YOU'RE FIRED!

[Miles]

.


Joe Biden, now with 279 electoral votes and Trump with only 213 or 214 electoral votes (depends on whom your watching) is the clear President Elect of the U.S.A..

Trump received the news while golfing in Florida. (Where else would he be?)


Upon hearing of Biden's 279 electoral votes. . . .



“Frankly, we did win this election.” * "Yup." "You sure did your highness." "yes siree!"

"Shortly before his defeat by Joe Biden was called, and with the nation deeply divided, Donald Trump began his Saturday by tweeting inflammatory and unsubstantiated claims about voter fraud. Then he went to play golf.

The president, the White House pool reporter wrote, appeared for the motorcade to his course in Sterling, Virginia “wearing white Maga cap, windbreaker, dark slacks, non-dress shirt, shoes that look appropriate for golfing”.

Trump’s dedication to playing golf while in office has been a source of continuing controversy – particularly because he memorably and repeatedly lambasted his predecessor, Barack Obama, over how often he played the game."
source

And

"Trump Was Golfing When He Lost the Presidency"
Where were you when you found out the 2020 presidential election was called for Joe Biden? I was at home, blogging. My neighbors appear to have been “at the store, shopping for airhorns.” We know where President Trump was: at the golf course. According to the Associated Press, Trump left for his golf course in Virginia earlier this morning and hasn’t yet come back.

Thoughts and prayers for his caddie."
source

And Trump's response?

"Donald Trump is refusing to concede the presidential election to Joe Biden even after the Associated Press, and every US television news network, declared him the president-elect, saying the race is “far from over” and promising an intense legal fight.

“The simple fact is this election is far from over. Joe Biden has not been certified as the winner of any states, let alone any of the highly contested states headed for mandatory recounts, or states where our campaign has valid and legitimate legal challenges that could determine the ultimate victor,” the president said in a statement, released by his campaign.

“Beginning Monday, our campaign will start prosecuting our case in court to ensure election laws are fully upheld and the rightful winner is seated. The American people are entitled to an honest election: that means counting all legal ballots, and not counting any illegal ballots,” he said, continuing to claim there is widespread voter fraud but without evidence."
source

So, kind members, how do you think Trump will be handling his defeat in the coming months. Will he actually go ahead with an "intense legal fight"? Will he welcome the Bidens into the White House in January as is the custom? Will he even attend Biden's inauguration? Some TV pundits are doubtful.

*source


.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #120]

Arguably, Trump did. Demonstrably, plenty of Trump supporters did.

Saying that Trump did it, does not show that I'm the one arguing the following:
"I lost, therefore you cheated."

Apparently, you can't show that this applies to my arguments, so it's only fair not to misrepresent my position.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #122]

Wait, what are you talking about? I was referring to Trump all along, why did you think I was talking about you? You don't have be the one arguing "I lost, therefore you cheated" for you to note the difference between "the result is too close, I want a recount" and "I lost, therefore my opponent cheated."

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #122]

Wait, what are you talking about? I was referring to Trump all along, why did you think I was talking about you? You don't have be the one arguing "I lost, therefore you cheated" for you to note the difference between "the result is too close, I want a recount" and "I lost, therefore my opponent cheated."

You responded to me and said that "you don't see a difference". That "you" refers to me. Can you explain how does anything you've said proves or disproves this point of mine:

My main point though was about how I was questioned for not wanting to accept the presidential election results until after fraud/errors were investigated. I speculated that if it were a Democrat losing the race and there were allegations of fraud, that many Democrats would be doing what Trump did as far as disputing the election. Well, now we have that scenario when it comes to the New York race that I bought up earlier. So I'd like to see how those Democrats who questioned me would respond here.

This was the post you responded to.

[Bust Nak]

You responded to me and said that "you don't see a difference". That "you" refers to me. Can you explain how does anything you've said proves or disproves this point of mine...

Sure, I was arguing that you've presented a false equivalence. You not wanting to accept the presidential election results until after fraud/errors were investigated is not like the Democrat in New York not wanting to accept that election results until after fraud/errors were investigated; the similarity is superficial, due to specifics involved. The former is "I lost, therefore my opponent cheated" while the latter is "the result is too close, I want a recount."

Note the lack of any implication that you have made the "I lost, therefore my opponent cheated" argument. The actual implication (or rather, the accusation) is that you have failed to recognize it.

[AgnosticBoy]

You responded to me and said that "you don't see a difference". That "you" refers to me. Can you explain how does anything you've said proves or disproves this point of mine...

Sure, I was arguing that you've presented a false equivalence. You not wanting to accept the presidential election results until after fraud/errors were investigated is not like the Democrat in New York not wanting to accept that election results until after fraud/errors were investigated; the similarity is superficial, due to specifics involved. The former is "I lost, therefore my opponent cheated" while the latter is "the result is too close, I want a recount."

First off, I never argued that cheating was going on, but rather my argument is that we don't know if cheating is going on (or we don't know if the election is fair). The reason I didn't accept the presidential election results on election day is because of the lack of security and oversight that I pointed to. There were also allegations of fraud/irregularities and they were being investigated.

I presume that we can agree that arguing from a "LOST" or using only that as a basis, is different than an argument that is based on the LACK of security and oversight, and pending investigations.

[Bust Nak]

First off, I never argued that cheating was going on, but rather my argument is that we don't know if cheating is going on (or we don't know if the election is fair).

That's fine. Again, I accused Trump and co of arguing that, I wasn't accusing you of making that argument.

The reason I didn't accept the presidential election results on election day is because of the lack of security and oversight that I pointed to. There were also allegations of fraud/irregularities and they were being investigated.

That's still different from what the Democrat in New York is doing. Their default stance is that the election is fair and only move to challenge because the result was close. These allegations of fraud/irregularities only come up because they challenged the results. Where as your starting point seem to be from allegations of fraud/irregularities.

I presume that we can agree that arguing from a "LOST" or using only that as a basis, is different than an argument that is based on the LACK of security and oversight, and pending investigations.

Sure.

[AgnosticBoy]

I presume that we can agree that arguing from a "LOST" or using only that as a basis, is different than an argument that is based on the LACK of security and oversight, and pending investigations.

Sure.

Good, so now we can move on to address some of your other points.

First off, I never argued that cheating was going on, but rather my argument is that we don't know if cheating is going on (or we don't know if the election is fair).

That's fine. Again, I accused Trump and co of arguing that, I wasn't accusing you of making that argument.

My point was about why I didn't accept the election results on election day and not about the reasons Trump didn't. I figured I was arguing against those who seem to have a problem with investigating and challenging elections because they presumed our election system was secure enough to catch errors and to do so BEFORE elections are over. I brought up the New York case to show how elections can lack security and oversight, and that there is a challenge to it even after a court ruled on who won.

The reason I didn't accept the presidential election results on election day is because of the lack of security and oversight that I pointed to. There were also allegations of fraud/irregularities and they were being investigated.

That's still different from what the Democrat in New York is doing. Their default stance is that the election is fair and only move to challenge because the result was close. These allegations of fraud/irregularities only come up because they challenged the results. Where as your starting point seem to be from allegations of fraud/irregularities.

Your explanation is misleading when you say that Democrat Anthony Brindisi thought the election was "fair" and is challenging the election only because of the results being close. That makes it seem as though investigations didn't turn up any errors. The fact of the matter is Brindisi is challenging the election over some of those errors. Here's one reason he is appealing that doesn't have to do with a recount:

Brindisi’s attorneys intend to appeal DelConte’s rulings on several hundred contested ballots, his team announced in a filing earlier Friday. DelConte ruled that the votes were not legally cast, over Brindisi’s objections..

Source: https://www.syracuse.com/politics/cny/2 ... rneys.html

It took an investigation or a review of voters' ballots to discover all of these errors. I also don't think it's "fair" when 2,418 voters are kept from voting because of errors made through NO fault of their own.

[Bust Nak]

My point was about why I didn't accept the election results on election day and not about the reasons Trump didn't.

Okay, but that sounds kinda moot since my point was why you didn't accept the election results on election day are not the same reasons Democrats don't.

I figured I was arguing against those who seem to have a problem with investigating and challenging elections because they presumed our election system was secure enough to catch errors and to do so BEFORE elections are over. I brought up the New York case to show how elections can lack security and oversight, and that there is a challenge to it even after a court ruled on who won.

I wasn't keeping track with what people arguing against you were saying, but your two points here should be uncontroversial. Having said that, I presumed the election system was secure enough to catch large scale errors before and immediately after elections are over. You don't seem to agree with that.

Your explanation is misleading when you say that Democrat Anthony Brindisi thought the election was "fair" and is challenging the election only because of the results being close. That makes it seem as though investigations didn't turn up any errors.

Why would my explanation make it seem as though investigations didn't turn up any errors? There is a difference between starting with the assumption that an election was fair and maintaining that assumption after the investigations. Do you think Brindisi would have challenged the result had the vote difference between the two were far higher?

It took an investigation or a review of voters' ballots to discover all of these errors. I also don't think it's "fair" when 2,418 voters are kept from voting because of errors made through NO fault of their own.

Okay, it's not fair, but as I keep pointing out it wouldn't have matter, had the vote difference been higher, it matters here because the difference is far lower. How is voter ID supposed to help here? Also as I've asked Purple Knight, is this more or less fair than whole voting blocs being marginalised?

[historia]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #90]

More lengthy delays, apologies.

Science offers tentative conclusions based on logic and scientific evidence. At best, all you've offered is historical evidence and some logic

Well, yeah. What we are debating here is an historical event -- the election last November -- which makes this fundamentally a historical (rather than scientific) question.

And the way history (the discipline) works is that historians evaluate the available historical evidence in the light of our background knowledge (i.e., the prior probability of similar historical events), and then draw conclusions as to which hypothesis best explains the available evidence.

In so far as you aren't approaching the question in that way, I find your argument confusing -- if not, in fact, confused.

You've argued as if your scenarios are the only possible ones.

The scenarios we examined earlier in the thread were just examples -- so I'm not sure why anyone would mistakenly think they are the only possible ones -- and designed to unpack some of the factors that mitigate against fraud going undetected.

After discussing those, you concluded -- rightly, I think -- that large-scale fraud is not simple or easy to get away with and would most likely leave behind evidence. So that exercise achieved its goal.

If I were a scientist on this matter, I would be requesting empirical evidence in the form of RECOUNTS as opposed to just offering history or logic based on theoretical scenarios.

Having more evidence is always preferable. But, as is often the case, we are not in a position here to "request" more evidence. And so we are left to draw conclusions based on the available evidence, which necessarily then involves making probability assessments.

Well you have offered a lot of theoretical explanations as to why there wouldn't be cheating. When I suggested a more empirical route, such as RECOUNTS, which would involve verifying your claims since it involves actually looking for cheating, rather than just THEORIZING about cheating based on past cases, you seem to be against that.

I'm not "against" recounts. If Trump wanted those done he easily could have requested them. I'm simply unwilling to remain agnostic about what likely occurred in this election just because he didn't.

And it's not clear to me why you have invested so much in the idea of recounts. Recounts, as their names suggest, usually just re-tabulate the already accepted ballots. An audit would be more likely to look for "cheating."

I've offered logic and evidence that shows that we aren't in a position to know if cheating occurs and its frequency.

No, I think what you've shown is that we can't be absolutely certain of the frequency of fraud.

But you also already agreed (way back in post #18) that "we can never be absolutely certain," so your argument ultimately has little force.

And unlike you, I'm not just going to say there is no cheating just because there's no evidence of it.

That is, of course, not what I said. I said that large-scale cheating is likely to produce evidence (a point you agreed with), and so if there is no evidence of large-scale cheating it likely didn't occur.

I'd expect it to be hard to catch much evidence if there is a lack of oversight.

But here, again, scale matters. Large-scale cheating is more likely to be caught because there are far more opportunities for election officials to notice it. So if there is no evidence of large-scale cheating it likely didn't occur.

First of all, for many decade now, news organizations and political leaders in both parties have acknowledged the winner of the presidential election once the states announce their results. So there is nothing "partisan" about doing that this time around.

They have but when there's a dispute, I don't remember them just brushing it off as if it's nothing. I can understand accepting state results that are not disputed, but that shouldn't be done when there's a dispute or even an investigation.

I can appreciate this in the abstract. But what I think you're not fully accounting for in this particular case is the fact that Trump was claiming fraud even before the election itself, which strongly suggests his claims were not being made in good faith (his penchant for lying suggests that as well). And surely we cannot fault people for treating bad-faith claims with less seriousness.

Trump was not mounting a serious legal challenge to the election and so would almost certainly not overturn the results -- which even some conservative commentators recognized, again making this not a "partisan" conclusion.

That would depend on when Democrats were making up their mind. Some made up their minds even before any court cases. I only know that you made up your mind after court cases because you stated that. In my case, my arguments were not based just on Trump's arguments and that's why I say there's some partisanship involved here.

I'm not sure I appreciate your point here. If both Democratic and Republican political commentators reached the conclusion that Trump's legal challenge was likely doomed, then how is that conclusion "partisan"? The mere fact it concerns Trump does not, ipso facto, make it partisan.

Do you see that you made a distinction between a perfect election, which is what my first point addressed, and a reasonable one (my second point addresses that?)

Not really, as it's still unclear to me -- after all this time -- how you personally are defining the term "fair election." When I've pointed to problems with the first definition, you disowned it. But then in subsequent replies you went back to it.

An election is considered ‘free’ when you can decide whether or not to vote and vote freely for the candidate or party of your choice without fear or intimidation. A ‘free’ election is also one where you are confident that who you vote for remains your secret.

That description is not "free" enough. When you have people running for president that are not representative (socioeconomic-wise) of the people at large, then I don't consider that free.

I understand the point you're trying to make here, but you're overloading the term "free election" with ideas that are not normally associated within it. Perhaps the term "democratic election" better reflects what you are getting at?

[AgnosticBoy]

Science offers tentative conclusions based on logic and scientific evidence. At best, all you've offered is historical evidence and some logic

Well, yeah. What we are debating here is an historical event -- the election last November -- which makes this fundamentally a historical (rather than scientific) question.

And the way history (the discipline) works is that historians evaluate the available historical evidence in the light of our background knowledge (i.e., the prior probability of similar historical events), and then draw conclusions as to which hypothesis best explains the available evidence.

This debate has not been a historical matter. Sure, now the election is over, but keep in mind that we've been debating the issue on this thread since early November, before all of the results were even in. Most of my points about recounts and added oversight were made when recounts could've still happened.

I know you've apologized for taking a long time to respond and I accept (not that I really held it against you, except when responding to this specific point of yours), but forgetting key points and times are among some of the negatives of waiting too long to respond.

You've argued as if your scenarios are the only possible ones.

The scenarios we examined earlier in the thread were just examples -- so I'm not sure why anyone would mistakenly think they are the only possible ones -- and designed to unpack some of the factors that mitigate against fraud going undetected.

After discussing those, you concluded -- rightly, I think -- that large-scale fraud is not simple or easy to get away with and would most likely leave behind evidence. So that exercise achieved its goal.

I can accept that it would be easier to get away with small scale fraud than large scale fraud, but I still maintain we don't know the extent of errors when oversight is lacking. So I can't rule out the possibility of large scale fraud/errors happening and going undetected.

So far, we've found cases where absentee ballots numbering in the thousands were not counted. We've found cases where voter applications weren't even processed and 2400 voters were made ineligible to vote because of it. You might say that at least these errors or fraud were caught, but it doesn't help that they were caught AFTER an election and that's only the case IF a candidate presses the matter and is able to get recounts, something which we know is not ordinarily done by all 50 states. Would some of these errors be caught if no one pressed for more action (e.g investigations, recounts, etc.) that go beyond what would ordinarily be in place for an ongoing election?!

If I were a scientist on this matter, I would be requesting empirical evidence in the form of RECOUNTS as opposed to just offering history or logic based on theoretical scenarios.

Having more evidence is always preferable. But, as is often the case, we are not in a position here to "request" more evidence. And so we are left to draw conclusions based on the available evidence, which necessarily then involves making probability assessments.

Well, as of today, we're limited, but back during the time before the results or even up to the time that legal disputes were allowed, more investigations and recounts could've been done. You also keep bringing up your probability assessments (i emphasize your because of your selective scenarios), but here's what Dr. Fauci has to say about models or projections (from U.S. News & World Report):

Fauci says models are useful, but they represent well-informed guesswork. They involve a wide span of possible results, from a best-case scenario to calamitous impacts. Usually the mid-range estimate gets cited. But sometimes, it's worst-case projection.

Dr. Fauci's point applies to your probability assessments, but instead of using worst-case projections, you used the best-case projections by selecting scenarios that would favor Biden. It's also worth noting that a lot of the models that Dr. Fauci was referring to have been off in their predictions.

Well you have offered a lot of theoretical explanations as to why there wouldn't be cheating. When I suggested a more empirical route, such as RECOUNTS, which would involve verifying your claims since it involves actually looking for cheating, rather than just THEORIZING about cheating based on past cases, you seem to be against that.

I'm not "against" recounts. If Trump wanted those done he easily could have requested them. I'm simply unwilling to remain agnostic about what likely occurred in this election just because he didn't.

And it's not clear to me why you have invested so much in the idea of recounts. Recounts, as their names suggest, usually just re-tabulate the already accepted ballots. An audit would be more likely to look for "cheating."

Well I'm not just interested in manual recounts, but also recounts done under good oversight. I defined what good oversight earlier. It involves being proactive by having oversight (in the form of laws, guidelines, observers, etc) in places where there is potential to cheat.

I've offered logic and evidence that shows that we aren't in a position to know if cheating occurs and its frequency.

No, I think what you've shown is that we can't be absolutely certain of the frequency of fraud.

But you also already agreed (way back in post #18) that "we can never be absolutely certain," so your argument ultimately has little force.

Not only can we not be absolutely certain, but I would say we're not even "reasonably" certain. We don't have oversight for areas where there is potential for cheating. I mean in some cases, the poll watchers weren't even able to see what was being counted. What's the point of having poll watchers, if they can't watch the manual processing of ballots? Why require ID for buying alcohol to confirm identity, but not require ID at the time of voting? This is basic - common sense requirements that are lacking.

And unlike you, I'm not just going to say there is no cheating just because there's no evidence of it.

That is, of course, not what I said. I said that large-scale cheating is likely to produce evidence (a point you agreed with), and so if there is no evidence of large-scale cheating it likely didn't occur.

Not quite. You also have to factor in if there is good oversight to catch cheating. Sure there would be evidence left behind, but would it be discovered or covered up? As I said earlier, it doesn't help that evidence if oftentimes discovered AFTER an election, and usually only if a candidate presses the matter.

I'd expect it to be hard to catch much evidence if there is a lack of oversight.

But here, again, scale matters. Large-scale cheating is more likely to be caught because there are far more opportunities for election officials to notice it. So if there is no evidence of large-scale cheating it likely didn't occur.

More likely to get caught, doesn't mean that it will get caught, especially if you have no way of catching it. If a election official decides not to upload 2,000 votes, as we've seen in Georgia, then that wasn't caught until AFTER the election and because of a manual recount. That number could've easily been 5,000, and I say this because the voters have no way of knowing if their vote was actually counted, as opposed to just knowing that their ballot was accepted.

They have but when there's a dispute, I don't remember them just brushing it off as if it's nothing. I can understand accepting state results that are not disputed, but that shouldn't be done when there's a dispute or even an investigation.

I can appreciate this in the abstract. But what I think you're not fully accounting for in this particular case is the fact that Trump was claiming fraud even before the election itself, which strongly suggests his claims were not being made in good faith (his penchant for lying suggests that as well). And surely we cannot fault people for treating bad-faith claims with less seriousness.

Before the election, he was making claims about the potential for fraud. Then after it look like he won or had massive leads in some key battleground states on the night results were supposed to be announced, his leads started fading away as absentee ballots were counted. So he concluded from that it was due to cheating.

I didn't disagree with Trump about bringing up the potential for cheating, but I disagreed with him when it came to claiming that there was ACTUAL cheating before completing his investigation.

That would depend on when Democrats were making up their mind. Some made up their minds even before any court cases. I only know that you made up your mind after court cases because you stated that. In my case, my arguments were not based just on Trump's arguments and that's why I say there's some partisanship involved here.

I'm not sure I appreciate your point here. If both Democratic and Republican political commentators reached the conclusion that Trump's legal challenge was likely doomed, then how is that conclusion "partisan"? The mere fact it concerns Trump does not, ipso facto, make it partisan.

Some Republicans jumped on the bandwagon later on, and it was probably just a handful before the deadline for legal disputes. However, just look at this thread or other forums I participated in. It's fair to say that those disagreeing with Trump, and at a time before the legal deadline for disputes, were overwhelmingly Democrats. Having 95% Democrats and 5% Republicans agree on something can hardly be called "bipartisan".

Do you see that you made a distinction between a perfect election, which is what my first point addressed, and a reasonable one (my second point addresses that?)

Not really, as it's still unclear to me -- after all this time -- how you personally are defining the term "fair election." When I've pointed to problems with the first definition, you disowned it. But then in subsequent replies you went back to it.

A fair election is one with reasonable oversight. The fact that it's harder to buy alcohol than it is to vote effectively illustrates my point.

Civics Academy
"An election is considered ‘free’ when you can decide whether or not to vote and vote freely for the candidate or party of your choice without fear or intimidation. A ‘free’ election is also one where you are confident that who you vote for remains your secret."

Is it free when the options are highly fixed or restricted? You gotta be rich, powerful, or have some connections with either of the two. I can see if that was the only way to have elections, but it does not need to be that way. It's made that way by those in power, and not by the American people.

I understand the point you're trying to make here, but you're overloading the term "free election" with ideas that are not normally associated within it. Perhaps the term "democratic election" better reflects what you are getting at?

Is it overloading or overrestricting?!