The 2022 U.S. Election

[LostInTheMist]

American Politics Incoming: I'm headed to bed (4 A.M. Pacific Time) with the election still pretty much up in the air. Dems have a good chance of retaining the Senate, it looks like, and have a SHOT at keeping the house (it's still unlikely, but much better than it looked going into the night.) If pretty much every tossup goes the way of the Republicans, then they'll wind up with 230 House Seats to the Dems 215. If it all broke 50/50, the Republicans would have 225 to the Dems 220, an even slimmer house majority than the Dems currently have.

In my state (Oregon,) the Senate race went, as expected, to the Democrat (that was called just minutes after the polls closed; he's likely to win about 70% of the vote.) My district's House race has not been called. The numbers look like it's going to be the closest in almost 20 years (our Representative retired this year, so it's a new Dem and a Republican who lost twice against the old Representative.) The Dem is still expected (and I think probably in a good position) to win by 3-7% points, but there's still an outside shot for the Republican. And our Governor's race, it's still more or less a tossup. I'd give the Dem about a 65-70% chance of victory with the current state of the race, and what's left to count.

Things went far better for the Democrats than we (yes, I'm a registered Democrat, and yes, I voted) could have expected, however this turns out. Which is difficult to say when we're still likely going to lose the House, and the Republicans still have a shot at the Senate. But considering that the last time there was a first term Democrat in power for a midterm (2010) the Democrats lost 63 seats in the House and six in the Senate. (For those non-US readers who haven't tuned out yet, (:P) there are 435 seats in the House of Representatives and 100 seats in the Senate.)

Oh, and the right to abortion won everywhere it was on the ballot with two yet to call. Kentucky looks to be headed towards rejecting an outright abortion ban, as does Colorado, but both states are still counting votes and no call has yet been made. Vermont and California and Michigan all put the right to choose into their state Constitution.

[Oniya]

I mentioned this in the 'Register to Vote' thread, but PA has Fetterman (beating out Dr. Oz to replace Pat Toomey) and kept Governor Shapiro (thank $DEITY) instead of bringing in Mastriano.  We still have Smucker, but he's at least a known quantity.

[TheGlyphstone]

2 more states added to the list for legalized Marijuana as well, Maryland and Missouri.

[Dashenka]

2 more states added to the list for legalized Marijuana as well, Maryland and Missouri.

Why is this a good thing?

[Vekseid]

For me, the government has no place in what people do with their own bodies, except to ensure informed consent.

[LostInTheMist]

Yeah, PA was a big one. Governor and Senator were both huge.

As for Marijuana, I'm always in favor of leglization. Legalizing it here in Oregon solved a couple of problems at once. Our prisons were overcrowded and it costs a TON to house inmates. By legalizing Marijuana we began the process of letting non-violent offenders who had committed no other crimes out, reducing the strain on our prison. The taxes collected on the marijuana also helped create not just a balanced budget, but a budget surplus. which we were able to use to invest in things like education campaigns, treatment programs, and of course, all the other essential government services.

Like alcohol, which is a far more deadly drug, you must be 21 or over to purchase or use marijuana, you're not allowed to drive under the influence, etc.

But that is a discussion for another day or another thread.

It's going to be a few days without a doubt until we know for sure who is in control of the House or the Senate. It might even be a month. It looks like Georgia is headed to a run-off, and depending on how the others shake out, it might be 50/49 Republicans/Democrats with Georgia set to once again determine control of the Senate.

[Clio]

Yeah, PA was a big one. Governor and Senator were both huge.

As for Marijuana, I'm always in favor of leglization. Legalizing it here in Oregon solved a couple of problems at once. Our prisons were overcrowded and it costs a TON to house inmates. By legalizing Marijuana we began the process of letting non-violent offenders who had committed no other crimes out, reducing the strain on our prison. The taxes collected on the marijuana also helped create not just a balanced budget, but a budget surplus. which we were able to use to invest in things like education campaigns, treatment programs, and of course, all the other essential government services.

Like alcohol, which is a far more deadly drug, you must be 21 or over to purchase or use marijuana, you're not allowed to drive under the influence, etc.

All of this. ^^^

[LostInTheMist]

The Nevada Senate was just called for Cotez Masto, so the Democrats maintain control of the Senate, regardless of how the Georgia runoff goes. This also makes it likely that Republican turnout will be depressed, since it will have no effect on control of the Senate. Democratic turnout will be high regardless.

It's still highly likely that the Republicans will win the House, but 18 races remain uncalled with 211-206 projected right now. 218 are needed for the majority, so Dems need to win 2/3 of the uncalled to keep a majority, where Republicans just need seven to go their way.

My state's governorship and house race both went my way, as I predicted, but couldn't say for sure. Also, a measure that will prevent the Republican minority from staging a walkout to prevent votes on common sense gun violence solutions and pollution control bills. If you miss more than 10 days during the session (without an excuse like a Doctor's note, etc.) you are ineligible to run again. And the only thing that matters to Republicans in my state more than preventing good laws from passing is keeping their jobs so they can continue to take payoffs from businesses and the gun lobby. We also banned slavery as punishment for a crime, and removed a number of other references to slavery from the State Constitution. And currently bills putting the right to affordable health care into the constitution and imposing background checks on gun sales are winning, but narrowly, so no call has been made yet.

[Oniya]

I realize that auto-correct jokes write themselves, but apparently Blake Masters was ionized.

[LostInTheMist]

That was too much T**** to read for the final sentence, but nice. Chemistry joke ftw.

[Oniya]

That's why I highlighted the important bit.  ;D

[gaggedLouise]

I hope the aftermath of these elections will signal the beginning of some sort of real distancing of the GOP from Trump and his delusional movement. Nearly all candidates who had tied themselves closely to Trump or had enlisted his help in the closing stages of the campaign failed, most likely Kari Lake will fail too and get beaten by Hobbs. Lake has modelled most of what she says on Trump and Sarah Palin, and she's a die-hard "stolen election" mouthpiece. No doubt she will claim that this election was rigged too!  ::)

Interestingly, in an unhinged rant against De Santis (who won in Florida, against Trump, on their home turf) on his own platform, Trump said in passing that he had "sent in FBI agents" to get the election count right and help De Santris back in 2018. This admission is something the DOJ really needs to look into.

[Oniya]

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/11/factchecking-trumps-bizarre-claim-of-stopping-desantis-2018-election-from-being-stolen/

Short version:  He's lying.  Again.

[Dashenka]

Short version:  He's lying.  Again.

That's the definition of a politician. They lie. They all do. Some more blatantly than others but they all do.


They lie to the voters and then when they are in power, come up with excuses why they cannot implement the lies. Usually they blame others.

Self reflection and honesty are two traits you cannot have as a politician.

[Oniya]

There are some that raise it to an art form.  Compared to those, Trump's lies are so poorly crafted that a pre-K art teacher would have him held back.  He could cause an android to self-destruct by saying 'I am lying.'

[Dashenka]

That's true yes. Some lie better than others. Trump's not very good at them.

[Callie Del Noire]

There are some that raise it to an art form.  Compared to those, Trump's lies are so poorly crafted that a pre-K art teacher would have him held back.  He could cause an android to self-destruct by saying 'I am lying.'

Y’know.. the man has been documented as having given out over 10k lies while in office, you’d think he’d be better at them. 

[TheGlyphstone]

My personal suspicion/guess is that many/most of them he doesn't think he's lying, that somewhere in the intersection of age + upbringing + temperament he lost the ability to cleanly distinguish between what is real and what he wants to be real.

[Clio]

My personal suspicion/guess is that many/most of them he doesn't think he's lying, that somewhere in the intersection of age + upbringing + temperament he lost the ability to cleanly distinguish between what is real and what he wants to be real.

Bingo.

I hope the aftermath of these elections will signal the beginning of some sort of real distancing of the GOP from Trump and his delusional movement. Nearly all candidates who had tied themselves closely to Trump or had enlisted his help in the closing stages of the campaign failed, most likely Kari Lake will fail too and get beaten by Hobbs. Lake has modelled most of what she says on Trump and Sarah Palin, and she's a die-hard "stolen election" mouthpiece. No doubt she will claim that this election was rigged too!  ::)

Interestingly, in an unhinged rant against De Santis (who won in Florida, against Trump, on their home turf) on his own platform, Trump said in passing that he had "sent in FBI agents" to get the election count right and help De Santris back in 2018. This admission is something the DOJ really needs to look into.

Wait...I'm a bit confused. DeSantis against Trump?

[Oniya]

I'm not seeing anything that shows Trump as a candidate against DeSantis for governor.  I'd like to see a source for that one.

As far as his recent attacks on DeSantis, there's a section of the GOP that realizes that Trump is now an anchor, rather than a benefit.  While they still hold the same rabid views about women, immigration, etc, they're trying to distance themselves from the person of Trump.  (Case in point, virtually all of the Trump-supported candidates lost their elections.)  DeSantis is being bandied about as the potential GOP candidate for 2024, a role that Trump wants for himself.

As a result, Trump now perceives DeSantis as 'the enemy', and is attacking him.  He's also attacked Mitch McConnell, including some horrible slurs regarding McConnell's wife, Elaine Chao.

[Oniya]

Actually - I think I've found something, but it has no relation to a completed candidacy.

Apparently, there was a poll taken in Florida about who people would prefer as the 2024 Republican nominee, and DeSantis beat Trump 87% to 60% in the 'Very Favorable' rating.  (90% to 82% in the broader range of 'like vs. dislike'.)

https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2022/11/6/desantis-leads-trump-in-2024-florida-primary

[Clio]

I'm not seeing anything that shows Trump as a candidate against DeSantis for governor.  I'd like to see a source for that one.

As far as his recent attacks on DeSantis, there's a section of the GOP that realizes that Trump is now an anchor, rather than a benefit.  While they still hold the same rabid views about women, immigration, etc, they're trying to distance themselves from the person of Trump.  (Case in point, virtually all of the Trump-supported candidates lost their elections.)  DeSantis is being bandied about as the potential GOP candidate for 2024, a role that Trump wants for himself.

As a result, Trump now perceives DeSantis as 'the enemy', and is attacking him.  He's also attacked Mitch McConnell, including some horrible slurs regarding McConnell's wife, Elaine Chao.

Ugh. Glad I haven't seen the slurs. And yeah, DeSantis is awful and unfortunately won for governor. (I'm in Florida) I was not happy at all.

Actually - I think I've found something, but it has no relation to a completed candidacy.

Apparently, there was a poll taken in Florida about who people would prefer as the 2024 Republican nominee, and DeSantis beat Trump 87% to 60% in the 'Very Favorable' rating.  (90% to 82% in the broader range of 'like vs. dislike'.)

https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2022/11/6/desantis-leads-trump-in-2024-florida-primary

Ah. Okay. Maybe that's what they meant.

[Callie Del Noire]

Same here Clio, I’m in Jax. Ron DeSantis was basically given the election by the Democrats given they choose the same candidate as the last time. I honestly do not understand how they could back him again.

[Clio]

Same here Clio, I’m in Jax. Ron DeSantis was basically given the election by the Democrats given they choose the same candidate as the last time. I honestly do not understand how they could back him again.

Yeah. I don’t like Crist much either, but he’s like Biden. Better than the alternative.

[Thufir Hawat]

Yeah. I don’t like Crist much either, but he’s like Biden. Better than the alternative.

;D
Something, something, faint praise?

[Callie Del Noire]

Yeah. I don’t like Crist much either, but he’s like Biden. Better than the alternative.

But he’s been proven to be unelectable.

[Clio]

But he’s been proven to be unelectable.

Not disagreeing with you. I’m saying I voted for him against DeSantis, but I didn’t in the primary.

[Callie Del Noire]

Not disagreeing with you. I’m saying I voted for him against DeSantis, but I didn’t in the primary.

Same here. I’m also Prop2 was approved.

[persephone325]

I use isidewith.com to help me figure out which candidates align most with my beliefs and wants. I'm actually really surprised with the results, since (for the upcoming presidential election) my top 5 highest-aligned candidates (70% or higher) consist of two independents, two republicans, and one democrat.

I think it's interesting how my view point has changed over the past couple of years.

[Dashenka]

I think it's interesting how my view point has changed over the past couple of years.

Not saying this is the case but isn't it possible that people in general vote a side because they feel they have to?

Vote Biden because you (think you) are a Democrat. When in reality, how much does the average person know about the plans and ideas of said party or person? I know people who are hated because they voted for the Republican party for the policies but then get blamed for voting Trump or DeSantis.

I don't know exactly how things work in the US (I assume similar to the UK) but don't you vote for a party and a policy rather than a person? I'm sure there are many Republicans who think Trump is an incompetent oaf. As well as there has to be a lot of Democrats who think the same about Biden.

Voting for the Republicans isn't the same, or shouldn't be the same, as voting for Trump.


I'm not saying you can completely see them separate, because you can't but I think, you should first vote to the policies your party has and secondly for the person trying to get them done. When the majority of the people in a State or region experience problems with immigration, they want something done about that. Was building a wall and having the Mexicans pay for it a Republican idea or was it Trump's party piece?

Long story short, I think that a lot of people (I'm not pointing fingers), not just in the US but everywhere, vote a certain side or direction not because they know what said side wants or stands for, but because they feel pressured into voting a certain side. Read up, do research, find out what the different political sides and people want and actually vote like that.

[persephone325]

I'm sure some people feel like they have to vote for a particular side, even if it doesn't align with their views.

When I was younger, I didn't put much thought into politics or do much research on who was running. I voted third party hoping that the rest of the world would wake up and see how horrible both "main" candidates were. But, of course, that didn't happen.

Voting for the Republicans isn't the same, or shouldn't be the same, as voting for Trump.

Personally, I think this should be everyone's viewpoint. If Trump runs again with policies that align with my beliefs, then I'd most likely vote for him. Is he the best person for the job? Some people think so. Others...not so much - to put it nicely. lol Does this mean I respect or like him? No. It's the same reason I watch Tom Cruise in the Mission Impossible movies. I don't care for his Scientology crap and how he acts, but he's a damn good actor and I respect that aspect. Taylor Swift - I can't stand her, but she does have a few bangers.

Just my opinion on the matter.

[gaggedLouise]

My personal suspicion/guess is that many/most of them he doesn't think he's lying, that somewhere in the intersection of age + upbringing + temperament he lost the ability to cleanly distinguish between what is real and what he wants to be real.

Agree. I think that's what John Kelly was quoted as saying too (after having spent two years as Trump's chief of staff), that for Trump Truth doesn't exist as an objective thing independent of what he wants it to be at any given moment.  He has the same perception of truth as an adverts man - and well, he's spent most of his life advertising himself, so that's not a massive surprise. Trump probably thinks it's the given right of celebrities like himself to play fast and loose with the truth and mythologize themselves if they want to.

And almost certainly, he will go ahead today and announce that he's running for the White House again in 2024. Which will be an almost certain failure, becauswe the mere fact that he's the nominee would act as a powerful locomotive to bring many millions of Democrats and middle-ground voters, even worried republicans to the polls to vote against him. (And if he isn't crowned the nominee, then he is going to do anything he can to obstruct the campaign for whoever is the GOP nominee - De Santis?).

This is promising to be political comedy turned reality on a Shakespearean scale.

[Humble Scribe]

If Trump runs again with policies that align with my beliefs, then I'd most likely vote for him.

The trouble is that Trump doesn't have policies, just things he says in order to get his way. If that means demonising Mexicans and Muslims so people vote for him, so be it. If it means pretending he won an election that he didn't, so be it. If it means whipping a crowd up to intimidate the legislature into certifying an election that he didn't win, so be it. That kind of grand scale narcissism is what paves the way to states of emergency, 'temporarily' suspended elections and ultimately dictatorship. Of course there's corruption and cronyism in Democratic politics, as in all politics, but this cult of personality was (and I am sincerely hoping that it is now in the past) genuinely dangerous.

[gaggedLouise]

The trouble is that Trump doesn't have policies, just things he says in order to get his way. If that means demonising Mexicans and Muslims so people vote for him, so be it. If it means pretending he won an election that he didn't, so be it. If it means whipping a crowd up to intimidate the legislature into certifying an election that he didn't win, so be it. That kind of grand scale narcissism is what paves the way to states of emergency, 'temporarily' suspended elections and ultimately dictatorship. Of course there's corruption and cronyism in Democratic politics, as in all politics, but this cult of personality was (and I am sincerely hoping that it is now in the past) genuinely dangerous.

This kind of stuff normally happens in deeply corrupt banana republics with weak legal systems, government control of much of the media and leaders who aspire to appointing themselves to continue for five more years - and who can use instigated violence or bogus elections to have their way - but it's really unusual to see it happening in a modern, supposedly stable western democracy.

[Dashenka]

a modern, western democracy.

Did you just refer to the US as the above?  :o

[gaggedLouise]

Did you just refer to the US as the above?  :o

I was trying to convince myself and others that this is still reasonable, for all its flaws....  :P

[TheGlyphstone]

Not saying this is the case but isn't it possible that people in general vote a side because they feel they have to?

Vote Biden because you (think you) are a Democrat. When in reality, how much does the average person know about the plans and ideas of said party or person? I know people who are hated because they voted for the Republican party for the policies but then get blamed for voting Trump or DeSantis.

I don't know exactly how things work in the US (I assume similar to the UK) but don't you vote for a party and a policy rather than a person? I'm sure there are many Republicans who think Trump is an incompetent oaf. As well as there has to be a lot of Democrats who think the same about Biden.

Voting for the Republicans isn't the same, or shouldn't be the same, as voting for Trump.


I'm not saying you can completely see them separate, because you can't but I think, you should first vote to the policies your party has and secondly for the person trying to get them done. When the majority of the people in a State or region experience problems with immigration, they want something done about that. Was building a wall and having the Mexicans pay for it a Republican idea or was it Trump's party piece?

Long story short, I think that a lot of people (I'm not pointing fingers), not just in the US but everywhere, vote a certain side or direction not because they know what said side wants or stands for, but because they feel pressured into voting a certain side. Read up, do research, find out what the different political sides and people want and actually vote like that.

I'm sure some people feel like they have to vote for a particular side, even if it doesn't align with their views.

When I was younger, I didn't put much thought into politics or do much research on who was running. I voted third party hoping that the rest of the world would wake up and see how horrible both "main" candidates were. But, of course, that didn't happen.

Personally, I think this should be everyone's viewpoint. If Trump runs again with policies that align with my beliefs, then I'd most likely vote for him. Is he the best person for the job? Some people think so. Others...not so much - to put it nicely. lol Does this mean I respect or like him? No. It's the same reason I watch Tom Cruise in the Mission Impossible movies. I don't care for his Scientology crap and how he acts, but he's a damn good actor and I respect that aspect. Taylor Swift - I can't stand her, but she does have a few bangers.

Just my opinion on the matter.

Negative partisanship is also at an all-time high, which ties into this. I'm perfectly happy to admit that I'm not really onboard with everything the Democratic Party is advocating for (also keeping in mind the DP is a massive coalition spanning everyone from Joe Manchin to Alexandria Occasio-Cortez), but the current state and direction of the Republican party is incredibly, deeply concerning to me and not one I'm willing to help advance right now.

[Dashenka]

*starts rant*

Western democracies are not modern.

A modern democracy would have the votes counted and a result, minutes or hours after the election. Not days or weeks.

You can have burgers and sushi delivered to your house at the click of a mouse but in order to vote, you have to leave your house and go somewhere. Do they use computers? Or a pencil (as they do in the Netherlands)... What's modern about that?

The constitution was written when? 1700? When my house is that old, I wouldn't say I have a modern house.


There's nothing modern about politics.


*ends rant*

Negative partisanship is also at an all-time high, which ties into this. I'm perfectly happy to admit that I'm not really onboard with everything the Democratic Party is advocating for (also keeping in mind the DP is a massive coalition spanning everyone from Joe Manchin to Alexandria Occasio-Cortez), but the current state and direction of the Republican party is incredibly, deeply concerning to me and not one I'm willing to help advance right now.

But does that make it right to judge people who vote Republican? My experience is that the extreme sides are the loudest. The extreme side of the Democrats and the extreme sides of the Republicans. Everything in between still exist as well.

In the end everybody has the right to vote for whatever party or person they believe represents them best. Nobody should be bullied or threatened or discriminated because of that. Your vote to the Democrats should be respected as should my imaginary vote to the Republicans. Not because you support Biden or because I support Trump, but because it's our personal believe.

[gaggedLouise]

Avccording to CNN (two hours ago in this live blog) Republicans are one seat short of a majority in the House, but there are thirteen House races that are still uncalled, and some of them might take a full month to decide. Does this actually mean that the House is out of session until shortly before Christmas, or will the old distribution of seats carry on until sometime before Christmas or just after New Year?

[Laughing Hyena]

Speaking of 45 he just announced his run for 2024. Cue the agony of this shit yet again.

[Dashenka]

Or maybe the US voters have finally seen his true colours and will actually vote for a better option.....


Oh wait.. there are none.


Never mind then...


Cue the agony of this shit yet again.

[TheGlyphstone]

Assuming he wins the primary this time. The GOP has pretty much purged its moderate wing, so the 2024 primary will be Trump vs. Trumpian disciples. And in that crowd there are certainly worse options, like Ron DeSantis - every bit as ideologically extreme as Trump, but actually has three brain cells that aren't coated in gold plating. 45's single saving grace was that his ego and squirrel-on-meth attention span kept him ineffectual.

[Vekseid]

Most presidents have endeavored to be honest. Trump, Reagan, and Nixon are three notable exceptions, not the rule.

I don't take any claim that Trump doesn't know he's lying remotely seriously. I've dealt with enough narcissists on this forum to know a textbook when I see one.

Trump states what he wants to be true, and expects those around him to make that reality happen. When they don't, he gets pissy.

There are also lies he simply does not care about. Remember what he said about 'lock her up' just after the election? "Now that we've won we don't care anymore."

Likewise, the wall. Built four miles of it during his tenure.

Not saying this is the case but isn't it possible that people in general vote a side because they feel they have to?

Vote Biden because you (think you) are a Democrat. When in reality, how much does the average person know about the plans and ideas of said party or person? I know people who are hated because they voted for the Republican party for the policies but then get blamed for voting Trump or DeSantis.

Meanwhile we have Republicans murdering people they think are Democrats.

Beyond this, I don't know a single Republican who votes for them on any policy that is respectable. Republicans have never done well by the economy.

You know what would really keep inflation down in the US right now?

Trustbusting, un-fuck what Trump did with border and immigration policy, and if he hadn't disbanded our pandemic response team.

So then they have their genuine policies to run on.

1) Force birth. Even if she's ten. Even if it's ectopic.

2) Make sure everyone has access to guns, and dismantle any social structures to make sure people are in good mental health.

3) Vigilante censorship. Don't like my reply? You can sue me in Texas.

4) Voter suppression.

Polls show voters prefer Democrat policies 70% to 90% of the time. If people became genuinely aware of each party's policies on November 7th and voted purely based on their policy preference, Republicans would no longer be a national party.

So Republicans don't run on policy. They run on lies and demagoguery.

I don't know exactly how things work in the US (I assume similar to the UK) but don't you vote for a party and a policy rather than a person? I'm sure there are many Republicans who think Trump is an incompetent oaf. As well as there has to be a lot of Democrats who think the same about Biden.

Voting for the Republicans isn't the same, or shouldn't be the same, as voting for Trump.

In the US, you vote for people, not parties. Sinema would have been ejected from the Senate under UK rules.

This is in part the fault of our founders. George Washington in particular hated political parties, though he ended up more or less a Federalist by the time his presidency ended.

What is happening now is that we are effectively in a cold civil war. One party runs on "Government doesn't work, elect us and we'll prove it!" and the other party has allowed the first to take near complete control of the narrative.

Or maybe the US voters have finally seen his true colours and will actually vote for a better option.....


Oh wait.. there are none.


Never mind then...


Cue the agony of this shit yet again.

If by 'none' you mean just about everyone.

Personally, there isn't anyone I'd want in the presidency right now besides Biden. No one in the world has his experience.

[greenknight]

Avccording to CNN (two hours ago in this live blog) Republicans are one seat short of a majority in the House, but there are thirteen House races that are still uncalled, and some of them might take a full month to decide. Does this actually mean that the House is out of session until shortly before Christmas, or will the old distribution of seats carry on until sometime before Christmas or just after New Year?

Congressional terms last until January 2nd, as the new term starts on January 3rd, just as presidential terms last until January 19th. Lynn Cheney, for example, is still the Representative from Wyoming until after the New Year. Whether the houses meet in the interim is the business of the houses.

[ElvenKitten]

Personally, there isn't anyone I'd want in the presidency right now besides Biden. No one in the world has his experience.

Yeah no one has sniffed that much hair.
But seriously the only one on earth more corrupt than Biden is Trump.
Not really sure why you'd still want Biden but I've mostly only heard bad things.

[Oniya]

Yeah no one has sniffed that much hair.
But seriously the only one on earth more corrupt than Biden is Trump.
Not really sure why you'd still want Biden but I've mostly only heard bad things.

I'd say the guys from that FTX crypto group are probably right up there.

[Oniya]

Actually, no - I'm not going to leave that with a throwaway quip.  That is such a sweeping statement that I really would like to know what has brought you to the conclusion that 'the only one on earth more corrupt than Biden is Trump'.  Sources, please.

[ElvenKitten]

Was an exaggeration mostly...funny that the FTX crypto guy was a major Dem donor.   ::)

[Vekseid]

Yeah no one has sniffed that much hair.

I'm sure the first image that comes to mind for you is kissing his granddaughter's hair at his son's funeral.

Dude's son died of brain cancer. He's lost three members of his family to tragedy.

I certainly appreciate the level of compassion you show for his grief.

But seriously the only one on earth more corrupt than Biden is Trump.
Not really sure why you'd still want Biden but I've mostly only heard bad things.

Because you are so far into you own media bubble you haven't actually been paying attention, but instead are living in someone else's constructed reality.

[ElvenKitten]

I'm sure the first image that comes to mind for you is kissing his granddaughter's hair at his son's funeral.



I certainly appreciate the level of compassion you show for his grief.

There's been so other many occurances at different times it became a meme. If it happened once fine but if you can make compilation video. Oh I watch news from a number of sources on both sides. None of them are Fox News or InfoWars FYI.

[Oniya]

Still waiting on your explanation of how he's 'corrupt'.

Hair sniffing?  If that's your idea of corruption, I've got at least three other world leaders that top that easily.  Most of them are people Trump is enamored with.

[Humble Scribe]

It's pretty small beer by the standards of the Trump family, but there's a faint hint in the Hunter Biden emails about "10% to be held by H for the Big Guy."

That most certainly does not make Joe Biden the most corrupt US politician after Trump - that's just Republican hyperbole. It doesn't mean there isn't a case to answer, though.

[Vekseid]

There's been so other many occurances at different times it became a meme. If it happened once fine but if you can make compilation video.

His granddaughter features front and center as the most prominent example, at her dad's funeral, and you don't question the others?

Remove his relatives.

Remove his period of mourning after his son's death.

Remove the misleading camera angles.

What are you left with?

Meanwhile the people making these accusation were fine with a guy who brags about sexually harassing underaged girls and committing sexual assault. I'm supposed to take you seriously?

It reminds me mostly of Project Veritas and ACORN. Do whatever you can to dehumanize your opponent. Doesn't matter what good you destroy in the mean time. Or how innocent they are. Or what they are going through.

Just throw baseless, sourceless accusations (as you have done with Biden's supposed corruption). The number of investigations was cited by members as evidence of ACORN's guilt. Turns out they were innocent.

The facts don't matter. Only the impression.

Oh I watch news from a number of sources on both sides. None of them are Fox News or InfoWars FYI.

If you aren't actually being informed, I would not call them sources.

From what you've described, they sound more like anger and cynicism for sale.

It doesn't make you better prepared for the future.

At best, it wastes your time.

At the worst, you believe it, and allow it to lead you to some improper decisions.



Biden's foreign policy is going to be regarded as one of the most incredible diplomatic turnarounds in world history.

All Putin had to do to ruin him was leave Ukraine alone.

Biden put US intelligence out there, knowing if Putin did decide ruining US influence was the way to go, at least Biden would have stopped a war.

Whatever you may think, this was a genuine moment of integrity on Biden's part. Republicans aren't going to give him any accolades for it, but it was the right thing to do.

[Chulanowa]

Did you just refer to the US as the above?  :o

He's not wrong.

It's just that modern, western democracy is completely non-responsive except ro rhe needs of capital. Your only purpose, as a voter in a liberal western democracy, is to grant consent to your own abuse and exploitation.

The only reason to vote under a dictatorship of capital is to attempt to disrupt that dictatorship. It probably won't work, but rhe effort is free for non-Floridians.

[gaggedLouise]

He's not wrong.

I'm female, so please...  :-)

[Azy]

As far as Biden being corrupt, all I've heard much about is his son Hunter and using influence to get him jobs.  Trump gave his daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared White House positions.  What exactly were their qualifications?  Many of Trump's cabinet picks had no experience or knowledge in those areas, but they made large donations to his campaign (one he claimed he was only going to use his own billions for btw). 

I generally very much dislike that what about... line of reasoning, but there it is.  Nepotism is so much a thing it has its own word.  Probably every single Republican who is whining about Hunter Biden has done similar things themselves.  It was only brought up during the campaign because Trump was desperate for something to use against the man in the election.  Have we already forgotten that he withheld aid to Ukraine that was earmarked for them because he wanted to be able to say that the Ukrainian government was launching an investigation.  He was afraid of facing Biden in an election, and for good reason. 

Of course I'm not going to sit here and claim that Democrats are the white knights in shining armor.  Biden probably has used political capital to do favors for family and friends.  I'm not aware of anything specific, but probably all career politicians have done it here and there.  I'm not thrilled about it, but it's human nature.  That's part of why people want term limits, to reign in that crap.  I don't buy the whole one side is evil and the other is the good savior in white robes.  I'm just not that stupid. 

That being said, we don't see a lot of Democrats attacking Republican Congress persons' families...     https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/07/politics/nancy-pelosi-interview-paul-pelosi-attack

And then of course January 6th, where there was a huge mob overrunning the capitol.  Mike Pence just now released a book and did an interview.  They had a noose and they were going to hunt him down and hang him for not violating the actual Constitution.  There was nothing the man could do, it's mostly a ceremonial thing.  Blind devotion like that is dangerous, and we're seeing it mostly from Republicans.  In 2016 when Trump won, many of us were not happy.  We bitched about it.  We did say that a big part of his win was Russian interference.  Most US intelligence said that.  Did we round up a mob and storm the capitol?  No.  There's a big difference between bitching and trying to overthrow democracy.   

     

[Twisted Crow]

I am not sure about whether or not he is corrupt. My concern is his headspace. A reason that I might doubt Biden for my (ideal) number one draft pick next term is that his body seems to be outliving his mind.  :-\

[Twisted Crow]

To speak plainly. He might last these two more years just fine. I'm just not entirely convinced that he has another 4 years in his 'tank', if that makes any sense.

[Oniya]

I'm also not trying to paint Biden as some sort of flawless savior.  I just expect that if a comparison is made, that there be something actually corrupt put forward.  If there's corruption, I'm all for investigating it, whatever side it's on.

[Vekseid]

For me it's a question of who is appropriate in the moment.

In two years' time I certainly hope that answer isn't Biden.

[TheGlyphstone]

Under normal circumstances I'd expect him to be setting Harris up to succeed him, but so far it seems like she's been deliberately kept out of the spotlight. I actually have no idea what she's been doing so far, and I doubt I'm the only one.

[Clio]

Under normal circumstances I'd expect him to be setting Harris up to succeed him, but so far it seems like she's been deliberately kept out of the spotlight. I actually have no idea what she's been doing so far, and I doubt I'm the only one.

I'll admit, as much as I think a woman and especially a woman of color would be an excellent choice for the presidency, I am not a Kamala fan. I'm not against her, per se, but she made some decisions in California that leave me with a bad taste in my mouth.

I hate the fact that Bernie is too old, as he is one of the only politicians I trust. I think AOC would make an excellent candidate, but I don't think voters would ever give her the chance. They see her as too young or too extreme. I feel like the most we can hope for is that someone comes out of the woodwork, but that's rare. If Biden is elected again, I won't be upset, but I don't think he'll make any huge changes or reforms. It just feels like the US will never give a candidate who ACTUALLY wants to change things for the better a chance.

[persephone325]

It just feels like the US will never give a candidate who ACTUALLY wants to change things for the better a chance.

People say they want change, but most people are actually afraid of change (or don't want it) and won't vote out of their comfort zone. They want familiar and safe. And no matter what happens, people will always complain because you can never make everyone happy.

It just seems to me that we're currently living in a society where the victim complex mentality is reigning supreme. Everyone is blaming everyone else for their problems and nobody wants to take accountability for their own actions. I don't know. That's just how everything looks to me.

[Dashenka]

I'll admit, as much as I think a woman and especially a woman of color would be an excellent choice for the presidency,

Based on what? I prefer the leader of a country, any country, to be elected based on political standpoints and ability to rule.

Not based on gender or colour.

[Clio]

Based on what? I prefer the leader of a country, any country, to be elected based on political standpoints and ability to rule.

Not based on gender or colour.

I knew someone was going to say this.

Obviously I agree that it should be the best person. My favorite candidate is Bernie, and he's an old straight white man. What I mean is that for 45 out of 46 presidents, we have had white men. Having someone with a different life experience and who has experienced discrimination on a systemic level has shown to be very good for country leadership. I am not saying that all women of color are good (Like I would never vote for Candace Owens), nor are all white men bad (love Bernie). I am saying that the US has blatantly refused to elect women leaders, and I would like that to change.

You can interpret my post however you like, but I think diversity in leadership tends to lead to progress and good things. *shrugs*

[Dashenka]

Having someone with a different life experience and who has experienced discrimination on a systemic level has shown to be very good for country leadership. *snip* I am saying that the US has blatantly refused to elect women leaders, and I would like that to change.

I respect your opinion, I just don't agree :)

I don't know enough about US politics to have an opinion on that but if we look at the UK at the moment, a white female with the shortest period in office ever and now a 'black' man with an immigration background who also happens to be a billionaire. The previous female PM, Theresa May didn't finish her term either and the very first British female PM, Margaret Thatcher is hated by many.

What do they bring to the table regarding discrimination? They've all been raised in wealth and went to great schools. I'm not sure if the same is true about Obama but I'm guessing he doesn't represent the down on his luck black man 'in the hood.' What does Rishi Sunak (the British PM) a black billionaire with an Indian background know about the problems on the streets of a typical British town, with the typical British youth? What is the added value of him being black and have an Indian background? What can he do that a white Christian billionaire could not?


I'm just saying that the person for the job, should be selected on their qualities for the job, not a gender or colour and if the right person for the job is a woman of colour, fantastic but if the right person for the job is a middle aged Christian while male, so be it.

[Koekje]

Based on what? I prefer the leader of a country, any country, to be elected based on political standpoints and ability to rule.

Not based on gender or colour.

Except, you know, when your prime ministers get thrust upon you like May, Truss or Sunak, without ever involving the people's decision or vote. Just expecting that the people thst voted for the Tories are okay with just another one being picked from the party instead of general elections. After the person that campaigned for their votes just did a terrible job...

[Azy]

My point was basically that all politicians are human, and subject to human nature.  I'm just getting a little tired of the us vs them cuz they're evil narrative I see in many places.  I think a lot of people are.  It's just that Biden being a corrupt sleaze is being put out there by the GOP right now and focused on to distract from the slime that Trump and many of his allies are.  Has the man done some things that weren't considered ethical?  Probably.  Trump on the other hand has at this point done many things that were seriously illegal.  Big difference. 

I am not a huge Kamala Harris fan, haven't been since the primaries.  We haven't seen much of her since she went down to South America somewhere I think it was and basically said to those people in a speech; just don't come to the US.  That was a mistake.  I wasn't thrilled about Biden pretty much being pressured to choose a woman of color for his running mate.  Yeah, it was good optics, but I wanted the best person.  If you narrow the pool you're picking from based on gender or skin color you may be excluding the person that would be the best pick.  The best person might've been a black man or a white woman.  Personally, I liked Andrew Yang better than I liked Kamala Harris.   

I was pleasantly surprised by her during the campaign, she seemed to do what she needed to do.  The two of them worked together nicely.  Maybe the speech she gave wasn't her idea, I don't know.  I just know that that's gonna stick with her for her entire political career, and it's not gonna look good.   

[Oniya]

Some good news:  https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/live-updates/georgia-senate-runoff/?id=94494839

Warnock has won the Georgia Senate race.  A narrower margin than I personally find comfortable, considering the sheer WTF-ness of Walker's campaign, but the Senate is now 51-49 instead of 50-50.

[Chulanowa]

Some good news:  https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/live-updates/georgia-senate-runoff/?id=94494839

Warnock has won the Georgia Senate race.  A narrower margin than I personally find comfortable, considering the sheer WTF-ness of Walker's campaign, but the Senate is now 51-49 instead of 50-50.

But wait! Kyrsten Sinema has left the Democratic Party to register as an independent

[Vekseid]

She's showing more of her colors but will apparently be caucusing with Democrats to keep her committee seats.

[firepyre]

No, you bore false witness. Tarring an entire movement with the actions of one person was your singular choice.

The only person responsible for that is you. It certainly isn't on the people that got swindled, many of whom no doubt still identify with BLM.

Lies like these have destroyed innocent lives, and ruined the work of good people.

One way or another civilization will not continue permitting wild allegations like this.

We need to do better than to make, believe, and spread statements like yours.

This seems more appropriate in this thread, so I'll respond here.

Which is why you just spouted a bunch of anti-republican crap, when it's painfully obvious to everybody outside of America that the issue isn't with the Republicans, OR the Democrats, but rather the political system in general. It's so utterly flawed and corrupt that it beggars belief. Putting aside the die hard trump muppets for a moment? How do you think he got into power in the first place? You can't tell me that 50% of americans actually buy his crap?

I refuse to believe your average american is that dumb. He got into power because people hate the political class. It was a statement against a system that lets only a select few rule, where laws are largely determined by what the lobbyists are willing to pay to push through.

There's glaring issues on both sides of the political divide, and what you see is largely what you're willing to see. The left thinks the right is totally corrupt, the right thinks the left is nothing but bad eggs, and meanwhile the corrupt continue to foster and reap the benefits of that division. It's not a uniquely american problem, but it seems far more obvious/entrenched in america compared to most other western nations.

I don't know how to fix it at this point, but I worry about where america is headed. It's big enough and powerful enough that it affects everyone, american or not.

You said "We need to do better than to make, believe, and spread statements like yours."

But you did pretty much the exact same thing as Persephone(admittedly because you were invited to, which i'm not sure if that makes it better, or worse). So there was corruption within the BLM movement. So there is corruption within the republican party. A few bad eggs within the BLM movement doesnt make what it represents any less meaningful. And a few bad eggs within the republicans doesn't make all conservative views evil either.

And before you cry foul, and claim that you were only giving isolated examples or somesuch... It's pretty obvious to anybody who has interacted with you that you have pretty strongly Democratic values, and jumped on the opportunity to bag on the Republicans, tarring the entire conservative movement with the corrupt actions of a few...

I don't much like the MAGA idiots. But I don't have much love for woke identity politics either. I do think people should be able to believe and spread whatever crap they like though. I have enough faith in humanity that the shit will eventually trickle to the bottom and sort itself out.

You can believe whatever you like. But please trust other people enough to form their own opinions, and sort the bullshit from the fact. Not everyone will agree with you. But when they don't, argue with them. Try to help them see your side, present your opinions and evidence. Don't tell them they need to shut up because you don't want to hear it.

[Chulanowa]

But I don't have much love for woke identity politics either.

So you don't like people having an awareness of the various systems of oppression ,and disagree that ap erson's identity and experiences shape hteir sociopolitical beleifs?

That's a weird position.

Or are you trying to say something else? If you are, say that instead.

[firepyre]

So you don't like people having an awareness of the various systems of oppression ,and disagree that ap erson's identity and experiences shape hteir sociopolitical beleifs?

That's a weird position.

Or are you trying to say something else? If you are, say that instead.

I don't like the emphasis americans tend to put on things like race, gender, orientation, insert subgroup here. I understand that subconscious bias is a genuine issue, but I don't think labeling people and dividing them up according to those labels is the right way to go about it. It draws attention to the issues, yes, but it also normalizes and entrenches the idea that there is a difference. If you treat people differently based on race, gender, etc, then how are you any better than someone doing it unintentionally? At least they can claim ignorance.

People born in Ethiopia aren't disadvantaged because they're black. They're disadvantaged because they were born in a poor country, and because the west(and the east) is far more interested in exploiting their situation than leveling the playing field.

Work on fixing the birth lottery, not the aftermath. Make sure everyone has access to high quality education, healthcare, and ensure their basic needs are met. Implement systems to disrupt and prevent wealth transfer and control income inequality. And then just be patient and let things sort themselves out over a couple of generations. No matter what you do, it won't fix itself overnight.

Obviously, that's an extreme simplification, but I think it should be enough to grasp the general gist of my position. It will never happen, because it would require people to behave according to logic and ethics, rather than emotion. Who's going to deny their kids an inheritance because it's the right thing to do? Or refuse to help them get a job/apprenticeship/education through their connections, because it's unfair to somebody else's kids? People claim to be egalitarian, but when push comes to shove, we are far from it. We tend to care about fairness only when we ourselves are disadvantaged.

So yeah. Not quite as succinct as "Not a fan of woke identity politics." If you want explore it further, a new thread might be better.

[TheGlyphstone]

It is regrettably a lot easier to identify the problem than it is to solve it, but that goes for a lot of things. The way American cultural identity and politics is shaped by the scars of ethnic/racial divided definitely warrants a thread of its own though.

[Annaamarth]

Said stuff

Oh.  Oh, buddy, pyre, my dude.  Okay, lemme take it from the top.

This seems more appropriate in this thread, so I'll respond here.

Great start, solid decision making here - you're keeping topical things in topical places, which is respectful.  I can dig it!

Which is why you just spouted a bunch of anti-republican crap, when it's painfully obvious to everybody outside of America that the issue isn't with the Republicans, OR the Democrats, but rather the political system in general. It's so utterly flawed and corrupt that it beggars belief. Putting aside the die hard trump muppets for a moment? How do you think he got into power in the first place? You can't tell me that 50% of americans actually buy his crap?

Ah. "The political system in general" didn't do 06Jan and isn't pushing a system that would allow state legislatures to just ... ignore votes.  No, that doesn't really hold water my dude.  Yeah, the Democratic party is kind of a turdbasket - you get that with coalition parties, which it very much is - but really only one party is pushing election denialism without evidence.

I think you kinda lost the plot here.  That said, as far as Trump getting elected ...

I refuse to believe your average american is that dumb. He got into power because people hate the political class. It was a statement against a system that lets only a select few rule, where laws are largely determined by what the lobbyists are willing to pay to push through.

Ah.  You're kinda answering your own question though, but the problem is that the GOP enabled that political class.  I mean ... which Supreme Court justices supported Citizen's United?  Which didn't?  That kinda let the issue go into overdrive.

But I don't think that outrage against the "political class" is quite right.  If that were the case, we wouldn't still see frogger Senator McConnell still in place, unless you think "political class" means something other than I think it does - in which case, maybe you should define it?

See, a lot of Trump's support also came from people who are worried about fake culture war bullshit - cancel culture and "woke leftism", as though that's really a thing.  It's a lot of people falling for propaganda, because it's easy to make people feel afraid.

There's glaring issues on both sides of the political divide, and what you see is largely what you're willing to see. The left thinks the right is totally corrupt, the right thinks the left is nothing but bad eggs, and meanwhile the corrupt continue to foster and reap the benefits of that division. It's not a uniquely american problem, but it seems far more obvious/entrenched in america compared to most other western nations.

Well, here there aren't really any lies - maybe some exaggeration and hyperbole, but no lies.  Well, calling the Democratic party "the left" is disingenuous - liberalism and leftism are not the same and equating them is false, but that's neither here nor there.

Of course, I do think the right is mostly corrupt, with a few decent examples - Liz Cheney as a standout, before her ouster, and anyone else who has consistently spoken out against MAGA bullshit.  Unfortunately, the numbers aren't big there.  Instead, you get Space Laser Lady acting like a shot-caller.  Neat.

On the left we have ... what?  A president's kid, who holds no position in the government?  SecState Clinton?  Got any other big examples of bad eggs, because I'm tired of hearing about Hunter Biden's laptop and Hilary's emails.  Those have been investigated and looked into, and any steps that needed to be taken were, in fact, taken.  Compare and contrast Trump holding onto TS/SCI documents and not cooperating with the investigation.  When I hear the GOP call that a witchhunt, it kinda undermines their credibility.

I don't know how to fix it at this point, but I worry about where america is headed. It's big enough and powerful enough that it affects everyone, american or not.

No real comments here.  This is worth worrying about - although maybe for reasons other than the ones you have.

You said "We need to do better than to make, believe, and spread statements like yours."

Yeah, that was said.  (Also, I agree - misleading bullshit should be called out when put out.  Note, he didn't say you were lying or attempting to deceive, as far as I noted)

But you did pretty much the exact same thing as Persephone(admittedly because you were invited to, which i'm not sure if that makes it better, or worse). So there was corruption within the BLM movement. So there is corruption within the republican party. A few bad eggs within the BLM movement doesnt make what it represents any less meaningful. And a few bad eggs within the republicans doesn't make all conservative views evil either.

This is ... almost true, but something of a false equivalency.

I don't think anybody is decrying all conservative views, and I don't think anybody is looking to BLM - the movement or the legal entity which engaged in fraudulent activity for governance.  Nevertheless, let's look at a cross section of conservative movements:

06Jan - Well, we can blame that on MAGA, right?

Election denialism - That's ... a little harder to blame on MAGA, considering how much the GOP has refused to actually back off the topic.

Citizen's united - That was a bunch of conservative justices.  Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts.  These are kinda the conservative mainstream, my man.

Abortion ban without exceptions - Yeah, this ain't just MAGA my dude.

Supply-side (Trickle down) economics - hysterical laughing

And before you cry foul, and claim that you were only giving isolated examples or somesuch... It's pretty obvious to anybody who has interacted with you that you have pretty strongly Democratic values, and jumped on the opportunity to bag on the Republicans, tarring the entire conservative movement with the corrupt actions of a few...

Well, this is presumptive.  If anyone were going to cry foul I doubt it would be over Veks views - he has been very up-front about them, and pretty energetic about provide specific examples - like the GOP trying to pass legislation that would take this site down.  I will cry foul with "tarring the entire conservative movement with the corrupt actions of a few" - it's been the few GOP who haven't sandbagged the economy and haven't been part of cruel legislation.  I lean libertarian by preference, and to me?  The GOP and their insistence on getting in the way of local matters and involving themselves in my personal choice doesn't feel like freedom - it feels like rulership.  But that's my bias.

I don't much like the MAGA idiots. But I don't have much love for woke identity politics either. I do think people should be able to believe and spread whatever crap they like though. I have enough faith in humanity that the shit will eventually trickle to the bottom and sort itself out.

I find your faith in humanity cute, but naive.  I have faith in God - and I have faith that Man has the free will to fuck it all up.

On the whole "woke" topic, I'll go ahead and point out that "fixing the birth lottery" is way easier to do if you can look at the aftermath of the way disadvantaged groups - ethnic, religious, what-the-fuck-ever - have been boned in the past.  From an engineering perspective, diagnosis is damned hard if you aren't allowed to look at all the data - and whitewashing our history, as anti-wokeism tends to encourage, is a great way to never fix anything.  Wait, no, in engineering terms teaching shit based on bad data is how you get normalized deviation.  Way less kinky than it might sound.

You can believe whatever you like. But please trust other people enough to form their own opinions, and sort the bullshit from the fact. Not everyone will agree with you. But when they don't, argue with them. Try to help them see your side, present your opinions and evidence. Don't tell them they need to shut up because you don't want to hear it.

But when they don't, argue with them.

Buddy, that's not how the marketplace of ideas works.  Or free speech.  Particularly not in an environment where discussion is supposed to happen.

Now, what you did differently than Persephone was you brought up the discussion in a thread that was relevant, rather than side-tracking the conversation in an unrelated thread.  Unironic kudos for that - I am always happy to engage in discussion in the right environment, and I'm glad to engage with this, even though you and I won't see eye to eye on a lot of stuff.  I feel like you're a victim of culture-war lies, based on some of the talking points you used, and that sucks - but hell, I could be wrong.

[Dashenka]

I feel like you're a victim of culture-war lies, based on some of the talking points you used, and that sucks - but hell, I could be wrong.

This.

This bit right here is what is wrong with society today.



"If you think different from me, you must be wrong and believe in lies."


Guess what...

Nah never mind actually. I'm going to leave it at that.

[firepyre]

Oh.  Oh, buddy, pyre, my dude.  Okay, lemme take it from the top.

DUDEBRO, MY MAN! Your posting history is accessible to everyone, so cut the condescending shit. If you want to think you're the smartest guy in the room, then by all means, do so... but maybe make it a tad less obvious. It's very hard to take anyone seriously when they're preening like a peacock.

Ah. "The political system in general" didn't do 06Jan and isn't pushing a system that would allow state legislatures to just ... ignore votes.  No, that doesn't really hold water my dude.  Yeah, the Democratic party is kind of a turdbasket - you get that with coalition parties, which it very much is - but really only one party is pushing election denialism without evidence.

I think you kinda lost the plot here.  That said, as far as Trump getting elected...

Ah.  You're kinda answering your own question though, but the problem is that the GOP enabled that political class.  I mean ... which Supreme Court justices supported Citizen's United?  Which didn't?  That kinda let the issue go into overdrive.

But I don't think that outrage against the "political class" is quite right.  If that were the case, we wouldn't still see frogger Senator McConnell still in place, unless you think "political class" means something other than I think it does - in which case, maybe you should define it?

See, a lot of Trump's support also came from people who are worried about fake culture war bullshit - cancel culture and "woke leftism", as though that's really a thing.  It's a lot of people falling for propaganda, because it's easy to make people feel afraid.

I think you're missing the forest for the trees here. I'm not saying I support the republicans, or even trying to defend them really. I'm not even trying to say the democrats are equally bad - If I was American, and absolutely had to vote for one of the two, I'd vote Democrats without question. However, at best, I consider them the lesser of two evils. Regardless of which side you pick they're far more interested in staying in power than they are in effective governance. That's why I think the system is broken, and why trump actually got a decent percentage of the vote. Not because he's a "great guy", but because he was perceived as outside the system. Which, ironically, is somewhat true - he clearly doesn't give a fuck about little things like say, getting voted in...

My goal was not to plug one party or another, but to draw focus to what I consider to be the real problem: The system that keeps the major parties in power. Choosing between bad, or worse is not a good system. It's not that I disagree with any of the examples you or Vekseid raise, it's that I consider them a symptom of a system that allows those kinds of people to gain a position of power in the first place.

Well, here there aren't really any lies - maybe some exaggeration and hyperbole, but no lies.  Well, calling the Democratic party "the left" is disingenuous - liberalism and leftism are not the same and equating them is false, but that's neither here nor there.

Actually I chose to use right and left here intentionally, because I wanted to convey that I was talking in general terms, not specifically about Democrats and Republicans, but about the political divide and extremism in general. I'm pretty sure that's the only time I used the right and left terminology in my entire spiel. I actually find the ideas of "right" and "left" to be a gross oversimplification, which is only really somewhat useful in the absolute broadest sense.

Of course, I do think the right is mostly corrupt, with a few decent examples - Liz Cheney as a standout, before her ouster, and anyone else who has consistently spoken out against MAGA bullshit.  Unfortunately, the numbers aren't big there.  Instead, you get Space Laser Lady acting like a shot-caller.  Neat.

On the left we have ... what?  A president's kid, who holds no position in the government?  SecState Clinton?  Got any other big examples of bad eggs, because I'm tired of hearing about Hunter Biden's laptop and Hilary's emails.  Those have been investigated and looked into, and any steps that needed to be taken were, in fact, taken.  Compare and contrast Trump holding onto TS/SCI documents and not cooperating with the investigation.  When I hear the GOP call that a witchhunt, it kinda undermines their credibility.
No real comments here.  This is worth worrying about - although maybe for reasons other than the ones you have.

Skipping this. I don't have much to say about any of this for reasons that should be pretty obvious at this point.

Yeah, that was said.  (Also, I agree - misleading bullshit should be called out when put out.  Note, he didn't say you were lying or attempting to deceive, as far as I noted)

He wasn't referring to a post I made, but somebody else's. It's probably worth noting too, that if Vekseid really wanted to, I assume he could probably implement whatever rules on speech he wanted to on E, but thus far at least, he's willing to tolerate being challenged about it, and more importantly, he engages through forum posts rather than administrative controls. I think that's quite admirable.

This is ... almost true, but something of a false equivalency.

I don't think anybody is decrying all conservative views, and I don't think anybody is looking to BLM - the movement or the legal entity which engaged in fraudulent activity for governance.  Nevertheless, let's look at a cross section of conservative movements:

06Jan - Well, we can blame that on MAGA, right?

Election denialism - That's ... a little harder to blame on MAGA, considering how much the GOP has refused to actually back off the topic.

Citizen's united - That was a bunch of conservative justices.  Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts.  These are kinda the conservative mainstream, my man.

Abortion ban without exceptions - Yeah, this ain't just MAGA my dude.

Supply-side (Trickle down) economics - hysterical laughing

Well, this is presumptive.  If anyone were going to cry foul I doubt it would be over Veks views - he has been very up-front about them, and pretty energetic about provide specific examples - like the GOP trying to pass legislation that would take this site down.  I will cry foul with "tarring the entire conservative movement with the corrupt actions of a few" - it's been the few GOP who haven't sandbagged the economy and haven't been part of cruel legislation.  I lean libertarian by preference, and to me?  The GOP and their insistence on getting in the way of local matters and involving themselves in my personal choice doesn't feel like freedom - it feels like rulership.  But that's my bias.

I think you're focusing on the wrong thing here. I'm pointing out that there's a certain degree of hypocrisy(that's probably too strong of a word, but I don't have a better one. Sorry Vekseid.) in telling someone they shouldn't be allowed to share their views, no matter how wrong they might be, while simultaneously plugging your own. I agree I'm being presumptive about how Veskeid might respond, it's probably not necessary, but when I wrote it, I felt that it helped to reinforce what 'm trying to say, and indicate that I'm not just referring to that particular example in isolation.

I find your faith in humanity cute, but naive.  I have faith in God - and I have faith that Man has the free will to fuck it all up.

I'm an atheist. So that's a whole different kettle of fish again, right there. I feel much the same way about your faith in higher powers as you do about my trust in humanity. So let's not. You trust in God, and I'll trust in humanity.

On the whole "woke" topic, I'll go ahead and point out that "fixing the birth lottery" is way easier to do if you can look at the aftermath of the way disadvantaged groups - ethnic, religious, what-the-fuck-ever - have been boned in the past.  From an engineering perspective, diagnosis is damned hard if you aren't allowed to look at all the data - and whitewashing our history, as anti-wokeism tends to encourage, is a great way to never fix anything.  Wait, no, in engineering terms teaching shit based on bad data is how you get normalized deviation.  Way less kinky than it might sound.

I'd argue you're confusing the symptoms with the cause.  There is no white history, or black history, or any other sort of history. It's the same events from different angles. Regardless of perspective, it's all just history. Same goes for culture. Culture is not a static thing. It evolves, and mixes.  That's healthy. I don't have to be Mexican to enjoy Mexican food. I agree that there are issues with the way history is taught, and thought about, but it's really not all that different to any other information you're fed. And just like anything else, you should treat it with a degree of scepticism, rather than blindly accepting whatever you're told.

But when they don't, argue with them.

Buddy, that's not how the marketplace of ideas works.  Or free speech.  Particularly not in an environment where discussion is supposed to happen.

Now, what you did differently than Persephone was you brought up the discussion in a thread that was relevant, rather than side-tracking the conversation in an unrelated thread.  Unironic kudos for that - I am always happy to engage in discussion in the right environment, and I'm glad to engage with this, even though you and I won't see eye to eye on a lot of stuff.  I feel like you're a victim of culture-war lies, based on some of the talking points you used, and that sucks - but hell, I could be wrong.

Are you not making an argument? If not, what would you call it? Freedom of speech is pretty simple. I say what I think, and you say what you think. Maybe I strike a chord, maybe you do. Or maybe we just both decide the other person isn't worth talking to any more. That's it.

Trust people to sort it out for themselves. Try to influence them yourself if you want. And let them say what they want. Maybe even listen to what they're trying to say...

As soon as you start limiting what people can and can't say, it's not free speech anymore. What you definitely shouldn't do is demand they shut up. That's a slippery slope, and a classic authoritarian move. Today it's hate speech, tomorrow it's insulting the Chief Idiot(hint: the orange guy ;P). If people are actually buying into hate speech, I think you've got a much bigger underlying problem to deal with.

[Oniya]

Ahem.

I would suggest that people review the stickies in this forum, particularly the ones on our policies regarding misinformation (including the use of sources) and the one on our logical fallacies announcement.

Unlike other social venues, the policy here is that if you say something, you should be prepared to back it up with sources.

[Iniquitous]

As soon as you start limiting what people can and can't say, it's not free speech anymore. What you definitely shouldn't do is demand they shut up. That's a slippery slope, and a classic authoritarian move. Today it's hate speech, tomorrow it's insulting the Chief Idiot(hint: the orange guy ;P). If people are actually buying into hate speech, I think you've got a much bigger underlying problem to deal with.

Freedom of speech is NOT the 'I can say whatever I want, whenever I want, however I want and there is nothing you can do about it.'

Freedom of speech is the right to speak your mind, especially concerning the government and governance, without being prosecuted by said government.

People seem to forget that there, absolutely, are consequences. Matter of fact, it seems now that people think those consequences are "cancel culture".  And I'll be the first to say shut up if someone is running off at the mouth about crap I don't want to hear.  I live by the 'fuck around and find out' mentality so I have no qualms with being rather 'authoritarian' in my life.

[firepyre]

You know what? You're absolutely right. I would like to rescind my comments on absolute freedom of speech. There are things you probably shouldn't do with speech. Fraud is probably a good example. I can see I was indeed wrong there. Sorry.

However, I stand by that trying to shout someone down because you disagree with their genuinely held views is problematic, regardless of any limitations of free speech. That is not constructive. It will not change their opinion,  and shows little to no regard for people's ability to filter information for themselves.

I would much rather have as broad a pool of perspectives to draw from as possible, even if it has the potential to cause harm, than to have someone else controlling what information is available to me.

[Azy]

There are limits to free speech, and for good reason.  The most commonly used example is yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire.  It probably wouldn't be as a big a deal now with fire codes, but back in the late 1700's when theaters were overcrowded tinder boxes basically, panic caused people to get hurt and killed.  Then there is the issue of slander and libel.  Things that harm another's reputation that aren't true.  I often mix them up, but I think libel is printed and slander is spoken.

The first Amendment says that the government cannot penalize you for speaking your beliefs.  If I own a store that you go to, and you start going on a political rant that I find offensive, I would be well within my rights to ask you to leave my property.  Of course you would be well within your rights to tell your friends to boycott my store.  Threats are punishable by law, and I believe there is also a sticky about that here.  So no, you cannot just run around speaking whatever pops into your mind.     

And honestly, because of the crap that the Republican voters have believed, I would go as far as to say they are quite ignorant.  Someone who thinks a woman who tweets about Jewish space lasers is a good choice to represent them.... god bless them....  The sheer stupidity I hear when listening to certain people speak makes my head hurt.   

[Oniya]

Things that harm another's reputation that aren't true.  I often mix them up, but I think libel is printed and slander is spoken.

In 11th grade, we had a combined Civics and English class.  The trick we were taught was slander is spoken, and libel is literary.  (i.e., written, but that was the best word to fit the mnemonic).  So your recollection is correct.

[persephone325]

And honestly, because of the crap that the Republican voters have believed, I would go as far as to say they are quite ignorant.

It's statements like this that are adding to the division and not allowing productive conversations to take place...

If I said something to the effect of "Democrats are quite stupid for believing in gender-affirming care for children that will allow them to make the choice to undergo irreversible surgery and mutilate their genitals before they even realize what they're for." I would be blasted and you would probably be offended because I'm generalizing an entire group and assigning that label to every single person.

It's fine if you personally think that, but just know that there are people here who identify as Republican (or at least leaning that way) who probably don't agree with that woman and would find your statement quite ignorant itself.

[Dashenka]

Elliquiy has long been a place of 'I can say whatever I want, as long as it's popular believe on Elliquiy.'

The moment you say things on Elliquiy like:

- MAGA is the best policy in a long long time.
- Guns don't kill people.
- We cannot stop climate change.
- I don't get on my knees for BLM.
- I won't respect a transgender if they don't respect me.


Or anything closely resembling a right side political spectrum view... you are basically fair game to everybody here.


You have to expect condescending bullshit posts. (those people showing their true colours and making a complete fool out of themselves)
You have to expect being called 'quite ignorant'. (If you seriously believe that Democrat politics are the only truth, you are the definition of ignorance yourself.)
And you have to expect a lot of more stuff, like being called a racist or homophobe.


Now that wouldn't be so bad if there was a backup to those claims but calling me ignorant or be a condescending PoS with the only backup that you 'believe in God', or calling me a homophobe and a racist for having a slightly different opinion on the LGBTQ community and refusing to get on my knees to show my support for BLM is just wrong, but it's Elliquiy at the same time. Even those who argue sensibly are still , mostly, not open to hear other people's opinions. They want to convince others that their believes are right. That's not how a discussion or a debate works.

These people are barking up the Democrat, socialist, woke and cancel tree and therefor it's found mostly acceptable.
Had these people been barking up the Republican, liberal tree, I think we all know the outcome to that.

Make of that what you will.



I thought it was just me getting shit for being an obnoxious cantankerous bitch, which I totally am, but I see now there's more people getting the same shit.

The government won't judge you, the people on Elliquiy will.

[Oniya]

Ahem.

I would suggest that people review the stickies in this forum, particularly the ones on our policies regarding misinformation (including the use of sources) and the one on our logical fallacies announcement.

Unlike other social venues, the policy here is that if you say something, you should be prepared to back it up with sources.

[persephone325]

*snip*

Unfortunate, but feels true.

Quote your sources... Oh, but that's not the right source so I'm gonna pick it apart because it doesn't align with my beliefs.
You said XYZ and that's offensive and wrong. But you're just focusing on one part of my point - not the overall message.
You don't support Biden? Well, you obviously support Trump and MAGA. ...No? Did I say that? I don't think I did...

That's the general vibe that I feel when I'm here.

Blindly believing in everything that pertains to your political affiliation does make you ignorant to an extent. If you don't seek out opposing views, then you're not educating yourself.

Speaking from experience, I used to just blindly accept that Trump was evil and he had it out for everyone. Once I started doing my own research (using multiple sources, both left and right) on things and finding out that things I thought to be true actually weren't... It really opened my eyes.

[Dashenka]

Ahem.

I would suggest that people review the stickies in this forum, particularly the ones on our policies regarding misinformation (including the use of sources) and the one on our logical fallacies announcement.

Unlike other social venues, the policy here is that if you say something, you should be prepared to back it up with sources.

My backup is right up there in the other people's posts.

And the fact that I am a cantankerous bitch is quite obvious I believe :)

[Vekseid]

This seems more appropriate in this thread, so I'll respond here.

Which is why you just spouted a bunch of anti-republican crap,

What was false?

False enough to be called 'crap' at least.

when it's painfully obvious to everybody outside of America that the issue isn't with the Republicans, OR the Democrats,

Find me one partisan vote in the past two decades, and tell me why the Republican position is the superior one.

I'm sure there are some reasonable ones, but I would be surprised if I need two hands to count them.

but rather the political system in general. It's so utterly flawed and corrupt that it beggars belief. Putting aside the die hard trump muppets for a moment? How do you think he got into power in the first place? You can't tell me that 50% of americans actually buy his crap?

No. But barely 50% of Americans vote each election. Less than half vote Republican.

So that's roughly ~30% of the country.

Meanwhile half of them are drinking some serious koolaid.

Nonetheless, in the United States there is a developing system of competing realities. Separate media environments have painted very different views of reality between 'the left' and 'the right'.

This tends to lead to violence, historically. There is cultural precedent for what follows.

I refuse to believe your average american is that dumb. He got into power because people hate the political class. It was a statement against a system that lets only a select few rule, where laws are largely determined by what the lobbyists are willing to pay to push through.

He got into power for a great many reasons. He was millions behind in the popular vote. He won only by 80,000 votes in three states that Clinton largely ignored. When an election is so close there are countless factors at play. Many believed the straight up lies being told about Clinton, for example. Buttery males.

There's glaring issues on both sides of the political divide, and what you see is largely what you're willing to see.

Name an issue Democrats have as glaring as any one of the following:

1) Having a president who took HUMINT documents to his personal resort and left it there after he lost the election.

2) Having half of their voting population think a coup is totally fine.

3) Their stance on medical care in the US.

Speaking of which...

The left thinks the right is totally corrupt, the right thinks the left is nothing but bad eggs, and meanwhile the corrupt continue to foster and reap the benefits of that division.

Man, I wonder why corruption is such a problem. Could it be because we have an entire political party that more or less ignores it?

It's not a uniquely american problem, but it seems far more obvious/entrenched in america compared to most other western nations.

I don't know how to fix it at this point, but I worry about where america is headed. It's big enough and powerful enough that it affects everyone, american or not.

Dunno, I used to believe that demographics would have crushed the Republicans starting around 2016.

Well, it did, technically.

Now they are facing a number of consequences of their own tactics.

You said "We need to do better than to make, believe, and spread statements like yours."

But you did pretty much the exact same thing as Persephone(admittedly because you were invited to, which i'm not sure if that makes it better, or worse). So there was corruption within the BLM movement. So there is corruption within the republican party. A few bad eggs within the BLM movement doesnt make what it represents any less meaningful. And a few bad eggs within the republicans doesn't make all conservative views evil either.

You think? This is exactly what I was saying.

Nearly everyone except you understood it as what I was saying.

She called BLM, itself, a proven scam. And walked that back.

It is not. BLM is a slogan. An idea.

An idea can be a scam. Pyramid schemes are an idea.

"Black lives matter (too)" is no such convoluted concept. They pick flawed people to rally around, usually, and for awhile I took issue with this. In the end, though, it is probably for the best. The flawed deserve respect, too, because we all are.

People jumped on the bandwagon and took advantage. The same thing has happened with everything from fidget spinners to cryptocurrency.

And before you cry foul, and claim that you were only giving isolated examples or somesuch... It's pretty obvious to anybody who has interacted with you that you have pretty strongly Democratic values, and jumped on the opportunity to bag on the Republicans, tarring the entire conservative movement with the corrupt actions of a few...

I don't much like the MAGA idiots. But I don't have much love for woke identity politics either.

Yeah some people confusing pronouns and proper nouns are totally on the same level as storming the capital to overturn a legitimate election.

On of these is, at worst, rude and confusing.

The other is getting people murdered.

I do think people should be able to believe and spread whatever crap they like though. I have enough faith in humanity that the shit will eventually trickle to the bottom and sort itself out.

You can believe whatever you like. But please trust other people enough to form their own opinions, and sort the bullshit from the fact. Not everyone will agree with you. But when they don't, argue with them. Try to help them see your side, present your opinions and evidence. Don't tell them they need to shut up because you don't want to hear it.

I made a very specific statement about what should not be said or spread.

False accusations against others.

Let's argue it though.

Tell me why blood libel and its relatives (adrenochrome conspiracies and such) are okay, fyrepyre.

[persephone325]

*cut*

Crap doesn't mean false.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

something of extremely poor quality.
"please bring me back the tackiest piece of tourist crap you can find"

    nonsense.
    "this is just to give you a small idea of the kind of crap I have to deal with"
    rubbish; junk.
    "we have an awful lot of crap in our loft"

2.
excrement.

    an act of defecation.
    plural noun: craps

Corruption. How about the fact that Twitter has been exposed as having shadow-banned and suppressed certain political accounts? Mainly conservatives. And the founder lied about it. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/elon-musk-confirms-political-candidates-subject-shadow-banning-twitter

BLM scammed and defrauded people. That is true. You chose to focus on when I said "BLM was a scam" and not even acknowledge that I said "Yeah, it doesn't make the whole movement a scam," when you replied to me. Poor choice of wording, but doesn't negate the fact that people were scammed and defrauded. That is not a false accusation.

Out of curiosity, I searched this forum for instances of people hating/bashing/whatever you want to call it on Republicans. There's three:

It’s almost like you don’t think it’s worth bothering to blame the Republicans for being evil and stupid, because, well, that’s kinda their nature.

Calling an entire group of people "evil and stupid".

American media is particularly egregious; they routine put batshit insane Republicans next to legit academics on the same panel.

"Batshit insane Republicans next to legit academics", insinuating that all Republicans are crazy and none of them could ever be "legit academics".

And honestly, because of the crap that the Republican voters have believed, I would go as far as to say they are quite ignorant.

And then this one, labeling Republicans as ignorant.

I could only find one post in which someone called Democrats "manipulative".

(It is very late and my search was not in depth for either side.)

This is childish behavior to call the opposing side names, as that would give your argument any kind of weight. In all of my posts, I have never thrown any sort of insult to the other side. Why is behavior tolerated? If you wish to create a space to "debate" or "have discussions" as you claim, then why are there no unbiased moderators here to keep things in check? How many of you look to neutral or opposing sides for your sources? From what I have seen lately, I daresay none of you. I would be happy to be proven wrong. Like I said earlier if people aren't looking for viewpoints that oppose their own, then they're not learning. They're just stuck in their own biased bubble.

I realize this is a bit off topic, but this section of the board has started to turn into a sort of hivemind of people patting each other on the back for hating Trump and supporting Biden and the Democrats. It's a dangerous mindset. This is why it is so difficult to have any sort of meaningful discussion here because the people who have differing opinions get jumped on and talked down to with condescending and defensive posts.

[TheGlyphstone]

Corruption. How about the fact that Twitter has been exposed as having shadow-banned and suppressed certain political accounts? Mainly conservatives. And the founder lied about it. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/elon-musk-confirms-political-candidates-subject-shadow-banning-twitter

"Yes," Musk simply replied, but he did not provide detail on any specific political candidates who were subject to shadow-banning."

Claiming someone has proof is not proof, as demonstrated by the continued antics of the My Pillow Guy. If Musk actually names details, that is 100% solid proof. You accuse other people of filtering information, and offer up a one-word twitter reply from a noted conservative quoted on a highly conservative talk show and ask people to take it as fact. Even genuinely unbiased people are going to want more than that - I'm certainly not going to take Musk at his word, even if he 'launches rockets into space'.

And yet you are at least offering some sources, even if they are flimsy ones. You are incredibly, almost uniquely rare in this. It is, regrettably as someone once counted themselves as mildly conservative until the American right took a flying leap off the cliff of bigotry and conspiracy theories, far too common for conservatives to come in blasting the latest declarations from Newsmax, OAN, and Fox News as facts, then scream 'censorship' when they are questioned. Most of them simply don't know 'how' to cite their sources, because they've never had to communicate with anyone who didn't already agree with them.

This is, by nature, a very liberal and left-leaning community, because it is LGBTQ-friendly and the American right has all but declared open war on that community. That's reality. If you want to earn respect as a minority opinion holder, you'll have to prove yourself above the lowest common denominator that we have come to expect. Does it suck? Yeah, it kind of does. Is it unfair? A bit. But if you need to attribute blame for this, spread it between your opponents here, and your ideological allies who have so thoroughly poisoned the well that it's what they have all come to expect. Complaining about how 'censored' and 'canceled' you are by 'woke liberal PC police' like an automated MadLibs generator set to 'Conservative buzzwords' does nothing but reaffirm their suspicions.

If that is too much to read, see this comic

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

Prove to people you are worth engaging with, and you'll get engagement. I can only think of one or two people here on E who have risen to that challenge; they don't appear here often, but are listened to when they do even if people don't agree. Retreat back into the comfort of victimhood or repeat the talking points of the, in SMBC's words, 'crazy assholes', and you'll just get lumped right back in with them. It's up to you. And again - no, it's not fair, but life rarely is. Take that how you will.

[Vekseid]

Or anything closely resembling a right side political spectrum view... you are basically fair game to everybody here.

The 'right side' of the political spectrum has, as component viewpoints:

- Transphobia
- Homophobia
- A remarkable tolerance for the presence of actual nazis at their marches
- Forcing women to carry ectopic pregnancies to their deaths
- Educational sabotage
- Evolution denialism
- Climate denialism
- Election denialism
- Vaccine denialism

It has become an endless tirade of factless bullshit.

Denying reality does not deserve respect.

Denying reality gets people killed.

Particularly over the past few decades, it has been absorbing ever-greater amounts of fact-free, often violent rhetoric. People are getting killed. The conservative policies I agree with have been drowned out by increasingly idiotic beliefs and actions, and what in some cases has come to include what I can only describe as outright treason. The right-wing in the United States has become this amorphous blob accepting and promoting every single fringe idea that tickles the fancy of a sufficient number of people primed to believe it.

If you seriously believe that Democrat politics are the only truth, you are the definition of ignorance yourself.

And then there's this. Most people who vote Democrat think the Democratic party and the overwhelming majority of its membership is pretty miserable.

Seriously put up a poll and ask them.

The alternative is a group of people who have constructed a completely separate reality for themselves. The handful of sane Republicans got driven out.

Now that wouldn't be so bad if there was a backup to those claims but calling me ignorant or be a condescending PoS with the only backup that you 'believe in God', or calling me a homophobe and a racist for having a slightly different opinion on the LGBTQ community

Calling human beings 'it' is not a slightly different opinion.

Defending Russia's right to execute LBTQ members is not a slightly different opinion.

You straight up denied the humanity of others.

You had people here who considered you a close friend who were very, very hurt by what you said, Dashenka.

You deserved every piece of criticism that came to you over this.

and refusing to get on my knees to show my support for BLM

Name one person who has even asked you to.

You aren't even American, why is it even relevant to you? The entire movement is about making police in the United States more accountable for executing people. Many said victims happen to be white.

Even those who argue sensibly are still , mostly, not open to hear other people's opinions. They want to convince others that their believes are right. That's not how a discussion or a debate works.

Well to be open to other opinions you have to set, as a core concept, what would make you change your mind.

What would make me change my mind is if the underlying facts I have learned were in fact false.

Which is the crux of most of this.

These people are barking up the Democrat, socialist, woke and cancel tree and therefor it's found mostly acceptable.

What does 'woke' mean to you?

[Dashenka]

Defending Russia's right to execute LBTQ members is not a slightly different opinion.

What does 'woke' mean to you?

First point: I never said this. Don't insult me by trying to put lies in my posts.

Second point: Woke means absolutely nothing to me.



I'm done.

[Azy]

It's statements like this that are adding to the division and not allowing productive conversations to take place...

If I said something to the effect of "Democrats are quite stupid for believing in gender-affirming care for children that will allow them to make the choice to undergo irreversible surgery and mutilate their genitals before they even realize what they're for." I would be blasted and you would probably be offended because I'm generalizing an entire group and assigning that label to every single person.

It's fine if you personally think that, but just know that there are people here who identify as Republican (or at least leaning that way) who probably don't agree with that woman and would find your statement quite ignorant itself.

Where did I say it was all Republicans?  My second sentence that you did not include in your point was an example of the crap that I meant.  I do find it troubling that Nazis are finding a home in that party.  I find it troubling that many think 'good Christian values' are something that need to be rammed down everyone's throat via legislation and overturning decades old Supreme Court decisions.  The only reason a law was recently passed to ensure the protection of homosexual marriage and interracial marriage was because since the overturn of Roe v. Wade by a heavily conservative group of judges caused us to be a little afraid of what might be next. 

There are elected officials who are still pushing the idea that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump.  There are Republicans who have stayed on the sane side, like those who joined the Jan 6th panel.  Liz Cheney was pushed out because she didn't kiss the Trump ring. 

I think I posted earlier that the 2022 election gave me some hope.  The red wave became a pink trickle because the voters seemed to reject the crazy for the most part.  But you can't deny that when an elected Republican official tweets out something bizarre it makes your whole party look bad because voters heard those things but voted for them anyway.  I mean... did you listen to Herschel Walker speak?  I saw a clip where he seemed amazed that a vampire could kill a werewolf.  He was less coherent than Trump.  He took a hard anti-abortion stance, yet had several women come forward about him getting them pregnant and then pretty much forcing them to get an abortion which he paid for.  They had pictures, get well cards, cancelled checks.  All he did was say they were lying.  The race was close.  A lot of people still voted for him. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Cl3hsfZVXw

Thousands of Georgians voted for this......       

[Rinzler]

You aren't even American, why is it even relevant to you? The entire movement is about making police in the United States more accountable for executing people. Many said victims happen to be white.

Yeah, you know, a lot of us folk in the UK have been asking the same thing. It appears to have escaped your attention that the England football team still takes the knee for BLM, as they've been doing at the Qatar world cup. Additional cringe came when they played the US - the US players remained standing, while the England team took the knee for, as you put it, 'making police in the United States more accountable for executing people'.

Unfortunately, when folk over here bring this up, it's usually met with some disingenuous variation of 'why are you opposed to taking a stand against racism'? Pain in the arse, really.

[Iniquitous]

Woke: Aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woke

I feel like the right leaning and far right individuals think calling someone woke is an insult, much as they think calling someone a liberal is an insult. (I suspect this would be because they would be insulted to have someone call them woke or liberal).  Kind of funny to me because, as I told my far right believing father, it is not an insult to me.  I -am- woke.  I am not a liberal (though I don’t mind being called one), I am a leftist.

I do not agree with a lot of what the Democractic party says and does, I am not a Biden fan. (I voted for him solely to get Trump out of office.) I use to agree wiith some of what the Republicans use to stand for. Now? I’ll vote Democrat every single election because the Republicans in Washington now, as far as I can see, stand for everything I am against.  The stuff coming out of the coonserative party scares the shit out of me.  Anti-LGBTQIA+ (my daughter is gay), anti-trans (my ‘adopted’ son is trans), forced birth, theocratical, racist, anti-female, etc.  There is an undercurrent of disgust and derision against the poor, a deliberate twisting of a faith to suit their own beliefs, a desire to hurt the people they disagree with.  There is an undeniable hate that exudes from them.

I live in the south, in a staunchly red state. I work in a corrections facility that is focused on rehabilitation instead of punishment. The sheer amount of hateful shit I hear from my coworkers (a good 98% of who identify as conservative republican) is both mind boggling and heartbreaking.  Refusing to use a person’s correct pronouns (we recently had a trans inmate) and even calling her an ‘it’ and a ‘shim’. Subtle cracks at homosexual inmates. Rolling their eyes and remarks about training we go through that teaches how trauma effects a person’s responses and actions which land them in corrections (they call these training sessions ‘woke training’ cause it goes against their preconceived beliefs that the inmates are just ‘bad’). Talk about how crazy the democrats are and how all democrats should be shipped out pf the country.

I try hard to view the whole political identification the way I view people’s differing religious beliefs - I may not have met a truly decent republican who values the lives of everyone, respects a woman’s right to choose, respects everyone’s right to choose their own beliefs, and believes that everyone is deserving of respect, food, medical care, a roof over their head, and an education, but I am sure they exist.  Thus, I try very hard not to lump everyone who identifies as republican in the same basket (though this is getting harder to do with the constant stream of hateful and idiotic crap that comes from the current republicans in Washington.)

The thing about debating the politics of republican and democrat is that I am not going to change my mind on my core beliefs.  Everyone deserves respect. Everyone deserves healthy food. Everyone deserves medical care. Everyone deserves a place to live. Everyone deserves an education. Everyone deserves to be safe. Everyone deserves the right to choose their own belief system.  These are core beliefs and I am not going to think too highly of someone who tries to change my mind on them. If there is a debate on how the budget is spent, that is a debate (and possible change of mind) I can support. If there is a debate on whether we keep sending money and weapons to Ukraine, I can support that debate (though I would be divided personally because of my core beliefs).
I think that the reason the members of E that identify as republican/right leaning feel attacked/ostracized is because the political landscape has changed so much and we are inundated with the most hateful and crazy things that the current batch of Washington republicans say and do. It IS hard to remember that not every single republican/right leaning person does not believe the same. But I also think that if sonene were to post something negative about republicans it should be understood that the poster is not saying something negative about every single republican.

I also believe that (republican or democrat) you are responsible for standing up and saying ‘that is wrong’ when your political party says or does something hateful and/or stupid. Staying silent when they do makes you complicit.

[Azy]

I also believe that (republican or democrat) you are responsible for standing up and saying ‘that is wrong’ when your political party says or does something hateful and/or stupid. Staying silent when they do makes you complicit.

This right here is my big thing.  You don't want to be lumped in with the fringe?  Then say something!  Instead of lecturing me, lecture your fellow Republicans.  Jewish space lasers and China's bad air is what is representing your party in the media right now.  When Donald Trump called white supremacists fine people no one with an R next to their name said peep. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/anti-asian-hate-crimes-increased-nearly-150-2020-mostly-n-n1260264

I'm sorry, but rhetoric that emboldens people to harm others is just disgusting, and the fact that there weren't many Republican voices speaking out against it was disheartening.  The party seems to be backing away from Trump now, but only because he cost them this midterm.  The potential new stars don't seem all that much better to me.  I know bigotry is never going to go completely away, but it would be awesome to not see any bigots in government anymore.  The only way that's going to happen is for Republican voters to stop voting for people like that.  And yes, if I see a Democrat acting like that you bet your sweet ass I'll call them out and refuse to vote for them.   

[persephone325]

The 'right side' of the political spectrum has, as component viewpoints:

- Transphobia
- Homophobia
- A remarkable tolerance for the presence of actual nazis at their marches
- Forcing women to carry ectopic pregnancies to their deaths
- Educational sabotage
- Evolution denialism
- Climate denialism
- Election denialism
- Vaccine denialism

I don't have any of these viewpoints.

And I would like to point out the hypocrisy that there's no election denial on the Democrats side. When Bush won in 2004, Democrats cried foul. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/democrats-are-big-believers-in-their-own-big-lie

When Trump did the same thing, the whole "election denial" movement (or whatever) is pinned on him.

I have been a member of this community for over 10 years and have offered my support to its countless LBGTQ members. I support beliefs from both sides. Now that I have a viewpoint that leans towards the Republican side, it makes me feel like I'm the devil to you people. I need to prove I'm worth engaging with...

There it is. "Cite your sources, oh but that's not the right one." or "It's flimsy at best." Why? Cause it's Fox News? Cause it didn't drop names? OK. Have this one: https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/3770581-elon-musk-shows-shadow-banning-of-conservatives-no-conspiracy-theory/

Here's a video of someone talking about it. Though you may not like it because she's a Republican.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfqiEIk5zO0

[Oniya]

Ever seen someone claim that 'furries want litterboxes in school restrooms'?  Or post up something from the Borowitz Report as if it wasn't satire? 

Or say that dead children weren't actually dead, and their families are lying and cashing in on this whole Sandy Hook thing?

Ever seen a shit-ton of people believe it?

I have.  This is why I want to know where people are getting their information.  This is why there are some sources that are bad.

[Azy]

And of course when it came time to certify the election results for Bush, the Democrats stormed the capitol trying to kill Congress people and overthrow the government.  Oh wait..... 

I don't remember a whole lot back then except it was the first time I was able to vote.  The average 18 year old doesn't watch political commentary.  I remember I wasn't happy about the result, but I didn't send death threats to poll workers. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/27/were-going-to-hang-you-doj-cracks-down-on-threats-to-election-workers-ahead-of-high-stakes-midterms.html

I don't think anyone is calling you personally the devil, but the fact of the matter is that a lot of people have done a lot of heinous things in the name of Trump and the GOP.  I can't speak for everyone, but what I really want to see is for the average conservative to denounce these things and take back the party.  Disagreeing on how the national budget should be put together is one thing.  Calling refugees animals is quite another.

And then of course people were killed over wearing masks because Trump decided to turn it into a political thing.  I was no fan of President Bush, but nothing like this happened while he was in the White House.  I think the worst thing he ever did was give a speech while drunk.  At least that's what people speculated because of the way he slurred his words.   

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2021/06/15/killing-of-georgia-cashier-is-latest-in-a-string-of-fatal-shootings-over-mask-wearing-here-are-the-rest/?sh=484a0c15764e



 

[TheGlyphstone]

Maybe you should have read my entire post instead of getting outraged at the first two lines and skipping the rest, because that was three paragraphs laying out the cold facts to you that you're going to be fighting an uphill battle thanks to the mudslinging and martyr complexes of those who came before you. Apparently I wasted my effort, so let's continue.

The Hill is at least a legitimate news source, so that's a definite improvement. However, that is still an editorial, which is what you don't get; it is not the publisher that matters, but how well the content can be verified as fact versus opinion. Newspaper articles are good, especially when they offer citations. Newspaper articles from centrist publishers are better. Opinions/editorials are bad. Youtube videos/podcasts are worse, because they lack even the cursory legal limitations on fact-checking that a print media would have.

So I'll give it credence as proof that people believe the 'twitter files' are what they claim. But I will also listen to both sides, as you want.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/12/twitter-files-explained-elon-musk-taibbi-weiss-hunter-biden-laptop.html

Here's an (paywall) editorial from the NYT, espousing exactly the opposite POV - that the 'Twitter Files' are exposing the current leadership's conservative bias instead. So I'm back to square one, with two people's equally weighted opinions arguing in both directions.

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3770483-american-author-michael-shellenberger-releases-twitter-files-part-4/

Same source, but an article instead of an opinion. That's got actual examples - very slim, but finally something better than nothing. I'm willing to consider the possibility, which is more than what I had. But so far, the fact that Musk is only selectively sharing them through specific, chosen mouthpieces is also a point of skepticism. Everyone you can cite - Youtube, editorials, legitimate papers - are all having their factual information strangled through the same narrow pipeline. True transparency would be uploading the entire trove to something like Wikileaks, which despite its reputation does at least share stuff. When he does, and journalists who haven't been handpicked to deliver the narrative he wants can pour over these documents, it'll be be ironclad. And yes, Musk wants this to be true. He spent $44 billion dollars because he thought it was true.

https://twitter.com/RMac18/status/1599192357911814145?s=20&t=AebrmQyA-YRXNOmQ2-3n7w
He hasn't even read the files himself.



As a brief aside since Azy brought it up, I will maintain until my dying day that Trump's greatest screwup was denying masks. Imagine a world where he endorsed them, and opened his pocketbook to fund a free mask to every American citizen who wanted one - a bright red mask, with 'Make America Great Again' printed across the front. You literally could not have bought better advertisement than have your campaign slogan written across the faces of millions of Americans every day for months.

[Rinzler]

I was no fan of President Bush, but nothing like this happened while he was in the White House.  I think the worst thing he ever did was give a speech while drunk. 

Do you mean Dubya? Because there's many Iraqis who'll tell you he did something a lot, lot worse than that.

Not that it puts the Republicans in a better light, obvs.

[Azy]

Do you mean Dubya? Because there's many Iraqis who'll tell you he did something a lot, lot worse than that.

Not that it puts the Republicans in a better light, obvs.

I didn't really want to get into all of that, but yes.  Point being the man didn't act like a spoiled toddler attacking people on Twitter all day. 

[TheGlyphstone]

I'll never say I was a big fan of Bush Jr., even if I did vote for him. But he certainly understood the office of President was something to be respected in its own right and maintained dignity even in the face of very harsh criticism and insults to his intelligence (personally I think he dumped Wisdom, not Intelligence).

[persephone325]

The effort wasn't wasted. I read your post. I just wanted to address what stuck out to me. I'm also dealing with being very sick. So I can admit my attention is elsewhere.

I'm just going to take the advice several different people have given me. "There are reasonable and smart people out there. They're just hiding and watching, taking it all in because they don't want to waste their time trying to voice their opinions with people who don't care to hear it."

I'm officially done with this hivemind mentality this section seems to encourage. Please continue without me. Thank you.

"Quiet people hear everything. Loud people are too loud to hear anyone but themselves."

[Rinzler]

Point being the man didn't act like a spoiled toddler attacking people on Twitter all day.

Very true. Blimey, that was a bizarre couple of years - seeing no less a personage than the President of the United States regularly and relentlessly shit the bed all over social media. Could hardly believe what I was seeing most of the time.

I understand that it's incumbent upon the POTUS to 'maintain the dignity of office'. Well, Trump quite clearly didn't during his tenure. Just out of interest - does anyone know if he broke an actual rule here, or is the 'dignity of office' thing more a convention?

[Oniya]

I understand that it's incumbent upon the POTUS to 'maintain the dignity of office'. Well, Trump quite clearly didn't during his tenure. Just out of interest - does anyone know if he broke an actual rule here, or is the 'dignity of office' thing more a convention?

Fairly sure that there's no actual rule about it, but failing to do so usually results in a drop in one's approval rating, as well as one's ability to maintain diplomatic relations with other world leaders.

[firepyre]

What was false?

False enough to be called 'crap' at least.

Crap =/= false. I would describe most of the articles you listed as sensationalist propoganda. There was one about a fundraiser where they made out the republicans were charging $5k for a certificate. So what. Those political fundraisers are always stupid expensive... Because they're fundraisers. Nobody is going for the certificate. It's just a very small thank you and something you can show off as proof of your support. Don't try to read so deeply into it. Nobody is forcing them to pay the 5 grand, they can just not go. Having the certificate doesn't get you anything. It's not like it's a medical licence.

Here's a comparison for the Democrats: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/10/15/politics/democrats-fundraising-nfts-cryptocurrency/index.html

Pay a shitload of money, get a useless picture for your wall or computerscreen or whatever. Geez. Doesnt that sould an awful lot like a framed certificate?

Maybe you drink the NFT kool aid. Good for you. It's still a useless picture.

Or take the gold scam. What a shocker. Conservatives favor investments they perceive as safe and stable. So a couple of unscrupulous people took advantage. Getting defrauded doesn't make you an idiot. It makes you a victim. The fact you think it's acceptable to use it to further your narrative about conservatives is actually pretty appalling, if you actually stop to think about it for a moment.

So yes. I think it's a complete load of crap.

Find me one partisan vote in the past two decades, and tell me why the Republican position is the superior one.

I'm sure there are some reasonable ones, but I would be surprised if I need two hands to count them.

What is so hard for you to understand? I think both parties are rubbish. Just because the Republicans are even more rubbish than the Democrats doesn't mean the democrats are good. They're just less bad. It's really not that complicated. And it means there's absolutely no point in me even trying to answer this. If you want to plug your team then just do it. I'm not interested.

No. But barely 50% of Americans vote each election. Less than half vote Republican.

So that's roughly ~30% of the country.

Democrats aren't getting the other 70% though, are they. All that statistic shows, it that about 50% of the population is so utterly disenfranchised by the system that they don't even bother to vote. If that doesn't back my claim that the system is broken, then what does. More people prefer not to vote than to vote for EITHER main party.

Nonetheless, in the United States there is a developing system of competing realities. Separate media environments have painted very different views of reality between 'the left' and 'the right'.

This tends to lead to violence, historically. There is cultural precedent for what follows.

That, I can agree on. The problem is unless you actually make the effort to experience both "realities" you don't have any way to recognize your own bias.

He got into power for a great many reasons. He was millions behind in the popular vote. He won only by 80,000 votes in three states that Clinton largely ignored. When an election is so close there are countless factors at play. Many believed the straight up lies being told about Clinton, for example. Buttery males.

Yet more proof the system is broken, or at least seriously flawed. You're doing a pretty good job of making my point for me...

Name an issue Democrats have as glaring as any one of the following:

1) Having a president who took HUMINT documents to his personal resort and left it there after he lost the election.

2) Having half of their voting population think a coup is totally fine.

3) Their stance on medical care in the US.

Skip.

Speaking of which...

Man, I wonder why corruption is such a problem. Could it be because we have an entire political party that more or less ignores it?

Dunno, I used to believe that demographics would have crushed the Republicans starting around 2016.

Well, it did, technically.

Now they are facing a number of consequences of their own tactics.

And yet people still vote for them. Democrats must be doing something pretty fucking wrong that such a large number of people would rather vote for a bunch of morally bankrupt crooks, or not vote at all, than vote for the Democrats, huh?

You think? This is exactly what I was saying.

Nearly everyone except you understood it as what I was saying.

Actually I think you failed to understand what I was saying.  I'm saying you apply a different standard to her comments about BLM to your own comments regarding the republican party. Both of you were trying to make generalisations based on pretty weak premises. You routinely do it with the capitol riots too. The riots involved about 2000 extremists in an extremely unusual situation. There's literally millions of republicans who didn't take part. You can't paint the entire lot with the actions of a few. It would be like saying all muslims are evil because osama bin laden was a muslim. The riots were a tragedy, and Trump is a criminal for inciting them... But that doesn't make all republicans guilty by association. Just look at the VP, Mike Pence. He is also a republican and just look how he handled himself during the riots. He risked a lynching to do what was right. Get your head out of your ass.

As for the rest of it... I've already acknowledged I was wrong about some of my views on free speech. And regarding blood libel... Not ashamed to admit that I had to look it up, but anybody who actually believes something that dumb doesn't need persecuted. They need help.

[Chulanowa]

I didn't really want to get into all of that, but yes.  Point being the man didn't act like a spoiled toddler attacking people on Twitter all day.

Over two million and seven hundred thousand people in Iraq alone are dead because of George W. Bush. His Secretary of Defense and Vice President couldn't travel abroad because of several warrants for their arrest on charges of crimes against humanity. The man made kidnapping and torture official and open and celebrated American policies. His lies and actions have done more damage to the US and its inhabitants and the world at large than any president of the last 50 years.

You can't talk about Bush without "getting into all of that." You just can't, it is central to the man's character as president. "well he didn't act like a boob on social media" isn't making a point, it's just dismissing what he actually did as being less important than, well, being a boob on social media.

[RedRose]

Very true. Blimey, that was a bizarre couple of years - seeing no less a personage than the President of the United States regularly and relentlessly shit the bed all over social media. Could hardly believe what I was seeing most of the time.

I understand that it's incumbent upon the POTUS to 'maintain the dignity of office'. Well, Trump quite clearly didn't during his tenure. Just out of interest - does anyone know if he broke an actual rule here, or is the 'dignity of office' thing more a convention?

We've had our share of bizarre men. You can Google bromance Macron and either Trudeau or Trump.

[Azy]

Over two million and seven hundred thousand people in Iraq alone are dead because of George W. Bush. His Secretary of Defense and Vice President couldn't travel abroad because of several warrants for their arrest on charges of crimes against humanity. The man made kidnapping and torture official and open and celebrated American policies. His lies and actions have done more damage to the US and its inhabitants and the world at large than any president of the last 50 years.

You can't talk about Bush without "getting into all of that." You just can't, it is central to the man's character as president. "well he didn't act like a boob on social media" isn't making a point, it's just dismissing what he actually did as being less important than, well, being a boob on social media.

If you really feel such a strong need to hash that out, then start a new thread.  I wasn't the one who originally brought him up, someone else compared Republicans acting like rabid animals over Trump's loss to Democrats being upset and crying foul when Bush won in 2004.  My point here was that while Democrats have cried foul and been upset over losses, they never tried to stage a coup over it, so there's a difference. 

Bush's crimes are not the topic of this particular conversation.  I didn't say he was an amazing president.  I said that at least he acted like a grown up in office.  It's pretty sad when the bar ends up being set that low, but it is what it is.  So don't accuse me of dismissing anything when I was only sticking to the topic of conversation.  Nowhere did I say that not acting like a boob is more important than anything else.  I said I didn't want to get into it. 

[Rinzler]

We've had our share of bizarre men. You can Google bromance Macron and either Trudeau or Trump.

We had Boris Johnson though. Then followed by that abandoned experiment in developing a free-roaming Conservative AI, Liz Truss. Sunak is Alan Partridge crossed with an Eddie Stobart logistics manager. That said, having such a nakedly bland technocrat in charge makes a refreshing change from all the 'colourful characters' we've had recently, I guess.

I think Macron's pretty cool. I like how he takes his old mum with him wherever he goes.

[Beorning]

We had Boris Johnson though. Then followed by that abandoned experiment in developing a free-roaming Conservative AI, Liz Truss. Sunak is Alan Partridge crossed with an Eddie Stobart logistics manager. That said, having such a nakedly bland technocrat in charge makes a refreshing change from all the 'colourful characters' we've had recently, I guess.

Johnson and Truss do count as colourful... Macron? Eh.

Considering the "colourful" characters currently in charge of Poland, I'd seriously welcome the amount of colour that Macron displays...

[RedRose]

We had Boris Johnson though. Then followed by that abandoned experiment in developing a free-roaming Conservative AI, Liz Truss. Sunak is Alan Partridge crossed with an Eddie Stobart logistics manager. That said, having such a nakedly bland technocrat in charge makes a refreshing change from all the 'colourful characters' we've had recently, I guess.

I think Macron's pretty cool. I like how he takes his old mum with him wherever he goes.

Omg. I'm so annoyed that she was his teacher. I mean I'm a teacher. And when abroad people ask me stupid stuff about whether all French men are gay / closeted like Macron. No.

[Humble Scribe]

And I would like to point out the hypocrisy that there's no election denial on the Democrats side. When Bush won in 2004, Democrats cried foul. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/democrats-are-big-believers-in-their-own-big-lie

When Trump did the same thing, the whole "election denial" movement (or whatever) is pinned on him.

These things are not alike. There was some doubt about the counting because you have bizarre punched card systems offering fruitful grounds for lawyers to argue about what counts as "an intention" to vote. But after a couple of weeks, Al Gore stepped down and conceded to avoid exactly what happened in 2020.

Trump was never going to concede. He seeded the media with "doubts" about the legitimacy of postal voting in the run-up to the vote because he knew those votes would skew against him. There was already an intent to try and exclude those votes. And then he fought bullshit lawsuit after bullshit lawsuit, all of which were thrown out by judges, including many appointed on his watch, because they were, well, bullshit. Once those avenues were exhausted, and following a press conference in a landscape garden company's parking lot, because no-one on his team was by then capable of admitting that any mistake had been made, no matter how trivial, he encouraged people to storm the Capitol and lynch the vice president.

I understand that there are arguments for a Republican point of view. The mistake is thinking that Trump is a Republican.

[Oniya]

These things are not alike. There was some doubt about the counting because you have bizarre punched card systems offering fruitful grounds for lawyers to argue about what counts as "an intention" to vote. But after a couple of weeks, Al Gore stepped down and conceded to avoid exactly what happened in 2020.

So, for those who aren't familiar with chads, here's a diagram of the various configurations that the little buggers can end up in.  Which of these would you consider a 'vote'?



This is precisely why, two years later, punched card voting machines were phased out.

[Beorning]

Okay, now I can't help thinking that Pregnant Chad, Dimpled Chad, Tri-Chad etc. sound like something from incel vocabulary... ;)

Anyway, why the punching cards? What's wrong with people just marking some Xs with a pen? That's what we do here...

[Oniya]

This was back in 2000.  As I indicated, punched cards have been phased out since then.  I think they were already on the decline as optical scanning machines became more popular, and this was just the death-stroke.  Even when I was back in Ohio, we were using 'fill in the box' ballots.  (While an X or check is acceptable, as long as it doesn't trail way outside the lines, I put in the effort for a neat and complete fill.)

[Humble Scribe]

We use a pencil and a piece of paper. It's crazy but it works.

[Oniya]

We use a pencil and a piece of paper. It's crazy but it works.

Basically, yes.  Pens, usually, but otherwise like those ScanTron things that they used to do multiple choice exams on when I was in school.

[TheGlyphstone]

But what if the deep state hacks your pencils?

[Humble Scribe]

Basically, yes.  Pens, usually, but otherwise like those ScanTron things that they used to do multiple choice exams on when I was in school.

Not even that. All UK votes are counted by hand.
https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-britain-counts-its-votes-41265