I Cannot Fathom This Election

[TSherbs]

@2:40 EST, the submitted count is Biden 171, Trump 158

Wait. That is too close to call! Wait, is there going to be another massive ballot dump in the next few hours? What are the odds that a race this close at 2:40 pm will have Biden at 306 at the end? Ten quadrillion to 1??? Wait, what about Burisma???? And Chavez?? And unmarked vans and "suitcases"???????

[kazoolaw]

Wait, is there going to be another massive ballot dump in the next few hours? What are the odds that a race this close at 2:40 pm will have Biden at 306 at the end? Ten quadrillion to 1??? Wait, what about Burisma???? And Chavez?? And unmarked vans and "suitcases"???????

Wait, are you saying the electoral college system is working? That the legal system is working?

[Ray-VIgo]

It seems to me that neither side will be convinced by anything the other will say in our present circumstances. I have become increasingly convinced over the past few years, that our country is headed into what one might call a "simmering" sort of civil war with spasms of unrest and violence, and sense that each side is living in what amounts to a separate country (perhaps a separate "reality" from a political standpoint).

I am reminded of a couple things: an 1820 letter written by Thomas Jefferson in which he saw the admission of Missouri to the Union through compromise as, Discussing the question of Missouri's admission to the Union, Thomas Jefferson wrote to John Holmes, "like a fire bell in the night" and, "a reprieve only, not a final sentence."

I am also reminded of a portion of an early speech Abraham Lincoln made in 1838, in which he noted:

"At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."

I fear there is a sort of denial in which people think to themselves that we go through periods of unrest, but ultimately it turns out to be OK and sort of muddle through as best we can. The problem is that sometimes your political system passes the point of no return before anyone realizes it. I think many people who voted for Biden voted for a seeming "return to normal", but that this will not heal the deep national wounds that exist and we're in for a very rough time for several years based on the right and left entrenching themselves ever deeper. It's not that I think disunion will be the thing, but that we'll enter a period where the country is so hopelessly divided that it becomes unable to function, even though the shells and form of the institutions continue to exist.

[welch]

It seems to me that neither side will be convinced by anything the other will say in our present circumstances. I have become increasingly convinced over the past few years, that our country is headed into what one might call a "simmering" sort of civil war with spasms of unrest and violence, and sense that each side is living in what amounts to a separate country (perhaps a separate "reality" from a political standpoint).

***

I fear there is a sort of denial in which people think to themselves that we go through periods of unrest, but ultimately it turns out to be OK and sort of muddle through as best we can. The problem is that sometimes your political system passes the point of no return before anyone realizes it. I think many people who voted for Biden voted for a seeming "return to normal", but that this will not heal the deep national wounds that exist and we're in for a very rough time for several years based on the right and left entrenching themselves ever deeper. It's not that I think disunion will be the thing, but that we'll enter a period where the country is so hopelessly divided that it becomes unable to function, even though the shells and form of the institutions continue to exist.

- Ray, tell us how Trumpists come to accept reality? Go through their claims that their Leader was, somehow, cheated by fraud from his "landslide victory" in November. Consider that they have not demonstrated anything in any of the 58 court cases that claimed fraud. What can change their minds?

- What do you mean by "left and right"? I see that the far right-wing has taken much of the Republican Party, although how much is a personal loyalty to Trump I can't see. Why claim that there is an equally divorced-from-reality "left" and that "left" lives in the Democratic Party? Yes, Trump is off his rocker, but that does not prove that anyone who disagrees with Trump is equally off their rocker.

It would be nice if the crazy Trumpists took their belief in The Kraken off to the same corners where everyone believes that the world is under attack from lizard-people, or that the Oklahoma City bombing was an inside job. That would allow Republicans with a normal grip on reality to operate in and argue within the same reality the rest of us do. My fear, though, is that the hardest-core Trumpists, showing themselves in the "Stop the Steal" demonstrations (and Arizona Republican Party call to die for Trump), will hang on.

[welch]

Here is what Americans expect. Good for Republicans in the Michigan legislature.

Michigan Republican leaders affirm state’s electoral votes and reprimand lawmaker who suggested there might be violence.

The two most senior leaders in the Michigan legislature, both Republicans, on Monday affirmed the state’s electoral votes that would formalize Joseph R. Biden’s victory, as a fellow lawmaker was punished for suggesting there may be violence at the meeting of electors.

In blistering terms, House Speaker Lee Chatfield wrote that he “can’t fathom risking our norms, traditions and institutions to pass a resolution retroactively changing the electors for Trump, simply because some think there may have been enough widespread fraud to give him the win,” describing such a move as “unprecedented for good reason.”

“That’s why there is not enough support in the House to cast a new slate of electors,” he added. “I fear we’d lose our country forever. This truly would bring mutually assured destruction for every future election in regards to the Electoral College. And I can’t stand for that. I won’t.”

Last month, Mr. Chatfield and Mike Shirkey, the state Senate majority leader, were both summoned by President Trump to the White House in a bid to get lawmakers to substitute their own slate of electors. The two men, both rumored to be interested in higher office, went through with the visit but rebuffed Mr. Trump’s request.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/14/u...gtype=Homepage

[TSherbs]

Biden 302, Trump 232 (@ 6:11PM EST)

Only Hawaii still left.... (4 votes, going to Biden)

So, it is working out exactly as it was projected and "called" after all the first counts were finished.

Some friggin' "Kraken," huh?

Except the crazies will say things like, "Well, of course it worked out that way. That's how you know that there is a Deep State!" For the truly delusional, all scenarios reinforce the delusion. There is no limit to the twisted logic that the human brain can apply.

[TSherbs]

Here is what Americans expect. Good for Republicans in the Michigan legislature.

Michigan Republican leaders affirm state’s electoral votes and reprimand lawmaker who suggested there might be violence.

The two most senior leaders in the Michigan legislature, both Republicans, on Monday affirmed the state’s electoral votes that would formalize Joseph R. Biden’s victory, as a fellow lawmaker was punished for suggesting there may be violence at the meeting of electors.

In blistering terms, House Speaker Lee Chatfield wrote that he “can’t fathom risking our norms, traditions and institutions to pass a resolution retroactively changing the electors for Trump, simply because some think there may have been enough widespread fraud to give him the win,” describing such a move as “unprecedented for good reason.”

“That’s why there is not enough support in the House to cast a new slate of electors,” he added. “I fear we’d lose our country forever. This truly would bring mutually assured destruction for every future election in regards to the Electoral College. And I can’t stand for that. I won’t.”

Last month, Mr. Chatfield and Mike Shirkey, the state Senate majority leader, were both summoned by President Trump to the White House in a bid to get lawmakers to substitute their own slate of electors. The two men, both rumored to be interested in higher office, went through with the visit but rebuffed Mr. Trump’s request.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/14/u...gtype=Homepage

Yes, but Michigan is one spooky place with plenty of gun-toting wackos. They had to close the government buildings because the State Police reported credible threats of violence. Jeez.

[dneal]

- Ray, tell us how Trumpists come to accept reality? Go through their claims that their Leader was, somehow, cheated by fraud from his "landslide victory" in November. Consider that they have not demonstrated anything in any of the 58 court cases that claimed fraud. What can change their minds?

Not Ray, but it seems to me the "Trumpists" believe they haven't had their case really heard. The Supreme Court's denial of Texas' suit for lack of standing is an example. The court should have heard the case, and then ruled against Texas' claims.

A good example is the belief in manipulation of Dominion systems. They think States are rushing to "destroy the evidence" and wipe systems. I'm only aware of one case in Michigan where a court has ordered these systems analyzed by experts, and that originated from three votes changing a marijuana law when they were manually recounted. "Krakenists" are party to the inspection (it's some security organization from Texas), and the MI Secretary of State has attempted to block this, and now is trying to keep the results under seal.

That lack of transparency fuels conspiracy. It's also picked up by right wing outlets and amplified. They're stuck in their echo-chambers and being fed even more information that confirms their beliefs.

So if you want them to accept reality, you need to satisfy their conspiratorial curiosity (to a reasonable extent). You have to bust the myth, and you do that by demonstrating it's a myth; not just calling them crazy and ignoring them.

- What do you mean by "left and right"? I see that the far right-wing has taken much of the Republican Party, although how much is a personal loyalty to Trump I can't see. Why claim that there is an equally divorced-from-reality "left" and that "left" lives in the Democratic Party? Yes, Trump is off his rocker, but that does not prove that anyone who disagrees with Trump is equally off their rocker.

I'm curious, are you not aware of the existence of a radical left? Of a #walkaway movement of more centrist Democrats? It's not a Trump thing. There are many liberal intellectuals who have distanced themselves, and they're now labeled "The Intellectual Dark Web" while the radical left protests outside their lectures or talks. Bret Weinstein is a liberal biological/evolutionary theorist. Look at the Evergreen College incident. See Douglas Murray's The Madness of Crowds, or any of his hour-long interviews on Youtube. I can point you to some of the better ones, if you like.

It would be nice if the crazy Trumpists took their belief in The Kraken off to the same corners where everyone believes that the world is under attack from lizard-people, or that the Oklahoma City bombing was an inside job. That would allow Republicans with a normal grip on reality to operate in and argue within the same reality the rest of us do. My fear, though, is that the hardest-core Trumpists, showing themselves in the "Stop the Steal" demonstrations (and Arizona Republican Party call to die for Trump), will hang on.

The thing I don't think you understand is that there are a whole lot of honest, average decent people who go from curious to suspicious to convinced in these conspiracy theories. Dismiss them at your own peril. There's much more to fear than them just "hanging on". Ray is right about the danger of a tipping point. I've raised that issue as well.

[dneal]

Here is what Americans expect. Good for Republicans in the Michigan legislature.

Michigan Republican leaders affirm state’s electoral votes and reprimand lawmaker who suggested there might be violence.

The two most senior leaders in the Michigan legislature, both Republicans, on Monday affirmed the state’s electoral votes that would formalize Joseph R. Biden’s victory, as a fellow lawmaker was punished for suggesting there may be violence at the meeting of electors.

In blistering terms, House Speaker Lee Chatfield wrote that he “can’t fathom risking our norms, traditions and institutions to pass a resolution retroactively changing the electors for Trump, simply because some think there may have been enough widespread fraud to give him the win,” describing such a move as “unprecedented for good reason.”

“That’s why there is not enough support in the House to cast a new slate of electors,” he added. “I fear we’d lose our country forever. This truly would bring mutually assured destruction for every future election in regards to the Electoral College. And I can’t stand for that. I won’t.”

Last month, Mr. Chatfield and Mike Shirkey, the state Senate majority leader, were both summoned by President Trump to the White House in a bid to get lawmakers to substitute their own slate of electors. The two men, both rumored to be interested in higher office, went through with the visit but rebuffed Mr. Trump’s request.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/14/u...gtype=Homepage

Yes, but Michigan is one spooky place with plenty of gun-toting wackos. They had to close the government buildings because the State Police reported credible threats of violence. Jeez.

Think a little deeper along this train of thought. Who likely leans to the Trump supporting, gun-toting "wacko" point of view?

- Oil workers
- Food producers
- Transportation workers
- Energy providers
- Law Enforcement
- Military

Essentially, the entirety of the infrastructure.

Compare that to the left:

- Journalists
- Actors / artists
- Educators and intellectuals
- Bankers and businessmen

Feel free to add what you think I omitted.

These people have watched the radical left burn cities. They've had "lockdown" initiatives destroy their livelihoods. They believe democrat politicians are taking away their liberty, with Biden and Co promising more of the same. Now they believe an election has been stolen. You need to take 70+ million very pissed off people, very seriously. Your boys from Southie certainly won't be kicking their asses, nor will some skinny malcontents in black masks.

You've got a brushfire right now. You can put it out, or you can let it spiral out of control.

[Freddie]

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.

Fred-

Appreciate your self-deprecating humor: this helps not only with your posts, but TS's too.

Be well!

Thank you young man....Take care.........

Fred

[Freddie]

More of your TDS, as you’ve demonstrated since the second post of the thread.

Fascinatin‘

Yo Pal Same BS from day one... I'm sure you'll respond...With usual BS.....

Still your friend and mine,

Fred

Fred,

Has it dawned on you that my responses to you are nearly identical to what you post? Surely you see by now that there's no value in that sort of exchange. I get a chuckle out of it, but I'd rather engage in something more substantial than our reiterations of "BS" and "TDS".

D

Still more of your claptrap. {freakin'happysmileyfacetimethingie} Continue on young fella enjoy.

Fred
chow time....

[TSherbs]

And....it's done.

Biden 306, Trump 232

Deadline met.

December 23: EC votes delivered to Washington

January 6: EC votes counted in Congress

I anticipate that ugliness and delusional objections will continue.

[welch]

dneal writes,

Not Ray, but it seems to me the "Trumpists" believe they haven't had their case really heard. The Supreme Court's denial of Texas' suit for lack of standing is an example. The court should have heard the case, and then ruled against Texas' claims.

A good example is the belief in manipulation of Dominion systems. They think States are rushing to "destroy the evidence" and wipe systems. I'm only aware of one case in Michigan where a court has ordered these systems analyzed by experts, and that originated from three votes changing a marijuana law when they were manually recounted. "Krakenists" are party to the inspection (it's some security organization from Texas), and the MI Secretary of State has attempted to block this, and now is trying to keep the results under seal.

That lack of transparency fuels conspiracy. It's also picked up by right wing outlets and amplified. They're stuck in their echo-chambers and being fed even more information that confirms their beliefs.

So if you want them to accept reality, you need to satisfy their conspiratorial curiosity (to a reasonable extent). You have to bust the myth, and you do that by demonstrating it's a myth; not just calling them crazy and ignoring them.

What Trump Campaign claim was NOT taken to court, judged, and rejected? Which of the judgements was dishonest?

The Texas suit pointed to the claims as if they had not been dismissed whenever argued and examined. Often enough, the Trump Campaign, Inc., was afraid to present those claims. All too often, they agreed with the targets -- counties and states -- that there was no evidence of fraud. Trump argued and lost in state trial courts, in state supreme courts, in US district courts, and in US appeals courts.

Why can anyone complain that the Supreme Court did not hear details of the Texas claims?

[TSherbs]

You've got a brushfire right now. You can put it out, or you can let it spiral out of control.

It's not the job of the rational to end the delusions of the crazy. Let's have a little self-responsibility. It's not those rational, professional, responsible Michigan lawmakers and EC electors who are causing the threats of violence in Michigan.

[TSherbs]

Why can anyone complain that the Supreme Court did not hear details of the Texas claims?

Yeah, after 60+ cases? And the SC DOES read their submitted materials and the responses from the defendant States? In other words, after they actually DO read their request? They read the request and DENIED it. Alito and Thomas even projected that if they heard it, they would still reject it. The SC knew fully what the case was about. They knew what was being asked and on what grounds. The arguments were enumerated in the request. They were read. They were rejected, on standing and on relief requested.

How can anyone complain? Cuz anyone can complain about anything, especially on the internet.

But logically or persuasively complain? Yeah, you are right. They can't.

[welch]

dneal writes,

I'm curious, are you not aware of the existence of a radical left? Of a #walkaway movement of more centrist Democrats? It's not a Trump thing. There are many liberal intellectuals who have distanced themselves, and they're now labeled "The Intellectual Dark Web" while the radical left protests outside their lectures or talks. Bret Weinstein is a liberal biological/evolutionary theorist. Look at the Evergreen College incident. See Douglas Murray's The Madness of Crowds, or any of his hour-long interviews on Youtube. I can point you to some of the better ones, if you like.

I know the "radical left" better than these do. I became a New Leftist when I was in Junior High School in the early 1960's, when I had come to admire Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and read about SNCC's allies, Students for a Democratic Society. The Civil Rights Movement had the most heroic and decent people I knew about. Later, I worked against the War in Vietnam, argued against all the various little Leninist cult groups that tried to build themselves by picking members from SDS, and, out of self-defense, learned the Old Left inside and out. Having been a member of New American Movement, our last-ditch attempt to revive a non-dogmatic and experimental organization of the sort that SDS had once claimed to be, I was among the founding members of Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).

Some college kids are, I think, well-meaning liberal children with no idea how or why to persuade anyone to make a better society. Maybe they will learn, but they do not tell me what to think or do. Not DSA, as best I understand DSA now.

[dneal]

dneal writes,

Not Ray, but it seems to me the "Trumpists" believe they haven't had their case really heard. The Supreme Court's denial of Texas' suit for lack of standing is an example. The court should have heard the case, and then ruled against Texas' claims.

A good example is the belief in manipulation of Dominion systems. They think States are rushing to "destroy the evidence" and wipe systems. I'm only aware of one case in Michigan where a court has ordered these systems analyzed by experts, and that originated from three votes changing a marijuana law when they were manually recounted. "Krakenists" are party to the inspection (it's some security organization from Texas), and the MI Secretary of State has attempted to block this, and now is trying to keep the results under seal.

That lack of transparency fuels conspiracy. It's also picked up by right wing outlets and amplified. They're stuck in their echo-chambers and being fed even more information that confirms their beliefs.

So if you want them to accept reality, you need to satisfy their conspiratorial curiosity (to a reasonable extent). You have to bust the myth, and you do that by demonstrating it's a myth; not just calling them crazy and ignoring them.

What Trump Campaign claim was NOT taken to court, judged, and rejected? Which of the judgements was dishonest?

The Texas suit pointed to the claims as if they had not been dismissed whenever argued and examined. Often enough, the Trump Campaign, Inc., was afraid to present those claims. All too often, they agreed with the targets -- counties and states -- that there was no evidence of fraud. Trump argued and lost in state trial courts, in state supreme courts, in US district courts, and in US appeals courts.

Why can anyone complain that the Supreme Court did not hear details of the Texas claims?

I don't dispute that. It's not resonating with them. I'm surprised they haven't picked up on the "I would never vote for Trump / You want your king to win" justice yet.

You're telling them why they're wrong, instead of listening to why they think they're right and addressing that. They think the judges are biased. You have to disprove their evidence, and that's getting harder to do the more they're pushed deeper into their echo chambers.

*note I mean the general "you", not the specific

[dneal]

dneal writes,

I'm curious, are you not aware of the existence of a radical left? Of a #walkaway movement of more centrist Democrats? It's not a Trump thing. There are many liberal intellectuals who have distanced themselves, and they're now labeled "The Intellectual Dark Web" while the radical left protests outside their lectures or talks. Bret Weinstein is a liberal biological/evolutionary theorist. Look at the Evergreen College incident. See Douglas Murray's The Madness of Crowds, or any of his hour-long interviews on Youtube. I can point you to some of the better ones, if you like.

I know the "radical left" better than these do. I became a New Leftist when I was in Junior High School in the early 1960's, when I had come to admire Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and read about SNCC's allies, Students for a Democratic Society. The Civil Rights Movement had the most heroic and decent people I knew about. Later, I worked against the War in Vietnam, argued against all the various little Leninist cult groups that tried to build themselves by picking members from SDS, and, out of self-defense, learned the Old Left inside and out. Having been a member of New American Movement, our last-ditch attempt to revive a non-dogmatic and experimental organization of the sort that SDS had once claimed to be, I was among the founding members of Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).

Some college kids are, I think, well-meaning liberal children with no idea how or why to persuade anyone to make a better society. Maybe they will learn, but they do not tell me what to think or do. Not DSA, as best I understand DSA now.

Ok, I didn't understand your challenge of Ray's far-left point; and it sounded like you were saying there was no such thing.

Anyway, I think it's more than just well-meaning liberal children. Bernie and Liz Warren certainly aren't kids anymore. The democratic party seems to be courting their supporters and leaving the "moderate" democrat behind. Alan Dershowitz and Camille Paglia got "cancelled", ferchrissakes. Question the intersectional nonsense, and you become an apostate.

[Chuck Naill]

What can cause deeply-believing Trump-voters to admit to themselves that the US elections of 2020 have been, as have all American national elections (except 1877), honest, fair, and almost hum-drum in all states and counties?

We have seen the Trump Campaign file suit after suit -- almost sixty suits by now -- and lose over and over as it attempts to present evidence. I have read ruling after ruling. Each one demonstrates that the judges has carefully considered the Trump case and ruled against it.

- Again and again, the Trump Campaign stipulated that same facts as the defending states. We do not claim fraud, said Giuliani in court. No matter what he said in front of TV cameras outside a court.

- Again and again, the Trump campaign presented affidavits that judges ruled inadmissible because the Trump campaign did not -- neglected to -- depose their affidavit-makers to examination or cross-examination. (See, for instance, Judge Stewart's detailed ruling in Nevada).

- Again and again, as in Michigan, judges evaluated Trump Campaign witnesses and found them not credible. In the rulings the judges explain why.

- Again and again, the Trump Campaign introduced expert witnesses who do not appear to be experts and who could not justify their opinions. (Again, easiest to spot in Judge Stewart's Nevada case)

What else can we conclude but that true-believing Trump followers will not believe anything except whatever comforts their beliefs that Trump was defeated by "libtard" magic?

Having lost every case they brought to court, Trumpists have vowed to:

- hold their believe in non-reality as long as Trump asks them,

- fight the results of the honest 2020 election in the House and Senate in January

- file more cases, I think, even though the Electoral College is voting right now (at 1:38pm, EST, Biden leads Trump 166 - 103)

- ask Trump to declare martial law and to overthrow the election.

All of that seems madness. It seems oblivious to reality. Conclusion: only Trumpists can stop this, and probably only Trump can stop his followers. Ordinary, "hum-drum", Republicans have spoken with realism throughout the Trump Campaign's campaign against the elections. Reading up from county and state elections officials, it is impossible to tell, without looking up party labels, whether those officials are officially members of the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. I doubt that even senior Republicans can speak election reality to the country without directly contradicting Trump. By specifics, by detail of every Trump tweet and speech. When they do it, they seem to lose standing as senior Republicans. Perhaps after the Electoral College vote more will be free to do it, but not so far, judging from the irrational howls from the two Republican candidates for US Senate in Georgia.

Any other ideas?

To answer the first question, 200 million dollars. That’s how much has been raised since 11/3.

[TSherbs]

You have to disprove their evidence...

No, we don't. That's now how it works in a rational democracy with law based on evidence. In our country, THEY have to PROVE that the evidence of crime is real and convincing. FIRST.

I already addressed this, above. You are giving the argument of conspiracy, which is, "My theory is true until and unless you persuade me otherwise. And in this circumstance of the election, it does not matter that 60 courts have dismissed the cases. That just feeds my narrative of bias against my theory. So, good luck!"

Come on, dneal. Don't you recognize the irrational trap in this argument? Trump did the same thing when he stated back in October that he would only accept an election that resulted in his winning. He begins with this premise--that the only fair result is his victory--and then argues backwards from that when he lost. The entire argument is based on a premise that assumes only one legitimate outcome.