Interesting point made about GOP la-la land election predictions.

'How Can That Be?' More on the 'They Can't Both Be Right' Saga

It seems to me that all he is saying is that the Republicans think they are going to win and are very confident.

I am not sure if you have seen a election before but both sides say the same thing.

The things people get paid for sometimes astounds me.

Dems do same thing - "It was the superPACs that let the GOP win" for example, see that type of thinking a lot amongst the left.

Even though Dem superPACs are every bit as funded as GOP superPACs.

Also dont forget "voter supression". On many Dem net works, Obama should win... and if Romney wins, its because non-military people had a couple less days of early voting in Ohio or something.

Both "sides" engaged in the same tactics /shrug

STATEMENT CENSORED FOR CONTENT VIOLATION

I am quoting this so you can't get out of saying this.

Re: Voter suppression

Derid, I don't think pointing out that voter ID laws conveniently passed by GOP state governments, that are on the record saying this will guarantee Romney win, that also undeniably single out traditional democratic supporters - poor and minorities is anything like manufacturing alternative reality where Romney wins by a landslide.

Voter suppression - agree or disagree is an argument based on facts, and Romney landslide is pure fiction. He couldn't even win with such landslide among registered GOP voters, least in general election where other people inconveniently allowed to vote.

I disagree. Difference between normal election bravado and this "there is no way we could ever possibly lose this election, unless something fishy going to happen" is huge.

There is no denying that Romney could win. So could Obama. Race is close enough that it could go ether way.

Denying a possibility that other side is win is setting up conspiracy theories and attacking legitimacy of other side if they win.

As article pointed out - if Romney is in such huge lead, and Obama still happens to win, it isn't because nation is fed up with conservative policies, doctrine and it is time to change and modernize, but because other side cheated. This is setting up rationalization for their (in my mind inevitable) failure.

STATEMENT CENSORED FOR CONTENT VIOLATION

Mmmmkaaay.

And you still yet make light that you are a spineless worthless asshat.

I love how the left takes their own plans, assigns them to the right, then cries foul. George Soros operates in exactly the way Sini is predicting the right will by attempting to delegitimize the win of the person he doesn't support and instigating civil unrest in response.

"Others do it as well" requires evidence. Current news cycle is GOP beating '300+ electoral votes landslide win' drum. It is demonstrably out of touch with reality.

Really? Its no more out of touch than the left claiming they're going to win in a landslide.

6 weeks ago the polls were 50-47 in favor of Obama and all the media was singing about how Romney didn't even stand a chance. Now the numbers are reversed and you guys are saying that the GOP is blowing the difference out of proportion. You can't have it both ways.

Do some research on Soros and you will see that in addition to crashing currencies he has also tried, and succeeded in some cases, to influence elections, and when he fails he has the mechanism in place to incite civil unrest over the "unfairness" of the elections.

Perhaps you have a point.

Still, Romney had no chance before first-debate. If first debate didn't happen there would be no question who was going to win 2012 elections. That was the basis of "weeks ago" polls.

GOP polls are supposedly describe situation today, as it happens. Your polls can show that Romney win, but in a landslide? Regardless where you stand, you got to know that 300-point landslide is not possible.

More on this - The Atlantic writes...

It is the United States of Ohio folks, that is the race everyone needs to focus on. I don't see Mitt having a chance if he can't take Ohio.

Who knows who is going to turn out, and what the number will be. To close to call, but as an Obama fan, I am cautiously confident.

We are going to find out shortly!

Obama would have had an easy win in Ohio if it wasnt for the War on Coal. And Obamacare for that matter.

Well I think Romney sealed the deal with "Let Detroit go bankrupt" and the Jeep lie. We will see though.

Hard to say.

Lots of people know what the Dems were lying when they said Romney wanted Detroit to be "liquidated".

Which is what the Dems are equating Bankrupcy to.... liquidation.

Bankruptcy does not equal liquidation, or at least certainly wouldnt not have in the automakers case. Romney had said he thought the automakers should enter restructuring *first* and then if needed get a govt loan or whatnot.

So despite the way a few media outlets are trying to spin it, I can tell you that here in Ohio on the ground , amogst real people.... Team Obama is actually losing ground over it among many groups.

Because they think Obama is insulting their intelligence to not know the difference between a corporate bankruptcy restructuring and a bankruptcy liquidation.

wow. what short memories we have. does no one recall 2000? gore voters were crying about bush stealing the election for years!

talk about delegitimzing a president...

LOL go to a blue area and change republican to democrat you get the same result, why even bring up shit like this.

Do you get the same result? Dems get all high and mighty about social issues, but I don't think there is actual de-legitimization effort.

Watch GOP attempt to impeach Obama over something/anything during his second term.

If he does get a second term he would probably deserved to be Impeached. This shit over Libya is disgusting how they tried to play it off as a protest gone bad. When they had to facts well before they admitted that it was terrorism. Facts are facts... whether you choose to ignore them or not!

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

There is a perfectly good case that Obama is not legitimate and needs to be impeached.

Unfortunately, despite putting on the partisan show the MSM (and yes Fox is MSM) mostly ignores the real reasons he should be impeached. Like making recess appointments when congress isnt in recess, assassinating US citizens without due process, signing and using NDAA indefinite detention powers, etc.

for a thorough but still growing list, visit here:

http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2012/11/02/why-was-there-no-october-surprise/

Sorry guys, but I think the examples given are right wing spin and I strongly disagree with them.

I have the feeling that a majority of the US agrees and the president will be re-elected today.

Cheerio:

After much think-tank deliberation many years ago, it was decided that the memory span of the average voter is just shy of four years. Thus are the POTUS elections spaced apart to maximize this finding :D

Majority of the US consumes media that treats them like mushrooms, else neither Obama nor Romney would have a chance.

Also, my examples arent right wing spin. Even the more honorable and sane left wing writers and journalists have taken issue with them.

If you are a leftist, you should bbe voting for Jill Stein or Rocky Anderson.

If you are a centrist or conservative you should be voting Gary Johnson or for that guy of the Constitution Party whose name escapes me.

If you want to endorse evil, the corporate welfare state, destruction of the Constitution, senseless wars , corruption, and the destruction of our country and economy via monetary and fiscal mismanagement - vote R or D

Its really as simple as that.

Again, I dont agree.

Why not?

Its established fact that Obama has done the things I outlined previously.

Especially if you live in a state that will go Dem anyhow, I do not see how anyone could in good conscience support Obama - the "Romney is even worse" rationalization dissapears under that circumstance.

I can, because he supports my values.


-Ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) in our military
-Stopped defending DOMA in court.
-Passed the Hate Crimes bill.
-Appointed two pro-choice women to the Supreme Court.
-Expanded access to medical care and provided subsidies for people who can't afford it.
-Expanded the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
-Fixed the preexisting conditions travesty [and rescissions] in health insurance.
-Invested in clean energy.
-Overhauled the credit card industry, making it much more consumer-friendly. (While Dodd-Frank bill was weak in many respects, it was still an extremely worthwhile start at re-regulating the financial sector.)
-He created a Elizabeth Warren's dream agency: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. (SHE WON TOO, HURAHH!)
-He got help for people whose health was injured during the clean-up after the 9/11 attacks.
Just to name a few.

These are my values, and obviously a majority of the countries.

The credit card industry did not become more consumer friendly. The costs were just shuffled around. More low income borrowers denied credit.

His "investment" in clean energy was simply the process of giving our money, to connected cronies for no return. No two ways about it.

If the CFPB actually serves the interests on consumers over the long term, I will bbe *extremely surprised. I predict fail there, though it will take time to prove me right.

Hate Crimes bill was stupid, a crime is a crime is a crime - crimes are provable, motivations are often not.

Made a recess appointment to new agency, when congress wasnt in recess. I dont care if you think the agency was the best thing since sliced bread, there is no ethical justification for that.

Signed NDAA, returning us to pre-Magna Carta days where the King can arbitrarily imprison anyone he wants.

Defends NDAA in court aggressively, despite the fact that no sane person would call it Constitutional or Just. Just think, your "guy" is in the same camp with Lindsey Graham.

Prosecutes more whistleblowers than all the other Presidents combined.

And many more.

Sadly, yes, style over substance - rhetoric over principle , evil over good are indeed things shared by a majority of the electorate.

Almost Half of Republicans Indulge the 'Stolen Election' Delusion

Who says it is a delusion? Theres enough fraud attempts on both sides, assuming that each side cancels out the other in any particular election is silly.

Its a pity no states will secede though, in a perfect world all the people who wanted to escape the welfare/warfare/police state would be free to bunch up in a few states and secede. 300M is too many people to govern from one strong central authority.

Derid, your conspiracy-twin Mr. Hyde visited this thread.

There is absolutely no evidence of any substantial voter fraud, and there is no evidence that even if such fraud existed, the race was close enough where fraud would have turned.

Sure there is. You just have to pay attention to local news reports, it just doesnt show up on MSM primetime media often.

You are correct that there is not proof that

1) Dem voter fraud was greater than GOP fraud

2) That it was on a scale large enough to turn the election

These things are possible, but not proven or even certain. Dismissing something as "conspiracy theory" is quite often just a synonym for " I dont want to give this much thought, I feel comfortable with what I think I know at the moment so maybe if I call other people silly then people will stop questioning it".

Like right wing fewer swamp report that claimed 110% turnout based on misinterpreting data?

There is absolutely no evidence of voter fraud, and all claims so far have been shown to be FOX-induced delirium.

Please, Derid, your on-going slide into right-nut conspiracy theories troubling me. You are the last sane (as far as conservatives go) conservative on this board and you are appear to be succumbing to this hysteria and paranoia. Please don't leave me alone facing FOX-zombie crowd in a boarded-up house of reason.

/facepalm

My view has nothing to do with Fox

As usual you are assuming to much and thinking too little. It is what it is, both parties pull shady ass shit. My point is that we DONT KNOW to what degree the shady ass shit makes a difference, or how deep the shit runs.

I am not saying Obama did not win, or would not have won - I dont know. What I am saying, is there are far to many easily rigged electronic voting machines, and not nearly enough security , and too many trillions of dollars (literally) at stake for me to feel comfortable with close elections period.

Quit assuming that just because someone points out something you dont like, that you are justified for lobbing hyperbolic BS at them.

The only shady stuff that makes impact is gerrymandering. Even voter suppression with last minute ID laws didn't make that much impact.

There is no evidence whatsoever of actual poll fraud - you know they usual conspiracy theories of illegal immigrants and such voting.

As I have said before, I think in-person voting fraud is, in most cases, a non factor. The ratio of effort/number of involved actors/risk of discovery/etc is not congenial.

However, its extremely well documented how vulnerable electronic voting machines and voting tabulation systems are. Go google up some state reports on it. Or google up some independent analysis from security experts.

When considering attacking the vote tabulation mechanisms themselves, the ratio risk/reward/number of actors involved/risk of discovery/etc looks much more favorable. As such, it seems wise to be actively aware of the possibility and question the role it might be playing. People should be suspicious, and should share and spread that suspicion - trust in the system should be undermined, because it is unworthy of trust. If people come to grips with this, either electronic voting will be eliminated or at least security will be taken more seriously.

Also, there was a mega fuckton of evidence of polling shenanigans during the GOP primary. There is also evidence of shenanigans for past Presidential elections.

Your assumption that the only shady stuff that makes an impact is gerrymandering is just that - an assumption, and not one that is well grounded. Just because there is no public incontrovertible proof that it has happened does not mean it hasn't happened, and it doesn't mean that powerful interests - including foreign govts - haven't been clued in and arent tempted to take action in the future.

Derid, you are attempting to change the subject here. Your initial implicature was that people who believe that Obama sole election are not wrong.

Typical right wing hysteria is that Blacks and illegal Latinos stole election. Hence all voter ID laws that were pushed through. Note, it wasn't electronic voting accountability that these identified as the problem but actual in-person early voting fraud. When you considered this position you thankfully realized how indefensible it is and now changing subject to electronic voting.

So I consider this topic to be adequately addressed - there is absolutely no reason to believe that "do you think that ACORN stole it for him?" was the case.

Again, this is entirely different subject. I honestly do not care if and how GOP primary is conducted. If it was up to me I'd turn it into gladiatorial combat to death.

This is entirely different subject from "Obama stole election". Unless you are implying that Obama had something to do with GOP primary process.

No, you assumed to much and read something that wasnt there because of your own predjudiced reaction. You assume that anyone who disagreed with you did so because they are taking the "Fox" side. Thats your mistake, and has nothing to do with what I was or wasnt saying.

My thoughts on election fraud have been clearly consistent for a long time now.

I said:



You said:



And now you are saying:



So, Derid, where exactly did I "assumed"?

Survey question from the linked article:
"Do you think that Barack Obama legitimately won the Presidential election this year, or do you think that ACORN stole it for him?"

FYI: Anyone to answer, No I think ACORN stole it for him is delusional. More so, anyone who think that BO did not legitimately won the Presidential election is also delusional. It wasn't even that close of an election. Could you imagine magnitude of fraud required to turn what you suggest a legitimate Romney win into overwhelming and fraudulent victory for Obama?!

You dont know if its a delusion or not is my point.

"What about people who thought that Obama stole the election through means other than ACORN? Answering "ACORN stole it for him" seems like the best fit for them among the options given."

Crappy question, will get crappy responses. You seem to be focusing on the particulars of a badly worded question. I didnt pay much attention to the ACORN part just the general sentiment.

You seem hung up on the crappy wording of a crappy poll, instead of talking about the general issue.

So I didn't assumed after all, I understood your words exactly how you meant them.

Alright, lets drop ACORN part.

"Do you think that Barack Obama legitimately won the Presidential election this year?"

You are delusional if your answer is No. Note that it didn't ask "Do you think that there was no incidences of voter fraud whatsoever of any kind anywhere".

You did assume, and as I said previously the answer is "We Dont Know". Lack of data. I think its dangerous to make a hard assumption one way or another, the election was close enough that it is quite possible shenanigans won him the day - and its also possible that GOP shenanigans actually were more effectual and Obama won anyhow.

It is also technically possible that noone tried any shady shit - though considering the character of the people who wield power, and the literally trillions of dollars of loot at stake, I tend to subjectively rate this as the lowest probability.

Quit trying to make stupid "gotchas" out of serious issues.

So you cherry pick one thing he was using to make a point and go insane about how he is changing the subject? You my friend need to learn to be open minded, all the talking points and progressive propaganda seems to have taken its toll. Open your mind to new ideas, that is once you escape the re-education camp you are in.

Both of you are nuts.

GOP primaries still have nothing to do with Obama, clean your own house.

We do know election results, and it wasn't even close.

logic fail is fail

point of GOP primaries is

a) people in power are willing to abuse the process when able to do so

b) it has been proven that at times they are able to do so

If you think the Dem establishment is any more ethical than the GOP establishment... then I dont know what else to say.

Are you truly so obtuse as to not get this simple point?

--

Secondly, the election was VERY close. Romney lost enough states by a VERY SMALL margin to have won the election. Remember, its the Electoral College - not popular vote that determines winner.

You argued yourself into a corner, tried to switch topics and now desperately trying to deny what you said just a couple posts prior.

As to elections, no it wasn't even close. Unless you are Karl Rove. Start dealing with it.

332 vs 206

I know couple weeks have passed and conservatives are still in denial about whole thing, but 2012 election wasn't close by any definition of the word 'close'.

Um, huuh? Doctor check doctor check, is there a doctor in the house? I do believe my pal here took a nasty spill and needs his head examined.

If you want to try and make a fine point of it, the article survey quoted in a post I replied to did in fact say "ACORN" - even though my reply was certainly not with ACORN is mind, and was more about the replying to your sentiment that anyone who thought there might be election shenanigans was "delusional" - but it did say "ACORN". So, if you want to argue that point - congrats, you "got me" on a technicality.

/golfclap

I see you have made it to about step 2 on the 3-step program.

step 1) Become extremely animated and excitable while parroting various talking points

step 2) Stop focusing on having a discussion of topic, and instead focus on word games revolving around context and usage of particular phrase - pursue a syntactical "gotcha" in an agressive and semi mouth-frothing manner.

step 3) pissing on graves

http://www.policymic.com/articles/18815/...paul-supporters

Pretty sure you have already seen this in some form.

Those 5 States alone add up to 71 electoral votes.

So subtract 71 from Obama total of 332 , leaving 261 electoral votes.

Add 71 to Romney total of 206 - making 277 electoral votes.

The total spread of these 5 states is just slightly under 300k votes. So, Romney lost by ~300k votes if we want to talk simply in additive terms... if we consider switched votes, he lost by ~150k. All 5 states are within the margin of possible skullduggery , should said skullduggery exist. (And not exactly the same tale the final electoral numbers would tell, 150k or even 300k does not a landslide make)

I know math does not seem to be your strong suit, despite some odd claims of using math to make huge dollars.... but this is just simple arithmetic.

Please, at least try to keep up.

And if California voted Republican, Romney would have won too, so it must be voter fraud in California that allowed Obama to win. Right?

Don't confuse your wishful thinking with reality. 5 states and 71 electoral votes is not a close election. Start internalizing this fact.

1. Obama won

2. Obama isn't looking to negotiate shit. He wants higher taxes, you add the Obamacare penalty, tax, xmass present or whatever the fuck you want to call it. I call it more money coming out of my pocket.

3. It seems nobody wants real reform, because everyone keeps buying their bullshit. If we had REAL reform in taxes & Healthcare (not this Obamacare bullshit) we would see real changes. Nobody wants to do anything, everyone is afraid because it may mean they could lose a re-election. This reason alone should be why we have term limits. Nobody in Government should be hold a seat more than 8 years. If they're not moving up then it's time to move out, it's that simple.

We need to sit aside this absurd bullshit that big Government is better. Limited Government with real solutions is what we need. All we are getting now is a bunch of retards that can't play on the playground together.

I honestly did not think it was possible for you to fall even further than you have these past few days.

150k switched votes is very close

We are talking about theoretical possibility of shenanigans here. You do remember that right?

Did you really think making a false analogy re: California was relevant?

At least you finally came to terms that this is "theoretical possibility", unlike 49% of GOP voters that shared your earlier opinion that this is proven fact.

No, 5 states, some with GOP state majorities, is not close. This non-closeness makes already questionable conspiracy theories about voter fraud even less relevant.

California was not a false analogy, chances of ONE California not voting for Romney due to fraud is about the same as chances of FIVE different states not voting for Romney due to fraud. Both are "possibilities" purely in statistical sense, not something taken serious outside of GOP fever swamps.

Wtf do you mean "finally"?

That was my position from the start, stop taking the piss. Your position was anyone questioning the possibility of shenanigans was "delusional" , which was my objection. You are getting a bad habit of making silly assertions then insulting people who disagree so I called you on it. Now you have degenerated to making false attributions. Its unsightly.

If you think your CA reference wasnt a false analogy, you need to rethink.

Since your grasp of the obvious is apparently weak, I will explain it for you.

There are two key points that you are ignoring

1) Absolute number of votes that would need meddled with. It doesnt matter if its 5 states or 1 state, this is the most important number in this discussion. Provided that is, all states had sufficient number of vulnerable points.


2) public acceptance. Obviously the whole world would go "wtf?" if CA voted GOP. It would be pretty hard to swallow, especially since even the most right wing polling data never gave GOP a shot at CA. Other states were too close to call. On top of that, while I have not bothered to look - I would wager plenty of real money that the CA spread was far far higher than 300k.

I think this demonstrates many things - namely that you have a very difficult time determining what data is actually important in regards to analyzing a particular problem. Suddenly it becomes clear how you arrive at some of your other various conclusions.

Going from this:


To this:


Is progress. Don't regress on me.

Is English your second or third language?

Just askin.

Because holding an opinion where there is a legitimate statistical chance that a condition is true (in this case shenanigans) does not make one delusional.

Perhaps Websters can help you find out what the word delusion actually means.

Its ok, keep up the personal attacks - I enjoy watching you squirm.

It baffles me that you unapologetically, in the face of your own words to the contrary, would call what is black white.

From the linked article:

Question: "Do you think that Barack Obama legitimately won the Presidential election this year?"

Answer from nearly half of all GOPs: "I think Barack Obama illegitimately won the election this year".

I stated such answer would be delusional.

You replied with:

"You dont know if its a delusion or not is my point."

"You don't know" is 'guarding' your point. So is "or not". Underlining premise is "its not a delusion". This premise is false. You stated it. Now you are trying to get out of saying it. Not going to happen.

Let me lay it out for you carefully then.

You do not have sufficient evidence that no shenanigans happened that influenced the outcome of the election to rightfully call those who think there was shenanigans delusional.

So, no - if you think the election was influenced - you are not delusional. That is my point. You may not be correct to say the election was influenced, but given the overall electoral conditions, you may be correct.

The point is, you are calling those who do not hold to your biased and uninformed preconceptions delusional. Which is something I find rather silly.

"A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.[1] Unlike hallucinations, delusions are always pathological (the result of an illness or illness process).[1] As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, or other effects of perception"

First of all there is not superior evidence that no shenanigans occurred. You will undoubtedly claim that you cannot prove a negative, which is true but irrelevant here because you can create a strong case in this context - at least hypothetically. Given the known vulnerabilities of our electoral system, there is no strong case or body of evidence discouraging a rational belief that shenanigans occurred.

Even polls were split on who would win. Saying that a poll you favored was obviously right because it favored Obama and Obama won is circular logic in this case. If Romney had won, the "other" side would be making the same claims. Objectively speaking, the odds that shenanigans influenced the race would still be unchanged.

Secondly, Dogma is going to be responsible for many people thinking the election was possibly stolen. Dogma is not a pathology.

"""You don't know" is 'guarding' your point. So is "or not". Underlining premise is "its not a delusion". This premise is false. You stated it. Now you are trying to get out of saying it. Not going to happen.""

I think your twisting semantics into a pretzel here trying to imply that I am "trying to get out of saying" anything. What I am saying is that you are wrong to cast about with insults because people do not agree with your various prejudices. Which is what I have been saying the whole time, though it has been amusing watching you play semantics games to try and justify yourself.

“You do not have sufficient evidence that no shenanigans happened that influenced the outcome of the election”.

I have sufficient evidence: A) The Federal Election Commission endorsed tally of United States Electoral College is in, and it is 332 Obama to 206 Romney. These are official results; they are not disputed, are not in process of counting/recounting, are not being challenged in courts. B) Romney, an official GOP leader and the GOP presidential campaign nominee, conceded and acknowledged Democratic victory.

This is all evidence I need to be absolutely justified beyond any reasonable doubt that US 2012 election legitimately resulted in the victory for Democrats/Obama.

“You will undoubtedly claim that you cannot prove a negative, which is true but irrelevant here because you can create a strong case in this context - at least hypothetically.”

You are absolutely right that I will claim “you cannot prove a negative”, but you are unjustified in discounting it as irrelevant. Your line of reasoning – paraphrasing: “there is no strong evidence to suggest that there wasn’t any tampering occurred, hence tampering did occur and it did determined elections outcome as a result election was stolen” is a fallacious for following reasons. First, you are applying unreasonable standard of having evidence of no tampering. How would such evidence, aside from existence of undisputed official tally, look like? 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.

“The point is, you are calling those who do not hold to your biased and uninformed preconceptions delusional. Which is something I find rather silly.”

In this case delusional is a rhetorical device. When I say: “Delusional knuckle-draggers emerged from the stygian depths of right-wing fever swamps to beget yet another tinfoil conspiracy” I ‘formally’ mean: “You have started with a false premise when you claim elections were stolen.” Later doesn’t quite have the same zing to it as former, and as you probably well aware I am a huge fan of thinly veiled insults.

As to your quoted statement – you’ve yet to demonstrate “uninformed” or “biased” in context of our argument. I’m not the one to complain about abuse, but you have to keep in mind that pure abuse and complaining is not an argument.

“So, no - if you think the election was influenced - you are not delusional. That is my point. You may not be correct to say the election was influenced, but given the overall electoral conditions, you may be correct.”

First, the article I presented, or any of my follow-up posts at no point claimed to present evidence that there was no “shenanigans” present in 2012 election. As we discussed above, such evidence does not, could not exist.

Second, original discussion was very specifically worded to talk about stolen/not stolen election results. It didn’t concern with some hypothetical level of shenanigans that would not result in changing the outcome of elections, it was specifically worded (and used ACORN as an example) to state that level of shenanigans was sufficiently large to determine the outcome of 2012 elections.

Third, by further guarding/weakening your premise to paraphrase: “maybe some tampering, but not enough to change the outcome” you no longer oppose my stated argument. Again, my argument was never “there is no shenanigans”, I don’t know that; my argument was that “believing that there was so much shenanigans that it determined the outcome of otherwise not close election is delusional” and now you argued yourself into a corner where you do not strictly oppose my argument.

“Even polls were split on who would win. Saying that a poll you favored was obviously right because it favored Obama and Obama won is circular logic in this case.”

First, you are attacking a straw man. This is first time polls were mentioned in this argument and you brought it up. Second, polls, especially partisan ones, are at best weakly predictive. If polls is your justification for claiming shenanigans (you have yet to present any other), then you are not simply unjustified by alluding to some “hypothetical”, you are demonstrably wrong in asserting “shenanigans” solely based on poll information going in. You and Karl Rove and 49% of GOP voters.

Formally:

(Premise 1) tampering did occur
(Premise 2) tampering determined election outcome
------
(Conclusion ) election was stolen

Is invalid.

P1 True
P2 True
------
C False

Such scenario is possible.

Election wasn't stolen, then it must be the case that ether tampering did not occur or tampering did not determine election outcome.

For example, there was nothing but tamperng from both sides, as there was no legitimate votes casted, not even a single one. In this case P1 and P2 are true, but C is false. As such, your argument is (formally) invalid.

Wow, and you have the nerve to call someone uninformed? SPLIT??? Really? 538 which I was quoting over and over was ALMOST EXACTLY ON!

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

So many of you bitched about RealClearPolitics and it was RIGHT ON!

The skewed republican crap that Romney and Rove actually quoted even after they lost does not count as split.

Truly amazing that you right wingers still cant face the facts and leave the bubble.

You now you cant truly prove anything ever. But you can make a mature and informed decision based on the facts. You right wing nuts have been consistently wrong, and without ever admitting it, continue to spew the same republican bubble shit. Sooner or later you are going to have to face the truth and fact that you are and have been consistently WRONG.

Yes Jet some people nailed it. However you are missing the point entirely. The relevance of polls here is public perception. As long as reported results fall within a certain range covered by a significant body of polling, the public will tend to accept reported results.

In other words, had Romney won - by legit or by chicanery, it would be Rove being called spot on and not Silver. The spread of mainstream polls is basically a barometer of what the public will swallow, and any chicanery occurring that leads to a result that falls in that window + is not caught red handed will tend to pass undetected.

huh...

You are trying to make an argument from final consequences here - trying to say that because the election wasnt stolen therefore the premise p1/p2 must be false.

Also, you are making another false analogy in your last text block, because perception of legitimacy is crucial + many vote were cast on paper establishing a body of comparatively incorruptible votes. So your example becomes absurd, and therefore is not useful.

Your first premise is false. If the type of shenanigans possible due to poor security outlined by myself and numerous State Audits and Security Analysts was readily detectable - then they would by definition no longer be security risks.

Your second assertion is silly semantics, as stated previously you were wording your disdain much too strongly. Yes if you cite ACORN specifically, then it becomes ridiculous - however questioning the general validity of our process in the age of unsecured electronic voting is rational.

Third: you are just playing meaningless word games here and moving goalposts. You need to parse what I said in relation to stated intent relative to your stated assertions. Not going to waste time correcting your deliberate misinterpretations. I restated for clarity - which you have ignored because you did not want clarity, you wanted to dodge and weave.

As to you last statement block - see my response to Jet. Apparently somehow you have not grasped that concept yet. The induction of poll was not to be predictive, it is a measure of what the public will swallow. IE: Had the result been outside mainstream polling values, people would scrutinize the results and be less likely to accept an outcome. Shenanigans only work when the final result still falls into the real of what people expect to see. So your entire assertion here is invalid, because your the one straw manning it up - never used polls as a justification for shenanigans, thats your assumption due to either your own dogma or a lack of reading comprehension.

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.

No, its not. You seem to truly be well into delusion now, in the literal sense. This discussion is exactly as I stated inn my last post - its about *your behavior*.

No amount of dodging, weaving, insulting, attempted obfuscation or anything else will change that. You need to either 1) apologize to all the people you have baselessly insulted, including , apparently, 50% of the GOP voting base - or 2) construct a rebuttal that it not readily demonstratable as a fallacy.

Please, if you cannot act like a rational person and address the actual topic - which, much to your disappointment you do not get to change by fiat - please feel free to take your ball and go home. Since your attempt to change the format to formal debate failed as miserably as your attempt to win by flamewar I see you have devolved to insult again.

So I will say it one more time: apologize for your behavior, or concoct a justification not readily demonstrable as fallacy.

(addendum: or give a good reason why I should listen to an argument that is an obvious and demonstrable fallacy.)

Derid, you are acting irrationally. Feel free to continue "debating" by declaration, but deductive reasoning does not work that way.

You premises are still false, your argument is invalid and as a result your conclusion is unsound. You have not addressed any of it outside of simpleton "no U! haha I win!" rebuttals.

Feel free consider my points and address any of what I have brought up when you are up for it. Until then, I will consider you a card-carrying member of delusional nuts who believe elections were stolen.

I underlined relevant parts for your convenience. Argument cannot proceed until you adequately address all of them.

Just FYI - acting in a certain manner, then falsely claiming the other party is actually the party acting in that manner does not win you any points.

You do this far far too often, and toss in some silly remarks to boot.

I already demonstrated how the underlined portion of your last quotes are incorrect/invalid/absurd - in that order. Should you choose to use your brain for something other than dogma shoveling you will come to understand that.

This was my post on 12/7 btw... addressing the last of your string of fallacies that had yet to be addressed.

Where you said

And as I said a long time ago, if you want info on the state of voting security google it your own self. While I am happy to adopt a more formal tone when you do so, I am not going back and retroactively do so. I felt no need to respond thoroughly and formally to your snide BS lobbing then, and still do not feel particularly compelled.

Good place to start is State of Ohio audits on the subject, but google will have plethora of other references from various state audits and professional security analysts.

I have to admit that it's getting very boring reading the same rebuttal in thread after thread. "You haven't addressed my points, therefore I win." Since you are such a fan of pointing out the fallacies in other people's statements, allow me to demonstrate yours.

First of all, this entire argument is guilty of the appeal to ignorance fallacy, since you are debating over something that cannot positively be proven true or false. If you believe that it can be proven either way, then the burden is on you to do so. Have fun with that.

Second, nearly every thread in this forum is filled to bursting with ad hominem arguments. Everyone has been guilty of this, and unless you guys just really like trolling each other, you should really tone that down some.

Third, you (sini) are constantly guilty of the straw man fallacy when, whether willfully or through ignorance, you misrepresent or twist your opponent's argument into something it is not. In this case, Derid is not trying to prove to you that the election was stolen. If you don't believe me, re-read the thread and find the spot where he said, "yes, the election was stolen." Instead, he is trying to show you how it's impossible for you or anybody else to say that it wasn't stolen. Since this argument is not one you can win, you instead twist his argument to make it seem as though he is one of the 49% that believe (more on this in a moment) that the election was stolen and then proceed to try to punch holes in that position.

I personally couldn't care less, but if I had to comment on the legitimacy of the election, I would say that in all likelihood there was just as much tampering by one side as the other, so whatever. There probably hasn't been a legitimate presidential victory in the past 20 years (note the use of the word "probably" as opposed to "definitely"). Here is the point where you commit another fallacy. The article you linked earlier is a poll that shows that 49% of Republican voters believe that the election was stolen. For you to dismiss this argument out of hand as you have is an argument from silence. I'm not saying they are correct, but I cannot sit here and say that they are wrong just because I think so. The fact is that there is no evidence that says it was or wasn't stolen.




What you are saying is that since the outcome was a win for Obama as determined by the governing body, and since the opponent conceded that it was a win for Obama, then there could not possibly have been any tampering. You are saying that the end proves the means, which is impossible. The outcome can neither prove nor disprove the means used to reach it. Here, let me demonstrate: "Your dog's puppies look just like my dog, so they must have mated." -OR- "Those puppies look nothing like my dog, so some other dog must be the sire." Neither of these statements are necessarily true, but neither can be proven false without much further investigation.




First, your paraphrasing of Derid's reasoning is exactly the straw man I referred to earlier. Derid has absolutely not been asserting that the lack of evidence that there was no tampering proves that there was tampering. As I said before, his position the entire time has been that there is no way to positively prove that tampering did or did not occur.

You made two mistakes in the second part. You continue to stand on the 332 v 206 electoral count to describe the election as not close when it has already been demonstrated to you that the margin of victory was a mere 300k votes. Had those votes gone the other way, would you believe that Obama lost in a landslide? I won't presume to know the answer to that question. The last part of your statement is a non sequitor. For one thing, you again use the straw man to make it appear that Derid has concluded that there was tampering and that it affected this election, which is not the case, but then you go a step farther and reason that for that to have been the case in this election it must have been the case in all of the previous ones. That logic does not follow.

Now, since you brought up this subject, and since you are the one that dismissed the other side of the argument out of hand, if anyone here is responsible for providing evidence to support their argument it is you. So I will end with this. If you believe that the election was won legitimately, with no tampering whatsoever, and that all of the people that believe otherwise are delusional knuckle-draggers, prove it. I will not try to prove that it wasn't, because I already know that doing so would be virtually impossible.

P.S. Derid, please forgive me (and correct me) if I have misunderstood your position here or if you take offense to me trying to defend said position.

Above is my original post. My point was - people calling election STOLEN are DELUSIONAL.

It in no uncertain words stated STOLEN ELECTION in the link, quote and the article also talks about this. Survey question also talks about STOLEN ELECTION in no uncertain words.

So when Derid objected to this article, he implicitly agreed with STOLEN part.

His later re-phrasing to "election fraud possibly occurred" simply does not flow if you interpreted literally, it does not contradict MY POINT. The only way it could make sense if he is suppressing his premise, and this is exactly what he is doing, because otherwise it DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.

Again:

(P) There was election fraud
(P) Obama won election
---------------
(C) Election was stolen

Is this the argument we are discussing?


To restate my argument:

(P) Some people believe elections were stolen
(P) There is no evidence of fraud
----------
(C) There people are delusional

This is the problem with your viewpoint: Just because they believe something that probably isn't true does not make them delusional. I could just as easily call you delusional for believing beyond any doubt that the election was not stolen. Neither side could prove their position. Just so we're clear, I tend to agree with you that people that refuse to accept the outcome of the election are probably deluding themselves, but I would not go so far as to lay a blanket label of 'delusional' on everyone who is of the opinion that there were shenanigans, simply because of how easy voter fraud is to commit these days.

Also, and I believe Derid made this point earlier in the thread, the poll was so poorly worded that it becomes a causal oversimplification and a false dilemma. The fact is that anyone stupid enough to actually respond to this poll deserves to be lambasted in the article, regardless of which option they chose. Even the article itself points out this glaring flaw in the poll.




For clarity, what exactly is your point in this argument? That the people who agreed that the election was stolen are delusional? See my previous statements. If your point is otherwise, go ahead and state it clearly for me.

I disagree with your assertion that Derid's objection to the article is the same as implicit agreement with part of its content. That doesn't really make any sense. Again, I believe that Derid's objection was to your opinion that there was no possibility of tampering in the election. There simply isn't any way for you to prove that. Intellectually you have to be willing to concede that. I'm not asking you to concede that the election was rigged, only that you can't know whether or not it was, just as I can't. Trust me, we all know that you believe it was not, and you are not wrong to believe that.




No I don't think we're discussing the first argument there, that simply makes no sense. It's based on a faulty premise for which there is no evidence, and the conclusion does not follow from the two premises even if they were both true.

In your argument, P2 again uses the argument from silence. Lack of evidence for is not evidence against. Your conclusion then in this case is based on a faulty premise. This argument could be made in the same way, but would also be wrong:

(P) Some people believe the election was stolen
(P) There is evidence of the ability to commit voter fraud
-----------------------------
(C) The election was stolen

The overriding point here is not that you are wrong, but that you can't be right in this argument. You will (reasonable assumption here) never be able to prove that the election was stolen or not stolen. We can go on like this forever, because this argument is pointless and not winnable.

Brutal wrote: " and unless you guys just really like trolling each other"

- Guilty as charged

--------

Sinij wrote: " So when Derid objected to this article, he implicitly agreed with STOLEN part."

- I dont know how many times I need to restate hoping you will finally get it, my objection was to your insulting manner towards everyone who did not hold to *your* belief that it was 100% legit. Doing so does not require me to believe it was stolen, only that you do not have sufficient evidence to level such strong dismissive language towards those who might disagree.

On a related note, you had been employing this tactic in thread after thread lobbing what I refer to as "Dogmatic BS bombs" - basically the rhetorical equivalent of walking around with a chip on your shoulder. Me being me, I will happily knock it off - cause thats what I do.

------

Brutal wrote: "P.S. Derid, please forgive me (and correct me) if I have misunderstood your position here or if you take offense to me trying to defend said position."

- You are spot on , that is precisely my position. And you are free to post whatever you want here.

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

Brutal wrote: "I personally couldn't care less, but if I had to comment on the legitimacy of the election, I would say that in all likelihood there was just as much tampering by one side as the other, so whatever."

- I pretty much agree with this. In the past my complaints about election security have been under the auspices of a GOP win. Generally I evangelize the security issue, because I think it transcends ideological and party lines. I consider election security to be poor, and it will not improve until and unless people of all major ideologies agree that it needs improved. 8 years ago, questioning election security brought the ire of GOPers. The last 4 years questioning election security has brought the ire of Dems. Neither side wants to address election security when "their" guy has recently "won" and I think that is a problem.

A large part of the reason I trolled so hard as opposed to taking a reasoned approach, was the fact that I have been on record here many many times - including in recent weeks, as bringing up election security in a GOP unfriendly light - even recounting actual shenanigans re: voting machines and precinct assignments that were racially tinged, that I saw with my own 2 eyes in addition to reports of and evidence of (but not proof of) possible tampering in the past (namely 2004) in Ohio (where I live). So being labelled as a "right right swamp fever dweller" or whatever, was something I thought merited a deep and thorough trolling. Considering I am copiously on record of being skeptical of election security in general, not just when side "A" or side "B" happens to have most recently won.


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

Welcome to the political forums Brutal.

This is all about intellectual sword fighting and is ALWAYS in goo fun. None of us take it personally, and just like to troll, Peacock, etc.

Webster: Delusion



"Just because they believe something that probably isn't true does not make them delusional."

Way I understand Webster definition of delusion, yes it does. Plus you are arguing semantics here, would it work better for you if I called them simply 'Wrong'? If you read my numerous posts on this subject, you will find that I did specify exactly what I meant.

Here is what I said:



"I could just as easily call you delusional for believing beyond any doubt that the election was not stolen."

You can't - first I never stated "believing beyond any doubt", if you present irrefutable evidence I will change my mind. Second, and more important distinction, is that I do not hold unjustified belief.

Here is direct quote stating my justification for my opinion:


"No I don't think we're discussing the first argument there, that simply makes no sense. It's based on a faulty premise for which there is no evidence, and the conclusion does not follow from the two premises"

Plus it is an invalid argument, so we don't even need to demonstrate that premises are fallacious. This is why I keep asking, and yet to get an answer that I can understand, but this is how I see Derid's position.

Derid position is one of the following:

a. He does not contradict my original position.

or

b. He has an invalid argument with a false premises.

I don't see "c." - do you?




My argument is:

(P1) Some people believe the elections was stolen
(P2) There is no evidence of fraud
----------
(C) There people are delusional

It is valid.
P1 false P2 true results in C false
P1 true P2 false results in C false
P1 false P2 false results in C false
It is sound.

P1 true - as per article I linked
P2 is true, you are technically correct that by itself it can be considered an argument from silence, but supressed premise here "that they presented". At no point in this discussion any evidence of voter fraud was presented. Additionally, as I disucessed with Derid, such fraud must be very substantial (5 states!) in order to have an effect.

In light of your comments:

(P1) Some people believe the elections was stolen
(P2) There is no evidence of substantial fraud that they preseted
----------
(C) There people are delusional

Sinij wrote: "My argument is:

(P1) Some people believe the elections was stolen
(P2) There is no evidence of fraud
----------
(C) There people are delusional "

- There is considerable body of evidence that fraud is possible to pull off. Enough to induce a plausible doubt in the validity of the result.


Sinij wrote: "Additionally, as I disucessed with Derid, such fraud must be very substantial (5 states!) in order to have an effect."

- One voting machine, 1000 voting machines, one tallying server 5 tallying servers - if the same vulnerabilities are present combined with the same lack of security protocol - what difference would it make?

Analogy: The Oracle JVM currently has a large security flaw. If you have a tool to exploit that flaw, is using that tool on 5 different machines that have a JVM installed particularly more difficult than using it on one? The inverse is actually true, when talking about systems security (and by this I include any process not just software systems) security is actually asymmetric. Given a widespread vulnerability, it actually becomes more difficult for the defender because the resources that must be expended by the defender to detect and/or intercept an attack attempt are vastly higher than the resources that must be spend by an attacker to make an attempt.

The 300k number was the smallest known spread with readily available numbers, and reflected just one hypothetical scenario. In reality the vulnerable surface area was much, much larger.

Derid, do you know if these flaws can be exploited remotely? From what I read they require local access, as such your comparison does not hold.

Additionally, do you know if they all use the same system? I was under impression that there are multiple types of machines, am I wrong?

Last but not least, I was under impression that there are still some places that do hand-counting and/or require paper trail. Is this not the case?

As applicable to "close call" sites, any of them would fall into above-mentioned categories?

Also, would you consider that possibility is not sufficient?

It is possible for me to win a lottery, but if I claim I have a winning lottery ticket before the results are announced, you can call me delusional. Would you agree?

There are many different systems, I am familiar with some of them in Ohio. The fact that there are many different systems actually adds to the security concerns, as opposed to detracting from them. A prospective attacker has years to devise tools and methods of attack while the defenders have X more scenarios and vulnerabilities to look out for during an extremely small window of time when 1000 things are occurring simultaneously.

In Ohio I can state with confidence that electronic voting is the norm, and security protocol is lax.

Not all flaws require someone to be on location. The centralized vote tallying servers can also be attacked. As can the path between the voting machines and the server. There was actual a considerable body of circumstantial evidence that this occurred in Ohio in 2004. Circumstantial evidence is not proof, but it can certainly raise valid concerns about the process.

It is worth noting that some areas, including Ohio have tighter regulation on how results are officially reported than in 2004 - including not allowing official results to be transmitted over the internet. But that does not mean there not still many issues.

Some long but worthwhile reading here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/art-levine/mia-in-voting-machine-war_b_2054411.html

From your Webster's link, I think this definition should be noted as well:



Emphasis added by me. Again, there is no indisputable evidence to contradict their belief that the election was stolen. Let me restate my position here: I agree with you that the election was probably a legitimate win for Obama, but I cannot concede the possibility that it wasn't, nor do I agree with your broad labeling of those who disagree with your view as delusional (but they probably are).

The only true way to test if they are delusional would be to present them with some indisputable evidence that the result was legit and see how they respond.

The voting machines that I've been able to briefly 'take a look at' were all "offline models", which reported to a central computer(s)/system(s) in the voting location. It's the state of that central computer(s)/system(s) which would probably be the largest concern in terms of 'remote worries'. The last such system that I was allowed to glance at (on the 2008 election voting day) definitely had an Ethernet connection going out to a wall-jack at the location.

Last I heard there were ~15 different manufacturer's being utilized around the globe...not certain how many total utilized in the U.S.

Gentlemen please! I manage the teams that support the systems that develop the IBM IMS database that is the engine behind the entire ATM banking system worldwide. If you wanted to exploit something, then why waste time on elections. Go after IMS and get instantly rich.

The track record here is impeccable, so try another theory.

Because the voting machines are easier, with less security, less ways to catch a crook ( you dont have to launder stolen votes) and actually more money to be stolen than any ATM.

After all, Bernanke is basically stealing $45B from all of us and handing it directly to plutocrats and banksters each month. Thats pretty strong incentive to rig the system - and just 1 out of 10000 different incentives. ( From military contracts to homeland security contracts... and beyond. )

Sorry Jet, just because your preconceptions do not agree with the possibility - you cannot just dismiss it out of hand.

I actually agree with Derid that it would be by far easier to compromise voting machines because there isn't a standard or dedicated secure network reserved just for voting like with banking. PCI is one case where self-regulation works, well as far as security of banking transactions, hacking is extremely rare.

With that said, it doesn't mean that elections are ever hacked or banking is never hacked.

IMS has a 100% track record.

The aliens are coming, and you guys are crazy.

Its just one component of the financial system though. Instead of breaking thoroughly researched , tested and monitored systems... people who hack banks typically just crack/obtain some manager or admins passwords.

Banks get hacked all the time, fraud happens all the time. Few people will bother trying to attack a component IBM has likely invested 8 figure+ sums in securing. Not when you can sploit a vulnerability on a crappy website somewhere, get 10k credit card numbers and turn em into cash at about a 40% rate from your local mobster. (especially if you are in Eastern Europe)

Or 1000 other simple schemes usable by anyone who can use a canned script, and has a way to launder money.

Most devastating attacks known to day are based on reverse lookup table. This is pretty much worst-case scenario where you have to re-issue everything. I personally know of couple examples where cost-cutting with HSM resulted in this.

Jet is right, anything outside of individual banks, payment and transaction clearing house and such, have never been hacked. This doesn't mean it will never get hacked. For example, breakthrough in quantum computing or some new algorithmic vulnerability can result in a working exploit before it becomes public. Fortunately, all of them (up to this point) were discovered through academia or IBM labs, with the team publishing major exploit (e.g. distributed computing attack on DES in 99) get guaranteed academic tenure and funding forever. This is extra-strong incentive to not sit on your discovery.

Way cryptography science is set up is that you only need to demonstrate existential forgery, that is you don't have to have working exploit, it is sufficient to show that one could exist. This is absolutely right approach, any algorithm that could have successful attack done against it is replaced, so by the time exploits derived most of the important stuff moved on to new things. In cryptography _ALL_ exploits/hacks are due to improper implementation, what/how possibly someone can hack is very known.

This is very much unlike software industry, where zero-day exploits are mostly unknown until they are a) sold to vendor b) exploit is detected in the wild and reported.


Now all of the about is very interesting, but we still haven't settled the topic of conversation: Simple possibility of voter fraud is insufficient justification to claim elections were stolen.

Evidence of voter fraud of sufficient severity -> election stolen

Otherwise it is appeal to probability.

Nothing wrong with appealing to probability, because not trying to prove something did happen only that it might have happened.

You are never going to objectively quantify the probability , so why bother trying.

As for hacking banks, yeah attacking the crypto itself is usually futile. People are the weak link security speaking. Transport might not have been hacked, but financial institutions have been hacked a ton. Cant tell if you are saying that or not from your wording though.

Well, aside from it being a known fallacy?



You can't prove that it might happen based on simple possibility of it happening, because it might happen or it might not happen.

Think of it this way - I can buy a lottery ticket and might win it, simply buying a lottery ticket is not in any way can be considered an evidence of winning a lottery.

(P1) I bought lottery ticket
-------
(C) I won lottery

Above is invalid argument, because I could have bought non-winning ticket. So P1 can be true while C is false making it invalid argument.

(P1) I bought lottery ticket
(P2) Lottery ticket I bought has a winning number
----------
(C) I won lottery

Above is valid argument.

If argument is invalid, I don't have to consider premises to know it cannot be sound.

Please consider implications of this.

If you like, I can do a write up on formal reasoning to explain it in more details.

/facepalm /facepalm /facepalm /facepalm /quintuplemegafacepalm

"appeal to probability" is only a fallacy if you are trying to prove something *did* or *will* happen not something could or might happen.

A probability that something *might* have happened is a probability that.... something might have happened. Trying to use your lottery analogy in the context of this discussion invokes at least 5 fallacies, after that I stopped counting.

/suspect we are back to trolling

Possibility of X leading to possibility of Y is meaningless statement.

X may or may not be true
Y may or may not be true

You do not link them in any way for it to be considered a coherent argument.

You could say Y possible ONLY if X happens, you could say possibility of Y also ...

Why do I bother. It is clear that you signed off logic quite a some time ago in this thread.

Here: Your premise might be false, so I conclude you might be wrong. Have fun with this.

No, its been clear you really dont know what you are talking about or how to properly apply logic principles for some time - thats what is clear.

"Here: Your premise might be false, so I conclude you might be wrong. Have fun with this."

Yes, I might be wrong.

------

Possibility of X leading to possibility of Y is not a meaningless statement. That does not follow.

There a possibility it might rain tomorrow "X", therefore there is also a possibility "Y" the seeds I sowed might start to sprout the day after.

Saying I planted seeds today, therefore they definitely will sprout day after tomorrow would be a fallacy. (presuming these seeds require rain to do so, and these particular seeds sprout one day after rain.) Saying I planted seeds today, and it might rain tomorrow - therefore the seeds might sprout day after tomorrow is not a fallacy.

or

There is a possibility "X" the stock market might crash tomorrow , therefore there is a possibility "Y" my portfolio might lose considerable value. I should probably keep this in mind when investing in stocks.

or

There is a possibility that election tampering occurs on an unknown scale, therefore there is also a possibility that said tampering might influence the outcome of elections.

Therefore I should probably not call people names if they are concerned about this possibility, and also work to improve the situation to reduce its likelihood of occurring in he future.

Ok serious question: are you really still trying to question logic, or are you just trolling?

There is a possibility it might rain tomorrow, as a result of rain seed I sowed will sprout.

Otherwise seed starting to sprout is independent of rain. For example it will not rain, but seeds will still sprout; or it will rain but seeds will not sprout.

I really recommend you spend time to understand concept of validity .

/facepalm

For the example I clearly stated the condition that rain was required for seeds to sprout.

You are just mouthing irrelevancies at this point, please go read your own link on validity. You are just running a straw man factory here. I am pretty sure you know it.

I have come to the conclusion that you are simply trolling, there is no other reasonable conclusion... not even you are this obtuse.

I don't understand why you insisting on this? Find, deductive logic is not your thing. I got it.

I am disappointed I couldn't get through to you, perhaps I wasn't explaining on the level you could understand, but honestly I couldn't think of a way to simplify this any further.

I think fundamental problem is that you just decided to ignore everything I said in this thread.

Too bad. I used to hold you in high regard.

This is very last attempt before I give up on you.

Argument with "rain was required for seeds to sprout" would look like following:

Given that/If it rains tomorrow, then there is a possibility the seed might sprout.

One more time:

(P)I have a lottery ticket (that might win)
(P)My lottery ticket has winning number
------
(C)I won the lottery

Above is OK argument.


(P) I have a lottery ticket (that might win)
-----
(C) I won the lottery

I hope you would agree that above is not OK argument.

{P} I have a lottery ticket (that might win)
------
(C) I might win the lottery

Above is not OK argument. It is not valid. I could have non-winning lottery ticket (so premise is true) and not win the lottery (so conclusion is false).

Generally speaking, arguments with non-definitive conclusion are invalid. What invalid means in this circumstances? It means that you can add might to almost any conclusion and have it non-wrong.

Examples:

{P) My neighbor wears pink hat
---
(C) She might be a Hitler

(P) I heard strange noise in the basement
----
(C) It might be second coming of Christ

Ok first off since English is not something you are particularly skilled out lets start with the definition of "might"

Might: —used in auxiliary function to express permission, liberty, probability, possibility in the past <the president might do nothing without the board's consent> (Webster)

Now, lets get the definitions of probability for this context

Probability: : a logical relation between statements such that evidence confirming one confirms the other to some degree (Webster)
Also: Probability is a measure of the expectation that an event will occur or a statement is true. Probabilities are given a value between 0 (will not occur) and 1 (will occur). (Wiki entry - math related)


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

Now then.


{P} I have a lottery ticket (that might win)
------
(C) I might win the lottery

Is technically valid, not invalid. You might win the lottery with that ticket. Your odds of doing so, are actually pretty easily calculable. In fact (might) in this case, if we are talking about winning the grand prize of Ohio Powerball is 1 in 175,223,510


That you suddenly started using (abusing, but will get to that later) reductio ad absurdum (saying it is absurd so say you might win at those odds) argument in the context of this thread is just an example of a moving goalpost. You are attacking my usage of the word "might" - which I initially and continue to find silly. That you have the temerity and amount of intellectual dishonesty required to do this, then insult the other party because they point out its absurdity is somewhat impressive though.

Also - if this is not valid... then show an example where you might win the lottery. The idea that there is a winner amongst people who have tickets and only those who have tickets, however having a ticket does not give you a chance to win is itself an absurd fallacy if we accept the premise that the odds given to us by the lottery commission are valid.

Your definition of absurdity for "might" is arbitrary, and semantics based here. You move the goalpost by changing the implied format of the language. Like I said before, you do not get to do this arbitrarily. If I felt like it, I could attack your semantics as well easily enough - I generally have enough respect for people, even during a trolling, to refrain from doing so because I consider it lowbrow.



Now, you say "Generally speaking, arguments with non-definitive conclusion are invalid. What invalid means in this circumstances? It means that you can add might to almost any conclusion and have it non-wrong."

Then you go on to make an example" (P) I heard strange noise in the basement
----
(C) It might be second coming of Christ"


So you are saying that since the probability is extremely low that it is the second coming of Christ, the argument is invalid. In this case you would be correct. So what you are asserting in the context of this argument is that the probability of election tampering altering the outcome was so low, that despite evidence that it is possible - and lack of ability to prove that it was not, holding that belief would still make you delusional.

What you do not seem to comprehend, is that *I get that* - despite all your absurd insults that assert the contrary.

What you seem to lack here, is understanding of how, once again, like every other time you get that very unjustified high-and-mighty attitude - you are wrong, misusing and abusing concepts.

So... lets get to it - the list of the fallacies you have invoked by trying to inject your lottery analogy into this thread.

1) Arguing from personal incredulity: You do not hold the subjective probability of election tampering as being very high, so therefore it must not be very high (this is really the basis for your whole assertion, hence why I laughed when you brought it up and laugh harder now that you insult me for not buying into your subjective view of tampering probability)

2) False continuum : Since election skeptics and delusional people both hold views you subjective view as having a very low probability - there is no difference between election skeptics and delusional people

3) False analogy(1): You make a comparison between election tampering and lottery odds, with no evidence that they are similar. All you have in regards to election odds is your own sense of personal incredulity. Therefore just because the lottery example might fall into reductio ad absurdum under formal rules , you have no ability to demonstrate this applies to the election.

4) False dichotomy: you have all your premises and conclusions in your arguments and examples as being either 1 or 0 (that is, either true or false) This is a false dichotomy because probabilities can also be any figure between 0 and 1.

5) Genetic fallacy: Assuming the premise that previous elections were unadulterated, therefore the likelihood that current elections are also unadulterated just because they are "elections". When in reality the way the elections are conducted has changed drastically - since what we are really questioning is the validity of a presidential election run with a high volume of electronic voting machines, the number is much smaller and several results have been questioned. This is only tangentially related to your Lottery assertion - but still I establish this fallacy to reinforce your arguing from personal incredulity - denying you the ability to implicitly obtain a Base Rate for tampered elections.

6) Straw man: Taking my rejection of your Lottery argument, and holding it up as if I was arguing against the rules of formality you were ad hoc applying - instead of objecting to its applicability to the election argument. your "You can't prove that it might happen based on simple possibility of it happening, because it might happen or it might not happen." only holds to certain specific circumstances based on accepted format rules, and the vernaculur thereof. In that context the rule is, as you said in later posts , in place to prevent people from adding "might" to an absurd proposition. The argument in that case (where might was inappropriately used) would still fall to reductio ad absurdum (properly applied)- so its presence as a rule serves mainly as a preventative measure against obvious time-wasting.

That we were not having a discussion under, and that I was not using the term "might" in that context was axiomatic. As I said right before you fell into that path, and as Brutal also mentioned in his post, albeit indirectly - we are not going to agree on the subjective probability of tampered election.

Optimization is impossible in this context, and I seriously doubt we could ever agree on a particular heuristic approach. This is the reason I did not feel the need to travel this path. You try to say that I "do not understand even though you put it oh so simply".... what you do not get, is that I... and Brutal for that matter if I inferred his post correctly both saw this exact scenario unfolding a long long time ago now.



----------

I told you before when you started down this path that if you really wanted to assert your Lottery argument (in regards to the election argument, which is how anyone but a fucktard who was over eager to find excuses to insult people would have taken it - not as a quibble over the rules of some schools of formal logic/debate ) that I could think think of 5 fallacies off the cuff that doing so would invoke.

So are you finally going to admit that all you were doing by introducing your Lottery argument was re-stating your original, failed premise that people who hold a different subjective view of the election are delusional?

Or are you going to continue with yet more insults and word games?

I glossed over this beauty the first time around, the longer post you made quickly caught my attention. Again, pretty amusing.

For what its worth, I give you credit for trying. To me, this thread has felt like someone several ranks below me trying to play Mirror Go in hopes of causing confusion. The problem with a Mirror strategy, is it actually just leaves you a step behind and completely reactive. Its not a 1:1 comparison by any means, but there are plenty of parallels.

Anyhow, where you were going with the lottery concept was apparent to everyone for a long time now. Brutal touched on it when he said "The overriding point here is not that you are wrong, but that you can't be right in this argument. You will (reasonable assumption here) never be able to prove that the election was stolen or not stolen. We can go on like this forever, because this argument is pointless and not winnable." and I said it again when I said "You are never going to objectively quantify the probability , so why bother trying. " (antecedent for quantifying probability was probability of election tampering, just in case you were getting inclined to ignore context and run off on another wild tangent)

While we can determine the minimum threshold for what amount of tampering would be required to alter an election - what we cannot objectively determine is the probability of said tampering occurring.

We can establish a reasonable premise based on a collection of studies, audits, and analysis by activists and security pros on the left and right that it is possible to tamper with an election. We can establish by looking at the money involved, and the demonstrable lack of character of a great body of those who stand to gain or lose in an election that there is sufficient motive.

But still, going forward with it still would incur a degree of risk and possible consequences should one ever get caught red handed. Reading analysis and studies about the issue is also not first hand knowledge, and often we are not in a position to ensure that all of our information is accurate and thorough.

What we are left with, is entirely subjective probabilities based on how we choose to weight and infer certain heuristics.

You choose to weight them in such a way, that doubting your conclusion that the subjective probability is almost 0 becomes a fallacy. Anyone who "cant see that" becomes an object of scorn in your eyes. To me this is facile and more a representation of extreme dogma and unbecoming and unjustified arrogance. You do not bother to consider what you do and dont actually know, or whether you truly even have enough accurate data to come to a strong conclusion.

You dont have an actual case - you just strongly believe, and lash out at those who do not share your belief.

---
edit: ok I couldnt resist



Says the guy who attacked a straw man by making a false analogy with a comparison derived from abusing reductium ad absurdum that was created in the first place with an argument from personal incredulity.

Tee. Hee. Teehehehe. Ok, this one is probably going to leave me chuckling for a while.

My experiment with using formalized logic was a failure. You simply don't understand it, and points I was trying to make went over your head. At least after your last two posts I can see that you have read and considered what I said, so I was misunderstood, not ignored.

Lottery examples and last multiple posts were my attempts to explain concept of validity and soundness and what they mean in a formalized logic context, they were applicable to other debates only so much as to show that generalized rules, if agreed on, can be applied to all arguments of this kind. It is clear that I wasn't successful, so posting comprehensive write-up outside of any debate is now on my to-do list.

In plain language - my objections to your argument isn't that elections weren't, couldn't, probability next to zero of tampering, but that you could not draw conclusions you did with a mere possibility of tampering. If you said something like; "Given election tampering occurred and it was of sufficient magnitude, then elections were stolen" I would not have objected to it. Yes it is semantics, but it is important to get semantics right because of how easy it is to drop MIGHT for CERTAIN and go on pretending nothing changed. The very article I linked is a result of this kind of faulty generalizing. I have hard time believing that 49% of any group, even GOP voters, would believe something so off-the-wall like elections were CERTAINLY stolen, but this is how they responded to survey question.

Answer:




Well, at least he didn't make you wait in suspsense.




If he can't draw conclusions from a "mere possibility of tampering" then you can't draw conclusions from a possibility of non-tampering. See the problem? In this case though, you have drawn a conclusion: That the 49% of respondents in that article are demonstrably wrong and delusional.

Based on this paragraph it seems clear to me that you understand that this argument has become entirely semantic, so at this point you are simply arguing in the hope that you can catch your opponent in a word trap and turn his argument around again. Why even bother? Either admit your mistake and move on to better arguments, or stop responding at all. This is long past pointless, and I don't think I'll bother clicking on this thread anymore.

No I don't. The article clearly states 49% of GOP responded in a way that is understood they are CERTAIN elections were stolen, as such I am more then justified calling them delusional. Anyone who claims CERTAINTY in unsubstantiated conclusion is delusional.

Unlike Derid, that at a later time restated his position to mere probability, I don't have to guess what 49% meant - linked article is very clear about it and nobody so far questioned what it said.



I don't know, he is certainly not getting what I am saying. I suppose to avoid hypothetical "remember that thread where you were wrong" event at some point in the future.



Any admission would be 100% insincere because I strongly believe I am not in the wrong here. I read what you said, I have read what Derid said, and in light of it I still stick to my original position.

They are delusional. End of story.



I will give you hint. About the only valid way you can attack my position is by accusing me of status quo stonewalling. Anything else is skeptical regress of the worst kind, where you start to question established institutions of this country, accepted, GOP-endorsed and official election results, and definition of election fraud.

I'll trust electronic voting machines once they start printing out receipts detailing how someone voted. Hell, you can even take all the responses by said voter, assign a value to them, then hash the entire thing into a simple string of numbers as a receipt.

Voters (SSN+Value1+Value2+Value3+etc) -> Sha-512 hash and done.

To recreate the exact hash you would need the exact values the voter chose + their SSN. A single digit off will alter the entire output hash.

It's really that simple.

Without a hardcopy, it's just too simple to tweak a database one way or another with a script or a keystroke or two.

" where you start to question established institutions of this country "

Holy cow, I think you are onto something. At least if we are talking about competency and security protocols thereof.

"Any admission would be 100% insincere because I strongly believe I am not in the wrong here."

Well at least you have the intellectual honesty to admit that.

"I don't know, he is certainly not getting what I am saying."

Here, your intellectual dishonesty shows itself again. Like I said, I *get* what you are saying. You are simply wrong. Mr Ad Hoc Sinij

" The article clearly states 49% of GOP responded in a way that is understood they are CERTAIN elections were stolen, as such I am more then justified calling them delusional. Anyone who claims CERTAINTY in unsubstantiated conclusion is delusional.

Unlike Derid, that at a later time restated his position to mere probability, I don't have to guess what 49% meant - linked article is very clear about it and nobody so far questioned what it said."

I never restated my position. My position is and has always been that there is a possibility that the election was 100% legit and there is a possibility that the election was tampered, and noone who holds either opinion is delusional for holding that view. Remember, my objection was to your justification for throwing yet more bile at people. I never have taken a position stating that the election was in fact stolen, or even that the evidence suggests the chances of it being stolen are higher than the chances it was a legit outcome.



Moreover, I assert that you were wrong to call them delusional because what they believe when they believe the election was stolen via tampering - is simply that they weight the subjective probability of tampering as higher than you yourself do. They might be wrong to say it was stolen, but you also might be wrong to say it was not.

I was attacking your bile-spewing, not asserting that the election outcome was certainly altered. Your bile spewing stemmed from your own unprovable opinions regarding subjective probability. I was growing weary of seeing you fling dung everywhere based solely on your own strongly held but unjustifiable preconceptions.

"My experiment with using formalized logic was a failure. You simply don't understand it, and points I was trying to make went over your head. At least after your last two posts I can see that you have read and considered what I said, so I was misunderstood, not ignored. "

Here is the problem with this. I dont care about your formalized logic context, or vernacular thereof. Why? Because your use of semantics is too logically inconsistent. Like I said, you are shifting goalposts around and applying ad hoc interpretations to fit your own arguments.

This is key.

The argument did not begin in a formal context - and so you switched to a formal context ad hoc to attack my semantics using a new set of rules. So either I have to go back , and restate everything and go over all this crap again to fit your unilateral switching of context base - or I can just call you out on it and your ad hoc interpretations and moving goalposts. *and i said this previously, so how you possibly missed it and claim I do not "understand" is just more evidence you are acting like a fucktard*

I chose the latter, because I dont really care about the topic itself anymore - amusement from watching you squirm around in a tiny semantic box while claiming ownership of the formal logic world is pretty much the only reason I am still replying to your strings of fallacies and semantics twisting here.

I know what you are doing. I know what you are saying. Perhaps you do not know yourself, seeing the forest through the trees has never been your specialty. I suspect that its a psychological issue at this point - since switching to a new ruleset for interpretation and privately holding your own conclusions about the meaning of the article/poll wording suddenly makes you right, at least in your own head, at least as you choose to interpret the semantics... it probably logically follows to you internally that whichever way you are interpreting things is the *naturally correct* way to interpret things simply because it makes you right and your internal premise is that you are always right...

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



Yes, and as I said previously - I understand this. What you do not seem to understand is that "Generally speaking, arguments with non-definitive conclusion are invalid. What invalid means in this circumstances? It means that you can add might to almost any conclusion and have it non-wrong." - adding "might" to make a fallacious argument "non-wrong" and the reductio ad absurdum are the same thing, or rather 2 different approaches to the same concept. That is - even if one side adds a "might" to technically be non-wrong, if the conclusion is absurd - they are still wrong.

You should be aware of this "mr formal logic"

And I addressed why your application of this was off.

You say I do not understand formal logic.... when the real case, is you do not seem to understand the difference between objective and subjective probabilities.

Either that or despite everything, you are still secretly trying to apply your initial assertion as to what my objection to your link/statement was and therefore accusing me basically of making an argument from ignorance. Which would be synonymous with an attempt to apply the non-definitive conclusion generality in this case. I gave you more credit than that though - and figured you were trying a more thorough restatement of your argument from personal incredulity.

Perhaps I overestimated you, you still believe I was stating that the election was stolen.... and given that I do not believe the election was stolen with a probability of or approaching "1" , and this has been demonstrated multiple times by two people... I did come to misunderstand what you were saying.

But that is not anything to do with my understanding of your formal logic... thats because I felt it impossible that you could still hold to the premise that I was saying the election was in fact stolen.

Indeed. Indeed. I have felt that way for several pages of posts now.

Since the only way you can even try to make a point is to apply new interpretations to old postings.

See, if you were genuine and not just a random mental midget looking to score points on a straw man - your switch to formal interpretation would have been accompanied by

1) a restatement of precedent as understood for the context

2) a clarification of the actual topic, and mutual agreement that we were discussing the same thing

I was kind of hoping a light bulb would go off in your head, after your interpreted P/C were rejected multiple times for not being my actual assertion... but it seems it was a vain hope.

Derid, I moved on to discuss this with more stimulating and receptive opponent:

Yes, I noticed you had been running into that brick wall for quite some time. I believe I can even make out where your forehead hit.

These things happen when you rely on ad hoc semantic interpretations to make a case.

Birthers reborn as Skeeters

I thought it was pretty funny. Oh, and he is shooting left handed. Even though he is right handed. Obama does silly photo op, gets silly remarks.

More pertinently though - the photoshops in question arose mostly because of the WH edict that the image not be photoshopped. We all know what happens when you tell the internet NOT to photoshop a celebrity right?

It was funny, but then I find most funny.

Actually just a couple hours after the photo was release the WH piled on that with a "we dare you to photoshop this picture" tweet. Making the desire to do it even greater than normal.