“10 days before they quit tabulating…They thought they were done [counting ballots] and then more truck loads of ballots were coming in. I’m like, ‘how can you not know how many ballots are still out there?'”
At this point, all six battleground states in which Trump has challenged the results — Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Arizona and Wisconsin — have now formally certified Biden’s win.
Of course. Local news, national news, my local newspaper and even these discussion groups can lead me to find out more of a story that interests me. Since neither you nor I are actors in those stories, we must hear of them first through some form of medium. Even the gossip corner at work qualifies as a medium.
There have always been voters (unfortunately the majority) who pay little attention and can be swayed one way or the other by the stupidest things.
He then conceded when the SCOTUS stopped the counting. Up until then Florida could have gone either way. The recount there guarantied the Presidency to whomever won the state.
Of course. However, it does not become more than an allegation until it is heard in court.
In Arizona, mail in ballots to be counted are taken to the counting center only after they are verified by local municipalities. No verification takes place at the counting center because they were verified prior to their arrival. Was the allegation at the hearing that the violations took place at the counting center or at the local municipalities?
You can consider any question you wish. You can present any hypothesis you wish. You can claim 'it couldn't happen this way'. But, if it could happen that way, I will point it out. We are both speculating, but we are both allowed to do so. And then we have to dig deeper. Hopefully, that's what we're doing now.
I only read the odd piece I'm linked to here. I have no opinion on the NYT other than to say I love doing their Sunday crossword.
Understood.
I'm sure there is. Every year seems to be a new 'generation'.
So given media organizations at the editorial level are in fact feeding possible news stories into narratives that they have constructed topically, none of us can be entirely immune to these narratives, up to and including this forum, because at some level they become ubiquitous even if we are getting them third hand. The value of a video blogger like Tim Pool, for example, is that he has his own editorial narrative, that is not NYT, it's not WSJ, it's not NYP, not NR, Fox or CNN. Ultimately we are all teasing facts . . . what we hope are facts, out of these narratives. And we will deem somethings to be facts, or counterfactual based, on our own editorial narrative. What source documents you will bother to read is ultimately an editorial decision you make based on your own narrative.
I don't dispute that, but internet search result is good evidence that the searcher is attempting to think for herself. So in my view, this is a particularly insidious violation of the sanctity of a persons intellect.
If we found that, it would be a mere flea bite. We are already alerted to the fact that a candidate has a vested interest in an election. We see that one coming a mile away. It's the political interests of the internet super spreaders whose political priorities are neither identified nor debated in the public square, that are the primary concerns here. It's the, you are a weak candidate we will throw you over our shoulders and carry you across the finish line, and we will issue you a bill after you are elected; because after all you may want a second term, appeal. I hope you see the insidious nature of this kind of a problem. And all you need to pull this off is to be a internet billionaire.
Yes, it's very, very, very different. Political ads are so regulated now that the candidate has to say I approve this add. Our defenses are on full alert when we watch a political ad. When we do an internet search we assume the algorithm that presumably delivers us what we requested doesn't have a political ax to grind, and that is 100% false. Conservatives are aware of this because we will hear someone make an argument, and we will very meticulously compose a search string to find that argument and we have to read five pages of content arguing the exact opposite to finally find what we were looking for, if ever we find it. I'm convinced the algorithm will deliberately bury what you are looking for if you are a conservative. In fact one of Robert Epstein's recent studies prove that conservatives are delivered 30% more liberal content than liberals are by search algorithms.
It was stopped because the rationale for the counting violated Florida state election law.
Had he asked for it in all the counties possibly.
True.
No. Exactly the opposite. If there is no allegation there is no preceding.
This alleged checking was mentioned. Under state election law it's subject to observation by the partisan poll watchers. Therefore, that irregularity placed every one of those votes in complete doubt. The only remedy for that, short of throwing out the votes, is auditing the signatures. An election has to conform to state law.
What I can do is not the issue. What's indicated by law and reason is the issue.
Facts that assert themselves, backed by 75 million American voters, have to be dealt with.
I would hope so. That is how point and counter point keep each other in check.
Indeed, and it's baring some fruit. I've noticed the mainstream narrative is migrating away from the "no evidence" tagline to something like "no proven fraud." That is not an immaterial change.
They have a great impact on all of journalism. They call themselves "the paper of record." And as near as I can tell no one is really trying to wrestle that title away from them.
It feels good to be understood.
Yes. Speaking of which you might check out "The Fourth Turning" if you've not already read it.
It's fine that Tim Pool has his own editorial voice, but are his sources significantly different from other bloggers or media outlets? Are they that much different from what you or I have available?
If someone is trying to think for themselves, they are obligated to consider all reference material they use. It is no secret that search engines use skewed algorithms. It may be an indictment of their intellect, but I don't see it as a violation.
The quid pro quo of politics has been around as long as man has practiced politics. Every new invention in communications is subject to this simple fact.
I'll be interested to see what the final results of his study are. If google did what he claims, they should be sanctioned in some way, despite the fact that their actions do not seem to be technically illegal. Unfortunately, I think this will only bring about more regulations.
Enough said.
Of course not. The allegation is the cause for the proceeding. During the proceeding, it is still an allegation. It does not become a fact of law (true or false) until the opinion is rendered.
So neither of us knows at what point in the process the allegation specifies. Hopefully, that fact comes out.
Questions have asserted themselves, not facts.
Agreed.
And that's a good thing.
They still mean almost nothing to me. Everyone is allowed to weigh their sources however they wish.
Sorry, but it doesn't sound like my cup of tea. Plus, I'm not spending anything on extras right now. Thank you for the recommendation though.
What Pool has going for him the fact that he spends so much time comparing sources on the left and right, that it's hard for someone who is not making money at it to duplicate his efforts. We are all delimited by time. I give him a spot in my media diet because being of the left he will pull more sources out from that direction than I will. Also being substantially younger than me I glean some generational insight I would not otherwise get.
I see that the other way. Hitler was a genius. That is not what we hold against him. The problem is he was evil. Likewise, if I claim to be serving you what you ask for, full well knowing that I'm deliberately trying to deceive you, in point of fact, I'm giving you what I know you do not want, that is an unambiguous example of black hearted evil.
That is not the problem I'm discussing. We are on alert for that.
No, not like this. This contains the realistic possibility that all the wealth, power, and influence of our nation could be dispatched at the whim of a hand full of unaccountable billionaires, not as a conspiracy, but as an aligned constituency all believing that our republic protecting individual liberty is a problem for what they would like to make of the world. Do you think they really care what leadership qualities, or ideas Joe Biden brings to the White house? Come now . . . they picked out the lightest burden to carry over the finish line.
This line of study is never done. He just keeps updating it.
The very sad truth is that picking a fight with a checkbook that large is harder than it sounds. You call for the people with pitch forks and you look around, and you are all by yourself.
Some ideas have been suggested that I think warrant further thought. One is to remove Section 230 protections for social media companies above a certain threshold in size. But that wouldn't apply to search engines like Google.
We agree.
I think we do know. When we say they were pre-screened for signature matching, we mean prior to the observers.
It's more reasonable than the objection to characterize hundreds of sworn affidavits as facts.
Indeed.
It was meant to be a pointy headed book on demography, and turned out to be prophetic. It's 30 years old now so it's developed quite a following.
I think we've taken this about as far as we can. If my take on this is right, we both agree that all media has an agenda and we must be vigilant in how we decipher what is being said.
You might change your mind if you listen to Jeff Zucker's 9:00 AM call where he manufactures the news over at CNN.
Yeah, I feel I have good grounds for that.
The key is this, in all the swing states Trump was winning when everyone went to bed by hundreds of thousands of votes. Republican observers where booted out in all those jurisdictions where Democrats controlled local law enforcement and so on. They literally called upon local law enforcement to remove Republicans, in other instances they lied to Republicans about shutting down counting operations, in other instances they made up nonexistent catastrophes like water mains breaking, and in the midst of all of this Biden over comes, for example a seven hundred thousand vote advantage for Trump in PA. Some things blast credulity to smithereens, and this is one of those things. I've got news for you, this is not going to start sounding more believable, to the vast majority of people who voted for Donald Trump. If you have seventy five million people the vast majority of which are not going to change their mind, that is going to be an ongoing issue. If the Democrat Party knows what's good for it they can head off trouble by cooperating fully, transparently, and wholeheartedly. If they really believe Joe Biden won they need to jump on the full investigation band wagon as it's being led by Republicans. Let the truth win out, but investigation is the only way to establish truth.
I saw a few clips on Hannity last night. Why would this change my mind? I am assuming the powers that be at CNN are skewing their stories to fit their politics, just as I am assuming Fox news does the same thing. Zucker's tapes might be embarrassing, but that's about it as far as I'm concerned.
OK
There have been plenty of allegations made. If they had merit, there would have been evidentiary hearings being held where they occurred. This hasn't happened yet. In the one case I recall about observers being removed, or denied access, the lawyer for Trump admitted that there was "more than one" present.
He seems to be blatantly telling them what stories not to cover. I don't get the idea that the reporters at CNN are like the boys who hit Omaha beach. So there can be no acknowledgement that Giuliani had Hunter's laptop proving that Joe is on the take, because those cowardly correspondents are not going to ask Zucker for permission. They've been instructed not to, don't even ask.
Please . . . . you can't possibly believe that. In places where judges are elected on a partisan basis not because they are geniuses, but because they do what they are told, that is the result you honestly expect? I'm sorry to admit I'm nor cynical than that. But I'm substantially more cynical than that.
Little wonder.
Which doesn't matter. Remove observer A for trying to do his job, what then happens to observer B? Answer: Observer B stops doing his job.
And the construction of a house is predicted, it's called a blue print. You're talking about when the Elitists concocted this plan in their summer war games? [link] That's supposed to disabuse me of election doubts now? I'm afraid it has quite the opposite effect.
All part of their war game July 31, 2020. You are placing the gun in their hand. [link]
Exactly what their blueprint scheduled you to say. Not that you're a party to it, they just laid the ground work for you to have that explanation.
So what? They have an editorial agenda. Every news outlet does. If someone is not able to see past that, they will parrot whatever their favorite outlet says. The best thing we can do is try to educate people that the bias exists on all sides.
You're going a bit too conspiratorial for me here. Have you done any research into the judges who have ruled on the various lawsuits? Can you honestly say you know why they were elected or appointed?
Then observer B did not deserve to be an observer.
No mention of mail in ballots.
I hadn't even heard of this until you brought it to my attention. Once again, there is no mention of mail in ballots.
My suspicion is that the opinion guys over at Fox are not being dictated a narrative to hammer home day by day. The difference is that the opinion guys a CNN don't really admit they are opinion people. The odd thing is we are getting one opinion at CNN and it belongs to Zucker.
That comes directly from Robert Barnes, election law specialist, and yes he did go to PA in this context.
I can honestly tell you that Robert Barnes said that. I have absolutely no doubt his word on this point is gospel.
That is not really an acceptable answer. When the objective is to kick all the observers out, also being kicked out, is the worst of the artificially contrived bad options. If this argument came from the left, I believe they'd call it victim shaming.
On July 30 that piece of the puzzle was already in place and going nowhere.
I've diagnosed your problem. Too little talk radio. A week of Mark Levin should cure you. These kinds of shenanagan's from the left or RINO's will never escape your notice again.
That was already in place by July. The war gaming was to alert the press in advance not to call the election for Trump providing time to engineer the Biden win. The social media giants picked up on it immediately announcing they would not let Trump call the election for himself on Twitter for example.
My thought is that it doesn't matter where the bias is coming from. It doesn't matter if it is coordinated or not. I treat it the same way. I try to filter it out to see what truth is there.
So you know nothing about the judges yourself. The only thing I know about them is that some were Republicans and one was appointed by Trump himself. Robert Barnes knows a bit more than that and has formed an opinion of them. You accept his opinion, but why do you assume it is correct?
If observer B deserves to be an observer, he will continue to do his job even if he knows he will be kicked out. Thirty minutes of observing is more productive than zero.
I've always listened to talk radio. I travelled quite a bit when I was video game repair technician. I listened to Rush and Howie Carr nearly every day. Nowadays I still listen to talk radio, but it is one of the local sports stations.
1. A few years ago emails came to light from the President of Fox News telling newscasters to always insert doubt about the legitimacy of climate change science. This is a clear example of dictating a narrative. Can you find a similar example for CNN?
www.theguardian.com
Go to Project Veritas and they will be releasing something more than comparable, in fact egregious, every day for several weeks.1. A few years ago emails came to light from the President of Fox News telling newscasters to always insert doubt about the legitimacy of climate change science. This is a clear example of dictating a narrative. Can you find a similar example for CNN?
Fox News chief enforced climate change scepticism – leaked email
Email obtained by Media Matters reveals reporters were under orders to cast doubt on any mention of climate change
Providing them an opportunity to vote every place they lived for the last 15 years, and help friends and relatives who may have mobility issue related to cardiac arrest.
Demonstrating the virtue of seeing that the voter doesn't suffer from cardiac arrest.
There is nothing artificial about showing up at the polls on election day and casting a ballot. In fact, Anthony Fauci said that is what everybody should do.
And apparently is makes sense to expel all the election observers on false pretenses while you count hundreds of thousands of ballots in the wee hours of the morning, under cover of darkness, and announce the next morning that Joe Biden is even or ahead. Provided you are not burdened with scruples, I can see exactly why that would make sense.
Exactly! And Bill Clinton never had sex with that woman! At least until things blew over, and then he decided that maybe he did. We haven't gotten to that stage yet. The part where everyone concedes that the election was crookeder than a dogs hind leg.
You think that might have something to do with the fact that David Frum and the other idiots in the Orange Man Bad camp war-gamed the exact architecture of their cheating blueprint and published it in the Atlantic on July 31 of this year? One thing is for sure; they certainly followed their blueprint. I'm thinking Trumps comment was related to that, what do you think?
I agree with your approach, but I do see something extra pernicious in artificially constructing a false consensus beneath a cloak of objectivity.
I just told you I got it from Robert Barns who appears before these judges for a living on precisely these issues. What counts as knowledge in your book? I don't have time to go back to law school and get some cases to appear before these judges.
Knowledge shows when a person speaks, or writes as the case may be, it also vindicates itself in a persons success, and it normally has a lot in common with wisdom. You try to tease these metrics out when the opportunity presents itself. But salient to this example this was Barns comment about these judges having been on the ground in Florida.
I disagree. If an observer is prevented from doing their job, they can still operate as an identifiable spy, and I would say they are obligated to do whatever they can in furtherance of the spirit of their objective, even if they can't meet it's precise requirements. And I think this view is vindicated by the fact that such people have provided valuable affidavits of what they were able to observe.
Very good, that will put hair on your chest, or make your hair curly depending . . . on whether your the type that would prefer hair on your chest or curly hair.
I'm not sure anyone can rant and rave quite like Mark Levin.
The cloak of objectivity does not exist for any media outlet, no matter who claims to wear it.
You trust his word. I am not willing to take his word at this time. I'll have to see more from him.
I characterized observer B by the scenario you gave. I give no one credit for giving up.
I'm not a fan of ranting and raving. It spoils the message.
And the court cases where they evidence all of this are where, precisely?
The evidence is being presented to the legislatures which are far better equipped to appreciate the nature and significance of the evidence, every member of which, has personally participated in elections. Further courts are optimized for procedural justice not time. Legislatures by contrast can act with dispatch. Furthermore, courts are ill equipped to expunge their own political bias, whereas legislatures will answer again to the people in the next election cycle. And finally and most importantly the Constitution, places this responsibility of selecting the elector in the hands of the legislators. So in Pennsylvanian for example, the legislature can observe that the executive officers violated all the election laws they were obliged to follow, and by reason of that violation they can reclaim their constitutional authority forthwith.