Election Results and just the results

Post Reply New Topic

You started out alright, but then descended into a cascade of hyperbole.

Just because an outgoing POTUS can (and is being allowed to) abuse the power vested in his position does not mean he should be allowed to waste resources on a fool's errand.

The pavlovian reponce is strong today, I see...It would be nice if people bothered to read posts (and research topics) and thereby demonstrate an understanding of what is being discussed...(It's feels like the cause is a compulsion to attack the messenger rather than consider the message being presented, but I may be mistaken)

Had this occurred, it would be apparent that:
* The original news (with source) I had posted was related to these results being withheld.
* This resulted in attacks from one of your partisan allies because the information wasn't "anti-Trump".
* Now, having posted a rumour (note that I specifically indicated it as such) that was "anti-Trump", am having this "anti-Trump" news (which hadn't been published in a public, linkable manner at the time, nor was confirmation available at that time being around 30 minutes (or less) since the event occurred - It has since been confirmed and posted on this site:https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=392331) treated as evidence of a "pro Trump" position...

I'd be interested to know what "logic" (or other mental gymnastics) was required to "prove" that supplying information not in favor of side X shows that the person who supplied it is biased in favor of side X...

As to the question of an audit\canvassing: It shouldn't be needed because one party requests it: It should be a required\standard practice regardless of how close the results are, given there is no impartial "electoral commission" such as we have in Australia, meaning that in all states there are opportunities for partisans to affect processes involved in them. Given at least 3 counties in Georgia have "found" votes thus far that were not included in the initial count, it would seem prudent to ensure that canvassing of votes should occur, both to confirm a winner, and to restrict how much room other parties may have with which to dispute the results.

On a side note: I am yet to see evidence (not "anonymous sources say...") that support your delusion regarding "POTUS chucks a hissy fit and even his own family have told him to bottle up his unsubstantiated childish rants and take it like a man"

The New York Times was given this information about Ivanka and Kushner convincing him to concede through a source in Trump's administration. I tend to believe they know there's no value in wasting time especially since the longer Trump continues his hissy fit the more he losing support in the electorate

So...No evidence. Why don't you bother to say so.

There may be claims that this occurred ("anonymouce sources"\"source in Trump's administration"), but that is not evidence, as there is no way to confirm or disprove that:
* The "source" would be able to have access to the information.
* The "source" was in a position at the time the information may have become available (which is also not indicated).
* The "source" even exists outside the New York Times writer's imagination.

That's called an unverifiable rumor.

A teenage girl said it more eloquently than this wizened old fellow

Hmm, cherry-picking.

My primary request, and what actually I asked, is that you don't post copy/pasted articles because it constitutes republishing without consent from the copyright owner and could cause legal trouble for WP and that instead, you post a link and quote no more than a couple of short paragraphs to get the flavour of the article across.
Of course how you choose those excerpts to further your assertion is up to you, and you're free to add your own explanatory text instead of, you know, just posting some article to make it for you.

Also, since you've never bothered to ask, you have no idea what my political leaning is.

^'Cept she has sung and the outcome is clear.

Mea Culpa...Maybe I misunderstood the message you intended to convey in these (as a brief summary of examples):
https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=391980&p=8648938#p8648938
https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=391957&p=8649496#p8649496
https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=391866&p=8649484#p8649484
https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=391980&p=8648672#p8648672
https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=391980&p=8648688#p8648688

Yes, you misunderstand.
Poking fun at someone so manifestly unsuited to the job because it's amusing (to me, anyway) is not a "message you intended to convey", nor is it demonstrating a political leaning.
And thanks, BTW, for choosing to comment on this instead of the main point of my post. I see you.

Hmmm, so you believe an administrator's personal opinions on emotional and intellectual maturity of a public figure are somehow connected to no-republishing policy on WP?

Hint: the policy is enforced outside PPR, too.

Nope (nice try, though)...

The subject of the article linked was related to the results of the certification in a given area not being granted. That being the case, presenting this was appropriate (hence the first quote from the article).

The second quote was selected in order to provide the reason given\relied upon by those withholding certification (the subject under discussion in the article) in order to help readers understand what had taken place - providing a quote giving reasons why they shouldn't have done so does nothing to assist a reader in understanding the actual event and the reason behind it.

I don't care why you posted what you did, only that you show some consideration for copyright.