Re: I Cannot Fathom This Election
Looking forward to Monday.
Welch, what is the record now? 56-1? I've lost count.
With such a record, there is no need for the SC to hear this to set anything straight. The opinions of the judicial community are deafening (unless one's ears are already closed).
This has been a bullshit case and a bullshit argument based on bullshit evidence from the start.
welch (December 12th, 2020)
Re: I Cannot Fathom This Election
As one pundit said, the Republicans don't love Trump, they "fear" him and it must be "demeaning" for them to have to go along with the spectacle the president has created. I am sure they want him gone as much as the majority of the voters.
Even if you are a Trumpian, you cannot love democracy and approve of the path Trump has taken his entire term which began by forcing Shawn Spicer to overstate the number of people who showed up at this inaguration when the fact is, people stayed away in droves.
If there were ever an example of paying no attention "to the man behind the curtain" it has been D. Trump and it's been that way for his entire existant from the mouth of politicans, attorneys, former cabinate members, relatives, journalists, and former Republican politians who loved truth more than votes aka Jeff Flake and Bob Coker.
Re: I Cannot Fathom This Election
This is not true. On more than one level.Originally Posted by dneal
First, every state has/had already quality-checked their own elections. This is what happens prior to certification. This is what hired professionals do for each state, at multiple levels. Elections are not, and have never been, quality-checked in the courts. Not even in 2000. If that state feels that sufficient inaccuracies have been found for recounts, then they conduct them. Prior to certification. This is the "assurance" process, and it is already built in. There is no additional quality-check necessary for reasonable and logical "assurance."
When persons or groups of people begin to truck in conspiracy theory beyond this quality check process, there is no obligation--rational, ethical, or legal--to make additional efforts to relieve them of their anxieties and/or delusions. Rational people and rational processes are not responsible for the delusions of others.
Let's put responsibility where it belongs (which is what the courts have done some 56+ times now!): If one is to put forth a challenge to a legal and vetted election result, then the CHALLENGER must supply the persuasive material evidence that pervasive and substantial inaccuracies have resulted. There is no rational or legal responsibility to even entertain the idea of a "person behind a curtain" until one demonstrates that both the curtain and the person are real.
That's the thing about delusional people. They assume from the start that the conspiracy/delusion is likely enough to be real, and then they ask others to take on the responsibility to disprove it.
But that's the argument from delusion.
welch (December 12th, 2020)
Re: I Cannot Fathom This Election
You miss the point completely.This is not true. On more than one level.
First, every state has/had already quality-checked their own elections. This is what happens prior to certification. This is what hired professionals do for each state, at multiple levels. Elections are not, and have never been, quality-checked in the courts. Not even in 2000. If that state feels that sufficient inaccuracies have been found for recounts, then they conduct them. Prior to certification. This is the "assurance" process, and it is already built in. There is no additional quality-check necessary for reasonable and logical "assurance."
When persons or groups of people begin to truck in conspiracy theory beyond this quality check process, there is no obligation--rational, ethical, or legal--to make additional efforts to relieve them of their anxieties and/or delusions. Rational people and rational processes are not responsible for the delusions of others.
Let's put responsibility where it belongs (which is what the courts have done some 56+ times now!): If one is to put forth a challenge to a legal and vetted election result, then the CHALLENGER must supply the persuasive material evidence that pervasive and substantial inaccuracies have resulted. There is no rational or legal responsibility to even entertain the idea of a "person behind a curtain" until one demonstrates that both the curtain and the person are real.
That's the thing about delusional people. They assume from the start that the conspiracy/delusion is likely enough to be real, and then they ask others to take on the responsibility to disprove it.
But that's the argument from delusion.
Before the election, and depending on the source, roughly 50% of the entire electorate had confidence in our system. Doesn't matter if you polled Democrats or Republicans. Only 50% had confidence. Think about that for just a moment, and let it sink in. What kind of country do we live in when only half the voters trust the electoral process?
Post election, surveys indicate an increase in confidence among Democrats and a decrease among Republicans. I suspect the inverse was true after Hillary's, or Al Gore's loss. I also think you could find these swings in confidence in Kennedy's win over Nixon, Truman's win over Dewey, or any other cycle.
Sure there will always be "sour grapes" when one's "team" loses, and that applies to a whole lot more than elections. Certainly there will be the kooks on either side that hold "delusional" views. There's not a lot anyone can do about that. But to reiterate, only half of the electorate believes an election will be fair when going into it.
Instead of haphazardly labeling people who believe they have legitimate concerns as delusional, as you and Jocelyn Benson seem wont to do (which ironically seems appallingly similar to Trump's behavior); perhaps it would be better for the nation to address their concerns in a reasonable way. Perhaps it would be better to work to increase voter confidence across the board.
--edit--
While I'm bitching about the predominately liberal attitude to this, I'll add the conservatives that also foment concerns with election fairness. They aren't doing the country any favors either. Still, looking into the issue and demonstrating that there was no significant wrongdoing (or maybe discover there was) is what I am advocating would be beneficial.
Last edited by dneal; December 12th, 2020 at 12:30 PM.
Re: I Cannot Fathom This Election
How am I "missing the point completely"? I am directly addressing the point: what our govt ought to do to dispell lack of confidence.
My answer, directly on the point, is "nothing more than the states already do."
This time around, it would have helped if the POTUS had had a sock in his mouth and no Twitter account (even Barr couldn't repeat Trump's lies).
Again: there is no rational, legal, or ethical reason to doubt the quality control results of state reviews before state certification.
Which is directly on your point. I don't "miss" your point, dneal. I just think that it is spurious.
Re: I Cannot Fathom This Election
And NOW, the best thing that any one person could do to calm the waters would be for Trump to concede and say this: "Joe Biden has won the presidency with a legitimate and fair and accurate election. I was driven by ambition to question and undermine my followers' confidence in the result. I concede to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and will work to assist in the transition for the good of our country."
He does not have to do this, nor is it likely he will. But it would help with some of the lingering doubts that he helped to stoke for weeks and weeks, even going back to the 2016 result when he said that Dems stole 3 million votes from him.
Re: I Cannot Fathom This Election
"What the states already do" appears to be insufficient.
When side A claims side B cheated and side B is the authority to validate whether or not side B cheated; you can't be surprised that side A is skeptical of the results. Side B then goes on to slander and libel side A as "delusional" conspiracy theorists, and none of their claims should be further examined (if they even were in the first place). It's no surprise there is little voter confidence.
You keep interjecting Trump for some reason (I'll just assume it's your TDS/bias), and talk about not doubting the results before certification; which is election outcome related. Neither of those are my point, which you still miss or ignore.
I've said many times I don't give a fuck who wins the election. I care about the electorate trusting the process. They didn't before the election and they don't now.
Re: I Cannot Fathom This Election
Trump also amplified, primarily through Twitter, all the Deep State conspiracy nonsense that has popped up out of the AltRight. Trump is stupid enough and narcissistic enough to believe that trash, and he is manipulative enough to use it to his advantage, to divert attention away from the consequences of his own poor decisions and behaviors. Trump has dumped shit into the waters of the conversations for years, and one of the results has been an erosion of confidence in govt by the very party that is actually in control of two of the three branches. Thanks a lot, Donnie, for that mind-fuck.
Re: I Cannot Fathom This Election
Exhibit A for your TDS.
Your guy won. Why do you still harbor so much anger and resentment?
Re: I Cannot Fathom This Election
But that is not even the case. I don't have to explain for the other readers of this thread.
This stuff is deep in your head, dude.
Re: I Cannot Fathom This Election
My post explains my anger very clearly.Exhibit A for your TDS.
Your guy won. Why do you still harbor so much anger and resentment?
Re: I Cannot Fathom This Election
I'm curious how you know what is or isn't the case, when you admit you paid no attention to the hearings, affiants' testimony, or the affidavits themselves. Instead, you rely on your characterization of what courts were deciding and why. Example? You gleefully post that the SC ruled against Kelly in PA. What in fact actually happened was that Kelley asked for an injunction while the case was proceeding in the lower court. The SC declined to grant that injunction.But that is not even the case. I don't have to explain for the other readers of this thread.
This stuff is deep in your head, dude.
You've been playing loose with facts, presenting your clearly biased opinion as representative of the facts. I'm sorry if I don't take seriously your understanding of what's rational when you can't demonstrate the behavior.
There are tiers of evidence, usually applicable at different points. Does "reasonable suspicion" sound like a legal term? If so, what does that normally lead to? Perhaps a warrant (in criminal cases)? What about "preponderance of the evidence"? You seem to be limited to "beyond reasonable doubt", because you've formed your conclusion.
I've read the affidavits. I've watched the testimony from those affiants in several hearings. I find the majority to have presented reasonable suspicion of some wrongdoing or negligence. I didn't find it to be convincing proof that "the election was stolen". That's a nuance you continue to miss or ignore, but I imagine it's hard to see anything objectively when you're influenced by the vitriolic anger you demonstrate. Of course, you would have to look first if you were to see anything; and you have made clear that you're not interested in looking.
Many other people have seen the circumstantial evidence. It's reported in various sources of varied political leaning. It's reasonable for that to undermine confidence in the integrity of the system. It doesn't matter what the outcome of the election is. It doesn't matter whether or not a pipe burst at the counting center in Atlanta. What matters is that reasonable concerns are addressed fairly in order to increase voter confidence. Your Trump tirades and "delusional conspiracy theorist" accusations are not addressing a reasonable concern fairly.
As for what is deep in my head, it's strange that you can't or won't articulate exactly what it is that you think is deep in my head. I'll take a stab at it though. I suspect that you are so blinded by your Trump-induced rage that you can only envision that an opposing view must be an equally blind Trump-loving outrage at the election result. You do have a penchant for false dichotomies, after all; not to mention a tendency to set up strawmen.
What's clear is that Trump remains deep in your head. That's unfortunate, because life's way too short to waste so much emotional energy. "BUT, BUT, BUT... TRUMP IS A BIG LYING MEANINE!!!", you lunatics will scream as the spittle flies from your mouth. It's hilarious, and you should be embarrassed that you're so easily triggered by something so insignificant.
Re: I Cannot Fathom This Election
Calm down, dneal.
I hear you say that you are not a Trumper. I accept this. I have never said otherwise.
What I see in your arguments here (thus in your head) is a persistent suspicion of the legitimacy of this election and a corollary spurious application of logic to the evidence and to the arguments in these court cases. You persist in the "yes, but" vein of argument despite the continual lack through 56+ court cases, including that presented to the SC, of any persuasive evidence of any pervasive or systemic fraud or inaccuracies in the counting, no matter what party (team A or team B) is actually in charge of that state government.
This persistence, despite having no substantial or even mildly persuasive material evidence, is what I call "in your head." Maybe you don't support Trump. But you sure cling to these "possibilities" and suspicions, etc. I think it's clear that you consider the suspicions and fears and alternate possibilities valid. I consider them manipulative and corrosive fictions.
Re: I Cannot Fathom This Election
I'm quite calm. I don't suspect the legitimacy of the election, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it were "stolen". I see evidence, but it's not persuasive for me at this point and it doesn't constitute proof. I do understand why people are convinced by it though.
The more left the media (or politician), the more in line with the "nothing to see here, you delusional pricks" the messaging gets. The media (and politicians) on the right pick that up and run with it for their own purposes. The opposite is true as well, for what it's worth.
I'm concerned with disinformation from both sides. I'm concerned with societal breakdown. The left is already happy to smash windows, burn things, and all the other things we saw over the past year; and media calls it "mostly peaceful". The right hasn't gotten to that point yet. If they ever do, it will be exponentially worse than anything we've seen from the left. I'm an operational planner. We always consider the enemy's "most likely course of action", and "most dangerous course of action". "Enemy" isn't a perfectly applicable term here, but I suppose "societal breakdown" is the enemy in this context.
MAGA is protesting in D.C. today. They brought their kids. They'll pick up their trash. Antifa / BLM types will show up and instigate a clash with Proud Boy types. I'm not worried about that. That's the "most likely course of action". I'm worried about when the right starts acting like Clive Bundy and his supporters (see Nevada Standoff). When they decide to make a stand and refuse to budge. That's the "most dangerous course of action".
My point is that this needs to be defused. You do that by addressing the concerns no matter how illegitimate you think they are. You don't do it by dismissing them or ridiculing them.
Last edited by dneal; December 12th, 2020 at 03:48 PM.
Re: I Cannot Fathom This Election
Like I said, the possibility of conspiracy without any evidence even nearly convincing to an objective court judge has a pull on you.
It has no pull on me.
If the act of telling an addict that he is, in fact, addicted to a harmful substance, drives that person to further addiction, that is not the responsibility of the truth-teller. The conspiracy theorists need to take responsibility for their own actions and consequences, including the effect on the culture of 56+ bogus court cases.
It makes entire logical sense to me that Trump lost all these states in question, that he both received more votes than he did in 2016 AND lost to Joe Biden. The craziest, least likely, most complicated, least evidential, and least logical conclusion is that there was a conspiracy to defraud the election in any of these states. After all, Trump's electoral victory while also losing the popular vote by 3 million votes ACTUALLY was the statistically (historically) rarer occurrence. And after all of Trump's missteps and gaffs and inaction on Coronavirus and the unrest of the social justice movement (and Trump's deaf ears and winks to white nationalists), and then the GOP resistance to mail-in voting and the politicization of mail-in voting, how is it any wonder to anyone that the increase in Dem votes outpaced the increase in GOP votes? The GOP has acknowledged for years that as turnout % increases, they lose the majority. Trump has even said this on the record. Well, what happened? Turnout % increased, and Trump lost BOTH the popular vote and the EC. The Dems lost in 2016 because HC did not focus enough on certain swing states. They did not make that mistake again.
No fraud, no inaccuracy, no conspiracy, no "steal." Just plain lack of popularity in comparison to the desire for change to a different kind of leader and a battle over turnout that the Dems won. Trump's approval rating has been historically low, and has shown resilience against improvement.
Re: I Cannot Fathom This Election
I’ve already said that a strategy focusing on metro areas in battleground states (if that was the strategy) was brilliant. You keep focusing on the actual legitimacy of the election. I’m talking about the perceived legitimacy. You also seem to ignore (again) my point.
My point is that this [perception of illegitimacy] needs to be defused. You do that by addressing the concerns no matter how illegitimate you think they are. You don't do it by dismissing them or ridiculing them.
Re: I Cannot Fathom This Election
True. And I argue that the states and the courts have done more than enough to dispel these perceptions. And certainly, contrary to your earlier claim, the SC need not take up the case simply to dispell perceptions. As I and others, including the courts, have said, that is what the States have already done. All 50 of them. Some of them multiple times!
Time to let go of the conspiracies. The thrill and excuse making of the fiction is over.
Re: I Cannot Fathom This Election
So it’s true that you don’t defuse concerns by dismissing or ridiculing them.
And
“Time to let go of the conspiracies. The thrill and excuse making of the fiction is over.”
Re: I Cannot Fathom This Election
dneal wrote:I'm quite calm. I don't suspect the legitimacy of the election, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it were "stolen". I see evidence, but it's not persuasive for me at this point and it doesn't constitute proof. I do understand why people are convinced by it though.
Inconsequential. Ya know more of your claptrap. We have a sitting President that wants to be a dictator and has been
trying to invalidate a democratic election. With the help of various individuals ... including members of Congress who by doing so
have engaged in a insurrection..ie violated their oath to the Constitution of the USA.
Fred
The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.
Detman101 (December 13th, 2020)
Re: I Cannot Fathom This Election
More of your TDS, as you’ve demonstrated since the second post of the thread.
Fascinatin‘
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks