sub•stan•tial•ly ►

In the manner of a substance; with reality of existence; truly; really; effectually.
In a substantial manner; strongly; solidly.
In substance; in the main; essentially; by including the material or essential part: as, the two arguments are substantially the same.


==> FALSE.

#alternativefacts

They could have put "cry wolf".

This post was edited by Skinned on May 27 2020 04:33pm

When it already happens in several states and we don't see the kind of thing Trump is saying, then there's really no reason to go about analyzing those things. We already know what happens, the only thing left is to point out why he's talking out of his ass.

Read the underlying studies behind the fact checks. The methodology is always circular. No checks, no arrests, and therefore no checks required.

It is interesting that as an aside to why we don't need voter ID laws, the study snopes references notes that mail is the predominant form of voter fraud, making up by far more cases than any other method.

Snopes goes on to mention that some states do well with statewide mail-in ballots, so long as they buttress that with strong controls. But there's no guarantee that those controls will be universally rolled out, or that they can be successfully rolled out on a much larger scale so close to the election.

This will be an emotionally charged election that may be decided in a handful of states where small differences in turnout and vote totals will matter. Switching to a less secure method of voting on a completely novel scale is thus a reasonable concern.

Does Trump have evidence that voter fraud will happen? Undoubtedly not. But that's his (informed or uninformed) opinion, and it's not something a fact check can objectively determine.

Forgot you hold your leaders to a lower standard

His tweeting style is appalling and comes across as unhinged, what do you want anyone to say? That doesn't make it "good" to pass op-ed editorials as fact-checks.

The facts in the case are as follows: Voter fraud does occur. The number of prosecuted cases is very small. Of known cases, they are overwhelmingly mail-in.

If I suppose that prosecutions are low because substantial checks don't exist, or that fraud will be more rampant in a heated environment, or as a result of gaps in a rushed national roll-out plan, it's my opinion based on the underlying facts of the case.

My stance is that responsible people should choose to abstain from using twitter.

It's really hard to get me to care about Twitter posting facts for context when it's on the President of the United States' "appalling and unhinged" remarks.

In an age where "fact-checking" is employed to substantiate major media headlines and censor online content, it's a concern to everyone that they be held to a high standard. Here, at least, they are clearly failing.

Twitter is asserting publishing rights to the president's tweets because they disagree with his opinion. If your priority is the president's writing style, and not Twitter's "right" to weigh in authoritatively on political questions, that's your prerogative, albeit a stupendously bad one.

Trump was not censored. You're the second or third person to say that, and it's a lie. So there's that.

They can weigh in on anything on their platform. It's their platform.

Twitter has publishing rights to the president's tweets, because again, it's their platform.

And I find it stupendously bad that you are holding Twitter to a higher standard than the president.