[tathougies]

Well, I think we have reached peak fact-checking. The president, regardless of his many demerits, made a prediction on what he think will happen. Regardless of one's views on mail-in voting, it is obvious to anyone with sense that a prediction is not and never will be a 'fact', and cannot be 'checked' by anyone until the event has passed, unless twitter is now also claiming the ability to read the future.

[mimikatz]

I agree. People are demanding social media companies fact check things that they can't know the state of.

[threatofrain]

One reasonable interpretation is that the US President is saying that there is no way to legally perform mail-in voting without committing fraud. Is it in fact fraud? You may wish to check whether you're about to engage in fraudulent behavior.

[tathougies]

> no way to legally perform mail-in voting without committing fraud

That's not at all what he is saying. He said mail-in ballots will be 'substantially fraudulent'. The obvious interpretation is that the president believes that a substantial portion of ballots in a mail-in election are fraudulent, not that any one who votes for him via mail is committing fraud. I don't understand the need to read between the lines here.

[egamirorrim]

Surely it's in the way he's phrased it. "There is no way..." - that's a fact right there.

If the post had said "I don't think there's a way..." Then it might have been a different story

[tathougies]

When a politician speaks about something political, there is always an implicit 'I believe' or 'I think'. I mean, Biden recently said black-skinned people who don't vote for him aren't black. Obviously, he doesn't need to be fact checked, because he was just saying what he believes. Same with Trump. Politicians speak politics -- a belief system.

Gosh, I really hope Twitter doesn't start fact-checking the Pope. What a sad state of affairs.

[0x8BADF00D]

Regardless of what you believe, the upcoming US presidential election will be the most scrutinized and watched election in the world. Everyone will be watching. Any sort of tampering will be swiftly detected, and the parties responsible should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

[tathougies]

> Any sort of tampering will be swiftly detected, and the parties responsible should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

But these kinds of affirmations are just wishful thinking. Voter fraud does happen, and while it is punished, the results (the elected officials being placed in office) are actually basically above scrutiny. For example, recently an elections judge (equivalent of an elections commissioner from what I understand) in Pennsylvania was sentenced for taking bribes to add votes to certain candidates. While he is now punished, are the judges he elected removed from office? As far as I can tell, no they are not.

Or what about the Bush/Gore fiasco? We never even had a proper resolution because American law demands that there be a president by Jan 20 following an election. The best hope is that the elections are secure, not that any wrongdoing is caught after the fact.