Good to know that you’ve got it, apart from the rather pertinent point that the two "it"s they are doing that you are comparing are different things.
the winner in that state house race , Rachel Hunt, is the daughter of 4 term NC governor Jim Hunt
Seems the meaning of ‘it’ is being stretched to cover multiple values here. Just sayin’.
ETA: Ninja’d by Gyrate! 
The “it” in question is this:
Absentee ballots are supposed (by law) to be handled as follows in NC:
Voter requests and obtains absentee ballot. Voter fills out said ballot with his/her choices in the presence of two witnesses (or one notary public). Voter inserts said completed ballot into return envelope, seals the envelope, and signs and dates the back attesting that he/she has properly followed the law filling out the ballot. Witnesses then sign and date, attesting that they witnessed this happen properly. Voter (or a close relative) then mails the envelope or hand-carries it to the county BoE office, or to a one-stop absentee voting site (early voting).
IF the dates of the signatures are not properly matched, that indicates that this procedure was not properly followed. Specifically, it MUST mean that the envelope was in the possession of someone for some period after the ballot was voted. Multiple possible explanations exist, including that the voter tried to turn the ballot in in person, and it was rejected for lacking signatures and/or dates, and the voter went back and got the missing signatures and dates (the explanation offered by Buck Godot). But it could just as easily mean that the ballot was collected from the voter, with or without having been properly inserted into the envelope, by someone not authorized to collect such ballots (not a close relative of the voter), and that witness signatures and dates were later added. That latter possibility is one of the illegal practices complained of in Bladen County, the main place at issue in the disputed election results.
The objection here being made by Steophan is to the word “probably” used by Buck Godot. There’s no particular reason, based upon the limited report offered so far, to believe that one explanation is any more probable than the other. Indeed, given the reports coming out of North Carolina, it would appear that absentee ballots have been treated with some laxity over the years, a fact some groups have taken advantage of. I suspect that the likely answer to the discrepancies alleged to exist with absentee ballots in House district 103 is not absentee ballot fraud in the vast majority of the 300 ballots, but as even the spokesperson for the State BoE noted, such discrepancies are a good reason for starting an investigation.
So it would seem that, while there is not yet any solid evidence of the same sort of shenanigans that went on in Bladen County (and elsewhere), dismissing the possibility out of hand is rightly pointed out as an example of viewing the news through a partisan lens.
However, regarding this charge as having a high likelihood of proving baseless would have a strong grounding in long experience of the nature of the GOP over the past quarter-century.
Hunt will be seated today so the story is over
It strikes me that anyone committing fraud would be very careful about getting the dates right.
Wait, who’s Hunt? This story is about Harris.
If you go back up a few posts you will see a post by me about another NC race where there was a claim of fraud in absentee ballots - that is the race with Hunt. (post 177)
Ah, so it’s just that one particular story that’s over, not the Harris one that’s dominated the thread for the past few pages.
This statement shows your bias, which was, of course, the point of the comment that elicited such pushback. Really, if you cannot reason and discuss without allowing personal bias about people/parties/organizations to color your thinking, you’re doing your discussing with one foot in a bucket of cement.
You’re right. When Trump says something, I should forget everything I knew about him, and make no assumptions about the likelihood of its truth or falseness before examining that particular statement. Doing otherwise would demonstrate my bias. :rolleyes:
Let me say that, in a perfect world where we magically had sufficient time to consider each statement, each issue, each action on its own merits, I would agree with you, DSY.
We’re not in that world.
In this world, there’s orders of magnitude of more stuff to consider than there is time to mentally do it justice. So yeah, we’re going to winnow down the field by past experience of the actors involved, and some quick shortcuts of logic and probability, to deal with most of the ones we don’t simply ignore.
If that’s bias, then so be it. 
Your commentary wasn’t, as I recall, based on anything having to do with the President, but rather, having to do with the Republican Party in general, n’est-ce pas? Are you then asserting that you think you have a valid reason to treat the Republican Party as a whole in a biased way, and the Democratic Party in a differently biased way, such that you can treat all Democratic Party actions as “innocent” and all Republican Party actions as somehow nefarious? If so, your opinions, as far as I’m concerned, lose significant weight.
Wow, you got me there!
Yes, I was in fact illustrating my point with an example.
Absolutely not!
Look, if I were to prejudge an Estonian I’d never met and knew nothing about because I’d had some rotten experiences with Estonians in the past, that would be bias and prejudice.
But if I’d had a great deal of direct experience of that particular Estonian, and knew a great deal more about him indirectly, then understanding the implications of his present behavior in light of his track record wouldn’t be bias in the the least.
For you to claim otherwise would be bullshit.
And it’s still bullshit if we’re talking about the Republican Party rather than an Estonian.
Since you’ve already amply demonstrated here why I should disregard your opinion, I think this is a cross I will be able to find the strength to bear.
There is nothing wrong with what RTFirefly said. There is ample reason to think that the reported mistakes are probably minor, seeing how long it took them to be discovered, and how they were found in response to another actual crises. While he didn’t formally state these as premises, it is clear these are the reasons given.
On the other hand, Steophan’s claim was unfounded, as sniping comments usually are. Rather than look at any possible differences in the situations at hand, he cried hypocrisy without any actual basis given. It was, in effect, an ad hominem attack. No actual contradiction of the original premises was offered, nor were they shown to be invalid. They thus remain.
There is nothing at all wrong with reasoning using imperfect information to come up with an conclusion one believes to most likely be true. This only becomes a problem if one refuses to update their conclusion when more information is discovered.
GOP asked judge to certify Harris despite the probe but the judge turned them down.
They are having a hearing now on the absentee voter scam in the 9th district. Looking bad for the GOP
The Raleigh News and Observer has live updates. Dowless’s ex-stepdaughter just testified.
Dowless is in some serious trouble here.
That site wants me to turn off adblock, and doing so, the page won’t load fully.