T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
I don’t know Misnkin. I don’t watch Fox.
By what authority did five major US States simultaneously stop counting votes?
- Status
H
HarryStotle
Guest
But you have been defending them both vociferously?HarryStotle:
I don’t know Misnkin. I don’t watch Fox.
Reflex reaction?
P
pnewton
Guest
Confirmation bias. California’s count is as 77% still. Ohio is at 92%.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Did they delay, pause or halt counting overnight?HarryStotle:
Confirmation bias. California’s count is as 77% still. Ohio is at 92%.
Actually that is kind of a misnomer because these states didn’t stop counting they just had suspicious activities going on that led observers to believe they had stopped counting, like sending volunteers home.
Yes I understand there is plausible deniability built into events, but you wouldn’t presume criminality is always inept and clueless would you?
P
pnewton
Guest
I do not know. It looks like based on how the numbers came in. The point is, the count is not in for several states. This is not mentioned because no one sees it as relevant. Only the close ones are being followed with so much press.
As to what I would presume, I would not presume criminal activity is needed for a many with a 4 million vote lead to win the Electoral College.
P
ProVobis
Guest
FWIW, absentee ballots from mostly CA, WA, and NY (I believe) were being counted well into December back in 2016. Clinton built a 3 million vote lead during this time.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Nate Silver wrote a piece about how much difference a 1% increase in popular vote makes. He seems to be right; Hillary had 2.1% edge over Trump while Biden maintains a 2.8% edge.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
There is a good argument for why the Pennsylania state court ruling will be overthrown by the supreme court because it was essentially the state court making election rules which is solely the prerogative of the state legislature.HarryStotle:
Confirmation bias. California’s count is as 77% still. Ohio is at 92%.
Details here…
If the argument holds all the ballots counted after the law was in place as stated by the legislature would be thrown out.
We shall see.
Last edited:
B
Balto1
Guest
If all those ballots were thrown out, and 100% for Biden, Biden would still be leading in Pennsylvania by over 30,000 votes.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
H
HarryStotle
Guest
There are 100 000 provisional ballots still to be counted and they have been going 3 to 1 to Trump.HarryStotle:
If all those ballots were thrown out, and 100% for Biden, Biden would still be leading in Pennsylvania by over 30,000 votes.
Last edited:
P
ProVobis
Guest
Steve Kornacki did mention the possibility but he didn’t say the 100,000 provisionals were all going to go 3:1 Trump. (They might if they were all rural areas which is doubtful.)
That said, at last check Biden was 37,000 ahead.
That said, at last check Biden was 37,000 ahead.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Correct, but 3 to 1 would be 75 000 to 25 000 so if the rate holds here would be about a 13 000 vote advantage to Trump. Besides…
A recount could show a number of anomalies or irregular votes which given all of the questionable practices from the elections people there could be enough to put Trump ahead.
P
phil3
Guest
This election was stolen. There is evidence but you have to be willing to look under the rug where is was swept.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Robert Barnes, a lawyer whose opinion and experience I respect noted that when someone accuses you of something weird or strange that is good reason for thinking that individual is projecting or transferring what they are guilty of onto you. It is in part a psychological defense mechanism and in part a subtle insight into their psychological makeup.
Think back to all the stuff Trump has been accused of by various Democrats over the past 5 or so years. It paints a very clear picture of their activities. There is good evidence on the side of the guilt of Democrat leaders that is entirely absent when Trump has been thoroughly investigated.
It is also why the mainstream press and leading Dems are so opposed to investigating allegations against them but jump on every little inkling of a possible wrong by Trump and the Republicans.
No transparency with regard to Democrat activity but full and extensive investigations into Trump.
Transference pure and simple. A list of dozens and dozens of instances of transference could be compiled and would provide great insight into how the left operates.
Might be an interesting thread.
Last edited:
S
sallybutler
Guest
So does that mean when Trump calls people names like sleepy or little or lying or cheating, he is describing what he thinks of himself and/or he feels he is doing?
Just asking.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Good question.
Perhaps those are personality traits that Trump is susceptible to internally and perhaps hates himself for them and therefore works doubly hard to avoid or escape from them. Personalities are complicated things.
I don’t think it is the same thing as projection though because Trump doesn’t accuse his adversaries of anything specific until after the fact. He simply uses nicknames to get them to reveal something of their own weaknesses, pretences and corruption.
Trump has spent a lifetime amidst the most eccentric, creative, manipulative and outlandish personalities in the world. These are not ordinary people just trying to live decent lives but highly motivated individuals whose behaviour traits can’t help but come through in their actions. I suspect Trump has a highly developed sense of what makes people tick and what triggers them from observing many many eccentric personalities. He may also have access to insider scuttlebut that you and I may not have any clue about. The little tiff between him and Bruce Springsteen might fit there somewhere. Clearly he has triggered a lot of people, mostly celebrities and media personalities.
He has had an agenda and that seems to be to highlight the corruption in politics and the media (perhaps even Hollywood). The best way to get people to act in such a way as to disarm their psychological defenses so they respond “in the raw,” so to speak is to poke at their vulnerabilities.
Now you might say this way of treating ordinary people is reprehensible, but these are not ordinary people that he triggers. In fact, he only goes after those who have attacked him first or those he deems have gotten away with what they haven’t deserved. Some may have gone after him first because of some association to someone already in a fray with him.
If you have paid attention, most of those having been in some kind of skirmish with him have later been revealed to have an issue with corruption, though not always fully revealed due to their capacity to conceal.
Calling Elizabeth Warren Pocahontas did highlight her unwise and dishonest use of race to advance herself politically and professionally. I suspect Trump has a very visceral sense of justice and believes fraud should not be tolerated, but called out.
Marie Yovanovich is another example. She testified against him at the impeachment trial. Trump tweeted of her, “everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad.”
Turns out Yovanovich played a key role meeting with Burisma personnel to provide cover for Hunter Biden and interfered with corruption investigations in Ukraine.
Continued…
Perhaps those are personality traits that Trump is susceptible to internally and perhaps hates himself for them and therefore works doubly hard to avoid or escape from them. Personalities are complicated things.
I don’t think it is the same thing as projection though because Trump doesn’t accuse his adversaries of anything specific until after the fact. He simply uses nicknames to get them to reveal something of their own weaknesses, pretences and corruption.
Trump has spent a lifetime amidst the most eccentric, creative, manipulative and outlandish personalities in the world. These are not ordinary people just trying to live decent lives but highly motivated individuals whose behaviour traits can’t help but come through in their actions. I suspect Trump has a highly developed sense of what makes people tick and what triggers them from observing many many eccentric personalities. He may also have access to insider scuttlebut that you and I may not have any clue about. The little tiff between him and Bruce Springsteen might fit there somewhere. Clearly he has triggered a lot of people, mostly celebrities and media personalities.
He has had an agenda and that seems to be to highlight the corruption in politics and the media (perhaps even Hollywood). The best way to get people to act in such a way as to disarm their psychological defenses so they respond “in the raw,” so to speak is to poke at their vulnerabilities.
Now you might say this way of treating ordinary people is reprehensible, but these are not ordinary people that he triggers. In fact, he only goes after those who have attacked him first or those he deems have gotten away with what they haven’t deserved. Some may have gone after him first because of some association to someone already in a fray with him.
If you have paid attention, most of those having been in some kind of skirmish with him have later been revealed to have an issue with corruption, though not always fully revealed due to their capacity to conceal.
Calling Elizabeth Warren Pocahontas did highlight her unwise and dishonest use of race to advance herself politically and professionally. I suspect Trump has a very visceral sense of justice and believes fraud should not be tolerated, but called out.
Marie Yovanovich is another example. She testified against him at the impeachment trial. Trump tweeted of her, “everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad.”
Turns out Yovanovich played a key role meeting with Burisma personnel to provide cover for Hunter Biden and interfered with corruption investigations in Ukraine.
Continued…
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Yet, he is sly enough to know that when some are already unhinged there is no need to stop them from wrecking themselves.
Take Jeffrey Toobin who went after Trump unceasingly calling him a fraud, crazed and much worse.
I bet a good book could be written on Trump’s use of epithets to oust the foibles and corruption of his adversaries.
Take Jeffrey Toobin who went after Trump unceasingly calling him a fraud, crazed and much worse.
Despite the ferocity of Toobin going after Trump I cannot find a single instance of Trump saying anything negative about him. Why would he? Toobin was outing himself quite proficiently, especially most recently in October. Art of War tactics.
I bet a good book could be written on Trump’s use of epithets to oust the foibles and corruption of his adversaries.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
That statement takes a form that many conspiracy theories have taken. It makes a claim and directs someone to use confirmation bias to validate the claim. That’s not an epistemological method that tends to be reliable for finding truths.
- Status