US Politics: Now with Alt Facts

[Fragile Bird]

6 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

I agree that Trump's investigation into voter fraud is ridiculous, but it seems to me that it's no more ridiculous than Jill's Stein's recount effort in PA, WI, and MI.  Stein didn't have any evidence of hacking or vote manipulation either, just that it was theoretically possible and that doing the recount was the only way to find any evidence.  Well, Trump doesn't have any evidence either, but voter fraud is possible, and we won't know to what extent voter fraud occurred in this election unless we do an investigation.  I fully expect that an investigation will confirm that no mass voter fraud occurred, but I don't see how Trump's investigation is any less justified than Stein's recount effort.  I think both are a waste of resources, but a lot of Democrats and a lot of people on this forum were OK with Stein.

Stein's recount requests were supported by analysis of strange voting patterns seen in those states.

[Mudguard]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

But he won. I don't have any real issue with an investigation, but the claim (3.5 million?!) with zero proof on offer is patently ridiculous.

Yeah, Trump's claim of 3-5 million illegal votes is moronic.  I have a hard time understanding why he tweets these things.  Thin skin?  Trying to distract people from other things?  

[Mudguard]

2 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Stein's recount requests were supported by analysis of strange voting patterns seen in those states.

The "strange voting patterns" claimed by the so called computer security expert were completely explained by demographics.  Fivethirtyeight did a good analysis, and the computer guy walked back his claims of the strange voting patterns and claimed that his analysis was misunderstood and misrepresented.

[Mexal]

3 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

Yeah, Trump's claim of 3-5 million illegal votes is moronic.  I have a hard time understanding why he tweets these things.  Thin skin?  Trying to distract people from other things?  

He believes it. Trump has narcissistic personality disorder. If he loses something, he believes it's rigged against him, not that people just don't like him. If people criticize him, they're distorting the facts or lying, not that he lied. He believes that just by getting into the White House, everything he says should be gospel, that all the media coverage should be positive for him and that everyone should just listen to what he says as the unvarnished truth no matter what is true or not. This is why he cares. He cannot live with the idea that more people voted for Clinton than him and that will possibly de-legitimize his win in the eyes of people. So he creates a lie, pushes that lie, and gaslights the public.

Just now, Mudguard said:

The "strange voting patterns" claimed by the so called computer security expert were completely explained by demographics.  Fivethirtyeight did a good analysis, and the computer guy walked back his claims of the strange voting patterns and claimed that his analysis was misunderstood and misrepresented.

It took, what, a week, two weeks? Ultimate result was it certified the results and proved that democracy worked. I don't see an issue with this. During that recount, lawyers for Trump, in legal documentation, insisted there was no voter fraud. Now there is voter fraud. In 2007, the DOJ finished a 5 year investigation into voter fraud and found nothing. Secretaries of States from Red/Blue states have come out and said repeatedly there is no voter fraud. The only person who truly believes there is 3-5 million people who voted illegally is Donald J. Trump and that forces us to believe that the Clinton organization got 3-5 million people to vote illegally and decided not to have a single person vote in major swing states. It's idiotic, proven false, a waste of money and only going to be used to further suppress the vote.

[Week]

2 minutes ago, Mexal said:

It took, what, a week, two weeks? Ultimate result was it certified the results and proved that democracy worked. I don't see an issue with this. During that recount, lawyers for Trump, in legal documentation, insisted there was no voter fraud. Now there is voter fraud. In 2007, the DOJ finished a 5 year investigation into voter fraud and found nothing. Secretaries of States from Red/Blue states have come out and said repeatedly there is no voter fraud. The only person who truly believes there is 3-5 million people who voted illegally is Donald J. Trump and that forces us to believe that the Clinton organization got 3-5 million people to vote illegally and decided not to have a single person vote in major swing states. It's idiotic, proven false, a waste of money and only going to be used to further suppress the vote.

The illegal votes were also, purportedly, 100% for Clinton and had no impact on any down ballot races. Truly a brilliant strategy by the Clinton campaign.

[TheKitttenGuard]

14 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

Yeah, Trump's claim of 3-5 million illegal votes is moronic.  I have a hard time understanding why he tweets these things.  Thin skin?  Trying to distract people from other things?  

Trump is a Conspiracy theorist.  It is one of the things that gravely me.  Not saying other President were not but Trump definitely more of a believer of them than others have been.

 

[Mudguard]

2 minutes ago, Mexal said:

It took, what, a week, two weeks? Ultimate result was it certified the results and proved that democracy worked. I don't see an issue with this. During that recount, lawyers for Trump, in legal documentation, insisted there was no voter fraud. Now there is voter fraud. In 2007, the DOJ finished a 5 year investigation into voter fraud and found nothing. Secretaries of States from Red/Blue states have come out and said repeatedly there is no voter fraud. The only person who truly believes there is 3-5 million people who voted illegally is Donald J. Trump and that forces us to believe that the Clinton organization got 3-5 million people to vote illegally and decided not to have a single person vote in major swing states. It's idiotic, proven false, a waste of money and only going to be used to further suppress the vote.

An investigation in 2007 doesn't prove that voter fraud didn't happen this election.  I think it's an excellent assumption, but it's not proof.  The assertions Trump's lawyers made could be interpreted to apply just to those states were the filings were made, since it's irrelevant in PA/WI/MI whether or not fraud occurred in CA and NY.  

Once the investigation completes and acknowledges what we all believe, that there was no massive voter fraud, won't that also prove that democracy works and instill more confidence in the vote totals?  Again, I don't see a difference in this investigation and Stein's recount.  Both pointless.

[DunderMifflin]

17 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

Yeah, Trump's claim of 3-5 million illegal votes is moronic.  I have a hard time understanding why he tweets these things.  Thin skin?  Trying to distract people from other things?  

I think its something along those lines. Stage magicians and stage hypnotists are always saying they recognize his techniques in the art of persuasion. As scummy as he may be, and I think he's pretty scummy at this point imo it's important not to allow hatred for him to be so much that we cant even admit he has any skill. The idea that he just had some cash and Forrest Gumped his way to the presidency seems illogical.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Mudguard said:

Once the investigation completes and acknowledges what we all believe, that there was no massive voter fraud, won't that also prove that democracy works and instill more confidence in the vote totals?  Again, I don't see a difference in this investigation and Stein's recount.  Both pointless.

Off the top of my head, Stein's campaign paid for that recount, the taxpayer gets to pick up this one.

[Happy Ent]

20 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

The "strange voting patterns" claimed by the so called computer security expert were completely explained by demographics.  Fivethirtyeight did a good analysis, and the computer guy walked back his claims of the strange voting patterns and claimed that his analysis was misunderstood and misrepresented.

They are real computer experts. Alex Halderman knows more about computer security, in particular with respect to e-voting, than pretty much anybody else. Alex made no claims that he had to walk back, but he was indeed misrepresented.

Vote auditing should be a routine matter, so that Alex was and is completely right. I’m willing to discuss whether to do merely a risk-limiting audit (Alex’s position) or a default complete recount of the paper trail (my position). But the fact that US elections are accepted without a recount is a big problem. 

[Mexal]

Just now, Mudguard said:

An investigation in 2007 doesn't prove that voter fraud didn't happen this election.  I think it's an excellent assumption, but it's not proof.  The assertions Trump's lawyers made could be interpreted to apply just to those states were the filings were made, since it's irrelevant in PA/WI/MI whether or not fraud occurred in CA and NY.  

Once the investigation completes and acknowledges what we all believe, that there was no massive voter fraud, won't that also prove that democracy works and instill more confidence in the vote totals?  Again, I don't see a difference in this investigation and Stein's recount.  Both pointless.

Not really. We already know democracy works. We already know there isnt' voter fraud. Secretaries of States have repeatedly said this. Eleection officials have repeatedly said this. And the DOJ investigation, while in 2007, looked into voter fraud AND the processes that the states use in order to run their elections. There is no evidence. The way our voter system works, it's impossible for there to be wide scale voter fraud anyway because each state has complete control over the voter process.

The other issue, besides the need of the investigation, is the choice of where to investigate. Sean Spicer said today that focus will be on CA and NY, states he lost, states that are big but not even the top 2 biggest states. It's a targeted campaign. It's entirely meant to ease the ego of a man who cannot be wrong. Given this administration has zero relation with facts, we're going to run into the question of whether we can trust the investigation or not. As we see day in and day out, this administration lies at a level never before seen in the USA. They don't acknowledge facts but "alternate facts", lies that have been proven false over and over. If there was some indication that there was voter fraud, that what Trump was saying was true, a study, a state suggesting it, anything, then I get the idea of a massive investigation into EVERY State's votes, but that's just not the case. Just because one person believes something to be true, does not make it true.

The end result of this isn't going to be a fair investigation into the voting procedures of the USA. It will be a targeted look at the states Trump lost and will give ammunition to Sessions to further suppress the vote in the name of "combating voter fraud". It doesn't matter if the investigation finds something or not, that is what is going to happen. Republicans already do it in red states. If they can find some way to take control of elections in blue states, they will.

[aceluby]

1 minute ago, Mudguard said:

An investigation in 2007 doesn't prove that voter fraud didn't happen this election.  I think it's an excellent assumption, but it's not proof.  The assertions Trump's lawyers made could be interpreted to apply just to those states were the filings were made, since it's irrelevant in PA/WI/MI whether or not fraud occurred in CA and NY.  

Once the investigation completes and acknowledges what we all believe, that there was no massive voter fraud, won't that also prove that democracy works and instill more confidence in the vote totals?  Again, I don't see a difference in this investigation and Stein's recount.  Both pointless.

2 things.

First, you're comparing in person voter fraud to election machine tampering.  Trump is claiming 3-5 million undocumented people voted independently, all for the same candidate, with no real way to determine how or if it happened.  The investigation started by Stein made no such claims, but requested a recount of actual votes to compare to the machine totals.  The only way that these are similar is that it has to do with voting; but really they are two very different things.

Secondly, if the recount did show irregularities, there was the possibility of changing the result of the election.  Nothing is gained by Trump's claims.  He's President and still will be President whether they find anything or not.

They are nowhere near the same thing.

[Ice Queen]

6 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

I think its something along those lines. Stage magicians and stage hypnotists are always saying they recognize his techniques in the art of persuasion. As scummy as he may be, and I think he's pretty scummy at this point imo it's important not to allow hatred for him to be so much that we cant even admit he has any skill. The idea that he just had some cash and Forrest Gumped his way to the presidency seems illogical.

According to Ivana Trump, he slept with Mein Kampf and studied it thoroughly. Now, the Nazis, including Hitler, were up to their eyeballs in occultism. In 1932 Hitler consulted an astrologer by the name of Erik Jan Hanussen. Hanussen was a hypnotist who taught Hitler how to use his voice and his hands to gain people's sympathy and capture their attention. 

I have no doubt that Trump has studied this extensively. He knows exactly what he's doing. 

[The Anti-Targ]

One of the things Trump wants investigated is whether there are people registered to vote in more than one state. But it is totally legal to be registered in more than one state and there are good reasons to keep it legal. What is not legal is to vote in more than one state. Part of the claim of voter fraud is around this fact that millions of people are registered in more than one state. But since such registration is legal, that's a poor starting point for an investigation of widespread voter fraud.

Given the USA's corruption index is below 75 I can see some voter fraud being uncovered in an investigation, and I can also see the investigation coming up with the conclusion that the president wants even if the evidence for voter fraud does not all point in one direction and does not come close to the 3-5 million Trump is claiming.

[Mudguard]

10 minutes ago, Happy Ent said:

They are real computer experts. Alex Halderman knows more about computer security, in particular with respect to e-voting, than pretty much anybody else. Alex made no claims that he had to walk back, but he was indeed misrepresented.

Vote auditing should be a routine matter, so that Alex was and is completely right. I’m willing to discuss whether to do merely a risk-limiting audit (Alex’s position) or a default complete recount of the paper trail (my position). But the fact that US elections are accepted without a recount is a big problem. 

I read Halderman's affidavit to support the lawsuit in Pennsylvania, and it was laughable.  They essentially used his Medium post to support their contention that there was a "significant possibility" that the Russians hacked our election.  Here's the judge's analysis.  You can read the previous pages of the order if you want a detailed explanation on why hacking was so unlikely, even if theoretically possible. Based on his role in Stein's recount, I don't find him very credible, at least on this specific matter.

Quote

Although Dr. Shamos acknowledged the theoretical possibility that an individual DRE machine could be hacked, he credibly explained that in light of all of the protections in place, the suggestion of widespread hacking borders on the irrational. (See Hr’g Tr. 63:23-64:9 (“The[vote tampering] scenarios that have been posited are approximately as likely as the fact that androids from outer space are living amongst us and passing as humans.”).)

In contrast, Plaintiffs’ computer science expert, Dr. J. Alex Halderman, although qualified as a computer science “expert,” knew virtually nothing about Pennsylvania’s security procedures, the practices of the Commonwealth’s election officials, or the Pennsylvania Election Code. Dr. Halderman admitted that he had “no evidence” that any voting machine was hacked,and that the election outcome was “probably not” the result of a hack. (Hr’g Tr. 25:22-26:1,26:19-24.) Insofar as Dr. Halderman opined that even though it was “more likely than not that there was no hack,” there remains a “significant possibility” that a hack occurred, I discredit that contradictory testimony. (Hr’g Tr. 17:3-6, 29:5-11.) Unlike Dr. Shamos, who based his opinions on Pennsylvania’s actual practices and requirements, Dr. Halderman based his opinion on public media reports of possible hacking in Illinois and Arizona, and hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s email server before the election. (See Hr’g Tr. 17:7-24; see also Maazel Decl. Ex. 1, Doc. No. 9-1 (Halderman Aff. Exs. B-D, F, H).) Once again, these media reports do not remotely relate to Election Day hacks of offline voting machines in Pennsylvania. (See Hr’g Tr. 58:24-59:9.)

 

[Kalbear]

11 hours ago, Altherion said:

But that's not at all the same thing as deporting millions of people. Blocking people from specific countries is going to prevent maybe on the order of a hundred thousand. Eliminating DACA does not mean going after those who were taking advantage of it (the former is trivial, the latter requires a significant amount of resources).

Again, day fucking 6. He's also threatened sanctuary cities funding, he's going to publish a weekly report on the crimes from undocumented immigrants in sanctuary cities (ala Breitbart's black crime section), is removing anyone with a visa from 6 countries.

Day 6. 

I didn't say he'd do it day 1. I said he'd be going for it. Is there even the remotest sign that he is not?

11 hours ago, Altherion said:

He has not dismantled anything yet. What he has chosen to do is to stop the work until his people figure out what exactly it is doing. This is disruptive, but not permanent.

Reports vary heavily on this, especially since changes happen and then are reversed based on public outcry, such as the EPA's climate change webpage being ordered to be taken down and then having that rescinded. Meanwhile, the EPA cannot even pay out money that they had already budgeted. 

More importantly, you told me he can't do this. He is doing this. Right now. He's showing precisely how he can, and how there is basically nothing to stop him if he so chooses. 

Day 6.

11 hours ago, Altherion said:

I agree with you on net neutrality, but not the rest -- he has taken some actions regarding certain agencies, but they do not amount to "killing" anything.

He's in the process of doing so. Day 6. 

The more important thing is that you repeatedly told me he wouldn't do any of these things, or couldn't. Now he is, and you're saying that your goalpost is now 'he didn't do it RIGHT AWAY so it's fine. 

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

My cringe/embarrasment needle is buried in the redline with having a President that is asking why the Pentagon didnt keep Iraq's oil for themselves. What were supposed to be proud to be a nation of fucking thieves now?

It is a war crime to take things like oil during a war per the Geneva convention. 

[BloodRider]

37 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

An investigation in 2007 doesn't prove that voter fraud didn't happen this election.  I think it's an excellent assumption, but it's not proof.  The assertions Trump's lawyers made could be interpreted to apply just to those states were the filings were made, since it's irrelevant in PA/WI/MI whether or not fraud occurred in CA and NY.  

Once the investigation completes and acknowledges what we all believe, that there was no massive voter fraud, won't that also prove that democracy works and instill more confidence in the vote totals?  Again, I don't see a difference in this investigation and Stein's recount.  Both pointless.

The problem here is that the people running the show have already made up their minds what the answer will be.  

[Fez]

Bush had a five-year long investigation into voter fraud that resulted in multiple US Attorneys being fired for reporting that there wasn't any in their jurisdictions. Trump launching his own investigation is fucking stupid, but is so far down my list of concerns about this administration that it barely even registers. Same with the abortion gag order, same with everything else he's done where there's precedent from previous Republican presidents. Because as stupid as those things are, at least we know we're capable of getting through them.

Its the stuff being floated around that hasn't happened under previous Republican Presidents that worries me, and there's a lot of it.

[Samantha Stark]

5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

Then please behave like a traditional junior Senator. 

Que?