←back to thread

707 points patd | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
jjuel ◴[] No.23322521[source]
It is crazy to see how well he knows his base and how to get them to rally close to an election. Making them think everything is a liberal bias against them, and if they don't vote for his big government agenda they will receive a big government agenda. This is just one more way for him to get his base to believe everything he says versus people who actually prove what he says is a lie. He wants state run media and social media just like China. As much as he talks about hating China he would love to be China.
replies(4): >>23322583 #>>23322900 #>>23325723 #>>23328099 #
sp332 ◴[] No.23322583[source]
And this is specifically on a tweet calling the validity of the election into question. It's blatantly wrong, but he needs his base to believe him when he says the election is rigged.
replies(3): >>23322707 #>>23322843 #>>23322887 #
RandomTisk ◴[] No.23322843[source]
What was blatantly wrong about it?
replies(2): >>23322905 #>>23323035 #
shadowgovt ◴[] No.23323035[source]
Mail-in ballots don't generally increase the instances of election fraud. All of the "what ifs" have been investigated in the states that have had general-populace mail-in for years and been found not to occur in either (a) numbers that sway the election or (b) numbers distinguishable from in-person fraud (which is usually of the form "person not eligible to vote, but voting office screwed up and granted them a card" or "person moved and failed to notify election boards of the relocation; voted in the wrong district").
replies(2): >>23323785 #>>23331132 #
RandomTisk ◴[] No.23323785{3}[source]
Every election has at least one story of rampant incompetence and/or outright fraud where one person is able to alter hundreds to thousands of votes. For elections where it can literally be 50.2% to 49.8%, it can make all the difference.
replies(2): >>23323826 #>>23330542 #
shadowgovt ◴[] No.23323826{4}[source]
Rampant incompetence isn't the same as fraud, and one would still have to make the case that we lose hundreds of envelopes more often than we have an entire data-store go missing (or, for that matter, than we have a fleet of digital voting machines crash and deny access to the polls to face-to-face voters for hours).
replies(1): >>23324241 #
RandomTisk ◴[] No.23324241{5}[source]
Then the tweet wasn't 'factually incorrect' as was claimed, perhaps unsubstantiated given past performance isn't a guarantee of future performance but certainly election security is nothing to turn a blind eye to.
replies(2): >>23324455 #>>23327588 #
ikeyany ◴[] No.23327588{6}[source]
Please do not spead false information on HN. The tweet in question is:

> "There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent."

Twitter labeled it as unsubstantiated, and provided a link to facts on mail-in ballots. Even if they didn't, his tweet is factually incorrect.

replies(3): >>23329020 #>>23330744 #>>23331145 #
calvinmorrison[dead post] ◴[] No.23329020{7}[source]
Last I checked they posted a bunch of 'fact-checkers' (read: CNN blogosphere interns) remarks. Trump could probably say the SKY is blue and there will be a Marty Moss-Coane sound alike on the news tomorrow about how trump is losing his mind and clearly is colorblind.
1. ilikehurdles ◴[] No.23329178{8}[source]
That's not what he posted. You've invented a strawman and are now arguing against a hypothetical scenario that plays out only according to the rules your mind has made up for it.