4 ms·

It was not an ad hom attack. Saying someone is being dishonest is not an ad hom attack when you didn't even make any point. You made a single statement "These s

It was not an ad hom attack. Saying someone is being dishonest is not an ad hom attack when you didn't even make any point. You made a single statement "These sources fail to prove that Twitter fact checking is wrong." without any exact points on any of the sources I provided. You gave a 1 line "not true" comment. An ad hom attack is when I am not "criticizing the points you are making" but you never really made any points except just say "fails to prove." That's like you writing a research paper filled with sources and your professor gives you a 0/100 with a one line response "fails to prove." My comment literally states from a NYTimes article that stats agree with me: > “votes cast by mail are less likely to be counted, more likely to be compromised & more likely to be contested than those cast in a voting booth, statistics show.” https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/us/politics/as-more-vote-by-mail-faulty-ballots-could-impact-elections.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/us/politics/as-more-vote-... This case from just last week had a 19% fraud: > Close Results In Paterson Vote Plagued By Fraud Claims; Over 3K Ballots Seemingly Set Aside > A county spokesman said 16,747 vote-by-mail ballots were received, but the county's official results page shows 13,557 votes were counted — with uncounted ballots representing 19 percent of all votes cast > The spokesman later told the Paterson Press that the additional 2,390 disqualifications were due to the election board comparing signatures on the ballots to those previously on file for voters, and the new ones not matching up. The spokesman also would not explain the breakdown of what ward those ballots were from, or which candidates were voted for in those disqualified ballots. According to the Paterson Press, four wards had more votes go uncounted than the winner's margin of victory — meaning the uncounted ballots possibly could have tipped the election in favor of one of the candidates. Unless you can actually counter my sources without crying victim of "ad hom" attack which I certainly didn't, my original statement stands true.

shadowgovt 6y ago
The counter argument looks like this. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mail-in-ballot-voter-fraud/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mail-in-ballot-voter-fraud... But in addition to direct counterarguments, there's also the need to consider effects and what beliefs about what is happening predict should be observable. How does one reconcile these cherry picks against the larger pattern that states that allow no-excuse-needed mail-in voting don't have higher fraud rates than states that do?
- busymom0 6y ago
  Using snopes as a "fact check" is the same as using CNN to claim Trump is a Russian puppet. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/07/18/snopes_and_editorializing_fact_checks_137551.html# https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/07/18/snopes...!
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    You're attacking the source instead of the information. And you continue to refrain from addressing the question: if mail-in voting is more susceptible to fraud, why are the states that have allowed it for decades not showing more fraud than states that don't?
    - busymom0 6y ago
      You still haven't answered this from NYTimes article in my very first comment, so I have the luxury to wait for your response to this stat: > “votes cast by mail are less likely to be counted, more likely to be compromised & more likely to be contested than those cast in a voting booth, statistics show.” - Ion Sancho, the elections supervisor Archive if the NYTimes link shows paywall: http://archive.is/6ZEMO http://archive.is/6ZEMO
      - shadowgovt 6y ago
        The question is my response. The facts the NYTimes cites imply there should be predictable, observable outcomes in races in states that have allowed more mail-in balloting for decades. Where is evidence of those outcomes?
        busymom0 6y ago
        If you look, there's plenty of evidence. When doing search, set the date range to be before 2015 because since 2015, pretty much all media has lost their minds and started reporting the exact opposite of what they used to report. It's as if they have all erased their history and search results now hide it thanks to Google. Here's Georgia: https://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/23/us/georgia-gets-tough-on-a-county-tradition-vote-buying.html https://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/23/us/georgia-gets-tough-on-... Here's Florida: https://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/29/us/18-are-arrested-in-1997-miami-ballot-fraud.html https://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/29/us/18-are-arrested-in-199... You can find plenty of examples of voter fraud, vast majority is through mail-in (including absentee and ballot harvesting) > The Miami Herald won a Pulitzer Prize for its investigation of a 1997 mayor’s race in Miami that was thrown out by the courts because of an estimated 5,000 fraudulent absentee ballots. > A 2003 mayor’s race in East Chicago, Indiana, was overturned by the Indiana Supreme Court because of absentee ballot fraud, as well as other problems such as individuals voting whose registered residences were vacant lots. > A stolen election in Greene County, Alabama, involving hundreds of fraudulent absentee ballots resulted in 11 people being convicted of voter fraud. > In Essex County, New Jersey, there is an ongoing investigation of fraudulent absentee ballots in a 2007 state Senate race. Charges have already been filed against five people, including campaign workers who were submitting absentee ballots on behalf of voters who never received or voted the ballots. Even the democrats used to agree to this fact until Trump came along: In 2004, Jerry Nadler (Democrat) asserts that paper ballots, particularly in the absence of machines, are extremely susceptible to fraud: https://streamable.com/tbzu47 https://streamable.com/tbzu47 Future head of the Democrat Party Debbie Wasserman Schultz opposing mail-in ballots due to the risk of election fraud in 2008: https://streamable.com/2tyqp1 https://streamable.com/2tyqp1 This isn't just about mail-in voting. It's about absentee and ballot harvesting too which accompanies mail-in voting.

shadowgovt 6y ago

The counter argument looks like this. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mail-in-ballot-voter-fraud/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mail-in-ballot-voter-fraud... But in addition to direct counterarguments, there's also the need to consider effects and what beliefs about what is happening predict should be observable. How does one reconcile these cherry picks against the larger pattern that states that allow no-excuse-needed mail-in voting don't have higher fraud rates than states that do?

busymom0 6y ago
Using snopes as a "fact check" is the same as using CNN to claim Trump is a Russian puppet. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/07/18/snopes_and_editorializing_fact_checks_137551.html# https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/07/18/snopes...!
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  You're attacking the source instead of the information. And you continue to refrain from addressing the question: if mail-in voting is more susceptible to fraud, why are the states that have allowed it for decades not showing more fraud than states that don't?
  - busymom0 6y ago
    You still haven't answered this from NYTimes article in my very first comment, so I have the luxury to wait for your response to this stat: > “votes cast by mail are less likely to be counted, more likely to be compromised & more likely to be contested than those cast in a voting booth, statistics show.” - Ion Sancho, the elections supervisor Archive if the NYTimes link shows paywall: http://archive.is/6ZEMO http://archive.is/6ZEMO
    - shadowgovt 6y ago
      The question is my response. The facts the NYTimes cites imply there should be predictable, observable outcomes in races in states that have allowed more mail-in balloting for decades. Where is evidence of those outcomes?
      - busymom0 6y ago
        If you look, there's plenty of evidence. When doing search, set the date range to be before 2015 because since 2015, pretty much all media has lost their minds and started reporting the exact opposite of what they used to report. It's as if they have all erased their history and search results now hide it thanks to Google. Here's Georgia: https://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/23/us/georgia-gets-tough-on-a-county-tradition-vote-buying.html https://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/23/us/georgia-gets-tough-on-... Here's Florida: https://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/29/us/18-are-arrested-in-1997-miami-ballot-fraud.html https://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/29/us/18-are-arrested-in-199... You can find plenty of examples of voter fraud, vast majority is through mail-in (including absentee and ballot harvesting) > The Miami Herald won a Pulitzer Prize for its investigation of a 1997 mayor’s race in Miami that was thrown out by the courts because of an estimated 5,000 fraudulent absentee ballots. > A 2003 mayor’s race in East Chicago, Indiana, was overturned by the Indiana Supreme Court because of absentee ballot fraud, as well as other problems such as individuals voting whose registered residences were vacant lots. > A stolen election in Greene County, Alabama, involving hundreds of fraudulent absentee ballots resulted in 11 people being convicted of voter fraud. > In Essex County, New Jersey, there is an ongoing investigation of fraudulent absentee ballots in a 2007 state Senate race. Charges have already been filed against five people, including campaign workers who were submitting absentee ballots on behalf of voters who never received or voted the ballots. Even the democrats used to agree to this fact until Trump came along: In 2004, Jerry Nadler (Democrat) asserts that paper ballots, particularly in the absence of machines, are extremely susceptible to fraud: https://streamable.com/tbzu47 https://streamable.com/tbzu47 Future head of the Democrat Party Debbie Wasserman Schultz opposing mail-in ballots due to the risk of election fraud in 2008: https://streamable.com/2tyqp1 https://streamable.com/2tyqp1 This isn't just about mail-in voting. It's about absentee and ballot harvesting too which accompanies mail-in voting.