2020 US Election - Current Events

This is a tricky one.

In essense it seems like it boils down to whether WaPo, and others like them, were wrong to write:
President Trump urged Georgia's lead elections investigator to "find the fraud" in a lengthy December phone call, saying the official would be a "national hero," according to an individual familiar with the call who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the conversation.
Click to expand...
-- https://web.archive.org/web/2021011...55c7fa-51cf-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html

The confusion lies in the 2 levels of indirection: The paper is reporting... what an insider claimed... about what Trump said.

I agree with the critics that the default implication from the above exact wording would be that Trump said precisely those quoted words, but I don't believe it's the only possible interpretation - it is possible that the quoted words are precisely what the insider said, as he paraphrased Trump. The quote symbols, the claim of an exact quote being presented, aren't the insiders', they are WaPo's. And WaPo is reporting on what the insider claimed tbout Trump. The insider had the right to paraphrase Trump, for simplicity of payload delivery, and I believe the quoted words captured the essence of what Trump said in the call accurately.

WaPo was misleading, possibly deliberately so, possibly more out of incompetence than malice, I don't know, but they could claim they meant other than the default interpretation. The paragraph should definitely have been restructured to remove the ambiguity (having Trump's name or a pronoun within the quote should suffice), a defence of "but we only said it was *according to* someone else" is a very weak one. Slapped wrists, WaPo, you invited this kind of response through your own sloppiness.

Background: I do a fair bit of work copy-editing a wide range of material - everything from academic papers, press releases, news articles, political speeches, marketting fluff, et al. - and the issue of accuracy of claims being made is one that I often have to address.
 
Z.W. Wolf said:
Frances Watson was the source of that December 3, Washington Post story.
Click to expand...

where did you see that? i can't access the WP articles due to paywall (and please no one tell me to clear my cache... it doesnt work on Windows 10).

add: I ask specifically because she will be harassed for lying about Trump and it is doubly wrong if she is not the source
 
Last edited:
i find that very confusing. the stuff in square brackets are things someone else added and not the actual transcript or what? if they are added by someone else then claiming that's a transcript is bunk.
 
obiwanbenobi said:
i find that very confusing. the stuff in square brackets are things someone else added and not the actual transcript or what? if they are added by someone else then claiming that's a transcript is bunk.
Click to expand...

Nope, it's absolutely standard editorial markup on at least 4 continents, and I have no reason do doubt it's standard on the other ones too. ZWW did nothing wrong.
 
deirdre said:
I've never seen it.
Click to expand...
The most common usage may be for the word "sic". As in [sic] is inserted in a quote or a citation to indicate that an error (usually spelling or grammatical) being transcribed is in the original and is not an error made by the one doing the quoting.
 
Amber Robot said:
The most common usage may be for the word "sic". As in [sic] is inserted in a quote or a citation to indicate that an error (usually spelling or grammatical) being transcribed is in the original and is not an error made by the one doing the quoting.
Click to expand...
yes ive seen that. or with one other word in it to indicate they added a word to make the reading make more sense. or if the word is a guess due to mumbling.

but i've never seen commentary, is what i meant. (in a transcript printed by a news source anyway.)
 
  • Agree
Reactions: qed
deirdre said:
yes ive seen that. or with one other word in it to indicate they added a word to make the reading make more sense. or if the word is a guess due to mumbling.

but i've never seen commentary, is what i meant. (in a transcript printed by a news source anyway.)
Click to expand...
Ok. Sorry for misunderstanding your comment.
 
deirdre said:
yes ive seen that. or with one other word in it to indicate they added a word to make the reading make more sense. or if the word is a guess due to mumbling.

but i've never seen commentary, is what i meant. (in a transcript printed by a news source anyway.)
Click to expand...

same here, to me it isn't clear at all what is going on. which was my original comment.

a "[sic]" is common to me, but nothing else would i take as anything other than the original quoted content.

it would have been nice had you quoted the other article instead.
 
obiwanbenobi said:
same here, to me it isn't clear at all what is going on. which was my original comment.

a "[sic]" is common to me, but nothing else would i take as anything other than the original quoted content.

it would have been nice had you quoted the other article instead.
Click to expand...

It's so standard, I'd go as far as to say it's universal.

External Quote:
Using square brackets
Square brackets enclose material added by someone other than an original author. Examples: editorial comment, translation, explanation, or correction.
-- https://www.writershelper.com/Editors_Notes-141.html

External Quote:
Brackets
Brackets allow the insertion of editorial material inside quotations.
-- https://www.thepunctuationguide.com/brackets.html

External Quote:
Square brackets are an elegant device to indicate matter inserted by an editor into a quoted passage. They let the reader know who is speaking.
-- https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...se-ones-really-don-t-help-reader-7920609.html

External Quote:
Square Brackets [Box Brackets]
Square brackets are most often used to indicate a change to what an author wrote, such as when editing a quote or adding an editorial note. For example, we might use them to add a translation:
-- https://getproofed.com/writing-tips/brackets-parentheses/

I'm not sure of the capabilities of the markup language used on MB, and it would perhaps have been friendlier to use some stylistic markup such as colour to indicate that the editorial text was somehow meta in addition to just the square brackets, but that may introduce other problems (it may be invisible to some readers, for example, or simply reduce readability). Alternatives are annotating your editorialising with your initials [works for me:FP].
 
you really shouldn't add text that tells others how to interpret something though if you are pasting a transcript. it's like telling people the demon on an EVP recording is saying "Get out". once someone puts something in your head, it's kinda hard to hear anything else. or make an objective determination.
 
deirdre said:
you really shouldn't add text that tells others how to interpret something though if you are pasting a transcript. it's like telling people the demon on an EVP recording is saying "Get out". once someone puts something in your head, it's kinda hard to hear anything else. or make an objective determination.
Click to expand...

especially if it is reported as news and not marked as opinion or more clearly labelled. in this case the quote was not clearly labelled and so to me that was why i asked what i did.
 
If the Arizona recount won't confirm the conspiracy theories, then the conspiracy theorists won't trust it.

It reminds me of something that was said in the Jan 6 session of congress after they reconvened, possibly by Lindsey Graham, in response to the suggestion that congress should set up a committee to investigate the vote; it observed that the people who didn't trust the counting process wouldn't trust a congressional committee either.
 
Leifer said:
What happens if it reveals no or little difference in the former "tainted (claimed)" vote ?
Click to expand...

it's an audit, not a recount. if they arent allowed, as you article states, to check voter signatures, then nothing will change, imo.

Kinda messed up no one is complaining you need to show proof of who you are to get a vaccine, but not to vote. I think making it easier to get a vaccine is more important then making it easier to vote! I know it's off topic, but that's been driving me nuts. Not because i care about about the voting part of it, but i want people to be able to get their vaccine easily! Do they think people will double dip on vaccines? what's up with that?
 
I did need to show ID each time (twice) when getting the covid19 vaccine x2.
But I was also asked to show ID before live voting too.
I guess you might be referring to "not showing ID" before absentee voting ?
 
Leifer said:
I guess you might be referring to "not showing ID" before absentee voting
Click to expand...
well that, and many states if you dont bring your id to the polls you can just sign something that says like "i'm saying this is me". Either way they shouldnt have id (you can show a recent utility bill too if you have no id- in my state) for vaccinations! are undocumented people going to want to come forward? i wouldnt.
 
In my case the ID thing made sense because it was a freebie paid for by my company. In that case it was like picking up theater tickets.

In cases where it makes no visible sense, I would guess that the vaccine ID thing is coming from insurance companies. Malpractice insurance. Lawyers and insurance companies are big into CYA gestures, which are meaningless in themselves but get you off the hook in the legal system.

I recently had to wait at a new pharmacy (medical insurance policy forced me to switch) for quite awhile before I could leave, because I had to have a consultation with the one person who was qualified. The stuff was paid for and on the counter. I reached for the stuff and said I didn't need a consultation.

"You have to have the consultation."

I didn't say what was going through my head... Are you going to teach me how to swallow? I was also wondering what would happen if I just picked up my stuff and walked away. Would they call the cops?

Finally, the right person was free. I was asked, "Are you allergic to any medication"?

"No."

"You may go."

What's the logic? These drugs were prescribed by a board certified physician. Why do I also have to go through this additional filter from someone less qualified?

When there is no logic, it's got to be coming from someone making a CYA gesture. And that means insurance companies or lawyers... or insurance company lawyers.
 
Last edited:
deirdre said:
Kinda messed up no one is complaining you need to show proof of who you are to get a vaccine, but not to vote.
Click to expand...
Our local NPR station had a detailed interview with election supervisors from around Florida including the Republican county in which I vote. They explained in detail the process of validating the mail-in ballots based on the signature that they have on file. Here in Florida they check every ballot against the signature on file. If the signature doesn't match then you have to "cure" the ballot with additional proof of authenticity. So a ballot could technically be forged but it would take some serious technique to generate forgeries on a large scale. I renewed my driver license last year so my current signature looks just like the one that they have on file. However, my signature when I moved to FL in 2004 looks a lot different than current and I don't think that I could reproduce it. Had I not renewed my license in person last year and updated my sig then I guarantee that my mail-in ballot would have gotten flagged based on what our supervisor of elections explained in the interview.
 
ID for vaccine made sense to me. Proof of age. Proof of eligibility for reason other than age. Proof that I was the person that actually had the appointment since the vaccination site I used was going by appointment to make the day flow efficiently and to avoid having a crush of people lined up for hours on end up and down State Road 50 etc.... Now that the first rounds of vaccination are over, in places where there are no conditions on eligibility then the id requirement for the vaccine should be lifted.
 
no id was asked for when i got both doses of the vaccine. absentee ballot they compare signatures and address information. at the poll voter registration card or other id required.
 
deirdre said:
what state do you live in?
Click to expand...

Michigan. it was suggested to bring ID for vaccination but nobody asked for it. we did have to fill out paperwork so i guess they considered that enough ID.

oh, and i forgot to mention that at the polling station they do check your signature against one they have on file.
 
Lindel didn't come with anything new in his rambling mess of an infomercial (the chryon scrolled coupon codes for his pillow company for crying out loud), only the same old previously addressed and thoroughly debunked lies.
 
Here's something from back in March 2021, but I think we haven't mentioned it in this thread yet:
Article:
The declassified report, issued Tuesday by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, is the U.S. intelligence community's final take on foreign meddling in the hotly contested race, in which then-presidential candidate Joe Biden defeated former President Donald Trump.

[..]

"We assess that China did not deploy interference efforts and considered but did not deploy influence efforts intended to change the outcome of the US Presidential election," the newly released ODNI report said, adding it had "high confidence" in its finding.

"China sought stability in its relationship with the United States, did not view either election outcome as being advantageous enough for China to risk getting caught meddling, and assessed its traditional influence tools — primarily targeted economic measures and lobbying — would be sufficient to meet its goal of shaping U.S. China policy regardless of the winner," the report stated.


The full report is at https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/ICA-declass-16MAR21.pdf .
image.jpeg
 
Hevach said:
Lindel didn't come with anything new in his rambling mess of an infomercial (the chryon scrolled coupon codes for his pillow company for crying out loud), only the same old previously addressed and thoroughly debunked lies.
Click to expand...
Thanks I suspect the same. Can you point me to the debunks? Thank you.
 
Craig2000 said:
Thanks I suspect the same. Can you point me to the debunks? Thank you.
Click to expand...
The metabunk guidelines ask you to actually name the claims. I feel it is a bit much to ask us to dig through a propaganda video, guess which nuggets of evidence interest you, and then search the forum for existing debunks.

And don't bother listing claims with no evidence, we'll just say "how do you know he hasn't made that up" if we don't happen to remember the actual evidence and debunk for that claim. Metabunk requires claims of evidence.

The constructive way forward would be to create a new topic, and in the original post link and describe the video (I didn't even catch who the speaker was), and provide time codes, transcripts and, if needed, screenshots, of every single claims being made, including any evidence given, that interests you. Normally, Metabunk requires "one claim per thread", but this would be limited to just the video, so maybe the moderators would approve it, or move it to the "Open Discussion" forum.
 
Mendel said:
The constructive way forward would be to create a new topic, and in the original post link and describe the video (I didn't even catch who the speaker was), and provide time codes, transcripts and, if needed, screenshots, of every single claims being made, including any evidence given, that interests you.
Click to expand...
Or perhaps, prior to that, read through the threads pertaining to the late election. The answers to "what has been debunked here?" are all there! THEN open a thread for a question that has not yet been addressed that interests you. :)
 
JMartJr said:
read through the threads pertaining to the late election.
Click to expand...
That is a pretty daunting task, though, so while it would be ideal, I wouldn't really want to require it.

But putting some of the work in that is required to examine a claim is not too much to ask; and if it motivates the poster to do a forum search or a web search for a debunk first to potentially save themselves that work, so much the better!
 
Mendel said:
That is a pretty daunting task, though, so while it would be ideal, I wouldn't really want to require it.
Click to expand...
No, nor would I -- but if was the one wanting to find out what had been discussed and debunked here, it's probably where I'd start. Not as a requirement, but because that's where the information I want already is. Wouldn't all have to be done in a sitting, and presumably I am interested in the topic which might make it less of a slog.

Mendel said:
But putting some of the work in that is required to examine a claim is not too much to ask; and if it motivates the poster to do a forum search or a web search for a debunk first to potentially save themselves that work, so much the better!
Click to expand...
Fair enough. But doing it the "look at what has already been posted on the topic that interests you first" method might at least cut down on the number of duplicate topics/threads, the proliferation of which would make the task of future readers that much more daunting.

Edited for a couple of typos, I hate posting by phone, fat fingers.
 
https://www.thedailybeast.com/mypil...rt-admits-they-have-no-proof-of-election-hack

Soruce is fairly partisan but in this case it just lets Lindell's people speak for themselves, because the whole symposium was a glorious sham and sometimes the best way to discredit somebody is to let them keep talking.

Lindell's own people admit they never had the data he was supposedly holding back until a Supreme Court case that doesn't exist, invited experts said data was made to look like packet capture data but clearly wasn't, and Lindell had a breakdown on CNN where he started yelling, "So what if there's no proof? What if I'm right? How does that make you feel?" and watching the outburst I think Donnie O'Sullivan was actually afraid for his own safety.

Lastly, they have now admitted that they bought the pcap data from Dennis L. Montgomery. Montgomery is a notorious scammer who since about 2002 has been just stripping money bags off conservative marks. After selling fake software to the Bush Administration, his own lawyer called him a con artist and, "A habitual liar engaged in fraud." Because sometimes a lawyer knows they can't get their client is in trouble and just shoots for mercy via honesty
 
Hevach said:
where he started yelling, "So what if there's no proof? What if I'm right? How does that make you feel?" and watching the outburst I think Donnie O'Sullivan was actually afraid for his own safety.
Click to expand...

is that what men look like when they are afraid for their safety? huh.

and i can't find where he says (or yells) "so what if there's no proof".
 
deirdre said:
is that what men look like when they are afraid for their safety? huh.

and i can't find where he says (or yells) "so what if there's no proof".
Click to expand...

I don't remember hearing those exact words, but he definitely seems to be underplaying actually having any proof:

"No, what, just forget about the evidence. If I'm right then China took our country. Right now. Do you care? Would it bother you?"
Donie: but you
"Would that bother you?"
Donie: but you have to show the proof first
"No. Well. Would that bother you?"
Donie: Of course it would
"Well why do you think I keep going? Do you think I like getting attacked?"
 
FatPhil said:
but he definitely seems to be underplaying actually having any proof:
Click to expand...

i'm not sure i agree with that. i haven't been following him (nor has Fox News or NewsMax) but i imagine if he is willing to make such a public spectacle of a "symposium" with his alleged evidence on a big screen, he likely does believe he has something akin to evidence.

It seems more like one of those baseline questions CTers ask. Like when 911 guys ask "but the government historically hasn't always been truthful, right?". TO me that has always been like a "common ground" opening to see if you would even legitimately consider their alleged evidence. vs just dismissing an idea without considering the possibility. And O'Donnell did a superb job by honestly answering him in the positive.

It's interesting about his China statement though. I didn't realize China was part of the narrative. I was wondering why he was keeping on with this thing for so long.
 
I think creating fear actually works better if you don't have any proof.
It's much easier to just reinforce what the audience is already fearing.
Populists have always worked that way.
They've just never been beneficial for a country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Z.W. Wolf
Explained: Red Mirages, Blue Shifts, and Data Dumps in the 2020 Election
Replies
21
Views
9K
Z.W. Wolf
Z.W. Wolf
Mick West
Burst Pipe Conspiracy Theories, Fulton County's State Farm Arena, Georgia
Replies
20
Views
12K
Mick West
Mick West
Mick West
Debunked: Crowder's "Fraud Week" Title Graphic (and Why it Matters)
Replies
1
Views
8K
Mick West
Mick West
Mick West
A Skeptical Call To Arms
2 3 4
Replies
139
Views
39K
deirdre
deirdre
Mick West
Sean Kirkpatrick's Interview With Daniel Lavelle at The Guardian [Transcript]
Replies
26
Views
4K
MapperGuy
M

Latest posts

Back
Top