It has also been claimed that every single person who voted for Trump was actually an extraterrestrial wearing a convincing human suit. "It's been claimed" isn't exactly convincing.
(For anyone who wants a source on that claim, it's me, I'm claiming it here.)
IMO, yes and no. While they make efforts to sound fair and reasonable, the "fact-checkers" and "truth-o-meters" are quite biased. Before the election, they were basically stumping for Clinton, making it sound like Trump was the fount of untruth while she was a mere trickle of truthiness. How wonderful to be the self-declared arbiters of truth!
As I said, it has been claimed that 3 million non-citizens voted, and a lawsuit is pending, so we shall see.
If it is true, then obviously that is a significant problem, and obviously Clinton would not have won the popular vote. And obviously that would vindicate the Republicans' efforts to institute voter-ID laws, and it would condemn the Democrats' repeated attempts to prevent such laws, and basically implicate them in election fraud. (Not to mention the Scott Foval videos.)
And that is one of the issues surrounding the repeated claim that Clinton won the popular vote, and the implied problem.
Is there any reason to think it is true, besides the claim? Like I said, it has been claimed that all Trump voters are ETs, but I wouldn't expect you to give that any credence.
> Like I said, it has been claimed that all Trump voters are ETs, but I wouldn't expect you to give that any credence.
No, and who would? ETs have not been proven to exist, and if they did, why would they care about our election? This is a silly non-sequitur; please stop derailing the discussion with it.
Back in reality, non-citizen human beings in the USA obviously do exist, and groups have them have been very vocal about the election (going as far as marching in the streets with foreign flags), and articles in real newspapers (not "fake news sites") have been published recently documenting votes by non-citizens in elections, and videos have been published showing Democrat operatives by name and face admitting to committing election fraud.
This shows party, motive, opportunity, and method. What it does not show is to what extent it has occurred. The only source for the "3 million" claim is one person who has not shown his data or methodology, so of course it is not conclusive, and we should be skeptical. However, given the general evidence of fraud and manipulation surrounding this election, it should not be dismissed out-of-hand either. We should follow the lawsuit he is filing and see what happens.
Now, do you actually disagree with anything I just said? If so, please explain why without making silly remarks about ETs.
Personally, I was having a bit of fun. I thought about deleting it because it was too light-hearted and non-substantive, not because I thought I was being snarky. I understood his response in the same vein. (And where did all this "signaling" language come from? I must not be reading the right forums.)
In short, it implies that we're not sincere when we make fun of far-out conspiracy theories, but rather that we're only doing it to enhance our social standing.
I think you're quite sincere. :) But, yes, the virtual dogpiling is quite detestable. It's an ugly form of self-congratulatory virtual bullying, like any playground scene where a bunch of kids gang up on another, push him down, and start kicking him, then walk off, high-fiving each other, secure in their social status as demonstrated by their "correct" behavior. In principle, it's no different than this: https://youtu.be/C7zEibNcejA
And the double-standard is evident here, as in any other situation, such "unsubstantive" comments would bring down the chastisement of the mods and the community downvotes. But since the victim is not left-leaning, it's okay.
Yeah, it's no different from what happened in that video, other than, you know, the complete lack of any violence or harm done to you.
There's no double standard here. Unsubstantive, funny comments have always been allowed as long as they're not disruptive and are actually funny.
If you don't like being made fun of for bringing up completely unsubstantiated claims as if they were in any way relevant, then don't bring them up. Problem solved.
> Yeah, it's no different from what happened in that video, other than, you know, the complete lack of any violence or harm done to you.
Did you notice the key words, "in principle," or did you selectively omit them? Do you understand the principle of ganging up on people whom you disagree with and cheering each other on as you do it? Do you really not grok this?
> There's no double standard here. Unsubstantive, funny comments have always been allowed as long as they're not disruptive and are actually funny.
"Actually funny," huh? "Not disruptive"? I guess I've been visiting a different "Hacker News" site, because the one I've been going to quickly downvotes and chastises even the mildest of humor buried deep in a subthread. I stand by the double-standard claim.
> If you don't like being made fun of for bringing up completely unsubstantiated claims as if they were in any way relevant, then don't bring them up. Problem solved.
Funny that you should accuse me of irrelevant claims when you have derailed the discussion multiple times with non-sequiturs of your own invention about extra-terrestrials.
You are not discussing in good faith. Let's end this discussion here. Good evening.
I'll try once more, since you seem to have missed my point entirely.
I'm not sure if you got the "three million non-citizen voters" thing from Infowars or directly from Gregg Phillips.
If the former, then you're posting something from a conspiracy site whose other headlines include "ALIENS DO EXIST, SAYS TOP SECRET FBI MEMO" and "THE COMING STAGED ALIEN INVASION."
If the latter, then you're taking at face value something from some random person on twitter.
Either way, it has zero credibility. You're right that I'm not discussing in good faith, because I'm trying to point out how ridiculous your original claim was by doing the same thing back to you. The only difference between yours and mine is that I actually understand that mine is fake.
(For anyone who wants a source on that claim, it's me, I'm claiming it here.)