9 ms·

The "missing votes" were found during the recount, and added t the eventually certified totals. So yeah, the system works. Whats the issue again?

bananabiscuit 6y ago
The issue is that the media is selectively ignoring things like this in order to push the narrative that “there is no fraud”. Now it might be true that there isn’t enough fraud to change the apparent results. But as you pointed out, what is wrong with making sure they system works? The media should not try to sweep anything that threatens their agenda under the rug.
- glenstein 6y ago
  >selectively ignoring things like this Oops. There's failure point. You're using an article about a really narrow set of facts with limited implications to try and support a profound generalization that is totally out of proportion to what's described in the article. That is a completely out-of-control leap to be making. And as others have pointed out "the media ignores..." is a subjective reaction, not something established by the articles, and those votes have been covered by mainstream outlets. And the articles don't show any fraud, and they don't show anything that would change the outcome in Georgia, and they don't show anything that warrants systemic skepticism of the election writ large.
  - bananabiscuit 6y ago
    Don’t put words in my mouth. I’m not saying this one instance proves the whole election is fraud. I am saying the that this (actually pretty significant) correction to the results being ignored proves that the media has no interest in being honest.
    - glenstein 6y ago
      >Don’t put words in my mouth. I’m not saying this one instance proves the whole election is fraud. You're not saying it, you're just implying it by speaking in a way that leaves open-ended implications that you aren't qualifying with concrete statements. You're putting an isolated example into a broader category, "things like this", to suggest it's not the only one, and to invite people to believe there are more. If you really do agree with everyone that the scope, scale and significance of the facts presented in the article are extremely narrow, are isolated, and that there aren't similar examples, and are choosing to ignore that most important fact to emphasize a less important fact than I'm not so much interested in your point as I am in why you would choose to emphasize facts in that way. And nothing about the articles suggest anything one way or the other about media bias. The articles could presuambly be used to argue somethingorother about the scale of human error in vote counting in Georgia. That would be valid. But they don't have anything to do with any conclusions you are trying to advance about what the media is or isn't "being honest" (again an extremely vague, unprovable claim that you aren't quantifying).
      - bananabiscuit 6y ago
        I can’t help it that the attack vectors used by the media to push agendas are themselves vague and non-specific. It’s not like any given piece of news that gets published is outright false. On the small scale, the bias is in the framing of stories. Flaky evidence in stories that serve the agenda are glossed over. In stories that go against the agenda, nits get picked and then used to attack the main idea even if the nits are really inconsequential. On the large scale there is editorializing. Spotlighting certain types of stories. And forgetting and quickly moving past others. I have some specific examples in mind, but it would be completely pointless for me to list them or argue about them like you seem to want to. I’ve already argued each one to death as it came to light and have heard all sides of the arguments. That is a complete misdirection from my point of view. This is “systematic bias” in the media in much the same way that there is “systematic racism” in the world. It’s hard to pinpoint specific instances of it, but we know that it’s there because you see it in the aggregate statistics. And in fact, a common tactic used by people who deny systemic racism is to try to move the discussion away from the big picture and nitpick localized specifics to death.
- knowaveragejoe 6y ago
  How did Trumpian doublethink penetrate so deeply into the likes of HN readers? I can only assume it's various "skeptic" podcasts and the like.
  - bananabiscuit 6y ago
    Not sure what podcasts you are referring to, I don’t listen to any. I don’t have a horse in this race. Don’t care for Trump or Biden. There’s other people in the world that would make much better leaders than these two, but this is all besides the point. Here is my beef: instead of just reporting, the media is invested in producing a specific outcome. For 5 years now they are trying their best to make Trump and his supporters into bigger idiots than they actually are. They are trying their best to make Biden and his supporters appear more noble than they actually are. Why was the Russia election collusion story in the spotlight for years despite flimsy evidence? Why are Trump supporters on the other hand not allowed even a few weeks to investigate their doubts about this election without being ridiculed for doing so?
    - knowaveragejoe 6y ago
      > For 5 years now they are trying their best to make Trump and his supporters into bigger idiots than they actually are. Has it occurred to you that perhaps Trump, his brand of populism and his supporters are worthy of that caricature? > Why was the Russia election collusion story in the spotlight for years despite flimsy evidence? The only people who think that the evidence was flimsy are those willing to ignore the fact that there was a level of obstruction from the administration that would make Nixon blush. > Why are Trump supporters on the other hand not allowed even a few weeks to investigate their doubts about this election without being ridiculed for doing so? My guess: because this is playing with fire. You might not be privy to it, but the calls for violence in their various echochambers if the crapshoot for overturning the election doesn't pan out(hint: it won't) are reaching audiences well armed and with nothing better to do than to engage in stochastic terrorism.
      - bananabiscuit 6y ago
- sjwright 6y ago
  This is an instance where imprecision in language is being weaponised for talking points. There are always many small errors and fraud in any large election. I don't think anyone would dispute this. And it is tolerable because the error is unlikely to be statistically significant. The question is whether there is large scale, organised electoral fraud. Of that there's precisely zero evidence. So when the “mainstream” media says “there is no fraud”, they're talking about organised fraud, not small counting errors and individual voter misconduct.
  - bananabiscuit 6y ago
    You are also using that annoying tactic of reframing the discussion into a question for which the answer suits your own opinion. That is why you choose to ask “is there _organized_ and electoral fraud?”. What about the question of whether there was enough non-organized fraud to swing the results? Seems just as important to me. Let’s be patient until that there is an answer to these questions. From the courts please, not from YouTube, or CNN, or FOX, or John Oliver, or Tucker Carlson.
    - sjwright 6y ago
      Tell me, which answer from which court will satisfy you? Be specific.
      - bananabiscuit 6y ago
        I can’t tell you which court because I’m not prescient and don’t know in what areas of the country there was substantial election irregularities (if there are any) until it is done being investigated. Guess what, the media isn’t either, so I don’t know how they can keep claiming this election is accurate before everything is investigated and audited. Not to mention the really weird things happening like states deciding it’s not important to verify signatures. Sure they might have passed laws before the election that makes it legal to not check signatures, but does it make it right? I don’t think so.
        6y ago

bananabiscuit 6y ago

The issue is that the media is selectively ignoring things like this in order to push the narrative that “there is no fraud”. Now it might be true that there isn’t enough fraud to change the apparent results. But as you pointed out, what is wrong with making sure they system works? The media should not try to sweep anything that threatens their agenda under the rug.

glenstein 6y ago
>selectively ignoring things like this Oops. There's failure point. You're using an article about a really narrow set of facts with limited implications to try and support a profound generalization that is totally out of proportion to what's described in the article. That is a completely out-of-control leap to be making. And as others have pointed out "the media ignores..." is a subjective reaction, not something established by the articles, and those votes have been covered by mainstream outlets. And the articles don't show any fraud, and they don't show anything that would change the outcome in Georgia, and they don't show anything that warrants systemic skepticism of the election writ large.
- bananabiscuit 6y ago
  Don’t put words in my mouth. I’m not saying this one instance proves the whole election is fraud. I am saying the that this (actually pretty significant) correction to the results being ignored proves that the media has no interest in being honest.
  - glenstein 6y ago
    >Don’t put words in my mouth. I’m not saying this one instance proves the whole election is fraud. You're not saying it, you're just implying it by speaking in a way that leaves open-ended implications that you aren't qualifying with concrete statements. You're putting an isolated example into a broader category, "things like this", to suggest it's not the only one, and to invite people to believe there are more. If you really do agree with everyone that the scope, scale and significance of the facts presented in the article are extremely narrow, are isolated, and that there aren't similar examples, and are choosing to ignore that most important fact to emphasize a less important fact than I'm not so much interested in your point as I am in why you would choose to emphasize facts in that way. And nothing about the articles suggest anything one way or the other about media bias. The articles could presuambly be used to argue somethingorother about the scale of human error in vote counting in Georgia. That would be valid. But they don't have anything to do with any conclusions you are trying to advance about what the media is or isn't "being honest" (again an extremely vague, unprovable claim that you aren't quantifying).
    - bananabiscuit 6y ago
      I can’t help it that the attack vectors used by the media to push agendas are themselves vague and non-specific. It’s not like any given piece of news that gets published is outright false. On the small scale, the bias is in the framing of stories. Flaky evidence in stories that serve the agenda are glossed over. In stories that go against the agenda, nits get picked and then used to attack the main idea even if the nits are really inconsequential. On the large scale there is editorializing. Spotlighting certain types of stories. And forgetting and quickly moving past others. I have some specific examples in mind, but it would be completely pointless for me to list them or argue about them like you seem to want to. I’ve already argued each one to death as it came to light and have heard all sides of the arguments. That is a complete misdirection from my point of view. This is “systematic bias” in the media in much the same way that there is “systematic racism” in the world. It’s hard to pinpoint specific instances of it, but we know that it’s there because you see it in the aggregate statistics. And in fact, a common tactic used by people who deny systemic racism is to try to move the discussion away from the big picture and nitpick localized specifics to death.
knowaveragejoe 6y ago
How did Trumpian doublethink penetrate so deeply into the likes of HN readers? I can only assume it's various "skeptic" podcasts and the like.
- bananabiscuit 6y ago
  Not sure what podcasts you are referring to, I don’t listen to any. I don’t have a horse in this race. Don’t care for Trump or Biden. There’s other people in the world that would make much better leaders than these two, but this is all besides the point. Here is my beef: instead of just reporting, the media is invested in producing a specific outcome. For 5 years now they are trying their best to make Trump and his supporters into bigger idiots than they actually are. They are trying their best to make Biden and his supporters appear more noble than they actually are. Why was the Russia election collusion story in the spotlight for years despite flimsy evidence? Why are Trump supporters on the other hand not allowed even a few weeks to investigate their doubts about this election without being ridiculed for doing so?
  - knowaveragejoe 6y ago
    > For 5 years now they are trying their best to make Trump and his supporters into bigger idiots than they actually are. Has it occurred to you that perhaps Trump, his brand of populism and his supporters are worthy of that caricature? > Why was the Russia election collusion story in the spotlight for years despite flimsy evidence? The only people who think that the evidence was flimsy are those willing to ignore the fact that there was a level of obstruction from the administration that would make Nixon blush. > Why are Trump supporters on the other hand not allowed even a few weeks to investigate their doubts about this election without being ridiculed for doing so? My guess: because this is playing with fire. You might not be privy to it, but the calls for violence in their various echochambers if the crapshoot for overturning the election doesn't pan out(hint: it won't) are reaching audiences well armed and with nothing better to do than to engage in stochastic terrorism.
    - bananabiscuit 6y ago
sjwright 6y ago
This is an instance where imprecision in language is being weaponised for talking points. There are always many small errors and fraud in any large election. I don't think anyone would dispute this. And it is tolerable because the error is unlikely to be statistically significant. The question is whether there is large scale, organised electoral fraud. Of that there's precisely zero evidence. So when the “mainstream” media says “there is no fraud”, they're talking about organised fraud, not small counting errors and individual voter misconduct.
- bananabiscuit 6y ago
  You are also using that annoying tactic of reframing the discussion into a question for which the answer suits your own opinion. That is why you choose to ask “is there _organized_ and electoral fraud?”. What about the question of whether there was enough non-organized fraud to swing the results? Seems just as important to me. Let’s be patient until that there is an answer to these questions. From the courts please, not from YouTube, or CNN, or FOX, or John Oliver, or Tucker Carlson.
  - sjwright 6y ago
    Tell me, which answer from which court will satisfy you? Be specific.
    - bananabiscuit 6y ago
      I can’t tell you which court because I’m not prescient and don’t know in what areas of the country there was substantial election irregularities (if there are any) until it is done being investigated. Guess what, the media isn’t either, so I don’t know how they can keep claiming this election is accurate before everything is investigated and audited. Not to mention the really weird things happening like states deciding it’s not important to verify signatures. Sure they might have passed laws before the election that makes it legal to not check signatures, but does it make it right? I don’t think so.
      - 6y ago