• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: 2020 Presidential Election part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trump Tweets

Trump Campaign Rejects Media Reports of Changed Pennsylvania Case https://breitbart.com/radio/2020/11...n-media-reports-of-changed-pennsylvania-case/ via @BreitbartNews
Just more Fake News. Harassment and exclusion of our Poll Watchers is a big part of our case. Unconstitutional!

The Radical Left Democrats, working with their partner, the Fake News Media, are trying to STEAL this Election. We won’t let them!

The Fake recount going on in Georgia means nothing because they are not allowing signatures to be looked at and verified. Break the unconstitutional Consent Decree!
 
I think Trump is losing his ****. Nothing is going his way and he's panicking. His screams of fraud etc are only going to get more incessant.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Tweeted

I WON THE ELECTION!

(Twitter flagged this tweet with. "Official sources called this election differently")
Click to expand...

Not that it's all that important, but I do find it mildly irritating that the Associated Press is referred to an an "official" source, or that they and the networks "calling it" somehow makes it "official".

Only the states can issue official results, and I assume they all follow a similar process that involves first turning in election results to a state office as soon as possible after the election. Those are the numbers we are seeing now on our TV and computer screens. Then, some sort of process is conducted by state officials who then certify the results. That's the only official source. When the state certifies the result, it's official, and electors are selected, although states sometimes codify a challenge and/or recount procedure which might have to be completed as part of the process of choosing electors, so it might be that the results aren't official until then,

It's a minor point. There's no real doubt about the outcome of this election at this point, but it's just a little bit annoying to see media sources called "official". They aren't.
 
Meadmaker said:
Not that it's all that important, but I do find it mildly irritating that the Associated Press is referred to an an "official" source, or that they and the networks "calling it" somehow makes it "official".

Only the states can issue official results, and I assume they all follow a similar process that involves first turning in election results to a state office as soon as possible after the election. Those are the numbers we are seeing now on our TV and computer screens. Then, some sort of process is conducted by state officials who then certify the results. That's the only official source. When the state certifies the result, it's official, and electors are selected, although states sometimes codify a challenge and/or recount procedure which might have to be completed as part of the process of choosing electors, so it might be that the results aren't official until then,

It's a minor point. There's no real doubt about the outcome of this election at this point, but it's just a little bit annoying to see media sources called "official". They aren't.
Click to expand...

They seem to be far more official than the actual president, though. He says stuff that wouldn't pass the legitimacy test sufficiently to appear on the back of a box of breakfast cereal. Patients coming out of anesthesia say more sensible stuff than Trump on his very best day.
 
Meadmaker said:
Not that it's all that important, but I do find it mildly irritating that the Associated Press is referred to an an "official" source, or that they and the networks "calling it" somehow makes it "official".

Only the states can issue official results, and I assume they all follow a similar process that involves first turning in election results to a state office as soon as possible after the election. Those are the numbers we are seeing now on our TV and computer screens. Then, some sort of process is conducted by state officials who then certify the results. That's the only official source. When the state certifies the result, it's official, and electors are selected, although states sometimes codify a challenge and/or recount procedure which might have to be completed as part of the process of choosing electors, so it might be that the results aren't official until then,

It's a minor point. There's no real doubt about the outcome of this election at this point, but it's just a little bit annoying to see media sources called "official". They aren't.
Click to expand...

I think Twitter's wording is flawed. There are other sources of data - like the SoS offices. Those are "more" official than media outlets. At least in AZ the SoS does call the election in a manner of speaking on their web site.
 
Meadmaker said:
Not that it's all that important, but I do find it mildly irritating that the Associated Press is referred to an an "official" source, or that they and the networks "calling it" somehow makes it "official".

Only the states can issue official results, and I assume they all follow a similar process that involves first turning in election results to a state office as soon as possible after the election. Those are the numbers we are seeing now on our TV and computer screens. Then, some sort of process is conducted by state officials who then certify the results. That's the only official source. When the state certifies the result, it's official, and electors are selected, although states sometimes codify a challenge and/or recount procedure which might have to be completed as part of the process of choosing electors, so it might be that the results aren't official until then,

It's a minor point. There's no real doubt about the outcome of this election at this point, but it's just a little bit annoying to see media sources called "official". They aren't.
Click to expand...

OK, choose your favorite "official sources," whatever you think they are.

Have any of them declared that Trump won the election? If no, then his claim that he won the election does not agree with official sources.

He's the one making the claim "I win." If he had made the claim "Joe Biden didn't win" then that would be different.
 
Doctor: "Well I have bad news, you have cancer."
Patient: "Doctor on this 3rd page of this form you didn't initial box 32A."
Doctor: "Ah so I didn't. My mistake."
Patient: "So therefore I don't have cancer."
Doctor: "No you still have cancer. That is an actual fact that isn't changed via minor nitpicks about procedural compliance."
 
Last edited:
If one side says it is raining and one side says that it isn't, it isn't the press's job to report that there is controversy about whether or not it is raining. It's the press's job to open a window and check and if they don't do that they are remiss in their duties to society.

They can't do that if when the open the window and check to see if it's raining and then report on which side is correct we complain about them not being the official authority on rain.

The Press has been calling races for decades and nobody had a problem with it, ever. The fact that Trump is denying reality this one time changes nothing.
 
Meadmaker said:
I heard a right wing yapper (Larry Elder this time) talking about why President Trump's lack of concession today. He brought up Hillary Clinton's frequently quoted phrase from a speech (or was it just comments to a media source?) saying that Joe Biden should never concede.

I have seen this comment cited several times as a justification for Donald Trump not conceding right now. I've even heard it cited as proof of some sort of conspiracy to illegally install Joe Biden as President. Somehow, Larry Elder seemed to be buying into both versions, but I confess I didn't get all of his reasoning, because I got to the grocery store before he finished. The show was a taped show, so I don't know when he said this, either, but it was definitely recently.

Of course the idea that it was some sort of illegal conspiracy reference is ridiculous. As for the idea that Trump shouldn't concede as retaliation since Biden was told not to concede, I suppose I could understand a sort of logic that would say that it serves the Democrats right. Personally, I would like to think a candidate for President of the United States would decide whether or not to concede based on the reality of the election situation, and what's good for the country. However, expecting that from Trump would be completely unrealistic, so he'll go on Trumping and maybe never concede. As long as he doesn't break the law, I suppose that's ok. It's not the right thing to do, but the primary reason I, and many others, didn't vote for him in the first place is because that's the sort of thing he would do.

That's not what I'm wondering about, though. Does anyone understand why she said it in the first place? If the election results were different, and if Trump had ended up with 306 electoral votes and no chance of changing that in the post-election phase, I would assume that a candidate, including Biden, would concede. Not that it matters. The winner is the winner whether or not the loser concedes. I'm just wondering why Hillary said it in the first place. I only hear right wingers yapping about it as something important, so I suspect I'm not getting the right context of her remarks. I've read a little about them, though, and I can't make sense of the comment.
Click to expand...

Firestone answered your question by giving the context of the quote, but I wanted to point out the silliness of this response on other grounds.

Elder sounds like he's saying, "Hillary gave Biden advice not to concede, so Trump shouldn't concede." This is obvious nonsense. What Hillary said has nothing much to do with what Biden would have done, had the tables been turned. It's not even an argument in favor of tit-for-tat. It's an argument of tit-for-tat-suggested-by-third-party.
 
TragicMonkey said:
They seem to be far more official than the actual president, though. He says stuff that wouldn't pass the legitimacy test sufficiently to appear on the back of a box of breakfast cereal. Patients coming out of anesthesia say more sensible stuff than Trump on his very best day.
Click to expand...

The medias estimates are far more accurate than Donald Trump's, but they are no more official. Neither the candidates nor the media have any official role in the election certification.

I watched the announcement and press conference of Wisconsin's head of elections on Wednesday, November 4, after it appeared that Biden would win Wisconsin. She emphasized over and over that all the numbers you see right now, and anything heard from the media, is unofficial. Wisconsin has a process where they audit the results, and the individual county clerks certify their vote tallies, and the state certifies its vote tallies, and then and only then are there official results. Other states have comparable processes. I'm guessing that every state has comparable processes, and as far as I know, none of those processes are complete as of yet.

As I say, it's not an incredibly important point, but once in a while, it could be. The states have processes where they check and double check and possibly even recount votes, and it's all done to make sure that the numbers initially reported really are as close as humanly possible to the way people actually voted. It's not at all unusual for those audits to discover errors. It's just incredibly rare that they uncover any error of any significant size. So, I'm incredibly confident that Biden's electors will be certified in all the states the media has "called it" for Biden, but the media doesn't get to call it, officially, any more than the President does.
 
phiwum said:
Elder sounds like he's saying, "Hillary gave Biden advice not to concede, so Trump shouldn't concede." This is obvious nonsense. What Hillary said has nothing much to do with what Biden would have done, had the tables been turned. It's not even an argument in favor of tit-for-tat. It's an argument of tit-for-tat-suggested-by-third-party.
Click to expand...

The whole conversation with the Republicans seems rather like talking to a five-year-old.
"Donnie, you shouldn't have called the fire brigade this morning."
"But Dad called them last year."
"Yes, but the house was on fire."
"Well, the central heating boiler was on this morning, and that's got a fire in it."
"But that's supposed to have a fire in it."
"Doesn't matter, the fire brigade's there to put fires out and there was one, so I'm perfectly within my rights to call them."

The problem here is that nobody's in a position to send the President to bed without any supper. In fact, I rather suspect that the real problem is that nobody ever did.

Dave
 
phiwum said:
Firestone answered your question by giving the context of the quote, but I wanted to point out the silliness of this response on other grounds.

Elder sounds like he's saying, "Hillary gave Biden advice not to concede, so Trump shouldn't concede." This is obvious nonsense. What Hillary said has nothing much to do with what Biden would have done, had the tables been turned. It's not even an argument in favor of tit-for-tat. It's an argument of tit-for-tat-suggested-by-third-party.
Click to expand...

I found the actual interview from Hillary, and it seems like she just had some awkward and rather imprecise wording, as Firestone suggested. Taken literally, I think her words were wrong, but I think I get what she was saying. I could understand how someone might thing something bad about what she was saying, although, really, all she was saying is that Biden needed to be prepared to mount legal challenges if it appeared that the vote was messed with by the Trump side.

And what you said about tit for tat is exactly what I thought when I heard Elder yapping. Who cares what Hillary Clinton said she thinks Joe Biden ought to do in the event some hypothetical thing happens? It's just one more example of the type of bizarre behavior we will have to endure for another 65 days. It would be nice if Donald Trump would just save everyone some trouble and accept reality, but that's not his style.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
I found the actual interview from Hillary, and it seems like she just had some awkward and rather imprecise wording, as Firestone suggested. Taken literally, I think her words were wrong, but I think I get what she was saying. I could understand how someone might thing something bad about what she was saying, although, really, all she was saying is that Biden needed to be prepared to mount legal challenges if it appeared that the vote was messed with by the Trump side.

And what you said about tit for tat is exactly what I thought when I heard Elder yapping. Who cares what Hillary Clinton said she thinks Joe Biden ought to do in the event some hypothetical thing happens? It's just one more example of the type of bizarre behavior we will have to endure for another 65 days. It would be nice if Donald Trump would just save everyone some trouble and accept reality, but that's not his style.
Click to expand...


"Hillary" and/or "Clinton" are trigger words for Republicans.
 
Meadmaker said:
Not that it's all that important, but I do find it mildly irritating that the Associated Press is referred to an an "official" source, or that they and the networks "calling it" somehow makes it "official".

Only the states can issue official results, and I assume they all follow a similar process that involves first turning in election results to a state office as soon as possible after the election. Those are the numbers we are seeing now on our TV and computer screens. Then, some sort of process is conducted by state officials who then certify the results. That's the only official source. When the state certifies the result, it's official, and electors are selected, although states sometimes codify a challenge and/or recount procedure which might have to be completed as part of the process of choosing electors, so it might be that the results aren't official until then,

It's a minor point. There's no real doubt about the outcome of this election at this point, but it's just a little bit annoying to see media sources called "official". They aren't.
Click to expand...

I agree. Official sources haven't called anything.

But official vote counts do result in a loss for Trump. The vote counts are official and it's a simple inference from the (uncertified) vote counts to the election results.

Nonetheless, Twitter's tag is inaccurate.
 
Meadmaker said:
Not that it's all that important, but I do find it mildly irritating that the Associated Press is referred to an an "official" source, or that they and the networks "calling it" somehow makes it "official".

Only the states can issue official results, and I assume they all follow a similar process that involves first turning in election results to a state office as soon as possible after the election. Those are the numbers we are seeing now on our TV and computer screens. Then, some sort of process is conducted by state officials who then certify the results. That's the only official source. When the state certifies the result, it's official, and electors are selected, although states sometimes codify a challenge and/or recount procedure which might have to be completed as part of the process of choosing electors, so it might be that the results aren't official until then,

It's a minor point. There's no real doubt about the outcome of this election at this point, but it's just a little bit annoying to see media sources called "official". They aren't.
Click to expand...

I can understand that.

But it depends on what you mean by "official". The States don't officially "declare" the winner until they certify the election. That said "officials" will say what the count is and who won when it is obvious.
It's only after certification when the results are for the most part final.

Also when the AP officially declare a winner, it is more a colloquial term. The results they are publishing from official tabulations.
 
Last edited:
False dilemma, consider more than two outcomes (Biden won or Trump won).

"Still counting" is a different "call" than "Trump won."

Yeah, their wording isn't the most appropriate possible clarification statement, neither is it incorrect.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom