Merged The election was stolen/rigged!

[Jon.]

So as it's been for a dozen pages -- no evidence of widespread fraud, just various creative attempts to infer fraud.

I think you mean imply fraud. RP's been inferring fraud quite successfully (in his own mind) from everything that happened in the election, probably including Obama voting for himself.

 

[jaydeehess]

Just for those keeping score at home: as a government worker expecting to cash in on their lavish pension gravy train (brief pause for uncontrollable laughter - there, I'm better now), I look forward to the day when, five years from now, after twenty-seven years of public service, I can retire with an income two thousand dollars below the federal poverty line for my family of four. And I'm a lawyer. And some legislators are proposing to balance the budget by cutting future COLAs.

iirc, it was a stundie nom that decried the lavish Social Security payments your gov't hands out. In Canada we look forward to our Canada Pension Plan cheques. I can hardly wait to retire on that luxurious $200/month I'll be getting.

 

[JayUtah]

I think you mean imply fraud.

No, I wrote the word I meant, but I agree with the point you're trying to make.

I mean that fraud in Robert's argument is an inference as opposed to an observation -- that is, rather than collect evidence of a widespread program of voter fraud and a demonstrable effect it had on the election, Robert reasons that it "must" have occurred based on conditions such as the lack of voter ID laws or turnouts that defy expectations. Reasoning (however wrongly) from premises is "inference" in logic.

The relation

"No voter ID laws at this location" → "Voters must commit fraud there"​

is an inference as logic defines the term, and to reason from one premise to another is the practice of inference, even if the "reasoning" is tortured and speculative, as in this case. Or stated another way, one may infer a conclusion from a set of premises although the inference may be of validating or non-validating form.

Stated semi-formally:

States that have no voter ID laws encourage electoral fraud.
The state of Arkania has no voter ID law, therefore
The state of Arkania encourages electoral fraud.

The state of Arkania encourages electoral fraud.
Candidate Obromney won in the state of Arkania, therefore
Candidate Obromney won only by means of electoral fraud.​

These are inferential syllogisms. The first is of validating form, but reasoned from a questionable major premise. The second is of non-validating form because it affirms a consequent. Therefore the argument it embodies is unconvincing, for at least those two reasons.

The reason I wrote what I did was to emphasize the difference between inferring one's conclusion by means of tortured and probably wrong reasoning, and providing more direct evidence or observation for the conclusion. Hence I wrote that instead of providing evidence, Robert again tried to provide handwaving lines of reasoning. Trying to infer what "must" be true rather than observing what is true is a hallmark of conspiracy theories.

But yes, he also implies that electoral fraud occurred, by inferring that explanation incorrectly from innocuous premises.

 

[Jon.]

No, I wrote the word I meant, but I agree with the point you're trying to make.

I mean that fraud in Robert's argument is an inference as opposed to an observation -- that is, rather than collect evidence of a widespread program of voter fraud and a demonstrable effect it had on the election, Robert reasons that it "must" have occurred based on conditions such as the lack of voter ID laws or turnouts that defy expectations. Reasoning (however wrongly) from premises is "inference" in logic.

The relation

"No voter ID laws at this location" → "Voters must commit fraud there"
​

is an inference as logic defines the term, and to reason from one premise to another is the practice of inference, even if the "reasoning" is tortured and speculative, as in this case. Or stated another way, one may infer a conclusion from a set of premises although the inference may be of validating or non-validating form.

Stated semi-formally:

States that have no voter ID laws encourage electoral fraud.
The state of Arkania has no voter ID law, therefore
The state of Arkania encourages electoral fraud.

The state of Arkania encourages electoral fraud.
Candidate Obromney won in the state of Arkania, therefore
Candidate Obromney won only by means of electoral fraud.
​

These are inferential syllogisms. The first is of validating form, but reasoned from a questionable major premise. The second is of non-validating form because it affirms a consequent. Therefore the argument it embodies is unconvincing, for at least those two reasons.

The reason I wrote what I did was to emphasize the difference between inferring one's conclusion by means of tortured and probably wrong reasoning, and providing more direct evidence or observation for the conclusion. Hence I wrote that instead of providing evidence, Robert again tried to provide handwaving lines of reasoning. Trying to infer what "must" be true rather than observing what is true is a hallmark of conspiracy theories.

But yes, he also implies that electoral fraud occurred, by inferring that explanation incorrectly from innocuous premises.

Fair enough. I just think that RP starts with the conclusion that there was electoral fraud, which he infers from the facts that (1) Obama won the election and (2) he (RP) didn't want that to happen*. Then he tries to imply it to everyone else, hoping that they draw the same inference.

*Note that I am definitely not saying that this is a valid inference or a valid chain of logic. Hell, it's barely a valid sentence.

 

[jaydeehess]

Cuccinelli political spokesman Noah Wall said it's "silly" to interpret Cuccinelli's comments as questioning the legitimacy of Obama's re-election.

"There is no question that President Obama legitimately won re-election," Wall said in an e-mail. "Ken was simply talking about the fact that there were problems on election day which need to be addressed."

Thus, Cuccinelli didn't retract anything.

has Wall been fired yet for so grossly contradicting and misrepresenting his employer's position?

 

[Clayton Moore]

I think it has to do with the alternative, which, I suspect, would have been thought to be much worse.
Americans can correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression that there is this partly implicit reasoning behind the republican rhetoric to conservative Christians that appears to be going like this:
tax = bigger government = socialism ( = communism = atheism)

Atheists being the most reviled minority in the US, I can imagine why they voted against Obama.

How did the women + minority vote not defeat the so called "white men" vote in the red states?

I still can't understand the average working man in the red states voting for a vocally outspoken, flaunting elitist who has pension stealing on his resume.

The 47% revelation to richmitt contributors?

The Roe v. Wade stance?
Most antiabortion people, like myself, are pro-choice.

In the densely populated states people would question any deviation from perceived popular opinion.

In the relatively sparsely populated red states the voters a told they are overwhelming "Republican." The popular opinion has been created by the media. There is no farting in the elevator response.

 

[MarkLindeman]

Remember the Anonymous announcement that they had installed a firewall in the Ohio voting system so that the results could not be diddled out of state? That was why Turd Blossom was so sure that the vote would flip in the unreported counties, just like they did after the last time the system crashed and had to be shunted off to Kentucky and back.

I have yet to see any evidence that Ohio votes were flipped out-of-state in 2004, or that, as a practical matter, they could have been in 2012. The Secretary of State's reporting apparatus is downstream from the counties' vote counts. No matter how many times people say "man in the middle," it doesn't demonstrate the capacity to change those original vote counts. (Of course, one could make the web site say anything under the sun.)

 

[R.A.F.]

Sorry, but I don't get the question.

What difference does that make?....you would just have posted crap, so it doesn't make any difference if you understand or not.


...and yes....my opinion of you is that low.

 

[MattusMaximus]

False. The most reviled minority in the US are white, male Christians.

 

[EventHorizon]

False. The most reviled minority in the US are white, male Christians.

Stundied!

 

[R.A.F.]

The most reviled minority in the US are white, male Christians.

So Republicans hate the majority of their own party?

Are you fully aware of how INCREDIBILY STUPID your posts have become?

 

[Travis]

I'm still waiting to hear how a lack of photo ID allows for a huge gaming of the system.

 

[000063]

Persecution complex.

Isn't that complex just off I-95, one mile west of Flagler?

How did the women + minority vote not defeat the so called "white men" vote in the red states?

"So called" by who, exactly?

I still can't understand the average working man in the red states voting for a vocally outspoken, flaunting elitist who has pension stealing on his resume.

Clay, we're well aware of the failures of your imagination.

The 47% revelation to richmitt contributors?

The Roe v. Wade stance?
Most antiabortion people, like myself, are pro-choice.

In the densely populated states people would question any deviation from perceived popular opinion.

In the relatively sparsely populated red states the voters a told they are overwhelming "Republican." The popular opinion has been created by the media. There is no farting in the elevator response.

If only voting was conducted in secret specifically to avoid such things!

 

[Multivac]

False. The most reviled minority in the US are white, male Christians.

To use your own favourite word: Baloney!

 

[Straw Man]

How did the women + minority vote not defeat the so called "white men" vote in the red states?

I still can't understand the average working man in the red states voting for a vocally outspoken, flaunting elitist who has pension stealing on his resume.

It all comes down to personal politics, Clay. My brother-in-law is a hard working average Joe, but he's a Republican, and although he was not happy with his parties candidate, he voted Romney.

The 47% revelation to richmitt contributors?

The Roe v. Wade stance?
Most antiabortion people, like myself, are pro-choice.

You're probably correct, Mr Moore, there were elements in what Romney wanted to do that may have swayed the undecided voter to feel more comfortable in voting for Obama. A rich elitist who grew up with a silver spoon in his mouth is a reminder of what caused some of the problems we have today. I also know that there were vets who regarded Romney as a draft dodger. As one said to me "He says he's behind the military? Will that be like in '68 when he was so far behind us he was in ******* Paris?!" There were women I spoke to who found that the overturning of Roe v Wade was somehow going to be the start of the loss of women to be able to control over what they do with their own bodies.

In the densely populated states people would question any deviation from perceived popular opinion.

In the relatively sparsely populated red states the voters a told they are overwhelming "Republican." The popular opinion has been created by the media. There is no farting in the elevator response.

It's my perception that in the sparsely populated states, it is more of a traditional vote rather than on any particular policies. unless something is happening that is going to change their own way of life.

 

[CORed]

So Republicans hate the majority of their own party?

Are you fully aware of how INCREDIBILY STUPID your posts have become?

"Have become"? I don't recall a time when his posts were anything but incredibly stupid.

 

[CORed]

I'm still waiting to hear how a lack of photo ID allows for a huge gaming of the system.

I'm not sure, but i think it involves armies of shape-shifting, teleporting African-American zombies or something equally plausible.

 

[R.A.F.]

"Have become"? I don't recall a time when his posts were anything but incredibly stupid.

Yeah....knew as soon as I posted, that someone would point out the obvious.

 

[Robert Prey]

By Any Means Necessary

By Any Means Necessary -- Dem's Election Mantra

Harvesting the Votes

"I was not prepared for a conversation I had at Thanksgiving dinner with my brother-in-law, Henry, who has lived most of his life in a home for the mentally disabled and although now in his 40s, has the intelligence level of a 6-year-old."

“Obama saved me,” he said to me out of the blue.

“What do you mean?”

“I voted for him for president and now he’s saving me.”

"I was taken aback by these words, since Henry had no idea who Obama was, or what a president might be, and would be unable to fill out a registration form let alone get to the polling place by himself.


So I asked him how he knew that and how he had registered and cast his vote. In halting, impeded speech he told me that the people who take care of him at the home filled out “the papers” to register him to vote, told him how Obama cared for him, even taught him the Obama chants, and then took him to the polling place to vote. They did the same for all of the mentally disabled patients in their care, approximately 60 in all."

-- David Horowitz

http://conservativehammers.blogspot.com/

* * *

Comment:
This is what our Founders envisioned?

 

[JayUtah]

This is what our Founders envisioned?

Wow, another anecdote for the pile.