3 ms·

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

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 question isn't whether fraud is possible with mail-in ballots; it's about whether mail-in ballots materially change the likelihood of fraud, or ease of committing fraud successfully, relative to in-person voting. You accused me in your first reponse to me on this subthread of having a mind impossible to change. What I'm looking for is correlation; that would make me reconsider my position. While correlation is not causation, a causal explanation ("mail-in ballots make it easier to commit undetected fraud") without a correlation it predicts is highly suspect. Find correlation between the states that have had mail-in voting for longer periods of time, and for more people, and identified instances of voter fraud. Confirm there are more instances in those states than in states that have more curtailed access to mail-in voting. Tricky to get the numbers right (probably have to do a state-by-state search of laws to find when they enacted no-excuse absentee voting), but here's the list of states that allow it (https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/vopp-table-1-states-with-no-excuse-absentee-voting.aspx https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/vopp-t...) and here's a collection of voter fraud incidents identified (https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud-print/search?name=&state=All&year=&case_type=All&fraud_type=24489 https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud-print/search?name=&state...). I haven't spread-sheeted this, but at a first glance I'm not seeing a correlation between no-excuse-needed mail-in and fraud. Alaska allows no-excuse-needed and has 0 instances recorded. Texas does not allow it and has ~25 recorded. The President's administration itself commissioned a study on voter fraud and did not find widespread fraud activity (https://apnews.com/f5f6a73b2af546ee97816bb35e82c18d/Report:-Trump-commission-did-not-find-widespread-voter-fraud https://apnews.com/f5f6a73b2af546ee97816bb35e82c18d/Report:-...). To pop this entire discussion up a meta-level to the original topic: clearly this is, at least, a controversial issue. I think given the combination of the controversy, the President's one-sided take on it, and the authority from which he speaks granted him by his office, Twitter was at least justified in fact-checking him. This is a controversial topic, and he speaks as though it is not from a position of authority encouraging people to believe him without questioning the details. I appreciate you question, even if your conclusions disagree from mine; in contrast, the way Trump uses his Twitter feed to push one side of a topic juries are still out on is irresponsible as a President, and while Twitter taking "the medium is the message" somewhat literally in fact-checking him makes me slightly uncomfortable in terms of what larger rules they might employ, I'm glad somebody from an equivalent position of authority to his voice on their service is doing so. ... and we should probably all find the response of the most powerful civil servant in the United States being to threaten to close that institution in response, unconscionable.
- busymom0 6y ago
  They accused him for 3 years of being a traitor and a Russian agent meanwhile he and his family was being spied on and framed by intel community. They setup a 35 year military servant of being a Russian agent just because they hate his politics. They are still accusing him of killing 100,000 people from COVID. Everything from the Jussie Smollett hoax to the Covington High School kids hoax was blamed on him. So when Trump fights back, everyone loses their mind. Everyday, they spit at him, frame him, accuse him and shame him. People want him to simply keep being a punching bag and folding like a lawn chair. But he's not going to do that because he's been this way his entire life - and everyone loved him for exactly that until he ran for President as a Republican. Twitter using these same people who spit on him every single day as "fact checkers" is insane. I think people are letting their disdain for him cloud their judgement. Would you prefer a president who's a punching bag for the entire world? Or one who fights back?
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    Who is "they?" And how is this relevant to whether voter fraud claims that are made in an absolutist manner by the President when they are still controversial should be pushed back on by other authoritative voices? And is it acceptable for the President to "fight back" by threatening to cease to uphold his oath of office and attempt to undermine the First Amendment directly by shutting down a media source for reporting facts in response to statements by a civil servant?
    - busymom0 6y ago
      "they" is the media sources Twitter used to "fact check". I was replying to the last part of your comment about what a president should and shouldn't do. US has seen what a "presidential president" can do for decades - from the Carters to Bush's to Clintons to Obamas. All the nice guy "presidential presidents" and politicians came and left with more and more problems for everyone and people now blame the man who's barely been in office for 3.5 years (3 of which were spent on Russiagate) for all the problems just because he fights back on Twitter. "authoritative voices" doesn't mean anything now a days. Look at WHO debacle. Before, being correct made you an authority. Now a days, being an authority makes you correct. Somehow all the authoritative voices got everything wrong in every hoax I mentioned.

shadowgovt 6y ago

The question isn't whether fraud is possible with mail-in ballots; it's about whether mail-in ballots materially change the likelihood of fraud, or ease of committing fraud successfully, relative to in-person voting. You accused me in your first reponse to me on this subthread of having a mind impossible to change. What I'm looking for is correlation; that would make me reconsider my position. While correlation is not causation, a causal explanation ("mail-in ballots make it easier to commit undetected fraud") without a correlation it predicts is highly suspect. Find correlation between the states that have had mail-in voting for longer periods of time, and for more people, and identified instances of voter fraud. Confirm there are more instances in those states than in states that have more curtailed access to mail-in voting. Tricky to get the numbers right (probably have to do a state-by-state search of laws to find when they enacted no-excuse absentee voting), but here's the list of states that allow it (https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/vopp-table-1-states-with-no-excuse-absentee-voting.aspx https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/vopp-t...) and here's a collection of voter fraud incidents identified (https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud-print/search?name=&state=All&year=&case_type=All&fraud_type=24489 https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud-print/search?name=&state...). I haven't spread-sheeted this, but at a first glance I'm not seeing a correlation between no-excuse-needed mail-in and fraud. Alaska allows no-excuse-needed and has 0 instances recorded. Texas does not allow it and has ~25 recorded. The President's administration itself commissioned a study on voter fraud and did not find widespread fraud activity (https://apnews.com/f5f6a73b2af546ee97816bb35e82c18d/Report:-Trump-commission-did-not-find-widespread-voter-fraud https://apnews.com/f5f6a73b2af546ee97816bb35e82c18d/Report:-...). To pop this entire discussion up a meta-level to the original topic: clearly this is, at least, a controversial issue. I think given the combination of the controversy, the President's one-sided take on it, and the authority from which he speaks granted him by his office, Twitter was at least justified in fact-checking him. This is a controversial topic, and he speaks as though it is not from a position of authority encouraging people to believe him without questioning the details. I appreciate you question, even if your conclusions disagree from mine; in contrast, the way Trump uses his Twitter feed to push one side of a topic juries are still out on is irresponsible as a President, and while Twitter taking "the medium is the message" somewhat literally in fact-checking him makes me slightly uncomfortable in terms of what larger rules they might employ, I'm glad somebody from an equivalent position of authority to his voice on their service is doing so. ... and we should probably all find the response of the most powerful civil servant in the United States being to threaten to close that institution in response, unconscionable.

busymom0 6y ago
They accused him for 3 years of being a traitor and a Russian agent meanwhile he and his family was being spied on and framed by intel community. They setup a 35 year military servant of being a Russian agent just because they hate his politics. They are still accusing him of killing 100,000 people from COVID. Everything from the Jussie Smollett hoax to the Covington High School kids hoax was blamed on him. So when Trump fights back, everyone loses their mind. Everyday, they spit at him, frame him, accuse him and shame him. People want him to simply keep being a punching bag and folding like a lawn chair. But he's not going to do that because he's been this way his entire life - and everyone loved him for exactly that until he ran for President as a Republican. Twitter using these same people who spit on him every single day as "fact checkers" is insane. I think people are letting their disdain for him cloud their judgement. Would you prefer a president who's a punching bag for the entire world? Or one who fights back?
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  Who is "they?" And how is this relevant to whether voter fraud claims that are made in an absolutist manner by the President when they are still controversial should be pushed back on by other authoritative voices? And is it acceptable for the President to "fight back" by threatening to cease to uphold his oath of office and attempt to undermine the First Amendment directly by shutting down a media source for reporting facts in response to statements by a civil servant?
  - busymom0 6y ago
    "they" is the media sources Twitter used to "fact check". I was replying to the last part of your comment about what a president should and shouldn't do. US has seen what a "presidential president" can do for decades - from the Carters to Bush's to Clintons to Obamas. All the nice guy "presidential presidents" and politicians came and left with more and more problems for everyone and people now blame the man who's barely been in office for 3.5 years (3 of which were spent on Russiagate) for all the problems just because he fights back on Twitter. "authoritative voices" doesn't mean anything now a days. Look at WHO debacle. Before, being correct made you an authority. Now a days, being an authority makes you correct. Somehow all the authoritative voices got everything wrong in every hoax I mentioned.