Who Will be Our Next President?

Tools    





I don't really follow your response to TUS. He's making a pretty simple point: with Trump, you sometimes call things a "lie" because he did not literally say them, but you're happy to read implications from Biden even if he did not literally say a thing. It's a fair point.

Obviously, you can just say "that's different" each time, by saying you believe there is an implication in one case but not another, but that means you can't just say "he didn't say that" and leave it at that, either. And in plenty of cases, Trump's implication is pretty hard to mistake, IMO.

This is known in rhetoric as "special pleading," by the way: finding some reason a posited rule doesn't apply in a specific case. Technically it's hard to disprove, but it's also not worth much, because we can always find some difference between one thing and another which allows us to make out that any rule is still being applied fairly.
None of this helps me without an example.



I also called out Trump for claiming Biden called blacks super predators by saying he only called criminals predators. Don't act like I don't show fairness just because you don't like what you hear.



No I can't because it was a tidbit I noticed rather than something I was specifically looking for. I you don't want to believe it, that's fine.
I'm troubled by the fact that you think my options are "trust a vague half-memory" or "don't want to believe it." My position is pretty clear: get evidence, form beliefs based on that evidence. It should be easy enough to find, yeah?

If I'm skeptical, it's because I know the "no test run" thing is false in my state, a swing state, so at minimum the remembered summary is a bit off. Doesn't mean it's totally wrong, just gives me a good reason to ask for evidence to see how true it is, is all.

I think for the average citizen, the more shutdowns you're dealing with, the more mail in voting makes sense. It could be a coincidence but it makes me wonder.
There are plenty of explanations that are neither sinister nor coincidence. Sometimes events make a position you already held a very smart and reasonable one. That seems to have been the case here: they liked mail voting before (obviously), mail voting makes a TON of sense this year, so it was expanded. It's not a coincidence any more than it was a coincidence when 9/11 gave people who favored a strong foreign policy an excuse to enact related policies.

I remember having conversations back in the days before the internet. People had to rely on their thoughts rather than facts they could prove. It wasn't half bad.
It might not have felt bad, but how it felt isn't the point. I'm sure it felt great to be able to say stuff without necessarily being called out on it, but was the debate better? Maybe it was less pedantic, but I'll bet it contained way more misinformation, too. The fact that people can't do that now may be annoying, but it sure ain't unfair.

God knows there are plenty of problems with the "fact check" style of debate. Everything has its downsides. But let's be clear, we're wayyyyyyy on the low end of that here. This is literally "they did X" or "they didn't do Y" and me saying: any evidence? Nobody's nitpicking details or demanding a full briefing or anything.



That elusive hide-and-seek cow is at it again
Sounds like a redirection to me.
Standards apply to everyone else I suppose. Back before the internet, I remember citing references in grade school. I guess we were doing it wrong?
__________________
"My Dionne Warwick understanding of your dream indicates that you are ambivalent on how you want life to eventually screw you." - Joel

"Ever try to forcibly pin down a house cat? It's not easy." - Captain Steel

"I just can't get pass sticking a finger up a dog's butt." - John Dumbear



I'm troubled by the fact that you think my options are "trust a vague half-memory" or "don't want to believe it." My position is pretty clear: get evidence, form beliefs based on that evidence. It should be easy enough to find, yeah?
You have to remember the date I gave you. Trump already restricted travel, and even though the pandemic was not raging in America yet, it was raging elsewhere in the world. Everyone already knew about the pandemic. What I'm trying to say is that I think you're worried about me being able to provide a link (evidence), but that article was not evidence of anything to begin with. It was just something to think about, and I would say we don't even need the article to do that given other things we know. You even acknowledge below that they obviously liked mail in voting before.

There are plenty of explanations that are neither sinister nor coincidence. Sometimes events make a position you already held a very smart and reasonable one. That seems to have been the case here: they liked mail voting before (obviously), mail voting makes a TON of sense this year, so it was expanded. It's not a coincidence any more than it was a coincidence when 9/11 gave people who favored a strong foreign policy an excuse to enact related policies.
It's all possible, but I'm wondering if people who live in states that have more restrictions, usually democrat, are more apt to look at mail in voting as something that makes sense. Fair to wonder?

It might not have felt bad, but how it felt isn't the point. I'm sure it felt great to be able to say stuff without necessarily being called out on it, but was the debate better? Maybe it was less pedantic, but I'll bet it contained way more misinformation, too. The fact that people can't do that now may be annoying, but it sure ain't unfair.

God knows there are plenty of problems with the "fact check" style of debate. Everything has its downsides. But let's be clear, we're wayyyyyyy on the low end of that here. This is literally "they did X" or "they didn't do Y" and me saying: any evidence? Nobody's nitpicking details or demanding a full briefing or anything.
I think it depends on the nature of the debate. If it's one in which a final answer is important, it's good to have the ability to find the facts. Otherwise I think it's healthy to rely more on thought.



Sounds like a redirection to me.
Standards apply to everyone else I suppose. Back before the internet, I remember citing references in grade school. I guess we were doing it wrong?
Tell me exactly what sounds like redirection to you and I'll be happy to address it.



That elusive hide-and-seek cow is at it again
Tell me exactly what sounds like redirection to you and I'll be happy to address it.
I'm not sure. Something I think I read somewhere.



That elusive hide-and-seek cow is at it again
I know you're being facetious and that's cool but at the same time I didn't expect a serious answer.
We're in agreement now.



I'm not sure. Something I think I read somewhere.
You have to realize that my whole point is that the Democrats wanted mail in voting before the pandemic. Yoda actually agrees with me on that. Yet you guys are more worried about where I heard it from. Who really gives a crap if we agree?



You have to remember the date I gave you. Trump already restricted travel, and even though the pandemic was not raging in America yet, it was raging elsewhere in the world. Everyone already knew about the pandemic. What I'm trying to say is that I think you're worried about me being able to provide a link (evidence), but that article was not evidence of anything to begin with. It was just something to think about, and I would say we don't even need the article to do that given other things we know. You even acknowledge below that they obviously liked mail in voting before.
I'm not sure we're on the same page here. The thing I'm asking about are the claims that they suddenly rammed it through, didn't do a test run, it happened in swing states explicitly, etc. Seems like a reasonable request, and should take very little time (less than is being spent talking about not doing it) if it's true.

It's all possible, but I'm wondering if people who live in states that have more restrictions, usually democrat, are more apt to look at mail in voting as something that makes sense. Fair to wonder?
Fair to wonder, yeah.

I think it depends on the nature of the debate. If it's one in which a final answer is important, it's good to have the ability to find the facts. Otherwise I think it's healthy to rely more on thought.
I categorically reject that there's some kind of trade between "facts" and "thought." Thought without facts is just speculation. Thought about facts, now you're cookin'.



I'm not sure we're on the same page here. The thing I'm asking about are the claims that they suddenly rammed it through, didn't do a test run, it happened in swing states explicitly, etc. Seems like a reasonable request, and should take very little time (less than is being spent talking about not doing it) if it's true.
I can't prove it at the moment, but I feel like you're addressing different posts. I already said I didn't know about the test run in Pennsylvania and I left it at that, even if it doesn't say anything to the rest of the states. I don't recall anything about anybody ramming anything through. I know their mail in voting bill didn't go through in March. We know that the swing states are the most contested but what about them?

I categorically reject that there's some kind of trade between "facts" and "thought." Thought without facts is just speculation. Thought about facts, now you're cookin'.
I'm not saying that facts and thought can't be connected, that would be silly, and I would say there's nothing wrong with having a conversation based on speculation. It depends on one's preference.



I can't prove it at the moment, but I feel like you're addressing different posts. I already said I didn't know about the test run in Pennsylvania and I left it at that, even if it doesn't say anything to the rest of the states. I don't recall anything about anybody ramming anything through. I know their mail in voting bill didn't go through in March. We know that the swing states are the most contested but what about them?
Yeah, let's reset. I've been responding to this:
The dems suddenly started changing laws just before corona in swing states for this election (without a test run), and what we have to ask ourselves is why did they do it.
I'm asking for corroboration on a) that they started changing laws just before, b) that it was targeted to swing states, and c) that there was no test run.

I'm not saying that facts and thought can't be connected, that would be silly, and I would say there's nothing wrong with having a conversation based on speculation. It depends on one's preference.
I agree...unless there are facts available and people would rather speculate without them. In that case, the natural conclusion is that they just want to believe something and facts would get in the way of it.

That's the thing I feel like I'm seeing more of: just leading with speculation for no reason, even though it would be relatively easy to get some information, then speculate only as necessary about things like motives or implications. That people will differ on subjective things is not new, or fixable, or really a problem. When they start differing on facts, or start to think of facts as incidental to their position rather than as its foundation, then the discourse breaks down.



That elusive hide-and-seek cow is at it again
There were a handful of democratic states prior to this election that used mail in voting. The data suggests that there was either no change, or not change enough to matter, in who voted by mail more. What I mean is that people keep saying that Democrats are more likely to vote by mail, but before this election there was no evidence to support that. The dems suddenly started changing laws just before corona in swing states for this election (without a test run), and what we have to ask ourselves is why did they do it. Republicans fought it and there is at least some question as to if what the dems did is constitutionally legal.
To go back to this quote that Yoda already responded to, and why others are asking for sources, well first you imply these changes happened without a test run though Yoda noted that was not true, at least in one state. 1 for 1. Should we just take it for face value that anything else holds water when you conflate opinion with fact or at least is not exaggeration?

You claim "data" suggests that there was no change or not enough to matter before the election as to who voted by mail more. Sure. But you (or whatever your source is that may or may not be an editorial opinion piece) assumes that exists in a vacuum. For all of your investigative prowess, why not apply that curiosity evenly to ask what might be different during this election cycle? Could it be a novel virus pandemic? Could it be that (generally speaking) Republicans feel unaffected with a portion of that voting base believing it's an outright conspiracy run by corrupt fake media; or that (generally speaking) Democrats might actually think the pandemic is legit and would prefer to error on the side of caution by submitting mail in ballots this season?

Surely, that would potentially skew past vote-by-mail patterns, no? If parts of that statement can be explained when more context is provided, why omit/ignore that context? If some parts can be explained and then removed as an argument, then what other parts could also be explained and removed given the pattern that appears when one makes that effort? Why haven't you asked that? Why didn't your source ask that?

Have you looked to see what vote totals by state are relative to 2016 or previous election years? (edit) Totals for physical election day votes vs mail-in votes? Totals by political affiliation within election day totals vs mail-in? Are those totals and gain percentages in line? If they are, then have votes honestly been affected? ANY of these questions could be asked, but weren't. I assume the source also didn't ask those questions, but I will never know. My point is, there is risk of bias here. Knowing the source of information allows 1) you to verify what you claim that until verified can only be treated as opinion, and 2) provides others a path of deduction and decision-making processes that the author used to come to these conclusions that you seem to trust without question. Why others aren't allowed that same latitude is another matter, but hey! Reading the article may convince me or others. Until then, I just have to take your word for it which is already proven to slip into opinion guised as fact.

You may be right. But here's the thing of it all: I don't care if you're right or wrong or if I or anyone else is right or wrong. My issue, as it always has been in the faux debates, is the method of coming to conclusions and how you hold others to a higher bar to clear than you do yourself. It's frustrating, dude.

I do not at all mind if we have differences of opinion. I'm more concerned with how you came to your conclusions. Hell, I might learn something. you might. Not necessary, but cool when it happens. What I hope for when entering conversations with people I disagree with is to come to some mutual understanding and agreement on verifiable facts. We can still totally disagree on the value of those facts. How does one step lead to another, to another. If I can follow that path then I might better empathize with an opposing view point. However, when one side of the argument has to maintain some standard that the other side does not, or when topics shift from one point to another when an argument is made against the earlier point, there's nothing to be learned and it becomes a game. If it's a game, then why should I take it any more seriously? I always thought it was understood that if I want to make a claim, then it's on me to provide evidence of that claim and not your responsibility to prove me wrong after the fact. I mean, unicorns exist. Prove me wrong! Kinda wonky, ain't it?



I'm asking for corroboration on a) that they started changing laws just before, b) that it was targeted to swing states, and c) that there was no test run.
At this point I can't even tell you if I got this information from multiple sources or just one. I found this link that you can take a look at and make of it what you will-

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...ts-2020-111716

As far as the test run, I already conceded that I was wrong about Pennsylvania, and I didn't even ask you to prove it

I agree...unless there are facts available and people would rather speculate without them. In that case, the natural conclusion is that they just want to believe something and facts would get in the way of it.

That's the thing I feel like I'm seeing more of: just leading with speculation for no reason, even though it would be relatively easy to get some information, then speculate only as necessary about things like motives or implications. That people will differ on subjective things is not new, or fixable, or really a problem. When they start differing on facts, or start to think of facts as incidental to their position rather than as its foundation, then the discourse breaks down.
Sure that's all good but I'm saying before the Internet, unless you're sitting in a library or something like that, there's not a lot of facts that you have access to and conversation was excellent. I have my own personal preference and in fact don't even have a desire for people to provide a link here. If I question something somebody says, I like to look it up myself. There are also plenty of points that don't have facts or evidence either way and completely rely on speculation. Is there evidence of voter fraud? Not that I know of. Is there evidence that there was no voter fraud? Definitely not. That only matters in a court of law, not necessarily in a conversation.



You claim "data" suggests that there was no change or not enough to matter before the election as to who voted by mail more. Sure. But you (or whatever your source is that may or may not be an editorial opinion piece) assumes that exists in a vacuum. For all of your investigative prowess, why not apply that curiosity evenly to ask what might be different during this election cycle? Could it be a novel virus pandemic? Could it be that (generally speaking) Republicans feel unaffected with a portion of that voting base believing it's an outright conspiracy run by corrupt fake media; or that (generally speaking) Democrats might actually think the pandemic is legit and would prefer to error on the side of caution by submitting mail in ballots this season?
I know there's a lot of posts to look through but I've already said this and agree with it. My question is who knew it before the election came? It would seem that the dems knew for whatever reason and that's why they pushed for mail in. It would also seem that Trump thought it was going to hurt him. Why did he think it would hurt him? He could have pushed for reps to vote by mail as well but he didn't. Was he genuinely worried about fraud?

Have you looked to see what vote totals by state are relative to 2016 or previous election years? (edit) Totals for physical election day votes vs mail-in votes? Totals by political affiliation within election day totals vs mail-in? Are those totals and gain percentages in line? If they are, then have votes honestly been affected? ANY of these questions could be asked, but weren't. I assume the source also didn't ask those questions, but I will never know. My point is, there is risk of bias here. Knowing the source of information allows 1) you to verify what you claim that until verified can only be treated as opinion, and 2) provides others a path of deduction and decision-making processes that the author used to come to these conclusions that you seem to trust without question. Why others aren't allowed that same latitude is another matter, but hey! Reading the article may convince me or others. Until then, I just have to take your word for it which is already proven to slip into opinion guised as fact.
You have to remember that I've made no declaration of fraud, and I have said that if there is any, it could have just as easily come from the Republicans.

You may be right. But here's the thing of it all: I don't care if you're right or wrong or if I or anyone else is right or wrong. My issue, as it always has been in the faux debates, is the method of coming to conclusions and how you hold others to a higher bar to clear than you do yourself. It's frustrating, dude.
Have you seen me asking anybody for a link or any type of evidence?



If somebody says something that turns out to be factually incorrect, some of you guys take it like a personal insult. You could just say hey, actually that's not true maybe you should look that up some more. Instead I get, OMG HOW DARE YOU NOT REPORT THE FACTS!! Hunter is that you?



That elusive hide-and-seek cow is at it again
I know there's a lot of posts to look through but I've already said this and agree with it. My question is who knew it before the election came? It would seem that the dems knew for whatever reason and that's why they pushed for mail in.
Totally possible. It could also be that these pushes came 2 years ago to balance what they may have believed to be out of balance. I have no idea. I don't have the source. See argument post above.

It would also seem that Trump thought it was going to hurt him. Why did he think it would hurt him? He could have pushed for reps to vote by mail as well but he didn't. Was he genuinely worried about fraud?
He was genuinely worried about the numbers. Let me throw another perspective at you.

Assuming what I added in my reply earlier with the suggestion that Democratic votes would likely take advantage of mail-in options as opposed to standing in line on election day due to fears of C-19, then it would be reasonable to believe the majority of Democratic votes would not be made on election day, but rather earlier through mail-in votes. If that is true (let's assume so for argument's sake), then the more I scream fraud with mail-in votes, the more likely I am to get attention on that. The more attention I bring, the more likely I might get others to agree with me with the goal being to dismiss mail-in votes. Or to stop counting votes on election day knowing that mail-in counts are ongoing past election day.

There are a lot of states that aren't legally able to start counting until election day. Some before. Some not until polls close. This varies state to state (link for days and link for times )

So if I'm expecting a large percentage of opposition votes coming in via mail, then why NOT claim fraud? The more votes I can have thrown out the better, especially considering that most of those votes will probably be Democrat votes (even if it means tossing military votes) because most of MY votes are going to land ON election day because my people ain't skeered.

That could be why he thought it would hurt him. Because most likely, it would if played out. And it did. If he pushed for Republicans to vote by mail he would have appeared weak and I don't think there's anyway ever that he would have considered doing so given his rhetoric on masks, arguing Fauci, etc., that would have been counter to most of his posturing to date. Personally, I think had he made that relatively small gesture---that people SHOULD vote by mail due to risk of C-19 infection---then he might have earned some respect from some voters seeing a more compassionate side in him and that could have given him an edge more than claiming fraud.

Just for argument's sake, of course.