The 2022 U.S. Election

[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