Americans see democracy under threat — CBS News poll

[dneal]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-biden-coronavirus-opinion-poll/

54% of those polled think "other people in America are the biggest threat to America's way of life".

63% of Trump voters have an unfavorable view of Biden voters.
79% of Biden voters have an unfavorable view of Trump voters.

[dneal]

The Boot Is Coming Down Hard And Fast (https://caityjohnstone.medium.com/the-boot-is-coming-down-hard-and-fast-5e05befc156a)

Excerpt:


Biden has announced plans to roll out new domestic terrorism laws in the wake of the Capitol Hill riot.
“Mr. Biden has said he plans to make a priority of passing a law against domestic terrorism, and he has been urged to create a White House post overseeing the fight against ideologically inspired violent extremists and increasing funding to combat them,” Wall Street Journal reports.

Did you know that Biden has often boasted about being the original author of the US Patriot Act?

The first draft of the civil rights-eroding USA PATRIOT Act was magically introduced one week after the 9/11 attacks. Legislators later admitted that they hadn’t even had time to read through the hundreds of pages of the history-shaping bill before passing it the next month, yet somehow its authors were able to gather all the necessary information and write the whole entire thing in a week.

This was because most of the work had already been done. CNET reported the following back in 2008:
“Months before the Oklahoma City bombing took place, [then-Senator Joe] Biden introduced another bill called the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995. It previewed the 2001 Patriot Act by allowing secret evidence to be used in prosecutions, expanding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and wiretap laws, creating a new federal crime of ‘terrorism’ that could be invoked based on political beliefs, permitting the U.S. military to be used in civilian law enforcement, and allowing permanent detention of non-U.S. citizens without judicial review. The Center for National Security Studies said the bill would erode ‘constitutional and statutory due process protections’ and would ‘authorize the Justice Department to pick and choose crimes to investigate and prosecute based on political beliefs and associations.’

Biden’s bill was never put to a vote, but after 9/11 then-Attorney General John Ashcroft reportedly credited his bill with the foundations of the USA PATRIOT Act.
“Civil libertarians were opposed to it,” Biden said in 2002 of his bill. “Right after 1994, and you can ask the attorney general this, because I got a call when he introduced the Patriot Act. He said, ‘Joe, I’m introducing the act basically as you wrote it in 1994.’”

A recent Morning Joe appearance by CIA analyst-turned House Representative Elissa Slotkin eagerly informed us that the real battle against terrorism is now inside America’s borders.

“The post 9/11 era is over,” Slotkin tweeted while sharing a clip of her appearance. “The single greatest national security threat right now is our internal division. The threat of domestic terrorism. The polarization that threatens our democracy. If we don’t reconnect our two Americas, the threats will not have to come from the outside.”

“Before Congress, Elissa worked for the CIA and the Pentagon and helped destabilize the Middle East during the Bush and Obama admins,” tweeted journalist Whitney Webb in response. “What she says here is essentially an open announcement that the US has moved from the ‘War on [foreign] terror’ to the ‘War on domestic terror’.”

In response to pressures from all directions including its own staff, Twitter has followed Facebook’s lead and removed Donald Trump’s account.

And it wasn’t just Trump. Accounts are vanishing quickly, including some popular Trump supporter accounts. I myself have lost hundreds of followers on Twitter in the last few hours, and I’ve seen people saying they lost a lot more.

It also wasn’t just Trump supporters; leftist accounts are getting suspended too. The online left is hopefully learning that cheering for Twitter “banning fascists” irrationally assumes that (A) their purges are only banning fascists and (B) they are limiting their bans to your personal definition of fascists. There is no basis whatsoever for either of these assumptions.

--snip--

The correct response to a huge section of the citizenry doubting an electoral system we’ve known for years is garbage would have been more transparency, not shoving the process through and silencing people who voice doubts and making that entire faction more paranoid and crazy.

[dneal]

The Cold Civil War - Statecraft in a divided country. (https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/the-cold-civil-war/) A 2017 piece from the Claremont Review of Books

Excerpt:


Well-nigh the entire ruling class—government bureaucracies, the judiciary, academia, media, associated client groups, Democratic officials, and Democrat-controlled jurisdictions—have joined in “Resistance” to the 2016 elections: “You did not win this election,” declared Tom Perez recently, the Democratic National Committee’s chairman. This is not about Donald Trump’s alleged character defects. The Resistance would have arisen against whoever represented Americans who had voted not to be governed as they have been for the past quarter-century. It is a cold civil war against a majority of the American people and their way of life. The members of the Resistance mean to defend their power. Their practical objective is to hamper and otherwise delegitimize 2016’s winners. Their political objective is to browbeat Trump voters into believing they should repent and yield to their betters. This campaign might break the Trump presidency.

In the meantime, however, it exacerbates the spirit of discontent in the land. In 2016 the electorate, following the pattern it had set in 2010 and 2014 (and even in 2012, except for the presidential election), voted Republican to show its desire to reduce government’s intrusion in American life, to get out from under the ruling class’s socio-economic agenda and political correctness. But the Republican leadership did not and does not share the electorate’s concerns. Cycle after cycle, Americans who vote to “throw the rascals out” get ever more unaccountable rules piled on by the same unelected bureaucrats; and even modest attempts to hold back capillary intrusion into their lives get invalidated by the same judges. They come to believe that the system is rigged. In short, they want to drain the swamp.

Yet such revolutionary sentiments do not amount to a coherent program to reverse the past century’s course. Donald Trump’s promises with regard to the swamp and to restoring America’s greatness would be extraordinarily difficult to keep even were they matched with due understanding and forceful execution. But the ruling class is so big, so pervasive, and so committed to its ideas, that sidelining it, and even more so, undoing its work, would require at least matching its power, pretensions, and vehemence. In other words, it would take raising the temperature of our cold civil war’s right side to match or overmatch the temperature of its left side. Statesmanship’s task, however, is to maximize peace, not strife.

American society has divided along unreconcilable visions of the good, held by countrymen who increasingly regard each other as enemies. Any attempt by either side to coerce the other into submission augurs only the fate that has befallen other peoples who let themselves slide into revolution. It follows that the path to peace must lie in each side’s contentment to have its own way—but only among those who consent to it. This implies limiting the U.S. government’s reach to what it can grasp without wrecking what remains of our national cohesion.

[Ray-VIgo]

The media polls often gloss over "democracy". When someone asks, "Is U.S. Democracy Threatened" or permutations thereof, it sort of leaves the concept of "democracy" to the answering person. I suppose to many people "U.S. Democracy" is the system of government and the voting to fill the offices included in that government. To other people it's just a vague concept of "voting". It is unclear to me what "democracy" today actually means, mainly because if you ask 10 people, you might get 7 different definitions. Many of the founders were suspicious of "democracy", and they understood the term to mean the ancient assemblage of eligible voting persons in a room, or the mass jury of Athens, etc. These systems could degrade quickly into mob rule, and it was a form of "democracy" that undid Socrates, as many of the founders of the U.S. saw it.

I dwelled on the phrase, "American society has divided along unreconcilable visions of the good, held by countrymen who increasingly regard each other as enemies." There's something pessimistic but not far off from reality in it. Perhaps "regard each other as enemies" is a little strong, maybe too cartoonish. But it is fair to say that people increasingly see their opponents as espousing values and ideas incompatible with the notion of "what is American".

Local government, and federalism are strengths in America, not weaknesses. I think one of our failures as a whole, today at least, is that we fall into the trap of viewing the country as a top-down, nationalized thing. Each side resorts to federal power whenever within grasp, often with disasterous results. But our system is a federal, not a nationalist one. I think we need to try to get to know our neighbors better, rely on local problem-solving and resources, and do what we can "from the bottom-up", and not "from the top-down". I think we've made our system very rigid, very "all or nothing" for various interests by obsessing over federal power and the ability to dictate terms to over 300 million people across millions of square miles all at once. In a way, we've fallen short of our ancestors in our lack of seeing our neighbors and local communities face-to-face, and finding pragmatic solutions. Power and technology seem to be intoxicating to many of our politicians and it all stinks of hubris .

[welch]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/conspiracy-oath-keeper-arrest-capitol-riot/2021/01/19/fb84877a-5a4f-11eb-8bcf-3877871c819d_story.html

The latest arrests of the neo-Nazi / neo-Confederates who attacked the Capitol on January 6 in Trump's attempt to stop the ceremonial count of electoral votes.



U.S. authorities have leveled the first conspiracy charge against an apparent leader of an extremist group in the Jan. 6 storming of the U.S. Capitol, arresting an alleged Oath Keeper who is accused of plotting to disrupt the electoral vote confirmation of President-elect Joe Biden’s victory and proposing further assaults on state capitols.

Thomas Edward Caldwell, 66, of Clarke County, Va., was taken into custody before 7 a.m. on four federal counts, including conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States in the attack on the Capitol. The conspiracy charge is reserved for offenses interfering with or obstructing the lawful operation of government.

A charging affidavit says he helped organize a group of eight to 10 individuals, including self-styled Ohio militia members apprehended Sunday, who wore helmets and military-style gear and were seen moving purposefully toward the top of the Capitol steps and leading the move against police lines.

The Post obtained hours of video footage, some exclusively, and placed it within a digital 3-D model of the building. (TWP)
Separately, charges were unsealed Wednesday accusing a Queens man who worked in the state court system of making threats to murder Democratic politicians, including suggesting another attack on the Capitol timed to President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration Wednesday

Brendan Hunt of Queens, N.Y., is described in the documents as a part time actor and full-time employee of the New York State Office of Court Administration. Authorities said Hunt was not at the Jan. 6 riot, but made threatening remarks about Democratic politicians beforehand that intensified in a video he posted two days later, titled, “KILL YOUR SENATORS.”

“We need to go back to the U.S. Capitol,” Hunt said in the video, according to the FBI. “What you need to do is take up arms, get to D.C., probably the inauguration … put some bullets in their f----- heads. If anybody has a gun, give it to me, I’ll go there myself and shoot them and kill them.”

The arrests are another indication how concerned law enforcement agencies are about threats to the inauguration, particularly since so many of the participants in the Jan. 6 chaos are still unidentified.

In Caldwell’s charging papers, FBI agents wrote that they were reviewing communications between Caldwell “and other known and unknown Oath Keepers members.”

Prosecutors with the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, D.C., have charged more than 100 people in the two weeks following the riot. This weekend the FBI arrested several people with alleged ties to the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys and Three Percenters, which charging documents suggest were among the more prepared, organized and determined groups in the larger mass of rioters.

The 15-page affidavit cited a Jan. 1 Facebook message in which Caldwell said he had scouted lodging for several others at a Comfort Inn in Ballston, Va., about eight miles from the Capitol that “would allow us to go hunting at night if we wanted to.”

FBI probes possible connections between extremist groups at heart of Capitol violence

Caldwell sent the message, the affidavit said, to Jessica Watkins, a 38-year-old U.S. Army veteran who was arrested late Sunday. Federal authorities accused her of breaching the Capitol with other members of the “Ohio State Regular Militia,” a group she founded in 2019.

Information about an attorney for Caldwell was not immediately available. No one immediately responded to a message left with Caldwell’s phone number.

In an apparent reference to Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, the affidavit said, Caldwell goes on in the Jan. 1 post to say, “I don’t know if Stewie has even gotten out his call to arms, but it’s a little friggin late. This is one we are doing on our own. We will link up with the north carolina [sic] crew.”

At 7:47 p.m. on Jan. 6, Caldwell allegedly sent a Facebook video taken from within the U.S. Capitol, and wrote, “Us storming the castle. Please share. Sharon was right with me! I am such an instigator! She was ready for it man! Didn’t even mind the tear gas.”

Caldwell then added, according to the FBI: “Proud boys scuffled with cops and drove them inside to hide. Breached the doors. One guy made it all the way to the house floor, another to Pelosi’s office. A good time,” according to charging papers. Less than a minute later, Caldwell went on, “We need to do this at the local level. Lets [sic] storm the capitol in Ohio. Tell me when!”

After Jan. 6, a witness identified in charging papers only as W-1 told the FBI that Watkins went to stay with Caldwell, a person she called “Commander T” or “Commander Tom,” leaving a phone number the FBI associated with Caldwell, the agent wrote.

Watkins was taken into custody along with Donovan Crowl, 50, a former U.S. Marine and another member of the Ohio group, a subset of the Oath Keepers.

Another of those newly charged this weekend was Robert Gieswein, 24, of Woodland Park, Colo. Charging documents and videos indicate he may have links to the three extremist groups that have drawn the most attention from the FBI: the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers and Three Percenters. Some of the videos appear to include members who discussed storming the Capitol about an hour ahead of the riot.

Meanwhile, even Mitch McConnell blames Trump for having launched the attack:


Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Tuesday pointedly blamed Trump for having “provoked” the violent mob that stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

Speaking on the Senate floor, McConnell noted that the Senate was meeting for the first time since that day, when Congress ultimately finished counting the electoral votes that cemented Biden’s victory.

“The mob was fed lies,” McConnell said. “They were provoked by the president and other powerful people, and they tried to use fear and violence to stop a specific proceeding of the first branch of the federal government which they did not like. But we pressed on, we stood together and said an angry mob would not get veto power over the rule of law in our nation.”

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), among the lawmakers who led the challenge of electoral votes in states Biden won, was presiding as McConnell spoke.

Speaking at a rally Jan. 6, Trump, who has refused to acknowledge his election loss, had implored a crowd to head to the Capitol shortly before security there was breached and the chambers were taken over.

During his remarks Tuesday, McConnell said Biden enters office without “a mandate for sweeping ideological change,” calling him “a presidential candidate who said he’d represent everyone.”

McConnell, soon to be the chamber’s minority leader, said Republicans will pursue bipartisan agreements where they can.

[dneal]

@ Ray-Vigo: Great post. You might enjoy the Eric Weinstein interview. He lays out a pretty good argument of how we got here, with some pretty salient points of the two "cults" he describes as "Wokestan" and "MAGAstan", bickering over insanity; while the majority of the country ignores geriatric kleptocrats continuing to line their pockets at our expense.

@ welch: You exemplify the problem with the country (and the possibility of any real discussion in this section), and you're simply fixated on the partisan bickerings of the 24 hour news cycle. Stop being a parrot and expand your thinking.

[Lloyd]

None of us, including you, drneal, is above "being part of the problem". Heck (there's a word you don't read online often these days) , you're name calling welsh... Is that part of a solution?

[dneal]

None of us, including you, drneal, is above "being part of the problem". Heck (there's a word you don't read online often these days) , you're name calling welsh... Is that part of a solution?

Please re-read my post, which I edited before you posted this. Yes, I initially used language that sounded somewhat as you describe; and edited it when I realized it wasn't what I intended.

The point stands though. The vast majority of what welch has been posting recently is nothing but partisan bullshit. He's got TDS IMHO, and that's fine I suppose; but it's just noise at this point. It is part of the problem. If he's posting it, then "he's" part of the problem.

[Lloyd]

And you shouting about it is also part of the problem.
https://youtu.be/MFLtTK13G2w

[dneal]

And you shouting about it is also part of the problem.
https://youtu.be/MFLtTK13G2w

I'm not shouting.

You're citing Bill Nye? Seriously? Ok. Here's the problem with the video. He starts with the assumption that a disputed issue is a conspiracy theory. That's inductive logic. If the assumption is false, the conclusion is false; regardless of the validity of the logic in between.

That's the point of the parallel of the Wuhan lab. It was dismissed as a conspiracy out of hand. Turns out it's not, and it's simply something that should be considered.

For the I-don't-know-how-many-times... There is evidence to support the stolen election hypothesis. That doesn't make it true. Calling it a conspiracy theory doesn't make that true. You think it has been examined sufficiently. Others do not. The question of the thread is not what you think. It's how you convince them otherwise. I'm really getting tired of making this point and you ignoring it.

--edit--

I just realized this isn't even the damn "how do you convince..." thread. Why are you posting a Bill Nye conspiracy video here?

[Lloyd]

Ignore that it's Nye. It has to do with how to open someone who you believe isn't seeing things rationally to what you feel is rational. Shouting/bashing ain't one.

[Lloyd]

By the way, you keep saying that you're "so tired". Have you considered napping?

[dneal]

By the way, you keep saying that you're "so tired". Have you considered napping?

You want to have an adult conversation or do you want to be a smart ass?

[Lloyd]

It was an attempt at politely (not my forte) having you realize that your not above the issue. If you're as intelligent as you believe (your own internal conspiracy?), why are you so misunderstood here? I think most see you as pro Trump's actions and trying to convince either yourself or others that he had the election stolen by some powerful liberal army.

[Chuck Naill]

By the way, you keep saying that you're "so tired". Have you considered napping?

You want to have an adult conversation or do you want to be a smart ass?

I read where you have asked the same question and both times it's when you ran out of something substantive to say. Most of the responses have been adult to which you have resorted to "whataboutthisisms" or resorted to personal insults.

[dneal]

It was an attempt at politely (not my forte) having you realize that your not above the issue. If you're as intelligent as you believe (your own internal conspiracy?), why are you so misunderstood here? I think most see you as pro Trump's actions and trying to convince either yourself or others that he had the election stolen by some powerful liberal army.

You don't consider any of that text after the first sentence sarcastic or rude?

[dneal]

By the way, you keep saying that you're "so tired". Have you considered napping?

You want to have an adult conversation or do you want to be a smart ass?

I read where you have asked the same question and both times it's when you ran out of something substantive to say. Most of the responses have been adult to which you have resorted to "whataboutthisisms" or resorted to personal insults.

Not sure why you're involving yourself in this...

Yes, I have said it a few times. I've also said we're arguing in circles. Sphere says I'm beating a dead horse. Perhaps those are indicators that new entrants into the discussion should read the previous 20 or 30 pages of posts. They keep reframing the same questions, and I keep reframing the same answer.

This thread was actually something substantive, but it's quickly about Trump and conspiracies. Don't we have enough threads on that?

"Whataboutism" is the new rhetorical device for deflecting hypocrisy when you can't defend it.

[Lloyd]

I never said I was above the cause...nor had many friends. [emoji6]

[dneal]

I never said I was above the cause...nor had many friends. [emoji6]

Ummmm, ok?

[kazoolaw]

...why are you so misunderstood here? I think most see you as pro Trump's actions and trying to convince either yourself or others that he had the election stolen by some powerful liberal army.

Saying "I think" doesn't immunize your comment's need of proof. If most see dneal as you claim then most don't see clearly. And that subject is one you might spend some time pondering.

[Chuck Naill]

By the way, you keep saying that you're "so tired". Have you considered napping?

You want to have an adult conversation or do you want to be a smart ass?

I read where you have asked the same question and both times it's when you ran out of something substantive to say. Most of the responses have been adult to which you have resorted to "whataboutthisisms" or resorted to personal insults.

Not sure why you're involving yourself in this...

Yes, I have said it a few times. I've also said we're arguing in circles. Sphere says I'm beating a dead horse. Perhaps those are indicators that new entrants into the discussion should read the previous 20 or 30 pages of posts. They keep reframing the same questions, and I keep reframing the same answer.

This thread was actually something substantive, but it's quickly about Trump and conspiracies. Don't we have enough threads on that?

"Whataboutism" is the new rhetorical device for deflecting hypocrisy when you can't defend it.

It is actually a tactic used often in your posts where instead of addressing a post made to respond to you, you bring up something else. It is an abbreviation for "oh yeah, what about this?"

This is a good summation of the past four years....
"Folks, we just survived something really crazy awful: four years of a president without shame, backed by a party without spine, amplified by a network without integrity, each pumping out conspiracy theories without truth, brought directly to our brains by social networks without ethics — all heated up by a pandemic without mercy."
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/19/opinion/trump-presidency.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

[dneal]

It is actually a tactic used often in your posts where instead of addressing a post made to respond to you, you bring up something else. It is an abbreviation for "oh yeah, what about this?"


Explaining it doesn't change the fact that it's deflection from hypocrisy.

A: Shouldn't we at least investigate, given the evidence we have?
B: NO!! FUCK THOSE TRUMPISTS!!! THEY NEED TO SHUT UP AND GET IN LINE FOR THEIR REPROGRAMMING!!!
A: We gave Nancy and the Dems their BS investigation though. Fair is fair, isn't it?
B: OMG!!! WHATABOUTISM!!! THAT DOESN'T MATTER!!!

Pretty simple.

[Chuck Naill]

It is actually a tactic used often in your posts where instead of addressing a post made to respond to you, you bring up something else. It is an abbreviation for "oh yeah, what about this?"


Explaining it doesn't change the fact that it's deflection from hypocrisy.

A: Shouldn't we at least investigate, given the evidence we have?
B: NO!! FUCK THOSE TRUMPISTS!!! THEY NEED TO SHUT UP AND GET IN LINE FOR THEIR REPROGRAMMING!!!
A: We gave Nancy and the Dems their BS investigation though. Fair is fair, isn't it?
B: OMG!!! WHATABOUTISM!!! THAT DOESN'T MATTER!!!

Pretty simple.

I empathize with your response. If there was evidence, why was it not investigated? I kept a pretty close tab on the things Trump's personally hired lawyers were suggesting as evidence. It went no where because of the quality of what they provided didn't provoke the courts to act.

I tried and others responded to your posts when you chose not to respond to ours. What you did respond with could be translated..."oh yeah, what about this". Had you just responded as if you had read the responses you had asked for perhaps some conversation could have taken place.

[dneal]

You'll have to point out which responses you're talking about. The one about taking a nap? The one about beating a dead horse?

The main themes have been me posting what the Trump side considers evidence, and a refutation consisting of either "the courts decided" or (insert suspect official) "refuted that already"

Sprinkle a little random WashPost propaganda and dancing in the end zone from welch, some very good responses from Ray-Vigo; and that's about it.

Translating my pointing out of hypocrisy as simply "yeah, what about this" is just a variation of the deflection. If people are going to argue absolutist positions centering on "get over it", and ignore that their side didn't (and that was apparently ok), then their objectivity (or lack thereof) is made a little more clear. I have been pointing out that the anti-Trump posters here aren't objective, and can't see that they're not because of TDS or some other bias. The hypocrisy is evidence of that. Uncomfortable for the Trump haters to acknowledge, but there it is.

[Chuck Naill]

You'll have to point out which responses you're talking about. The one about taking a nap? The one about beating a dead horse?

The main themes have been me posting what the Trump side considers evidence, and a refutation consisting of either "the courts decided" or (insert suspect official) "refuted that already"

Sprinkle a little random WashPost propaganda and dancing in the end zone from welch, some very good responses from Ray-Vigo; and that's about it.

Translating my pointing out of hypocrisy as simply "yeah, what about this" is just a variation of the deflection. If people are going to argue absolutist positions centering on "get over it", and ignore that their side didn't (and that was apparently ok), then their objectivity (or lack thereof) is made a little more clear. I have been pointing out that the anti-Trump posters here aren't objective, and can't see that they're not because of TDS or some other bias. The hypocrisy is evidence of that. Uncomfortable for the Trump haters to acknowledge, but there it is.

You're doing it again. Do you have specific evidence that you are able to share that demonstrates the election was dishonest. You can have a clean slate with which to respond.

If you do, you should be able to simply list documented sources that show an orchestrated effort in which the top of the ticket was changed while leaving the bottom portion as the voter intended which allowed other Republican candidates to win over Democrats. Or, you can show any evidence you prefer, but it needs to be more than suggesting something might exist.

Also, was there collaboration between states?

Did you listen to the audio of Trump asking Georgia to find enough votes that would allow his to win? If so, was there a similar request from the Biden campaign? Would you agree that Trump is actuallly asking for dishonest reporting while accusing others of something he was willing to do?

Just a comment, over the past four years I have seen a consistant erosion of American values with regard to health alliances, minorities, foreigners, economic equality, and a daily barrage of disrupting communication from the former adminsitraton. I personally breathed a sigh of relief yesterday at noon and I have been a registered Republican since Reagan.

What Biden has done, that any good manager or coach does is to assemble talent. Get the right people on the bus and deligate. What Trump did was to make the job harder than it needed to be, and if I may suggest, it was because he didn't know how to get the right people and he does not trust anyone. Why does he not trust anyone? I suppose he thinks they are the same as he is. Perhaps I have it wrong, but you can correct me if you want.

[dneal]

You're doing it again. Do you have specific evidence that you are able to share that demonstrates the election was dishonest. You can have a clean slate with which to respond.

No Chuck, you're doing it again. You are subtly trying to characterize my argument as if I am asserting that there was fraud. I am asserting that I see why other people think there is. I am asserting that we should probably address their claims rather than ignore them if we want to "heal".

I have posted videos and links throughout other threads. You are free to browse them if you like. I'm not going to repost them here because you are "giving" me a clean slate. It actually appears to me that you did not bother to give them consideration at the time.

Just a comment to your comment, the erosion has been going on for much more than four years. If you're breathing a sigh of relief because someone said some words at noon yesterday, you're not paying attention to the larger picture.

[kazoolaw]

What Biden has done, that any good manager or coach does is to assemble talent. Get the right people on the bus and deligate.

The right people

In 1994, Clarke wrote a letter to The Harvard Crimson in her capacity as the president of the Black Students Association to explain her views on race science.

“Please use the following theories and observations to assist you in your search for truth regarding the genetic differences between Blacks and whites [sic],” Clarke wrote. “One: Dr Richard King reveals that the core of the human brain is the ‘locus coeruleus,’ which is a structure that is Black, because it contains large amounts of neuro-melanin, which is essential for its operation.

“Two: Black infants sit, crawl and walk sooner than whites [sic]. Three: Carol Barnes notes that human mental processes are controlled by melanin — that same chemical which gives Blacks their superior physical and mental abilities.

“Four: Some scientists have revealed that most whites [sic] are unable to produce melanin because their pineal glands are often calcified or non-functioning. Pineal calcification rates with Africans are five to 15 percent [sic], Asians 15 to 25 percent [sic] and Europeans 60 to 80 percent [sic]. This is the chemical basis for the cultural differences between blacks and whites [sic].

“Five: Melanin endows Blacks with greater mental, physical and spiritual abilities — something which cannot be measured based on Eurocentric standards.”

[welch]

You're doing it again. Do you have specific evidence that you are able to share that demonstrates the election was dishonest. You can have a clean slate with which to respond.

No Chuck, you're doing it again. You are subtly trying to characterize my argument as if I am asserting that there was fraud. I am asserting that I see why other people think there is. I am asserting that we should probably address their claims rather than ignore them if we want to "heal".

I have posted videos and links throughout other threads. You are free to browse them if you like. I'm not going to repost them here because you are "giving" me a clean slate. It actually appears to me that you did not bother to give them consideration at the time.

Just a comment to your comment, the erosion has been going on for much more than four years. If you're breathing a sigh of relief because someone said some words at noon yesterday, you're not paying attention to the larger picture.

The claims of fraud have been addressed over and over again. The Trump Campaign had sixty chances to suggest election fraud but failed every time those claims were examined. Re-read the court cases -- there are links to nearly all of them in this section of FPG, and at least one links back to a round-up off all court cases that touch on the November, 2020, election.

That's the end of it.

Why were those court cases filed? Why would anyone continue to whine about "election fraud"?

The one and obvious answer: Donald Trump claimed election fraud all summer. Trump insisted that he would win. Trump seems to have believed his internal polls, although we know that Trump's staffers avoid giving him anything but jolly-jolly news. Trump pumped out nonsense; his cultish followers believe it and repeat it back to him and to his sycophants, leading Trump and sycophants to cry out that "people are saying"...

It's over.

If people refuse reality, then they can try to live in a fantasy world. There is no point arguing.

[dneal]

You're doing it again. Do you have specific evidence that you are able to share that demonstrates the election was dishonest. You can have a clean slate with which to respond.

No Chuck, you're doing it again. You are subtly trying to characterize my argument as if I am asserting that there was fraud. I am asserting that I see why other people think there is. I am asserting that we should probably address their claims rather than ignore them if we want to "heal".

I have posted videos and links throughout other threads. You are free to browse them if you like. I'm not going to repost them here because you are "giving" me a clean slate. It actually appears to me that you did not bother to give them consideration at the time.

Just a comment to your comment, the erosion has been going on for much more than four years. If you're breathing a sigh of relief because someone said some words at noon yesterday, you're not paying attention to the larger picture.

The claims of fraud have been addressed over and over again. The Trump Campaign had sixty chances to suggest election fraud but failed every time those claims were examined. Re-read the court cases -- there are links to nearly all of them in this section of FPG, and at least one links back to a round-up off all court cases that touch on the November, 2020, election.

That's the end of it.

Why were those court cases filed? Why would anyone continue to whine about "election fraud"?

The one and obvious answer: Donald Trump claimed election fraud all summer. Trump insisted that he would win. Trump seems to have believed his internal polls, although we know that Trump's staffers avoid giving him anything but jolly-jolly news. Trump pumped out nonsense; his cultish followers believe it and repeat it back to him and to his sycophants, leading Trump and sycophants to cry out that "people are saying"...

It's over.

If people refuse reality, then they can try to live in a fantasy world. There is no point arguing.

Let me break that down for the reader:

A: Shouldn't we at least investigate, given the evidence we have?
B: NO!! FUCK THOSE TRUMPISTS!!! THEY NEED TO SHUT UP AND GET IN LINE FOR THEIR REPROGRAMMING!!!
A: We gave Nancy and the Dems their BS investigation though. Fair is fair, isn't it?
B: OMG!!! WHATABOUTISM!!! THAT DOESN'T MATTER!!!

[Empty_of_Clouds]

A: Shouldn't we at least investigate, given the evidence we have?

No, as no evidence has been forwarded of sufficient quality to initiate an investigation. It has been determined time and again by the courts, and is evidenced by the simple fact that in none of the cases has counsel for the plaintiff stepped up and stated clearly that they are pursuing a fraud investigation. Trial by media is not sufficient unto law.

A: We gave Nancy and the Dems their BS investigation though. Fair is fair, isn't it?

Fair is fair? This is not how the system works - essentially saying 'they had an investigation so we are entitled to one too'. The other investigation was predicated on an actual case being brought and charges stated plainly. For the recent election, this hasn't happened - see point above. If a single lawyer had stated plainly in court that they were pursuing a case of electoral fraud, then perhaps there would have been a formal investigation. Bearing in mind that in States were there were questions, or legislation permitted, the local authorities performed all due diligence as required. And also bearing in mind that such cases becoming sub judice would not have satisfied Trump's desire for a public circus.

[dneal]

A: Shouldn't we at least investigate, given the evidence we have?

No, as no evidence has been forwarded of sufficient quality to initiate an investigation. It has been determined time and again by the courts, and is evidenced by the simple fact that in none of the cases has counsel for the plaintiff stepped up and stated clearly that they are pursuing a fraud investigation. Trial by media is not sufficient unto law.

A: We gave Nancy and the Dems their BS investigation though. Fair is fair, isn't it?

Fair is fair? This is not how the system works - essentially saying 'they had an investigation so we are entitled to one too'. The other investigation was predicated on an actual case being brought and charges stated plainly. For the recent election, this hasn't happened - see point above. If a single lawyer had stated plainly in court that they were pursuing a case of electoral fraud, then perhaps there would have been a formal investigation. Bearing in mind that in States were there were questions, or legislation permitted, the local authorities performed all due diligence as required. And also bearing in mind that such cases becoming sub judice would not have satisfied Trump's desire for a public circus.

The problem is that you look at the issue from:

- The perspective of a Trump-hater.
- Someone with no real understanding of middle-America or the Trump supporter.
- Someone with no real skin in the game.

It doesn't surprise me that you arrive at the answer you do, and why you cannot understand the opposing view. The "Trumpist" believes their argument is just as valid as yours (and welch's, Tsherb's, Lloyd's, etc...). None of you can separate the notion of whether or not the argument is valid in truth, vs whether or not the argument is valid in belief. Even more problematic is that you weight "your" evidence to reinforce your belief in your argument. You believe there is sufficient evidence to "prove" your view. They believe there is sufficient evidence to support their view.

This isn't difficult to understand, if you're not on either "team". The bias is so prevalent here that I'm assumed to be on the pro-Trump team. Several posters (hi Fred) are so rabidly anti-Trump that even contemplating the possibility of an illegitimate election is enough to immediately reduce them to vitriol. All from one person simply pointing out that: "this is what they believe, and this is why".

Are the Trumpers deranged or delusional? Yeah, some moreso than others. Guess what though, you anti-Trumpers are too. ;)

[Chuck Naill]

You're doing it again. Do you have specific evidence that you are able to share that demonstrates the election was dishonest. You can have a clean slate with which to respond.

No Chuck, you're doing it again. You are subtly trying to characterize my argument as if I am asserting that there was fraud. I am asserting that I see why other people think there is. I am asserting that we should probably address their claims rather than ignore them if we want to "heal".

I have posted videos and links throughout other threads. You are free to browse them if you like. I'm not going to repost them here because you are "giving" me a clean slate. It actually appears to me that you did not bother to give them consideration at the time.

Just a comment to your comment, the erosion has been going on for much more than four years. If you're breathing a sigh of relief because someone said some words at noon yesterday, you're not paying attention to the larger picture.

Vidoes and links are not a substitute for substance. I will assume you have nothing evidental to add.

[Chuck Naill]

A: Shouldn't we at least investigate, given the evidence we have?

No, as no evidence has been forwarded of sufficient quality to initiate an investigation. It has been determined time and again by the courts, and is evidenced by the simple fact that in none of the cases has counsel for the plaintiff stepped up and stated clearly that they are pursuing a fraud investigation. Trial by media is not sufficient unto law.

A: We gave Nancy and the Dems their BS investigation though. Fair is fair, isn't it?

Fair is fair? This is not how the system works - essentially saying 'they had an investigation so we are entitled to one too'. The other investigation was predicated on an actual case being brought and charges stated plainly. For the recent election, this hasn't happened - see point above. If a single lawyer had stated plainly in court that they were pursuing a case of electoral fraud, then perhaps there would have been a formal investigation. Bearing in mind that in States were there were questions, or legislation permitted, the local authorities performed all due diligence as required. And also bearing in mind that such cases becoming sub judice would not have satisfied Trump's desire for a public circus.

The problem is that you look at the issue from:

- The perspective of a Trump-hater.
- Someone with no real understanding of middle-America or the Trump supporter.
- Someone with no real skin in the game.

It doesn't surprise me that you arrive at the answer you do, and why you cannot understand the opposing view. The "Trumpist" believes their argument is just as valid as yours (and welch's, Tsherb's, Lloyd's, etc...). None of you can separate the notion of whether or not the argument is valid in truth, vs whether or not the argument is valid in belief. Even more problematic is that you weight "your" evidence to reinforce your belief in your argument. You believe there is sufficient evidence to "prove" your view. They believe there is sufficient evidence to support their view.

This isn't difficult to understand, if you're not on either "team". The bias is so prevalent here that I'm assumed to be on the pro-Trump team. Several posters (hi Fred) are so rabidly anti-Trump that even contemplating the possibility of an illegitimate election is enough to immediately reduce them to vitriol. All from one person simply pointing out that: "this is what they believe, and this is why".

Are the Trumpers deranged or delusional? Yeah, some moreso than others. Guess what though, you anti-Trumpers are too. ;)

Is "trumphater" code for people who do not find your posts compelling?

[Lloyd]

At this point, isn't the vote counting moot? A winner has been officially declared and, if the UNITED States will live up to its name, we've got to move forward as one nation. When Trump was sworn in, I swore for a day. Then, I accepted it, supported my country, and hoped that he would outperform my fears.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

A: Shouldn't we at least investigate, given the evidence we have?

No, as no evidence has been forwarded of sufficient quality to initiate an investigation. It has been determined time and again by the courts, and is evidenced by the simple fact that in none of the cases has counsel for the plaintiff stepped up and stated clearly that they are pursuing a fraud investigation. Trial by media is not sufficient unto law.

A: We gave Nancy and the Dems their BS investigation though. Fair is fair, isn't it?

Fair is fair? This is not how the system works - essentially saying 'they had an investigation so we are entitled to one too'. The other investigation was predicated on an actual case being brought and charges stated plainly. For the recent election, this hasn't happened - see point above. If a single lawyer had stated plainly in court that they were pursuing a case of electoral fraud, then perhaps there would have been a formal investigation. Bearing in mind that in States were there were questions, or legislation permitted, the local authorities performed all due diligence as required. And also bearing in mind that such cases becoming sub judice would not have satisfied Trump's desire for a public circus.

The problem is that you look at the issue from:

- The perspective of a Trump-hater.
- Someone with no real understanding of middle-America or the Trump supporter.
- Someone with no real skin in the game.

It doesn't surprise me that you arrive at the answer you do, and why you cannot understand the opposing view. The "Trumpist" believes their argument is just as valid as yours (and welch's, Tsherb's, Lloyd's, etc...). None of you can separate the notion of whether or not the argument is valid in truth, vs whether or not the argument is valid in belief. Even more problematic is that you weight "your" evidence to reinforce your belief in your argument. You believe there is sufficient evidence to "prove" your view. They believe there is sufficient evidence to support their view.

This isn't difficult to understand, if you're not on either "team". The bias is so prevalent here that I'm assumed to be on the pro-Trump team. Several posters (hi Fred) are so rabidly anti-Trump that even contemplating the possibility of an illegitimate election is enough to immediately reduce them to vitriol. All from one person simply pointing out that: "this is what they believe, and this is why".

Are the Trumpers deranged or delusional? Yeah, some moreso than others. Guess what though, you anti-Trumpers are too. ;)



I look at this from the perspective of an interested observer. The other labels appear to be an attempt to delegitimize my argument.

I have no real interest in what people of either stripe 'believe', only in what has been presented as evidence. It is clear - with the caveat that this is based only on information that is in the public domain - that there has been no finding nor revealing of evidence of sufficient import to warrant any further investigation beyond the checks and measures that have already been applied. My conclusion is not biased along any party line and is not 'weighted' in any way other than being based on available data.

Saying that I have 'no real skin in the game' is a trivialization of the effect of the US elections on future foreign policy, trade or otherwise, that impacts people on the global stage.


It is disappointing that you, dneal, are persistent in presuming to know better the minds of others, and preface many your remarks with insulting or belittling phrases that do nothing to either move the discussion along or encourage active engagement by others.

[dneal]

You're doing it again. Do you have specific evidence that you are able to share that demonstrates the election was dishonest. You can have a clean slate with which to respond.

No Chuck, you're doing it again. You are subtly trying to characterize my argument as if I am asserting that there was fraud. I am asserting that I see why other people think there is. I am asserting that we should probably address their claims rather than ignore them if we want to "heal".

I have posted videos and links throughout other threads. You are free to browse them if you like. I'm not going to repost them here because you are "giving" me a clean slate. It actually appears to me that you did not bother to give them consideration at the time.

Just a comment to your comment, the erosion has been going on for much more than four years. If you're breathing a sigh of relief because someone said some words at noon yesterday, you're not paying attention to the larger picture.

Vidoes and links are not a substitute for substance. I will assume you have nothing evidental to add.

You still ignore the point and argue the straw man. I'm not trying to prove Trump's case. I assume you have nothing substantive to add.


Is "trumphater" code for people who do not find your posts compelling?

More characterization and pseudo-strawmen. It's quite clear in corniche's thread, for example. Look at the responses to my question about what makes Trump a bad President besides the bombast. I'm wondering if you're intentionally this obtuse.

[Lloyd]

Experts say that conspiracy theorists on any subject typically have done way more research than those who most would say correctly accept facts. As their conspiracies can't be disproven, the believers can always find more correlated information to support their beliefs.

[dneal]

I look at this from the perspective of an interested observer. The other labels appear to be an attempt to delegitimize my argument.


Yeah, you have no bias. Wait, what's this?


The ex-President should now be under close watch, in my opinion. Partly to make sure the silverware doesn't go missing, but mainly to prevent him manipulating stuff to avoid getting his just desserts in the months after President-elect Biden's inauguration. Same goes for Bill Barr and a few other associates.

What exactly are his "just desserts". Actually, don't bother answering. You have anti-Trump bias.



I have no real interest in what people of either stripe 'believe', only in what has been presented as evidence. It is clear - with the caveat that this is based only on information that is in the public domain - that there has been no finding nor revealing of evidence of sufficient import to warrant any further investigation beyond the checks and measures that have already been applied. My conclusion is not biased along any party line and is not 'weighted' in any way other than being based on available data.

Well, then I don't know why you persist in involving yourself in what I post, because I am addressing precisely what people 'believe' - not what is fact. I highly doubt you have based your opinion on a thorough examination of the "information that is in the public domain". How many court decisions did you read? How many hearings did you watch? How many cites in the Navarro reports did you follow in order to investigate? How many affidavits have you scrutinized?

That's the biggest point a lot of you have missed. I've looked through a hell of a lot more of the "conspiracy" stuff than you have, and I'm not convinced or harping on it's veracity. I'm simply saying there's a whole lot of shit that would easily persuade someone prone to belief.


Saying that I have 'no real skin in the game' is a trivialization of the effect of the US elections on future foreign policy, trade or otherwise, that impacts people on the global stage.

LOL. You self-important douchebag (sorry, I just threw that in so you could see what an insulting and belittling remark actually is).

Seriously though, name 3 ways the riot at the Capitol or the last 48 hours rioting in Portland personally affected you. Sorry buddy, you have no skin in the game. If the U.S. goes to some full blown civil war and destroys the world's economy... ok, you'll have me then.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Yeah, you have no bias. Wait, what's this?


The ex-President should now be under close watch, in my opinion. Partly to make sure the silverware doesn't go missing, but mainly to prevent him manipulating stuff to avoid getting his just desserts in the months after President-elect Biden's inauguration. Same goes for Bill Barr and a few other associates.

What exactly are his "just desserts". Actually, don't bother answering. You have anti-Trump bias.

The first part is just my opinion, nothing more and clearly stated. The rest is tongue in cheek. I guess you just didn't get it.



I have no real interest in what people of either stripe 'believe', only in what has been presented as evidence. It is clear - with the caveat that this is based only on information that is in the public domain - that there has been no finding nor revealing of evidence of sufficient import to warrant any further investigation beyond the checks and measures that have already been applied. My conclusion is not biased along any party line and is not 'weighted' in any way other than being based on available data.

Well, then I don't know why you persist in involving yourself in what I post, because I am addressing precisely what people 'believe' - not what is fact. I highly doubt you have based your opinion on a thorough examination of the "information that is in the public domain". How many court decisions did you read? How many hearings did you watch? How many cites in the Navarro reports did you follow in order to investigate? How many affidavits have you scrutinized?

That's the biggest point a lot of you have missed. I've looked through a hell of a lot more of the "conspiracy" stuff than you have, and I'm not convinced or harping on it's veracity. I'm simply saying there's a whole lot of shit that would easily persuade someone prone to belief.

Deflection and projection. You have no clue about what I may or may not have read/seen or even the quantity. So your appeal to authority falls flat.


Saying that I have 'no real skin in the game' is a trivialization of the effect of the US elections on future foreign policy, trade or otherwise, that impacts people on the global stage.

LOL. You self-important douchebag (sorry, I just threw that in so you could see what an insulting and belittling remark actually is).

Again, I guess you just don't get it. Two parts: it's insulting and belittling to presume to know what other people in the thread have read or understood. By asserting as much you are attempting to lower their position and raise yours above based on your say so. It's a less direct way of insulting others, but it is an insult nonetheless, and one that you have used extensively throughout this thread. The other part is that you seem to be a bit clueless regarding the impact of US policy-making on the rest of the planet. If you believe that what's happened in the US in the last 4 years and what's going to happen from now are of no consequence or concern to citizens of other nations, then you are seriously missing parts of the puzzle.


Seriously though, name 3 ways the riot at the Capitol or the last 48 hours rioting in Portland personally affected you. Sorry buddy, you have no skin in the game. If the U.S. goes to some full blown civil war and destroys the world's economy... ok, you'll have me then.

Selecting local events that clearly have no direct impact globally, though may have longer-term implications in the wider arena, is frankly a bit of a stupid counterargument.

[Lloyd]

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/navarro-report/
Sounds like a good use of time....

[Chuck Naill]

You're doing it again. Do you have specific evidence that you are able to share that demonstrates the election was dishonest. You can have a clean slate with which to respond.

No Chuck, you're doing it again. You are subtly trying to characterize my argument as if I am asserting that there was fraud. I am asserting that I see why other people think there is. I am asserting that we should probably address their claims rather than ignore them if we want to "heal".

I have posted videos and links throughout other threads. You are free to browse them if you like. I'm not going to repost them here because you are "giving" me a clean slate. It actually appears to me that you did not bother to give them consideration at the time.

Just a comment to your comment, the erosion has been going on for much more than four years. If you're breathing a sigh of relief because someone said some words at noon yesterday, you're not paying attention to the larger picture.

Vidoes and links are not a substitute for substance. I will assume you have nothing evidental to add.

You still ignore the point and argue the straw man. I'm not trying to prove Trump's case. I assume you have nothing substantive to add.


Is "trumphater" code for people who do not find your posts compelling?

More characterization and pseudo-strawmen. It's quite clear in corniche's thread, for example. Look at the responses to my question about what makes Trump a bad President besides the bombast. I'm wondering if you're intentionally this obtuse.

I'd like to have a nickle for how many times a "whataboutthisism" person says I've ignored something. It is laughable. Thanks for giving me a smile.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

@dneal

What made Trump a bad President (aside from the bombast)?

There are three main areas where I would assess his performance as substandard.

1. Policy making The majority of his policies, that he put his shoulder to, resulted in negative impact on the average person, the environment, businesses, and foreign relationships. Listing them here is a bit pointless, but we should all be aware of them by now. The people who most benefited were himself and anyone he thought would throw money his way. His least impactful policies are those where the substance of a policy remains more or less the same, but the name has changed. NAFTA is typical example.


1a. He rolled back or dismissed many of Obama's policies. Often not on their individual merits but rather only on their association with Obama. That is petty, and speaks to a lack of understanding.

2. His presentation to the public. This is not about bombast, which is used in varying degrees by a lot of people when selling themselves, but rather about his comportment during times and events that required a firm and reassuring hand on the tiller. He was unable to do that because he only has one volume setting. I don't necessarily blame him for not being a more versatile public speaker, but that doesn't give him a pass for not at least employing people who could smooth edges.

3. Staffing. It's hard to unpick sometimes whether he was just a really bad judge of the people he hired, or if the people hired were actually good at their jobs but were unnaturally restricted, ridiculed and then discarded because of his self-professed expertise in everything. There's a few obvious examples of both.


Overall, while I dislike his personality, and he cannot be excused for the awful business practices of his past, he is, in my considered opinion, the most corrupt President I've seen in my lifetime.


If you want to belittle my intelligence, reading ability, or any other of my character defects of which you are aware and I am not, go for it. The simple reality here is that this is a discussion thread for people of disparate backgrounds to talk about current events in US politics.

[dneal]

The first part is just my opinion, nothing more and clearly stated. The rest is tongue in cheek. I guess you just didn't get it.

Convenient.



Deflection and projection. You have no clue about what I may or may not have read/seen or even the quantity. So your appeal to authority falls flat.

Sorry, I didn't make a claim about what you may or may not have read/seen, etc... Note that I simply asked a few questions. We're all about evidence, right? Your claim of deflection is a deflection. p.s.: you don't understand what an appeal to authority. If you do, you can easily name the authority I supposedly appealed to. You say you've studied it. I think you're exaggerating (see, that's nicer than saying full of shit).

The point, which you ignored in your response (i.e.: deflected), remains. I'm talking about beliefs. If you're not, I don't know why you're arguing with me.


Again, I guess you just don't get it. Two parts: it's insulting and belittling to presume to know what other people in the thread have read or understood. By asserting as much you are attempting to lower their position and raise yours above based on your say so. It's a less direct way of insulting others, but it is an insult nonetheless, and one that you have used extensively throughout this thread. The other part is that you seem to be a bit clueless regarding the impact of US policy-making on the rest of the planet. If you believe that what's happened in the US in the last 4 years and what's going to happen from now are of no consequence or concern to citizens of other nations, then you are seriously missing parts of the puzzle.

Pointing out direct evidence of bias is insulting? One may be offended by it, but that's on them.

"What's happened" in the last four years? It's easy to make hand-wave pronouncements. List it. List the evidence. That's the way we're rolling in the politics forum now, right?

Anyway, no I'm not missing anything. You just keep deflecting (and strangely blaming me for doing that). I just asked a question, which...

Selecting local events that clearly have no direct impact globally, though may have longer-term implications in the wider arena, is frankly a bit of a stupid counterargument.[/QUOTE]

... you dismiss here. Yeah, more deflection. Good lord you're quite hypocritical about that. I've been answering half a dozen or so posters questions repeatedly for 40+ pages. You won't answer one.

[dneal]

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/navarro-report/
Sounds like a good use of time....

I'm sure mediabiasfactcheck is more than sufficient to change people's beliefs.

#goodluckwithgettingunitythatway

[dneal]

@dneal

What made Trump a bad President (aside from the bombast)?

There are three main areas where I would assess his performance as substandard.

1. Policy making The majority of his policies, that he put his shoulder to, resulted in negative impact on the average person, the environment, businesses, and foreign relationships. Listing them here is a bit pointless, but we should all be aware of them by now. The people who most benefited were himself and anyone he thought would throw money his way. His least impactful policies are those where the substance of a policy remains more or less the same, but the name has changed. NAFTA is typical example.


1a. He rolled back or dismissed many of Obama's policies. Often not on their individual merits but rather only on their association with Obama. That is petty, and speaks to a lack of understanding.

2. His presentation to the public. This is not about bombast, which is used in varying degrees by a lot of people when selling themselves, but rather about his comportment during times and events that required a firm and reassuring hand on the tiller. He was unable to do that because he only has one volume setting. I don't necessarily blame him for not being a more versatile public speaker, but that doesn't give him a pass for not at least employing people who could smooth edges.

3. Staffing. It's hard to unpick sometimes whether he was just a really bad judge of the people he hired, or if the people hired were actually good at their jobs but were unnaturally restricted, ridiculed and then discarded because of his self-professed expertise in everything. There's a few obvious examples of both.


Overall, while I dislike his personality, and he cannot be excused for the awful business practices of his past, he is, in my considered opinion, the most corrupt President I've seen in my lifetime.


If you want to belittle my intelligence, reading ability, or any other of my character defects of which you are aware and I am not, go for it. The simple reality here is that this is a discussion thread for people of disparate backgrounds to talk about current events in US politics.

Thanks. I find it a little lacking on detail and justification, but you can certainly have your opinion.

I actually think you're quite smart. I'm ok with your quirkiness that others belittle. I'd like to talk. I get tired of the partisan catchphrases. (cue snarky jokes about a nap).

[Empty_of_Clouds]

The first part is just my opinion, nothing more and clearly stated. The rest is tongue in cheek. I guess you just didn't get it.

Convenient.

Not convenient, simply a fact.



Deflection and projection. You have no clue about what I may or may not have read/seen or even the quantity. So your appeal to authority falls flat.

Sorry, I didn't make a claim about what you may or may not have read/seen, etc... Note that I simply asked a few questions. We're all about evidence, right? Your claim of deflection is a deflection. p.s.: you don't understand what an appeal to authority. If you do, you can easily name the authority I supposedly appealed to. You say you've studied it. I think you're exaggerating (see, that's nicer than saying full of shit).

The point, which you ignored in your response (i.e.: deflected), remains. I'm talking about beliefs. If you're not, I don't know why you're arguing with me.

Funny, you say your not making a claim about what I may/may not have read... and go right into "You say you've studied it. I think you're exaggerating". That is hypocrisy. Aside from which I have never said I 'studied' anything. Merely an interested reader.



Again, I guess you just don't get it. Two parts: it's insulting and belittling to presume to know what other people in the thread have read or understood. By asserting as much you are attempting to lower their position and raise yours above based on your say so. It's a less direct way of insulting others, but it is an insult nonetheless, and one that you have used extensively throughout this thread. The other part is that you seem to be a bit clueless regarding the impact of US policy-making on the rest of the planet. If you believe that what's happened in the US in the last 4 years and what's going to happen from now are of no consequence or concern to citizens of other nations, then you are seriously missing parts of the puzzle.

Pointing out direct evidence of bias is insulting? One may be offended by it, but that's on them.

However, you are not pointing out evidence bias, you are asserting that people are biased (your opinion) but you are prefacing your remarks with insulting put-downs, for example "You obviously didn't read beyond page 10", among many others. That's the thing. This would be all more interesting to discuss without all the sniping - and that is something you have done throughout the thread. It's pointless.

"What's happened" in the last four years? It's easy to make hand-wave pronouncements. List it. List the evidence. That's the way we're rolling in the politics forum now, right?

We are past list making, we all know what's happened over the last 4 years.

Anyway, no I'm not missing anything. You just keep deflecting (and strangely blaming me for doing that). I just asked a question, which... Nothing strange about it when you actually do it yourself. Maybe you don't see it?

Selecting local events that clearly have no direct impact globally, though may have longer-term implications in the wider arena, is frankly a bit of a stupid counterargument.

... you dismiss here. Yeah, more deflection. Good lord you're quite hypocritical about that. I've been answering half a dozen or so posters questions repeatedly for 40+ pages. You won't answer one.[/QUOTE]

This was not deflection. It was obvious that you cherry-picked a highly local event and tried to map that onto what foreign interest there may be in US politics. While there is a connection between that event and an interest from overseas, it is not at the level of that event.

I've answered the question about why I think the previous incumbent was a bad President. Just a couple of posts up!

As to whether I have a position on truth vs belief? I suspect there are many people out there who don't know what those words actually mean, and many more who don't know the difference between them. Personally evidence-based truth is best, though I obviously accept that in our lives there are many things we cannot have direct knowledge of, so in those cases I am satisfied with the system that tells me the evidence says it is so. In the case of the election, as stated many times in this thread, there simply isn't enough evidence to have an investigation. There is a system in place for this too, and if the plaintiffs cannot bring anything to the table they can hardly whinge about stolen elections.

My view on all this is not nuanced at all. The election was free and fair, with the usual statistically insignificant level of abnormalities. Those who believe otherwise need to ask themselves if they honestly know what their own motives are.

[dneal]

@ EOC - forgoing the standard quote convention for colored text makes responding too cumbersome.

The "abnormalities" in this election were unusual. The numbers the pro-Trump folks cite are statistically significant. I don't know if they're accurate. I don't know if they're just the legitimate result of a lot of mail-in balloting because of covid. I don't know if it's just the Democrats demonstrating their historical capacity to manipulate elections. There's not enough direct evidence to prove fraud. There is enough circumstantial to raise the question.

If you're going to assert the election was free and fair, with statistically insignificant levels of abnormalities, you incur a burden of proof for that assertion. I'm not asserting it was stolen, so I bear no burden of proof for that. I'm asserting that some people believe it, and have provided ample evidence to prove why they believe it.

The question isn't whether or not the election was "stolen". The question is how to assuage the concerns of regular people who suspect or believe it was. That's necessary for the unity the current President claims to want. That's necessary for calming the social unrest in the country. You don't have skin in that game at this point.

I don't know why you won't admit your bias. I'm biased to the Libertarian perspective. Small government, fiscally conservative, socially let people be. It's ok to have a bias. We all do.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

None of what I stated was intended to demonstrate a complete lack of bias. Everyone has biases. If pressed for a label I would probably go for liberalist as being closest. However, I don't consider that my personal bias has any real bearing on my assessment of what has happened in US politics recently.


If you're going to assert the election was free and fair, with statistically insignificant levels of abnormalities, you incur a burden of proof for that assertion.

This is incorrect. As I stated before, "I obviously accept that in our lives there are many things we cannot have direct knowledge of, so in those cases I am satisfied with the system that tells me the evidence says it is so"

Anyway. I have had my say. I haven't tried to hide anything, and have been honest and forthright in my views. I don't think at this point that the discussion is moving in any direction but rather just going in circles.



Edit: while I may have chosen the label 'liberalist' above, I am not sure that I fit neatly into any category with regard to my general life philosophy. Instead I find my worldview is an amalgam of ideas from many different sources, and that over time my worldview is fluid. Sometimes more and sometimes less. I very much dislike labelling in this fashion, as it feels like it locks one unnecessarily into a specific philosophical framework,

[dneal]

And this is why it's near impossible to have a discussion with you.

First you say:


My view on all this is not nuanced at all. The election was free and fair, with the usual statistically insignificant level of abnormalities. Those who believe otherwise need to ask themselves if they honestly know what their own motives are.

Looks like an assertion to me. You even preface it to clarify that there is no nuance. I point out that it bears a burden of proof, to which you respond:


This is incorrect. As I stated before, "I obviously accept that in our lives there are many things we cannot have direct knowledge of, so in those cases I am satisfied with the system that tells me the evidence says it is so"

What you stated before is quoted, and perfectly clear. What then is incorrect? Your consistency?

You're not even deflecting anymore. You're weaseling.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

And this is why it's near impossible to have a discussion with you.

First you say:



Looks like an assertion to me. You even preface it to clarify that there is no nuance. I point out that it bears a burden of proof, to which you respond:


This is incorrect. As I stated before, "I obviously accept that in our lives there are many things we cannot have direct knowledge of, so in those cases I am satisfied with the system that tells me the evidence says it is so"

What you stated before is quoted, and perfectly clear. What then is incorrect? Your consistency?

You're not even deflecting anymore. You're weaseling.


And you are trying to create an argument where none exists. The two statements of mine you quoted are linked, which should be obvious to even the most obtuse of observers. I'll state it directly" My opinion is that the elections were free and fair, and this view is based on both data I have been able to personally access and (and this is an important facet) my tacit acceptance that the systems in situ for determining the integrity of the election are robust.

There is no burden of proof on me. The burden of proof rests with the accuser. As has been stated and restated ad nauseum throughout this thread, the plaintiff never presented a case of sufficient quality to prompt an investigation beyond that of the inbuilt checks and balances.

Overall, I am satisfied with the outcome, and have yet to see anything that would give me pause.

[Chuck Naill]

Just for me, Biden appears to be the kind of person that I could relate. Not so with Trump. Each of us has to decide. What I mean is, If you disagree it might not be applicable to anyone else.

Biden has experienced some difficult events which would be for me the ultimate. I cannot imagine experiencing the death of a child.

[dneal]

And you are trying to create an argument where none exists. The two statements of mine you quoted are linked, which should be obvious to even the most obtuse of observers. I'll state it directly" My opinion is that the elections were free and fair, and this view is based on both data I have been able to personally access and (and this is an important facet) my tacit acceptance that the systems in situ for determining the integrity of the election are robust.

There is no burden of proof on me. The burden of proof rests with the accuser. As has been stated and restated ad nauseum throughout this thread, the plaintiff never presented a case of sufficient quality to prompt an investigation beyond that of the inbuilt checks and balances.

Overall, I am satisfied with the outcome, and have yet to see anything that would give me pause.

More weaseling. Let's look again.


As to whether I have a position on truth vs belief? I suspect there are many people out there who don't know what those words actually mean, and many more who don't know the difference between them. Personally evidence-based truth is best, though I obviously accept that in our lives there are many things we cannot have direct knowledge of, so in those cases I am satisfied with the system that tells me the evidence says it is so. In the case of the election, as stated many times in this thread, there simply isn't enough evidence to have an investigation. There is a system in place for this too, and if the plaintiffs cannot bring anything to the table they can hardly whinge about stolen elections.

Here you are talking in the abstract. You pontificate. I'm fine with all that.

My view on all this is not nuanced at all. The election was free and fair, with the usual statistically insignificant level of abnormalities. Those who believe otherwise need to ask themselves if they honestly know what their own motives are.

Here you begin a new paragraph. Separate paragraphs are to separate ideas. You move from the abstract or general contemplation of truth, facts, opinions, etc... to your specific "view". Without any nuance, you make a plain statement. You even insinuate that those who believe otherwise do not know their own motive (that's a Freudian slip, perhaps).

Own your statement. Own the burden of proof you voluntarily incurred. I won't question what you did or didn't examine, you can easily demonstrate that. Admit that you misspoke if you wish, but don't try to pretend you didn't post what you clearly posted. We both know better.

I suspect you'll triple-down on your dishonesty, just as you deny your bias.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

I've already owned my statements (as I always do). You seem to have some difficulty in accepting that. Your problem.

I have also not denied my own bias - in fact in my last post I spoke specifically about it - so your statement suggests you just didn't read it or that you have a hard time (again) accepting that I did indeed mention it.

There is no burden of proof that I, personally, have to provide. There is nothing that I, personally, have to demonstrate. I am neither the defendant nor the plaintiff in these matters, merely an observer. What I have observed satisfies me and allows me to come to a conclusion. If there was a shred of credible evidence then I am satisfied that the plaintiffs would have presented it. They haven't, so I must conclude that there isn't any. It's a fairly simple logic.

There is nothing dishonest in what I have said in this thread. What is dishonest is you trying to twist what other people say in order to validate your need to argue about it. There comes a point where one has to understand that the conversation is going nowhere. This one has reached that point - arguably it reached that point very much earlier in the thread, but, inertia and all that.

[dneal]

I've already owned my statements (as I always do). You seem to have some difficulty in accepting that. Your problem.

I have also not denied my own bias - in fact in my last post I spoke specifically about it - so your statement suggests you just didn't read it or that you have a hard time (again) accepting that I did indeed mention it.

There is no burden of proof that I, personally, have to provide. There is nothing that I, personally, have to demonstrate. I am neither the defendant nor the plaintiff in these matters, merely an observer. What I have observed satisfies me and allows me to come to a conclusion. If there was a shred of credible evidence then I am satisfied that the plaintiffs would have presented it. They haven't, so I must conclude that there isn't any. It's a fairly simple logic.

There is nothing dishonest in what I have said in this thread. What is dishonest is you trying to twist what other people say in order to validate your need to argue about it. There comes a point where one has to understand that the conversation is going nowhere. This one has reached that point - arguably it reached that point very much earlier in the thread, but, inertia and all that.

Keep weaseling. You're right though, there does come a point where a conversation is going nowhere, and it was earlier in the thread. I'm pretty sure I identified it in post 49 when you started being dishonest.

[Chuck Naill]

I've already owned my statements (as I always do). You seem to have some difficulty in accepting that. Your problem.

I have also not denied my own bias - in fact in my last post I spoke specifically about it - so your statement suggests you just didn't read it or that you have a hard time (again) accepting that I did indeed mention it.

There is no burden of proof that I, personally, have to provide. There is nothing that I, personally, have to demonstrate. I am neither the defendant nor the plaintiff in these matters, merely an observer. What I have observed satisfies me and allows me to come to a conclusion. If there was a shred of credible evidence then I am satisfied that the plaintiffs would have presented it. They haven't, so I must conclude that there isn't any. It's a fairly simple logic.

There is nothing dishonest in what I have said in this thread. What is dishonest is you trying to twist what other people say in order to validate your need to argue about it. There comes a point where one has to understand that the conversation is going nowhere. This one has reached that point - arguably it reached that point very much earlier in the thread, but, inertia and all that.

Keep weaseling. You're right though, there does come a point where a conversation is going nowhere, and it was earlier in the thread. I'm pretty sure I identified it in post 49 when you started being dishonest.

Good deflection for having to provide a reply with substance. This is why your're number one on the ignore lists.!!!

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Indeed. The conversation about election fraud is dead.

Based on his insistence that there are grounds for an investigation into the election, and the general combative tone that appends to every single post dneal writes, it easy to conclude that he is a Trumper. Now whether that is true, or whether he is projecting that persona for another reason, I do not know, but that is the image he has projected here whether he likes/agrees with it or not. He does not get to choose how other people perceive him. Furthermore, much of the flavour of his arguments remind me of John Brennan, and to a lesser extent Mike Pompeo.

[dneal]

*yawn*

[dneal]

Good deflection for having to provide a reply with substance. This is why your're number one on the ignore lists.!!!

And the hall monitor version of Chuck is back. You just can't help being the bossy little sister and involving yourself, can you?

BTW, I thought you were pro-empathy and anti-insults? You're such a hypocrite.

[Sphere]

It is time for the adults to leave this sandbox so Mr. Neal can play by himself.

[dneal]

It is time for the adults to leave this sandbox so Mr. Neal can play by himself.

Three weeks have gone by, and that's what you stop by to post?

Do you also like nails?

[Chuck Naill]

Good deflection for having to provide a reply with substance. This is why your're number one on the ignore lists.!!!

And the hall monitor version of Chuck is back. You just can't help being the bossy little sister and involving yourself, can you?

BTW, I thought you were pro-empathy and anti-insults? You're such a hypocrite.

So, is that a reply? No, its more whataboutthisism". Nothing wrong with bossy females. I personally like women, appreciate their leadership style, and am so verysorry you are insecure around them. Your bad. You should get out more often around people who neither look or think as you do.

I am very much proempathy and anti-insults. Apparently you lack understanding of either...Do you think someone who can empathize with others is dishonest or afraid to speak out? Apparently so.

[dneal]

You are anti-insult, right before you insult. Still the hypocrite...

[Chuck Naill]

I'm afraid you know or understand either, neal.