The 2017 General Political discussion thread, Part 2!

[jamil]

Well it is amazing you said it after I said a few times I was just looking for credible information. I may have asked for more than one source but I think that's more than reasonable as well.

I kinda suspect you still don't get what I'm saying. But that's okay, it only adds to the irony.

About the source. What you said that you've yet to see *any* credible evidence. Okay, so someone posts a peer reviewed study from a research university, which is in the set of *any*. But then you move the goalposts from *any* to *many*. At this point I think I'm inclined to suspect that it wouldn't matter how many studies or how conclusive they are. When you move goalposts it appears that there is no proof, not matter how much or how credible, which would change your opinion.

And on the subject itself, I've repeatedly said that there's plenty of evidence that suggests voter fraud does happen, but that I don't think that it is as widespread as "millions". Although I thought it was plausible that voter fraud could change local outcomes, I did not believe it was was plausible that Senate elections or Electoral College could be significantly affected. Until this study.

As far as the credibility of the study, it is peer reviewed. The study, of course, has been criticized by some peers. So I'm not convinced that millions of ineligible voters DID vote. But the study did convince me that it's plausible.

As for the source itself, it is a public research university, and I have no reason to think that the study is biased by right wing ideology. According to Crowdpack, Old Dominion is a liberal leaning university about in the same magnitude of leftness as Harvard. So I have no reason to believe that the study is politically motivated by people on the right. If the conclusions are wrong, I see no reason to think they're wrong on purpose.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Yeah wut, lol? Where have I ever made a little Johnny comparison, and honestly I'm not even sure what that even means. I'm just asking when is it appropriate to cite studies from universities since often the belief that they are liberal strongholds often renders their studies as biased.

Kut, I think built in to your response is a bias to treat all studies as equal. They are not.

IMO, you actually need to read the study, see if it supports the conclusion of the author(s) and also to see if the news media is accurately reporting what the study says and supports.

For example, a study in recent years was widely cited as finding that a gun in the home was more dangerous to the occupants of the household than to intruders and other miscreants. I read the study (looking for my old links) and the study actually said that they found no such link when using "standard" demographics, i.e. proportional to population. They then proceeded to heavily weight the demographics towards young, black males (<35 years old) AND people OVER ONE HUNDRED YEARS OLD. Only then did they find the purported link. (they called one the "standard population" and the latter the "enhanced population")

So, yeah, I would tend to call that particular study cr@p. Lol!

 

[jamil]

I think it's always appropriate to cite studies, for the purpose of argument. It's just not appropriate to expect that any university study presented is beyond reproach and criticism, or is a definitive word on anything, simply because researchers said it, and especially so if it seems to be contrary to logic and reasoning. I've never really bought into this line of reasoning that goes, "Duhh, here's my study, so unless you have a better one of your own, mine is established as correct." I think in general, citing studies should be cited in addition to well reasoned-arguments of your own, not in place of it. You should come here fully expecting it to be challenged. That doesn't seem to be the case immediately here, so I'm really not sure what the issue even is (and I did not see what the subject study was even about). Do you have an example that you're really beefed about, or is this all hypothetical? I think you're possibly reacting to the fact that on INGO, possibly unlike other forums you're familiar with, faith in academia is not christ-like. And I just do not see that as a problem.

I think I agree with this. I think it's reasonable not to believe something just because a study suggests that something is true. Science is as fallible as the humans who use it. And sometimes it's really, really, obvious that bias motivated a scientific conclusion. How else could some "scientists" conclude that there is no biological sex, for crying out loud?

But, unless there is obvious bias, at least we can consider the conclusions, and use them for the purpose of argument to say something is at least plausible.

For example, the Old Dominion study mostly relies on the portion of people who checked the form saying they voted and that they were non-citizens. The conclusions were criticized by some peers for extrapolating the voter tendencies of such a small sample, when it did not consider the error rate for checking the wrong box. I think that error could go either way, so it may tend to cancel out. Nevertheless, even though I wouldn't say this study is conclusive, it does at least make the claim plausible that ineligible voters can affect election results at a national level.

 

[Dddrees]

I kinda suspect you still don't get what I'm saying. But that's okay, it only adds to the irony.

About the source. What you said that you've yet to see *any* credible evidence. Okay, so someone posts a peer reviewed study from a research university, which is in the set of *any*. But then you move the goalposts from *any* to *many*. At this point I think I'm inclined to suspect that it wouldn't matter how many studies or how conclusive they are. When you move goalposts it appears that there is no proof, not matter how much or how credible, which would change your opinion.

And on the subject itself, I've repeatedly said that there's plenty of evidence that suggests voter fraud does happen, but that I don't think that it is as widespread as "millions". Although I thought it was plausible that voter fraud could change local outcomes, I did not believe it was was plausible that Senate elections or Electoral College could be significantly affected. Until this study.

As far as the credibility of the study, it is peer reviewed. The study, of course, has been criticized by some peers. So I'm not convinced that millions of ineligible voters DID vote. But the study did convince me that it's plausible.

As for the source itself, it is a public research university, and I have no reason to think that the study is biased by right wing ideology. According to Crowdpack, Old Dominion is a liberal leaning university about in the same magnitude of leftness as Harvard. So I have no reason to believe that the study is politically motivated by people on the right. If the conclusions are wrong, I see no reason to think they're wrong on purpose.

Regardless it is after all only one source. That in itself doesn't mean they are wrong, but I would have to think if it were enough of an issue that it effected the outcome of national elections there would be more credible sources coming to that conclusion.

If you think I moved the goal post so be it. It just gives you something else to argue about but it doesn't mean I don't have a valid point. This is a discussion for me and it's not some high school debating competition so I'm not keeping score. I just simply didn't think about it until later. There's simply nothing more to it than that. H*** if I see something else or think of something else later I just might bring that up as well. Whether you think I'm moving the goal post or not that really doesn't concern me. I am willing to be open rather than closed minded as long as it being discussed in a reasonable manner with credible data.

 

[NIGHTRIDER]

The numbers may bigger then we thought.https://youtu.be/qC2K7fRhX8E

 

[Dddrees]

The numbers may bigger then we thought.https://youtu.be/qC2K7fRhX8E

Hence, the martians are coming, the martians are coming. Trump is an idiot.

 

[Dddrees]

Kushner's statement to Congress with regards to Russia.

Jared Kushner's statement on Russia: full text - CNNPolitics.com

 

[Birds Away]

A few points:
- Voter fraud helps one party over the other. This is a given.
- An overwhelming percentage of colleges and universities tend to support that same political party.
- An overwhelming percentage of the media also supports that same political party.
Given these three points why would anyone be surprised there hasn't been more research or that any research that might have been done wouldn't be more widely reported?

- Voter fraud isn't researched by scholarly institutions or the news media because they know it's true but choose to ignore it.

 

[Dddrees]

A few points:
- Voter fraud helps one party over the other. This is a given.
- An overwhelming percentage of colleges and universities tend to support that same political party.
- An overwhelming percentage of the media also supports that same political party.
Given these three points why would anyone be surprised there hasn't been more research or that any research that might have been done wouldn't be more widely reported?

- Voter fraud isn't researched by scholarly institutions or the news media because they know it's true but choose to ignore it.

Universities aren't the only ones capable of doing these studies, they're just a logical place where more studies take place. If any side or group were interested enough and thought they would stand a chance in making this case they could do so if they choose.

 

[Birds Away]

In both the '08 and '10 Presidential elections in northern Ohio there were numerous precincts that reported well over 100% for one particular candidate. What do you think the odds are that one precinct...anywhere...would vote 100%....for anyone or anything? There was very little reporting and, as far as I have seen, absolutely no investigation.

 

[Dddrees]

In both the '08 and '10 Presidential elections in northern Ohio there were numerous precincts that reported well over 100% for one particular candidate. What do you think the odds are that one precinct...anywhere...would vote 100%....for anyone or anything? There was very little reporting and, as far as I have seen, absolutely no investigation.

Do you have a link and by the way this is only one state and one area of that one state. So do you have any other states where this happened in these same elections?

But yes, I would think at least in this state there should be an investigation.

 

[Birds Away]

This is from Philly but same, same:

In 59 Philadelphia voting divisions, Mitt Romney got zero votes

 

[jamil]

Regardless it is after all only one source. That in itself doesn't mean they are wrong, but I would have to think if it were enough of an issue that it effected the outcome of national elections there would be more credible sources coming to that conclusion.

If you think I moved the goal post so be it. It just gives you something else to argue about but it doesn't mean I don't have a valid point. This is a discussion for me and it's not some high school debating competition so I'm not keeping score. I just simply didn't think about it until later. There's simply nothing more to it than that. H*** if I see something else or think of something else later I just might bring that up as well. Whether you think I'm moving the goal post or not that really doesn't concern me. I am willing to be open rather than closed minded as long as it being discussed in a reasonable manner with credible data.

Okay. So let's just say for the sake of argument that you just simply didn't think about it until later. The question that comes to mind for me then is, just how much thought did you put into any of this? You first ask for *any* credible source. And it didn't occur to you then to think that out far enough, to know your own position well enough, to even know what it would take to convince you otherwise? That it was only when someone provided what you first asked for, *any* credible source, that you then figure out that you really need more sources to believe it could happen.

And make no mistake, all were talking about here is justification to investigate to what extent did voter fraud influence the 2016 election. The bar doesn't have to be all that high to justify looking into it further. In fact it seems odd for progressives to so vigorously oppose it. That makes it look as if they really don't want it investigated.

Given the cited study (notwithstanding legitimate criticisms), anecdotal evidence of voter fraud (on both sides, not just Democrats), and the fact that Republicans have made the accusations, it is very reasonable to have a fair and impartial investigation into the issue to settle it. It is a fact that some people who aren't legal to vote, do vote. The question is how often? How widespread is it? It's a question that needs an answer.

Beyond all that. My concern isn't whether or not it's reasonable to seek that answer; it is. My concern is about the credibility of the process itself, and the motivations behind political factions. It has to be done transparently so that neither side can claim the other side fabricated the results. I'm not certain that transparency is even possible today. Also, both sides are so biased I am not very confident that there could be any common interpretation of findings. I'm also not confident that the Trump administration is even capable of investigating this objectively, given Trump's Don Corleone creepy loyalty requirements. I get the sense that the investigators are trying to work their way towards a "yes" answer.

 

[jamil]

Hence, the martians are coming, the martians are coming. Trump is an idiot.

Because the way New Yorkers talk is idiotic. Kinda like Texans. As long as they're Republicans.

 

[Dddrees]

Because the way New Yorkers talk is idiotic. Kinda like Texans. As long as they're Republicans.

So he's allowed to talk like an idiot because of where he came from?

 

[Dddrees]

Okay. So let's just say for the sake of argument that you just simply didn't think about it until later. The question that comes to mind for me then is, just how much thought did you put into any of this? You first ask for *any* credible source. And it didn't occur to you then to think that out far enough, to know your own position well enough, to even know what it would take to convince you otherwise? That it was only when someone provided what you first asked for, *any* credible source, that you then figure out that you really need more sources to believe it could happen.

And make no mistake, all were talking about here is justification to investigate to what extent did voter fraud influence the 2016 election. The bar doesn't have to be all that high to justify looking into it further. In fact it seems odd for progressives to so vigorously oppose it. That makes it look as if they really don't want it investigated.

Given the cited study (notwithstanding legitimate criticisms), anecdotal evidence of voter fraud (on both sides, not just Democrats), and the fact that Republicans have made the accusations, it is very reasonable to have a fair and impartial investigation into the issue to settle it. It is a fact that some people who aren't legal to vote, do vote. The question is how often? How widespread is it? It's a question that needs an answer.

Beyond all that. My concern isn't whether or not it's reasonable to seek that answer; it is. My concern is about the credibility of the process itself, and the motivations behind political factions. It has to be done transparently so that neither side can claim the other side fabricated the results. I'm not certain that transparency is even possible today. Also, both sides are so biased I am not very confident that there could be any common interpretation of findings. I'm also not confident that the Trump administration is even capable of investigating this objectively, given Trump's Don Corleone creepy loyalty requirements. I get the sense that the investigators are trying to work their way towards a "yes" answer.

I'm not entrenched and I am willing to discuss it and your not open to that? You preach so often about bias but then when someone says they're willing to discuss it you have a problem with that as well? Really, at this point it appears as if your just arguing to argue. It'll be much easier for me to look at the rest of your points when you stop doing that.

 

[Dddrees]

This is from Philly but same, same:

In 59 Philadelphia voting divisions, Mitt Romney got zero votes

If this is the case then this to is an example where an investigation of one specific area maybe justified. Not something where an investigation of the entire United States would be necessary.

By the way where were the Republican representatives when this was supposedly taking place?

 

[Birds Away]

If this is the case then this to is an example where an investigation of one specific area maybe justified. Not something where an investigation of the entire United States would be necessary.

By the way where were the Republican representatives when this was supposedly taking place?

Republicans are hard to come by in inner city precincts. This was also the election, I believe, where the Black Panthers were outside the polling places keeping Republicans away.

 

[Dddrees]

Republicans are hard to come by in inner city precincts. This was also the election, I believe, where the Black Panthers were outside the polling places keeping Republicans away.

Sounds to me like the Republicans might be just looking to capatialize and make political points. If they're truly more interested in ensuring the process is fair they should ensure there is representation present. Sounds to me like they wouldn't have won regardless anyway.

 

[Birds Away]

Sounds to me like the Republicans might be just looking to capatialize and make political points. If they're truly more interested in ensuring the process is fair they should ensure there is representation present. Sounds to me like they wouldn't have won regardless anyway.

Ah, so that excuses it. I see.