OFFICIAL US election discussion

[jadtiger]

Appeal to authority fallacy.

You and @GNR4LIFE need to learn how arguments work.

Dispute the information itself, not the source of the information. If the information is wrong, I will happily step aside and concede the point here. I have no interest in being incorrect or spreading dogma. If the information is incorrect, it should be easy to refute. I chose this website because it was the first that contained the pure data I was after, not an opinion piece trying to explain-away an issue.

That's like saying that everything on the ABC is incorrect because they are the bedfellows of progressive Greens-based policies. Or that Sky News are always wrong because they solely present right wing perspectives.

This is basic, basic stuff.

You are entitled to your opinion but that does not make it a fact

 

[clokan]

Look, I know you generally shoot from the hip without doing adequate research, but it helps if you base your opinions in reality.

The Heritage Foundation's Election Fraud Map

The Heritage Foundation's Election Fraud Map is an interactive tool providing a sampling of proven instances of election fraud across the U.S. From @HeritageDataviz

electionfraud.heritage.org

Here is a list of 1560 confirmed cases of electoral fraud in US elections, dating back to 1981. These are only individual examples and only confirmed examples.

Read my original statement again. Voter fraud is present in US elections. This isn't disputed.

The scale is disputed.

For the record, I never once mentioned, nor do I believe, that it happens on a scale that can tip an election one way or another.

Media coverage/rhetoric, or suppression of information, can influence an election however.

You preached there is "little to no balanced coverage", and then put forward the Heritage Foundation and even they could only come up 1560 cases, that's like 0.0001% off the voting population. Agree its likely higher but there is no evidence to suggest its significant, if there was, why hasn't Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon produced it?

 

[Kelce68]

You preached there is "little to no balanced coverage", and then put forward the Heritage Foundation and even they could only come up 1560 cases, that's like 0.0001% off the voting population. Agree its likely higher but there is no evidence to suggest its significant, if there was, why hasn't Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon produced it?

What was my position?

 

[Betterdays22]

Appeal to authority fallacy.

You and @GNR4LIFE need to learn how arguments work.

Dispute the information itself, not the source of the information. If the information is wrong, I will happily step aside and concede the point here. I have no interest in being incorrect or spreading dogma. If the information is incorrect, it should be easy to refute. I chose this website because it was the first that contained the pure data I was after, not an opinion piece trying to explain-away an issue.

That's like saying that everything on the ABC is incorrect because they are the bedfellows of progressive Greens-based policies. Or that Sky News are always wrong because they solely present right wing perspectives.

This is basic, basic stuff.

It matters who the information comes from Kelce, cmon. It's how the numbers, without context, are used to create a narrative. Just looking at a review of the heritages database:
- Only 105 cases come within the past five years, and 488 within the past 10 years. Thirty-two cases are from the 1980s and 1990s
- In reviewing decades of cases and billions of votes cast, the Heritage Foundation has identified just 10 cases involving in-person impersonation fraud at the polls (fewer than the number of members on the President’s Commission)
- The database includes only 41 cases involving non-citizens registering, voting, or attempting to vote.
- At least a quarter of the cases in the data based not even involve ineligible people voting or attempting to vote — the conduct of concern to the president’s Commission

I know you will say that you were just pointing out that it HAS happened. But the overarching point is that Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon is very intentionally and dishonestly overstating the frequency in an attempt to undermine the democratic process. I'm not sure why you don't acknowledge that?

 

[Kelce68]

Correct.

That's why the data matters.

There is evidence, long-standing evidence of voter fraud in the US. This is a widely accepted part of the US electoral system.

It is not nearly on the scale that the Republicans suggest.

It did not cost the election in 2020.

Those are the facts.

 

[Kelce68]

It matters who the information comes from Kelce, cmon. It's how the numbers, without context, are used to create a narrative. Just looking at a review of the heritages database:
- Only 105 cases come within the past five years, and 488 within the past 10 years. Thirty-two cases are from the 1980s and 1990s
- In reviewing decades of cases and billions of votes cast, the Heritage Foundation has identified just 10 cases involving in-person impersonation fraud at the polls (fewer than the number of members on the President’s Commission)
- The database includes only 41 cases involving non-citizens registering, voting, or attempting to vote.
- At least a quarter of the cases in the data based not even involve ineligible people voting or attempting to vote — the conduct of concern to the president’s Commission

I know you will say that you were just pointing out that it HAS happened. But the overarching point is that Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon is very intentionally and dishonestly overstating the frequency in an attempt to undermine the democratic process. I'm not sure why you don't acknowledge that?

That's because that was my original point. And that was the ONLY point I was making. I emphatically stated that the scale is what is disputed. I also stated that I, personally, did not believe it happens on a scale large enough to alter an election.

But the overarching point is that Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon is very intentionally and dishonestly overstating the frequency in an attempt to undermine the democratic process. I'm not sure why you don't acknowledge that?

That's simple, because that wasn't the point I was making. That is textbook whataboutism. If we want to go down the path of his hyperbolic rhetoric, then lets's. Happy to.

Kudos to you for actually paying attention to what I was saying and not getting swept up in emotional, incorrect strawmaning to bolster your point, as per the others in this conversation.

I am very, very careful with my words. I use them intentionally and have no interest in being anything but accurate and correct.

To that point, as always, I welcome intellectually honest debate and, more importantly, data, so that I can course correct my viewpoint.

 

[Kelce68]

There was 40 cases of fraud brought by the former President in 2020. They were all thrown out.

From memory, 39 of them were due to lack of evidence, 1 was prosecuted.

Does that disprove my assertion that voter fraud is present in US elections? Did I stipulate that I was only talking about the 2020 Federal election?

Again, be accurate. Not your strong suit today.

 

[clokan]

From memory, 39 of them were due to lack of evidence, 1 was prosecuted.

Does that disprove my assertion that voter fraud is present in US elections? Did I stipulate that I was only talking about the 2020 Federal election?

Again, be accurate. Not your strong suit today.

I don't think many dispute there is voter fraud, just that it insignificant.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

From memory, 39 of them were due to lack of evidence, 1 was prosecuted.

Does that disprove my assertion that voter fraud is present in US elections? Did I stipulate that I was only talking about the 2020 Federal election?

Again, be accurate. Not your strong suit today.

Dude, it’s 0000.1% of the electorate even if you are right. You said yourself, none of it has influenced elections, so why are you being so persistent? You think Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon is not implying that fraud is going to influence the result if he loses?

 

[Kelce68]

I don't think many dispute there is voter fraud, just that it insignificant.

Good.

Then we can all agree I was correct in the only point I was making.

 

[Betterdays22]

That's because that was my original point. And that was the ONLY point I was making. I emphatically stated that the scale is what is disputed. I also stated that I, personally, did not believe it happens on a scale large enough to alter an election.


That's simple, because that wasn't the point I was making. That is textbook whataboutism. If we want to go down the path of his hyperbolic rhetoric, then lets's. Happy to.

Kudos to you for actually paying attention to what I was saying and not getting swept up in emotional, incorrect strawmaning to bolster your point, as per the others in this conversation.

I am very, very careful with my words. I use them intentionally and have no interest in being anything but accurate and correct.

To that point, as always, I welcome intellectually honest debate and, more importantly, data, so that I can course correct my viewpoint.

I respect the way you go about your discussions, you are often very logical and rational. There are a few other points you made about policy, media etc that would be great to chat about. Some we would agree on some we would disagree on, but i'm mindful this is not the correct place to do it.

 

[clokan]

Good.

Then we can all agree I was correct in the only point I was making.

Isn’t this a point? “Early voting has him taking most, if not all the battlegrounds.“

 

[GNR4LIFE]

Good.

Then we can all agree I was correct in the only point I was making.

Not to stand in the way of your victory lap, but the whole argument centred around Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon claiming it would be rigged if he loses. All you’ve done is provide instances of isolated incidents. Nothing on the scale that would influence an entire election. So while take credit for being right, it doesn’t actually change my original point.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

Isn’t this a point? “Early voting has him taking most, if not all the battlegrounds.“

It doesn’t, and he won’t. Dems are 400, 000 votes ahead in PA alone.

 

[Kelce68]

Dude, it’s 0000.1% of the electorate even if you are right. You said yourself, none of it has influenced elections, so why are you being so persistent? You think Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon is not implying that fraud is going to influence the election if he loses?

Between 0.0003 percent and 0.0025 percent is the estimated figure. (I think you've put the decimal place in the wrong spot, you know, your attention to detail and all. The number you suggested would mean 1 in every 1000 ballots was fraudulent)

Why am I being so persistent? Because the nuanced point I made was correct, has been admitted by all and sundry that it was was correct and was bashed for saying so. Do you believe that I shouldn't have stood by my (correct) assertion? That's rather authoritarian of you...

You think Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon is not implying that fraud is going to influence the election if he loses?

Entirely different discussion; happy to have it.

No, I don't think that. I think it's part of his playbook of inflammatory and hyperbolic rhetoric, designed to mobilise his supporter base and draw similarities and attention to the, very real, media narrative around him and everything he stands for in an effort to discredit him and push the election the way of the Democrats.

The ORIGINAL point was actually leaning into the fact that their entire election system, from the lack of ID, to the angled media coverage, to the lack of integrity in their voting systems is a joke. ON BOTH SIDES.

Hope I've been clear enough this time.

 

[Kelce68]

I respect the way you go about your discussions, you are often very logical and rational. There are a few other points you made about policy, media etc that would be great to chat about. Some we would agree on some we would disagree on, but i'm mindful this is not the correct place to do it.

Ditto my friend.

 

[Kelce68]

It doesn’t, and he won’t. Dems are 400, 000 votes ahead in PA alone.

What does 'most' mean?

What are the general election-day vs early voting trends in PA?

How do the registrated Dems vs Rep numbers and early ballot requests weigh into the projections here?

 

[Kelce68]

Not to stand in the way of your victory lap, but the whole argument centred around Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon claiming it would be rigged if he loses. All you’ve done is provide instances of isolated incidents. Nothing on the scale that would influence an entire election. So while take credit for being right, it doesn’t actually change my original point.

Mine wasn't.

I made a very straightforward, simple and correct point.

The fact you can't concede that sounds a bit Trumpian to me...

Nothing on the scale that would influence an entire election. So while take credit for being right, it doesn’t actually change my original point.

Clearly said I believe it wasn't. And wasn't trying to change your original point. The world isn't out to get you. Relax.

 

[Kelce68]

Isn’t this a point? “Early voting has him taking most, if not all the battlegrounds.“

Yes, in a prior discussion, from days ago. As more votes come in, these predictions can change. I don't think they will. From last night, the numbers have shortened a little for Harris, but Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon will appears, without much confidence, of grabbing 312. But it is close.

I follow 4 different polling commentators, 3 of them have stated so, verbatim, the 4th was undecided. It is upon these analyses that I form my opinion on where I think the election might be headed. It is extremely hard to find proper analysis that is objective.

For reference, they all, specifically, looked at not only votes counted thus far, but registered member for each party per state, main-in ballot requests per party per state and election-day voter percentage per party per state and used that to form their projections. There are a couple of other variables in there that some had used, but I can't remember their metrics.

That prediction was also not part of this phase of the discourse. We were onto a different part of the discussion about the US election altogether.

What is your point?

 

[GNR4LIFE]

Mine wasn't.

Right. You created a straw man

I made a very straightforward, simple and correct point.

That had little baring on what my point was

The fact you can't concede that sounds a bit Trumpian to me...

Concede what, that you were right about voter fraud? Pretty sure I did. Maybe even twice.

Clearly said I believe it wasn't. And wasn't trying to change your original point. The world isn't out to get you. Relax.

Like I said, you created a straw man.