The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central Deligitimization of Obama

No, I am not trying to make an argument here, other than formally demonstrating that your argument is invalid. If having invalid argument doesn't bother you, well carry on...

The key here is that it wasn't. Legit polls were not split. The republicans didn't like what they were reading, so they simply made up their own numbers. That is now a proven fact.

Except you didnt. You strung together a bunch of fallacies to demonstrate that you think if you blow enough BS that you somehow will make a point.

Derid, walk away from this thread. You have no argument left. It was shown to be a fallacious (wrong) and invalid (badly phrased). No amount of hand waving or teeth gnashing will change this.

Re-read post #110626 if you have any questions.

Here, for your convenience I quoted part where explains why are you so wrong. Feel free to ask questions if you don't understand some parts of it.

No, but I just might nickname you "Non Sequitur"

Your conclusions do not follow from the evidence. No amount of saying otherwise will change that fact. If you choose to ignore reason, and rely on verbal posturing then I dont know what to say in that case.

You also make the assertion "First, you are applying unreasonable standard of having evidence of no tampering. "


Something you would do well to remember, is I am not and never had asserted that tampering occurred - I am saying that the security holes are too large to deny reasonable probability that it occurred. The fact is we have no way of knowing, and thus insulting people for holding the view is just a reflection of your own dogmatic preconceptions.


Second you say "Second, you are asserting that magnitude of tampering was significant enough to change the outcome of historically not close (332 v 206) election. If we extend this reasoning to other, much closer, elections then we can conclude that most US elections were won because of tampering. I hope you’d agree that such result is an absurd conclusion. Third, this is formally invalid argument."

First of all, your definition of closeness here incorrect. Those electoral votes stem from individual votes, which as I have already demonstrated was a spread of 300k. The possible shenanigans all target *tallies of individual votes* and thereby the electoral votes, not the electoral votes directly. Therefore the only figure worth looking at is the number of individual votes required to change the electoral votes. Since your argument rests on the distance of electoral votes, not of individual votes - you have again invalidated yourself. The closeness metric in use here is the 300k vote spread.

Secondly since we are talking about electronic voting, the number of elections with possible tampering of this matter will only include those going back to about the 2004 when electronic voting became relatively widespread. Additionally, there is in fact a body of evidence suggesting the possibility of tampering during the 2004 Bush vs Kerry contest. You are trying to tie in all historically close elections though, and thus fall into the reductio ad absurdum fallacy - there is no reason to question the validity of an election where unsecured electronic voting devices and tallying methods were not in widespread use.

If you would like to string together yet more fallacies and try to pass them off as an irrefutable position please feel free. I enjoy squashing them.

“Something you would do well to remember, is I am not and never had asserted that tampering occurred - I am saying that the security holes are too large to deny reasonable probability that it occurred.”

First, this line of thinking is a fallacy - appeal to probability. Just because something could happen, doesn’t mean it will inevitably happen

Second, you restated your argument yet again to include “probability that it occurred”. Is such mere probability is sufficient justification to claim elections were stolen? Don’t think so.

“Second you say "Second, you are asserting that magnitude of tampering was significant enough to change the outcome of historically not close (332 v 206) election."

Those electoral votes stem from individual votes, which as I have already demonstrated was a spread of 300k. Therefore the only figure worth looking at is the number of individual votes required to change the electoral votes.”

You 300K definition of “election closeness” is flawed. It doesn’t account for population, it doesn’t consider county-by-county situation and most importantly it doesn’t account for the fact that there are multiple “close” states, there are might be some states (Alaska for example) that would not be considered contested but end up classified ‘close’ by your standard..

You have to justify your definition of what you call close election in order for me to accept it as a premise. At minimum, you have to consider on case-by-case basis electoral vote impact, total population and how many individual counties were close calls. Any possibility of tampering has to happen on a very local polling station or county level and this is what you should be focusing on. Or are you suggesting that Romney’s campaign and GOP as a whole was incompetent enough to allow vote fraud to happen on the state level despite having an army of presumably bad or incompetent monitors and lawyers?

” Since your argument rests on the distance of electoral votes, not of individual votes - you have again invalidated yourself.“

Electoral vote is an accepted standard and standard way of looking at election results, onus is on you to show evidence why should not continue with this standard practice. So far you only came up only with “probability of fraud” and “300K vote spread” – both are unjustified assumptions that I do not share.

“Secondly since we are talking about electronic voting…”

We weren’t talking about electronic voting up to this point. If you want to bring electronic voting into conversation you will have to justify why it is relevant. Additionally you have to prove breakdown of continuity, that is demonstrate that electronic voting is so fundamentally different that we cannot compare it to other historical examples of similar “close” elections.


I’d think you would get tired of being wrong at this point, but I do admire your stamina.

I never asserted that it was *inevitable (though now that you bring it up, over a large enough time scale it would be) , and from hence your string of fallacies continues to flow. For the 1000th time, the point at issue here is your insulting of people based on your own preconceived dogma that you saw fit to pass off as fact. Hopefully if I state it in enough different ways, one of them will eventually take and a light bulb will switch on - and you will finally make an attempt to actually address your own deficiencies.

Not going to bother even looking at any other points you might have tried to make until you address this - you are dancing around the subject, swinging at straw men, mis attributing assertions.. and its getting silly.

You say I must get tired of being wrong, which actually *is getting into delusional territory - because you have yet to make *one* single counter that has not been demonstrated as a fallacy. Not one.

You are again acting confused, perhaps you should call your nurse and have her explain what this thread is about?

Again, I stated multiple times in this thread: This debate is about whether election was stolen or not. It is not about possibility, probability or magnitude of maybe possibly in some cases voter fraud that you are trying to change it into.

You perfectly well know, it is not possible to show that there is no fraud occurred. This alone is not sufficient justification to claim elections were stolen.

Now, I am done with you until you stop your hysteria and re-discover how to interpret and comprehend other people's arguments.