian hacking under wraps.
drbrumley
Well-known member
And there was a general, if not in fact unanimous consensus Iraq had WMD!!!! Just calling a spade a spade.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
well, they did :idunno:
drbrumley
Well-known member
Long before we went in back in 03. And we knew they were junk, It didn't sell so they had to manufacture the lie. Remember, oh the mushroom cloud. What bunk!
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
nope - saddam had Al-Samoud 2s which qualified under UN regulations as wmds
It's a widely contested study. In parts:
The Study's Authors OutlinedThe Limitations Of TheirFindings. In a October 24 blog in The Washington Post, Jessie Richman and David Earnest, two authors of the study, admitted that their "extrapolation to specific state-level or district-level election outcomes is fraught with substantial uncertainty." The authors noted that the non-citizen sample they examined was "modest" and relied on self-reporting, which can create errors, and attempts to verify the accuracy of the self-reporting was imperfect and supplemented by estimates. [The Washington Post, 10/27/14]
[Forty-one] percent of self-reported non-citizen voters in the 2012 CCES reported being citizens back in 2010. The table goes on to show that 71 percent of respondents, who said that they were both 2012 non-citizens and 2010 voters, had previously reported being citizens of the United States in the 2010 CCES. With the authors' extrapolations of the non-citizen voting population based on a small number of validated votes from self-reported non-citizens (N = 5), this high frequency of response error in non-citizenship status raises important doubts about their conclusions. [The Washington Post, Monkey Cage blog, 10/27/14]
A number of academics and commentators have already expressed skepticism about the paper's assumptions and conclusions, though. In a series of tweets, New York Times columnist Nate Cohn focused his criticism on Richman et al's use of Cooperative Congressional Election Study data to make inferences about the non-citizen voting population. That critique has some merit, too. The 2008 and 2010 CCES surveyed large opt-in Internet samples constructed by the polling firm YouGov to be nationally representative of the adult citizen population. Consequently, the assumption that non-citizens, who volunteered to take online surveys administered in English about American politics, would somehow be representative of the entire non-citizen population seems tenuous at best. [The Washington Post, Monkey Cage blog, 10/27/14]
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
:doh:
do you accept that there's any illegals illegally casting illegal votes?
or do you just wave your hand and pooh-pooh the whole idea away?
The problem for Dems is that everytime they mention hacking everyone is automatically reminded that Hillary ran The State Department from a private server that she wiped when it was subpoenaed. If her organization was still so careless after that whole train wreck that they were compromised again then how on Earth are we supposed to believe they weren't compromised the first time like they say they weren't?
He doesn't have to he just has to create a doubt, which can only be overcome with an audit, which if it finds one bad vote proves his point, that you have holes in your system.
Which he then fills with voter ID, which gets rid of all the people who don't have their act together enough to get one.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
if a potential voter isn't astute enough to get some form of voter id, i sure don't want them voting
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Well, since I didn't even mention you in my post, and spoke about my clarity not yours, I don't see why you'd imply that I believe you should be compelled to do anything.
As it happens, I don't agree with you, which is why I explained why I did follow my own path.
You did what you thought best. I did what I thought best. We both exercised our freedoms and our best judgment. This isn't about that.
This is about how not voting for one of the two candidates who have a chance of winning may be a conscience vote that is for an individual good, but it doesn't generalize to the greater good.
You quoted me at the top of it and used the same device I employed in echoing form with a contrary conclusion. Seemed reasonable to think you were speaking to me and in response on point. Didn't offend, but it seemed like an invitation to difference.
No confusion on that point. And I also, in my answer, noted that I wasn't attempting to obligate anyone to follow me, on the chance I hadn't been clear enough prior.
See at that point it sounds like an awfully circuitous way to suggest your clarity was superior. Else, why bring another good into it? And I'd differ on trying to see around conscience to some notion of a greater good. If the good won't serve our conscience one of them isn't worth serving. But that's my context, conscience and judgment and we all have our own counsel.
A lot of people on the right are framing this as a moral victory. That's where I came in and my objection was largely on the point, though I'd have had the same complaint if someone on the left framed it similarly on the heels of a Clinton victory.
:cheers:
Last edited:
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
But we haven't arrived at that moment, have we? And as per our more private conversation about this which we had before you posted to me here in the thread, you already knew what I thought so you won't be surprised when I continue to disagree with you.
At the time, she didn't know she was marrying a presidential candidate. Further, you've implied that she's a gold digger..
She should NOT be subject to the same treatment as her husband the politician and president, he's an elected leader and she is not. She'll have a role to play, and should she say or do something that violates some norm of ethics or harms by word or deed any member of the constituency, then of course that should be addressed. But my point to you, and you knew it before you waded into this again with me, was that she didn't sign up for this - and I wondered if she felt dragged along, overwhelmed. And I had some empathy for her. I'd rather find out later that my empathy was misplaced than not have had it to begin with.
Always glad to bemuse you
Eh. I'm sorry you don't see my point and I'm not inclined to explain it at the moment.
She has no political experience. I'm guessing (but I don't know) that someone wrote that speech for her and she took it unquestioningly and did what was expected of her. If she wrote it herself then that would be different. I don't know, and I haven't had any time to look it up.
Yes, maybe Melania will. You may suspect til the cows come home, but let's face it - you have no idea why she married Trump. This veers away from the political and the important decisions the GOP will make under Trump's leadership (such as it is) that affect the course of this country, and focuses on a person who I don't know is equipped yet to deal with that kind of pressure and may make mistakes as she takes on the role of First Lady. If she receives criticism, I hope it's constructive and not destructive.
Interestingly, I came across this today, and it illustrates exactly what I was talking about when I said she seemed unhappy.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Sorry, but your post was kind of ridiculous, since you know darn well I wasn't implying that you should be compelled to do anything. As for my clarity being superior, well, I can't do anything to fix that.
:cheers: