Trump & Truthful Hyperbole

[Seriati]

Came across an article explain why facts don’t win arguments – the backfire effect

Trumps truthful Hyperbole creating the backfire effect is proving to be very affective. We should be concerned.

I find it fascinating that we diagnose in the "other" so easily, but miss the self reflection part on afflictions that impact us as well.

[rightleft22]

Fascinating indeed. (I think that's one of your favorite "counter points")

There was no 'other' in the explanation of the 'backfire effect' we all do it.
Discernment requires that we become conscious of it and not just dismiss it with a mirror argument about the other guy as if that makes justifies it.

The argument I'm making is that this type of rhetoric is dangerous  regardless of who uses it

[rightleft22]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/post-truth-president-1.3871021.   

Trump brilliantly recognized post-truthism long ago, while others were still stupidly issuing fact-checks
Trump also realized the crucial value in a bumper-sticker culture of keeping his fact-free blurts to 140 characters

Somewhat haplessly, the Washington Post's superb fact-checking department awarded president-elect Donald Trump four "Pinocchios" for his claim that millions of people voted illegally for Hillary Clinton, and that he in fact won the popular vote, or, as Trump now prefers to call it, "the so-called popular vote."

The Post's main headline called it a "baseless claim." The New York Times used classic Times-speak: "Trump Claims 'Millions' Voted Illegally, Citing No Evidence."

All of this is rather quaint, if admirable. Both newspapers, like other firmaments in the fussy, old-fashioned world of the mainstream media, continue to behave as though citing evidence, or making claims based in fact, actually still matters.

Talk about left behind. A massive segment of the U.S. population has happily said farewell to all that, sailing off into the new era of "post-truth."

[TheDeamon]

But I thought modern Liberal thought was that there is avery little "Real Truth" to be had out there, everything is relative to everything else, so its all subjective, and matters of perspective. 

[Seriati]

Maybe if you want to persuade me on this, you could avoid referencing fact-checkers as "superb."  Especially, when they rely on subjective measures like "Pinnocchios" and "Truth-O-Meters," and make no effort to collect their statements for checking on objective basis.

Facts don't win arguments because arguments are almost never about issues where the facts are decisive.  Opinions, with factual support, claiming to be facts, don't win arguments because people can see the parts that are interpretative and disagree with them.

[rightleft22]

I'm not trying to persuade you about anything.

the "superb" was part of the quote, not my words, however if that the kind of things that distracts you from dialog..

Which is strange because you make the same point the CBC opinion piece made - facts and truth no longer matter as well as the "backfire effect"

[Seriati]

No.  I am making the point that labeling oneself a "fact checker" doesn't mean one is dealing in facts.  It's just a label, and one that is often used to pretend that an opinion or analysis is less subjective than it really is.

[D.W.]

I suppose you are correct that a "fact checker" in regards to Trump's statement on voter fraud should have responded with.  "We are unable to identify any facts to support his statement".

Calling it false, when they cannot produce "facts" that convincingly or unequivocally make the case that he is wrong, is probably only serving to degrade or already tenuous grasp on "un-spun" news.

Unsubstantiated Claim Checker, just makes for a lame job title.

[Pete at Home]

No.  I am making the point that labeling oneself a "fact checker" doesn't mean one is dealing in facts.  It's just a label, and one that is often used to pretend that an opinion or analysis is less subjective than it really is.

One man's fact checker is another woman's fact-chucker.

[rightleft22]

No.  I am making the point that labeling oneself a "fact checker" doesn't mean one is dealing in facts.  It's just a label,

Yes you made the point that you don’t like the label "fact checker" which wasn’t the point of the article if you manage to get past your bias on the label.

The point of the article was that truth and facts don’t matter which you also argued… so I assume agree.

IMO you’re so caught up in the “backfire effect” that you’re too easily distracted by a label, which reinforces my point that dialog is not possible with the rhetoric of truthful hyperbole/post truth which Trumpism currently providing the best examples.

[Seriati]

You guys make me feel like sighing.  I'm not distracted (and I'm not arguing for Trump being substantively right on his claim), I'm complaining that an evaluation of whether facts are causing a "backfire effect" is hopeless confounded in a world where people can't identify facts and separate them from opinion.  I specifically pointed out two things that make establishing this claim difficult:  1. very few arguments are directly refuted by a fact (unless you're arguing with a moron), and 2. many of the claims of facts are really opinions and interpretation with some factual support.  Someone who is not persuaded by your opinion, whether or not you have supporting evidence, is not ignoring facts.

"Fact checkers" uniformly treat claims by those they agree with differently than those they disagree with, and always provide their interpretative spin in addition to the "facts".

[Pete at Home]

"Fact checkers" uniformly treat claims by those they agree with differently than those they disagree with, and always provide their interpretative spin in addition to the "facts

Basic Heisenberg, brother. That doesn't mean they aren't useful.

[TheDeamon]

No.  I am making the point that labeling oneself a "fact checker" doesn't mean one is dealing in facts.  It's just a label, and one that is often used to pretend that an opinion or analysis is less subjective than it really is.

Which isn't to mention they often are very lazy. They also LOVE to interpret things literally, in particular where Republicans are concerned, while Democrats will usually get the benefit of the doubt and won't be interpreted as strictly.

I recall complaining about some of this back in the 2012 Presidential Debates where the Fact Checkers were gleefully declaring "false" on Romney's claim of Domestic U.S. Oil Production (on Federal Lands) was at a __ year low.

They claimed false on the basis of (the same report) declaring that "US Domestic Oil Production" was at a __ year high. The problem: That number included oil production on private and public lands.   

But hey, echoing Obama, who likewise countered with the combined number, which they naturally cited as true, was totally their being unbiased.

[rightleft22]

I'm complaining that an evaluation of whether facts are causing a "backfire effect"

Back-fire-affect: The process by which people counterargue preference-incongruent information and bolster their preexisting views. If people counterargue unwelcome information vigorously enough, they may end up with 'more attitudinally congruent information in mind than before the debate,' which in turn leads them to report opinions that are more extreme than they otherwise would have had."

If I understand the definition correctly.
The effect starts with a problem of discernment between fact and opinion.  Instead of debating facts a vigorous defense of opinion occurs with an end result being a more extreme position.   
Facts are relevant in that they are being dismissed so I might not argue that the problem of facts causes the backfire effect I might argue that a problem of discernment of fact and opinion does.


Fact: Trump tweet: "In addition to winning the Electoral College by a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally,"
                               “serious voter fraud in Virginia, New Hampshire and California - so why isn't the media reporting on this? Serious bias - big problem!"

Fact checker:    Trump tweeted the statements - True
                         There is no credible reports that have surfaced on voter fraud - True
                         The president elect team has not provided any proof backing his statement - True

Reporter story. Trump tweets “millions of millions of people who voted illegally” no proof  - True

Fact: Trump tweet:  “Pathetic - you have no sufficient evidence that Donald Trump did not suffer from voter fraud, shame! Bad reporter.”

Fact checker: Trump tweeted the statements - True
                      Absence of proof as proof = bad reporting – opinion
                      Trump Follows are not demanding Trump backs up his statements with proof - True

Backfire Effect: extreme opinion by many that all ‘media” is biased and failing at their job (except for the media that ‘I’ rely on)
      
Reporter and fact checker: uneasiness that facts and reporting on facts are no longer relevant and more likely to produce a backfire effect – reasonable opinion 

Reporter: Opinion story: Is the absence of proof proof? should provocative statements be back up by facts. Why are people becoming entrenched in their options when we facts are reported?

Media: accused of muddying the waters with elitism philosophy.

Me: bewildered that Trump is not being held accountable. he is but so far it back fires.

[Seriati]

Rightleft, that's not an example of a backfire effect.  You'd need someone passionately arguing in support of something to show a backfire effect.  Where is that person?  Where is that argument in your hypo?

Voter fraud is characterized by its lack of verifiable factual information.  I don't view Trump as likely to be correct, there's no verifiable evidence that he is, but there's also no way prove it one way or the other.  This has nothing to do with whether or not the media has a bias, which arguments are actually based on a large number of facts and an even larger amount of inference and interpretation (no matter which side you believe is more accurate).  Whether a particular Trump statement is true or false substantively is not about bias, whether substantially identical statements by Trump and by a politician on the otherside are treated the same would be.

[TheDeamon]

Also keep in mind Trump is the President Elect right now, he doesn't have the resources to pursue voter fraud at this time. That comes on January 20th. I'd love nothing more than for Trump to create a joint INS/FBI task force and setting them lose on the California voter registration rolls.

[Pete at Home]

Maybe it's embarrassing for news organizations that reported bull crap rumors on Trump to "hold him to account when he talks out of his hat.  He's a presidential candidate meaning expected to lie if his name isn't Carter or Sanders. They are the freaking news.

I'm complaining that an evaluation of whether facts are causing a "backfire effect"

Back-fire-affect: The process by which people counterargue preference-incongruent information and bolster their preexisting views. If people counterargue unwelcome information vigorously enough, they may end up with 'more attitudinally congruent information in mind than before the debate,' which in turn leads them to report opinions that are more extreme than they otherwise would have had."

If I understand the definition correctly.
The effect starts with a problem of discernment between fact and opinion.  Instead of debating facts a vigorous defense of opinion occurs with an end result being a more extreme position.   
Facts are relevant in that they are being dismissed so I might not argue that the problem of facts causes the backfire effect I might argue that a problem of discernment of fact and opinion does.


Fact: Trump tweet: "In addition to winning the Electoral College by a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally,"
                               “serious voter fraud in Virginia, New Hampshire and California - so why isn't the media reporting on this? Serious bias - big problem!"

Fact checker:    Trump tweeted the statements - True
                         There is no credible reports that have surfaced on voter fraud - True
                         The president elect team has not provided any proof backing his statement - True

Reporter story. Trump tweets “millions of millions of people who voted illegally” no proof  - True

Fact: Trump tweet:  “Pathetic - you have no sufficient evidence that Donald Trump did not suffer from voter fraud, shame! Bad reporter.”

Fact checker: Trump tweeted the statements - True
                      Absence of proof as proof = bad reporting – opinion
                      Trump Follows are not demanding Trump backs up his statements with proof - True

Backfire Effect: extreme opinion by many that all ‘media” is biased and failing at their job (except for the media that ‘I’ rely on)
      
Reporter and fact checker: uneasiness that facts and reporting on facts are no longer relevant and more likely to produce a backfire effect – reasonable opinion 

Reporter: Opinion story: Is the absence of proof proof? should provocative statements be back up by facts. Why are people becoming entrenched in their options when we facts are reported?

Media: accused of muddying the waters with elitism philosophy.

Me: bewildered that Trump is not being held accountable. he is but so far it back fires.

[rightleft22]

all I can say is that its what I experience and observing.
Trump says something like "you have no sufficient evidence that Donald Trump did not suffer from voter fraud"
That statement from a precedent elect is freaking scary. He is either a master media manipulator playing everyone for fools or delusional conspiracy nut.

if someone said in this forum used a statement like the above as defense for an opinion they would be crucified for but instead the argument revolves around the quality of work of a fact checker and how bad the media is at their job, and candidates are expected to lie...

At the end everyone goes back to there corner even more entrenched in what they all ready believe.
Facts don't matter, truth doesn't matter, character doesn't matter, integrity dons't matter...
what matters anymore???

I'm just saying it like it is

[Fenring]

At the end everyone goes back to there corner even more entrenched in what they all ready believe.
Facts don't matter, truth doesn't matter, character doesn't matter, integrity dons't matter...
what matters anymore???

I'm just saying it like it is

If this is how you feel then maybe it would be a good thing to talk about in and of itself, rather than using it as a pretext to attack Trump. He didn't invent these tactics, he merely uses the system we're in to his advantage. A better conversation would be how this system came about, and what means could be used to retrace our steps back to meaningful language and separation of reality from narrative.

[Seriati]

I'm just saying it like it is

You are really not.  All you're really saying is that you've been convinced about certain "facts" about Donald Trump, and because others have different views (which must be clearly wrong since they don't match yours) something crazy is going on.

I think you're also confusing a "group" with an "individual" in your analysis.  Your point about people not being persuaded and there being a back fire effect only makes sense if you look at an individual.  You have to measure a person's change over time based on what facts they are exposed to in order to measure it.  You seem to be trying to measure it based on a wide based group conversation or media reports.  The loudest voices at point B could be completely different and more extreme than those at point A, but all the voices could be less extreme than where they started.  The group appears to be "back firing" even though none of the individuals did.  You are compounding that by thinking that all the voices are exposed to the same facts you are, and that you haven't internalized opinions that you think are facts that they have not.

Even measuring individuals I think you'd run into problems on the facts side.  Even if you agree on the facts (which you would not) that wouldn't mean the inferences that each person would build are the same.  Two people could both be exposed to a "fact" that more people are using welfare in a given year, and come to opposite conclusions about what should be done, one could say that's evidence that need is greater we need to increase welfare, the other could say that's evidence that dependence is increasing and we need to increase efforts to get them off.  Both could be correct, both could be wrong, neither or both plans may be the right answer at that point.

all I can say is that its what I experience and observing.
Trump says something like "you have no sufficient evidence that Donald Trump did not suffer from voter fraud"
That statement from a precedent elect is freaking scary. He is either a master media manipulator playing everyone for fools or delusional conspiracy nut.

That's sounds like paranoia on your part.  There's nothing scary about that statement - literally nothing at all - what you find scary is your own assumptions and inferences you've tied to Trump and what you think that statement means in context.  This is why you find it so scary that others don't react the same way you do.

if someone said in this forum used a statement like the above as defense for an opinion they would be crucified for but instead the argument revolves around the quality of work of a fact checker and how bad the media is at their job, and candidates are expected to lie...

Really?  That exact statement has been used in every single argument about voter fraud by people on the left on this forum (ie there is no proof voter fraud exists, therefore we don't need to make changes), and it didn't concern you then, why?

And I think its ridiculous not to question a "fact checker".  Do you believe everything you read?  Do you believe everything that the media reports?  If you answered those "no" then what changes in your head because some decides to call them a "fact checker" rather than a "reporter"?  Are you under the mistaken impression that "fact checkers" are not journalists?

The objection is simple, citing to fact checking is an appeal to authority.  That type of argument is a fallacy.  Citing to the facts they found is reasonable, citing to their opinion about the facts they found is less so, citing to their objectivity and authority in making statements like, Trump tells more lies than Clinton is pure fallacy.

At the end everyone goes back to there corner even more entrenched in what they all ready believe.
Facts don't matter, truth doesn't matter, character doesn't matter, integrity dons't matter...
what matters anymore???

Well I disagree.  I'm persuadable, though I grant its difficult.  Pete seems to change his positions from time to time, several other posters seem to have been influenced by good arguments from time to time.  What's missing to me is that you have to put forward a good argument to persuade people, citing to the "scariness" of a candidate not going to do it when I'm perfectly capable of making my own judgment about the relative merits of the two candidates.  Citing to what everyone knows also not going to do it, when I don't agree with every assumption that went into what "everyone knows."  Repeating convenient lies "Bush lied people died" that are catchy or refusing to acknowledge facts (eg that the Obama administration promoted a lie about the embassy attack in Libya) not going to do it.

[Fenring]

Repeating convenient lies "Bush lied people died" that are catchy or refusing to acknowledge facts (eg that the Obama administration promoted a lie about the embassy attack in Libya) not going to do it.

Er...maybe these examples aren't the best way to create an objective case...

[Seriati]

Lol, Fenring, I'm human too!

[rightleft22]

I know only Trump is allowed to 'say it like it is'
I was being sarcastic the statement is meaningless and those who held it up as reason for support fro the man were fools.

He didn't invent these tactics, he merely uses the system we're in to his advantage

I will not be a Trump apologist. I find the tactics distasteful and dangerous and will say so for anyone that think they can "take advantage" of them and not get burned.
Historically such "advantage taking" of these tactics has never ended well.
 
Though I may be in a minority I believe that what we say and how we say it matters, that the end does not justify the means, and that leaders ought to inspire the best in us, not the worst.

[Pete at Home]

Pete seems to change his positions from time to time, several other posters seem to have been influenced by good arguments from time to time.

Indeed I do and I am not alone.  Facts matter.  And I am here primarily to inform myself and to test what I think I know.

Though I may be in a minority I believe that what we say and how we say it matters, that the end does not justify the means, and that leaders ought to inspire the best in us, not the worst

Most of what you say is true but I suspect you do not literally believe that ends never justify means.  I would bet we could offer many scenarios where you would say the ends justified the means.

I think what you meant is that you don't believe that the ends Always justify the means, in which case, I agree.

[Fenring]

He didn't invent these tactics, he merely uses the system we're in to his advantage

I will not be a Trump apologist. I find the tactics distasteful and dangerous and will say so for anyone that think they can "take advantage" of them and not get burned.
Historically such "advantage taking" of these tactics has never ended well.

I don't think you're quite following me. You keep saying that Trump is "taking advantage", as if he suddenly swooped in and invented manipulating public opinion. He is not the first; or a rarity; or an outlier; or anything special at all in this regard. What is different about him is his tone and manner in manipulating the public. That much is his innovation. But the "tactics" you are referring to are standard fare, and are utilized by most candidates across the board as well as the media.

If you were actually concerned about rhetorical mindwiping you wouldn't be harping on Trump and omitting all other cases of it for the last century. Since you are only harping on Trump I assume your issue is not his tactics, but rather just himself. It's perfectly reasonable to just say you don't like him, but I don't find it particularly defensible to argue that he's somehow lowered the standard on truth-telling. On this point I tend to agree with him, which is that he's merely exposed the wizard behind the curtain while still pulling at the levers himself. It makes for a chilling picture for people who wanted to go on pretending everything was all right, but now you want to shoot the wizard rather than taking apart the machine.

[rightleft22]

yes lets let "Trump off the hook for is his tone and manner in manipulating the public" because he didn't invent it. 

He didn't invent these tactics, he merely uses the system we're in to his advantage

- was your quote
I'm saying hes the master of those tactics and that makes him dangerous.

Don't accuse me of not being concerned about the rhetorical mind-wiping of others. I despise the current trend I see around the world
I started this thread trying to understand the mind-wiping rhetoric being used and have stated a few times that Trumpism is at this moment of time the most prevalent example.

I think your wrong about Trump not being a outlier -  America has not had a man of Trump character designated to lead them and be their voice
No other politician could get away with what the apologists are allowing trump to get away with their shallow justifications

[Pete at Home]

Letting him off the hook presumes he was on the hook.  That there is really any hook anymore. 

If you want to put Trump on the hook, you need to make a hook.  That and create from scratch a political discourse where lies panic and false accusations are not the norm

[rightleft22]

And I think its ridiculous not to question a "fact checker".  Do you believe everything you read?  Do you believe everything that the media reports?  If you answered those "no" then what changes in your head because some decides to call them a "fact checker" rather than a "reporter"?  Are you under the mistaken impression that "fact checkers" are not journalists?


I don’t think you know what a professional fact check does.  Professional fact checkers are not reporters
And no I don’t believe that just because a reporter said they have verified their facts means that they did.

Everyone in the end is responsible to become their own fact checker

I believe facts are discernible. That the who, what, where, when can be validated while how and why are more difficult and more often speculation and opinion.
I think we spend more time on speculation and opinion which distract us from the facts and then the “backfire effect” of taking opinion as being facts in order to entrench us in our arguments.

How often of late is the opinion of a news story becoming the news story until its six degrees from the facts of the story


Note I used the pronoun ‘us’ which includes myself so I’m not letting myself of the hook

[rightleft22]

Letting him off the hook presumes he was on the hook.  That there is really any hook anymore. 

Your right... there is no hook...

[Fenring]

yes lets let "Trump off the hook for is his tone and manner in manipulating the public" because he didn't invent it.

This is what you gathered from what I said?
 

I think your wrong about Trump not being a outlier -  America has not had a man of Trump character designated to lead them and be their voice
No other politician could get away with what the apologists are allowing trump to get away with their shallow justifications

If you say so. I will be surprised if the result of the next four years is as bad as things have already been since the year 2000. Since the thread topic is "truthful hyperbole", I will therefore suggest that the scare-mongering that's been circulating about Trump is a good example of it.

If you want to talk about tactics of controlling public opinion, I suggest checking out some of what Robert Anton Wilson said about politics. One thing he used to say is that the key to partisan politics is that when each side accuses the other of bad things, that they are quite often correct in the accusation, and the system is maintained by virtue of the fact that each side can rightfully claim the other is bad. This divides the populace and creates the scenario where being right both makes you feel self-righteous while at the same time further cementing one's inability to see what the other side is saying. Being right about what one says about the 'others' is in fact the reason why the divide is so deep and why common ground quickly vanishes. The solution to this problem is not to try even harder to make the other side see that you are right; that furthers the divide, like a Chinese finger puzzle. Identifying and rejecting the system itself is the only way for both sides to see reason. Staunch alliance with either side makes such an outcome very unlikely to occur for a given person.

[rightleft22]

This is what you gathered from what I said?

I did. so its seems we are not understanding each other

Truthful Hyperbole was a term Trump used in his book The art of the deal and think is similar to the new term 'post truth'
Both concepts trouble me. As rhetorical tools they appear to be very difficult to counter. I know I'm not up to the task

[Fenring]

I know I'm not up to the task

You are not alone in that. It is very difficult. At best I think we can find out the truth to some extent, about certain things, in the realm of politics and current affairs. It almost becomes like inspecting a probability distribution cloud, since the absence of blatant gotcha evidence for most claims means that sifting and decoding never really ends with a solid conclusion. It's more like zeroing in on the general vicinity of the truth, just enough to know that claims that fall outside the zone cannot be true, even though it's hard to articulate exactly what is.

[Seriati]

Truthful Hyperbole is just another word for Propaganda.  Propaganda works, and is difficult to counter because it can be produced much faster and more easily than refutations and generally gets reinforced repeatedly.  However, it's not even remotely unique to Trump, propaganda is endemic in politics.  Chances are you have solid opinions about most political issues, but have never actually directly looked at unbiased research on them, instead you've been flooded with each side's "studies" and assertions all of which have been carefully crafted with the results predetermined to influence you.

[Greg Davidson]

Some general rules
1. Calibrate the metrics/standards you are judging a current situation on other, historical, situations
2. State your assertions in such a way that you could collect quantitative evidence to support or refute your premise ("If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is opinion")

[cherrypoptart]

https://pjmedia.com/election/2016/12/14/judge-napolitano-election-fraud-in-detroit-looks-organized-and-government-involved/

Detailed reports from the office of Wayne County Clerk Cathy Garrett show optical scanners at 248 of the city’s 662 precincts, or 37 percent, tabulated more ballots than the number of voters tallied by workers in the poll books. Voting irregularities in Detroit have spurred plans for an audit by Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson’s office, Elections Director Chris Thomas said Monday...

...State officials are planning to examine about 20 Detroit precincts where ballot boxes opened during the recount had fewer ballots than poll workers had recorded on Election Day.

“We’re assuming there were (human) errors, and we will have discussions with Detroit election officials and staff in addition to reviewing the ballots,” Thomas said.

... Republican state senators last week called for an investigation in Wayne County, including one precinct where a Detroit ballot box contained only 50 of the 306 ballots listed in a poll book, according to an observer for Trump."

...On Fox Business' Varney and Company Wednesday, Napolitano said that the the over-counting of Democrat votes is an example of the "government defrauding itself."

Host Stuart Varney described the type of"human error" that caused the discrepancies. "The poll worker takes the ballot, and puts it into a scanning machine, and says, 'oh good gosh, it jammed.'" The poll worker then proceeds to rescan the ballot "again, and again, and again."

"That is a different kind of fraud," Napolitano said. "Because that is the government defrauding itself. "The poll worker is an employee of, or a volunteer in behalf of the government. You're talking about a crime now. ... The law guarantees fair elections -- not perfect ones. If this had changed the outcome, it would be unfair and it would warrant a serious inquiry."

"But it happened in 248 precincts!" Varney exclaimed. "More votes were cast than voters!"

Napolitano said that based on the massive scale of the over-counted votes, the effort was  "organized, and government involved. Government violating its own laws."

Last week it was also discovered (thanks to Jill Stein's recount effort) that over 18,000 voters in Michigan cast ballots without identification last month, prompting the state House of Representatives to pass a voter ID bill during its lame duck session.

The Democrats keep crowing that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, but I strongly suspect that she only did so with the help of systemic voter- and election-fraud strategies in major cities."

[TheDrake]

Massive scale? Nonsense. I won't bother looking it up, because I think I posted it before and it is readily available, but most precincts weigh in at fewer than 5 overcounted votes. 5. Many also show undercounted. Try counting the money in a till, and you'll understand that it is very easy to be off by a small amount.

There is something weird with that one precinct in Wayne County. It stands out because it is so large, and yet the discrepancy is 256 votes total. I could also easily believe that it is logistics that account for the problem rather than a nefarious rescanning. Since there are observers there, the investigation should quickly determine if it was about 306 people who showed up, or more like 50. Poll books include voter names, and should also be easy to investigate. I'll wait to see if anything substantive turns up.

I also wonder if Napolitano isn't angling for the Supreme Court nomination. Oh look, he just met with Trump. Funny coincidence.

[Kasandra]

A friend of ours was a poll observer at the recount in Detroit.  She observed several things:

* First and foremost, the rule was that if the recount tally differed from the election night count, the recount was ruled invalid.  Get that?  As long as they're the same, the recount results are included; if not, they are discarded.

* The ballots were counted one by one, by hand.  If the counter lost his/her place, s/he had to start over.

* The observers were allowed to ask questions.  The Clinton observer (our friend) was quiet the whole time, but the Trump observer kept interrupting to ask questions like "How many total votes have you counted so far?"  "Do you think you'll end up with more than 25 different votes?"

* Whenever the Trump observer would do that, the Trump lawyers would come over and accuse the counter of intentionally messing up the total and demand that the count be restarted.

In the end a judge declared a stop to the recount citing the amount of time it was taking and a lack of clarity in the process.

[cherrypoptart]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/18/nearly-100-poll-books-in-detroit-missing-for-several-days-documents-show.html

"...Of those 95 poll books, five were never delivered to county canvassers and presumably remain missing, according to the memo. The poll books contain the names of voters and are used to ensure integrity of elections by canvassers, who compared the books with printouts from voting machines to make sure the number of people signed in to vote match the number on the machine for total ballots cast...

...Clinton won 95 percent of Detroit's vote."

95%? Nothing suspicious there...

[cherrypoptart]

http://menrec.com/more-evidence-that-voter-fraud-is-indeed-a-normal-political-tactic-for-new-york-democrats/

More Evidence That Voter Fraud Is Indeed ‘A Normal Political Tactic’ For New York Democrats
Rusty Weiss — April 10, 2013

"Early last year, as the voter fraud trial in upstate New York was getting under way, a Democrat Committeeman named Anthony DeFiglio claimed that falsifying records and forging signatures on ballots was simply “a normal political tactic”...

“... An alleged scheme to forge or fraudulently obtain signatures for a petition to get on the Assembly election ballot, and another scheme to fraudulently register 30 people in his Bronx district who did not actually live there.”

...So we now have verified voter fraud and forgery in upstate New York, and downstate New York.  With corruption in the Empire State so rampant right now, it’s difficult to determine who pioneered these methods of voter fraud.  Did upstate teach downstate?  Did city politicians teach Capital Region politicians?

Regardless, it’s readily apparent that Democrats throughout the state have cornered the market on this “normal political tactic”.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So that was back in 2013 which indicates that it was for Obama's victory in the 2012 election.

And looking at the light sentences people get for this makes it even more obvious that even in the unlikely event they are caught there won't be any serious consequences so there is little to no disincentive to go for it.

[Kasandra]

Cherry, I find it very fatiguing "investigating" your supposed news stories about malfeasance and evil committed by Democrats.  "Menrec.com" is a particularly diseased site peddling hatred and misinformation to people like you asserting over and over that liberals are evil.  Their motto is "Fighting Liberalism" and has such manifestly self-serving sections like "Liberal Lunacy" and posts articles calling Obama "Pajama boy".  If you ever choose to join the ranks of people who are interested in at least trying to look at people-not-like-yourself with some objectivity, I'll be happy to meet you half way.  In the meantime, enjoy the fake news and don't think about the fact that it's poisoning you.

[cherrypoptart]

The story had court cases and the sentences along with the people who did the crimes and were convicted so what does it matter who is telling the story as long as it's the truth? You kind of make a good point though that it isn't something the regular media seems to find any interest in reporting. That makes it "fake news"?

What the story shows though is that it's very easy to get away with voter fraud and even if convicted the sentences are negligible. Along with the fact that, as you pointed out, the main stream media ignores the issue, that all points to the fact that if there was massive voter fraud we'd never know about it.

[Kasandra]

OK, your screaming article reports an attempt to get 30 people to vote in the Bronx, which is an incredibly negligible number in a city of 8 million people, and also consider:

Last month, President-elect Donald Trump argued on Twitter that he would have won the popular vote, not just the Electoral College, if "millions of people who voted illegally" had not cast their ballots for Hillary Clinton. That claim was widely ridiculed at the time, but The New York Times actually asked the people who supervised the 2016 general election in all 50 states how many credible reports of fraud they had found. (Kansas did not respond.) The "overwhelming consensus?" The Times says: "Next to none."

Americans cast 137.7 million ballots in the 2016 election. Twenty-six states and Washington, D.C., reported zero credible allegations of fraudulent voting, eight states reported one case each, and a handful of other states said they are still collectively reviewing a couple dozen allegations of suspicious voting. "The findings unambiguously debunk repeated statements" from Trump about millions of fraudulent voters, the Times says, and "refute warnings by Republican governors in Maine and North Carolina that election results could not be trusted."

Give it a rest, be happy that you voted for the honest working man's friend instead, or get a life in the real world.

[cherrypoptart]

If it wasn't for the DNC hacks, the primary election rigging of the Democrats would be just another wild conspiracy theory. All we'd hear in response to any assertions that it happened is that there is no evidence and that's all just crazy talk.

[Kasandra]

If it wasn't for the DNC hacks, the primary election rigging of the Democrats would be just another wild conspiracy theory. All we'd hear in response to any assertions that it happened is that there is no evidence and that's all just crazy talk.

Do you honestly think the "primary...rigging" is anything significant?  I would be willing to bet that the GOP hacks that were kept hidden for selfish reasons by Russia and Wikileaks would be at least as disgusting.  If you were the sole source of news and information about US politics I would have to believe that Democrats are evil spawn and Republicans are blessed saints.  Trump is your man, the GOP is your party, I expect you to own it when the *censored* hits the fan.

[D.W.]

You honestly think it wasn't significant?  A lot of us feel that Sanders was robbed of the nomination and would have made Trump a comedic footnote in history when he won the general in a landslide. 

The Republican party (rather than, now the Democratic one) would be forced to take a breath and then get on with reinventing itself. 

Instead... well here we are. 

Ya, "significant" is the mildest term I can think for what happened in the Democratic primaries.

[Fenring]

Do you honestly think the "primary...rigging" is anything significant?  I would be willing to bet that the GOP hacks that were kept hidden for selfish reasons by Russia and Wikileaks would be at least as disgusting.

 I hope you realize how much of a non-argument this is.

[NobleHunter]

You think an Independent running as a Democrat, who never lead in the polls (IRRC), and who had essentially no name recognition until the primaries actually started was robbed? He never had a chance to win and his biggest mistake was starting to believe that he could.

[D.W.]

Yes, I do believe that.

This election, was about taking down the establishment.  The party didn't (and by all accounts still doesn't) understand this. 

If the options were:
Anti-establishment blowhard appealing to our worst nature.
vs.
Anti-establishment (but still old white male) appealing to our best nature.

I think the outcome is pretty obvious. 

Granted, that would have required the party to not be working to trivialize him from the start.  It's hard to sway voters when big media is colluding with (or just enthralled by) your opposition.

[Wayward Son]

If it wasn't for the DNC hacks, the primary election rigging of the Democrats would be just another wild conspiracy theory. All we'd hear in response to any assertions that it happened is that there is no evidence and that's all just crazy talk.

Cherry, it's time to stop the "if it happened to the Democrats, it would/wouldn't have been a big deal" fantasy.  You'll never know, and it only reassures what you already believe, whether it is right or wrong.

Deal with what's happening in the real world.  Do you want the Chinese, the Saudis, or the Iranians to have the same influence in the next election as the Russians did in this one?  Do you want them to decide what information to publish or withhold, depending on who they want to win?  How much say for the next Senate, House and President do you want them to have?

That's what this is about, not whether "if the Republicans had lost, the Democrats wouldn't have cared."    Let's make sure our elections stay our elections, and aren't wide open to the influence of others, who may not have our best interest in mind.

[Fenring]

Cherry, it's time to stop the "if it happened to the Democrats, it would/wouldn't have been a big deal" fantasy.  You'll never know, and it only reassures what you already believe, whether it is right or wrong.

Asserts that a counterfactual argument has no merit because "you'll never know."

Deal with what's happening in the real world.  Do you want the Chinese, the Saudis, or the Iranians to have the same influence in the next election as the Russians did in this one?

Goes on to argue "if not for the Russian influence" on the election result. Cognitive dissonance checks out. I'll throw in as a bonus the claim made that the DNC rigging didn't significantly impair Sanders' chances of winning.