US 2024 Presidential Election

[Agema]

Indeed, it is very important that the fraud the Demoncraps will attempt be spotted and stymied.

The obvious concern is that the function here is to flood the election centres with cranks who are going to kick up a massive stink. They don't need to be right about anything, as we experienced a couple of election back, the process can as easily be put into disrepute with lies.

Whether this will be used for serious attempts to legally invalidate or bypass unfavoured election results remains to be seen, but it will almost certainly be used to morally invalidate the results.

 

[Hades]

Poll watchers are a perfectly normal, well established election practice.

But if the guy sending them is on record that elections are only legitimate if he wins it’s less normal. Even more so if he then caused the capitol to be stormed over said belief

It must be crystal clear what their orders are and that they won’t abuse their post for a 2020 election overturning scheme

 

[tstorm823]

That a source is "real" does not mean the facts are accurate,

That is correct. You not offering a single dispute over the facts presented is what implies the facts are accurate, at least to your knowledge.

Following the above and your description, I am therefore very doubtful you have seen the review I looked at. (Or you are more dishonest or incompetent than I gave you credit for).

I suppose if it isn't this one, then I was wrong, but I imagine that it is. You may note that I have linked to a particular time stamp that I think is most telling, as the person in that video claims "it's a bit irresponsible for him to be uncritically utilizing a primary source in this way". He describes his version of the book having a preface written by a historian laying out the circumstances in which white settlers were attacked, claiming that Matt Walsh should be using that sort of expert analysis instead of the primary source. For most of the rest of the video, Fredda attacks Walsh's expert sources, often for completely unrelated things, but in this case the fault is in not having an expert and consulting the primary source instead. What does Fredda's expert have to say on the matter? "Careful historians find the white man chiefly to blame." It's a Russian doll of appeals to authority, it is irresponsible not to defer using primary sources to expert historians who themselves will also refer to layers of nameless historians, with the implication that if you do not just agree with them, it is your failure. And the best part is, none of this relates to Walsh's driving point whatsoever, he brings up that source to speak of the treatment of white people being captured and enslaved by natives with one eventually sold as a slave in Canada. If they built their homestead in a stupid place, or even if they had taken part in warring against the natives, that doesn't actually change the point about enslavement and the treatment of slaves.

If that video was a serious refutation, it would not only be critical of the sourcing, it would refute something, it would give a factual dispute somewhere to illustrate the dangers of careless sourcing. It makes no attempt to do so. Matt Walsh is an imperfect vessel for education, and his video is certainly equally imperfect, but even with the obvious ulterior motive t advocate for his own personal politics, it is at least an attempt to teach people about historical events they may not know about, historical events that neither you nor that review dispute happened. That review, in contrast, exists only to mock Matt Walsh, the appeal is in the title "Matt Walsh is a moron". If you'd watched Walsh's video, you'd probably learn something you didn't know. If instead you watch the criticism, you learn nothing, you just feed your sense of superiority over the ignorant right-winger.

 

[tstorm823]

But if the guy sending them is on record that elections are only legitimate if he wins it’s less normal.

No, it isn't, that is a silly way to view things. Don't be suspicious of perfectly normal behavior based on who does it. It would be more suspicious if the Republican Party decided to not have any poll-watchers.

Whether this will be used for serious attempts to legally invalidate or bypass unfavoured election results remains to be seen, but it will almost certainly be used to morally invalidate the results.

Poll-watching makes the results more validated.

 

[Agema]

If you'd watched Walsh's video,

More strictly, I read the transcript and watched a few snippets as relevant, because most of it is flab (including a surprisingly large chunk adverts - four or five?): a vast amount is empty gory detail on some cherry-picked (and dubiously true, or misleadingly framed) instances of slave abuse.

Matt Walsh is an imperfect vessel for education, and his video is certainly equally imperfect, but even with the obvious ulterior motive t advocate for his own personal politics, it is at least an attempt to teach people about historical events they may not know about, historical events that neither you nor that review dispute happened. That review, in contrast, exists only to mock Matt Walsh, the appeal is in the title "Matt Walsh is a moron".

No no no no no. Let's be absolutely clear: if any of us here tried the shit that Matt Walsh did on that video, you would be all over it. If that were a newspaper article (from a non-conservative source) doing similar, you would be all over it. You're now all over a video response criticising his methodology. So what does it say about you that Walsh - posturing as "education" to an audience of millions, no less - gets such a soft pass?

It tells us you are a massive partisan hack, and fraud.

 

[XsjadoBlaydette]

Not the overwrought pearl-clutching approach a title might imply a subject others may have lent on, instead meanders from Ted Kaczynski's proximity/interaction to/with CIA , MKultra shenanigans including a suspicious fall from a window at a most inconvenient and suspicious time, lol. Crazy personal stories around certain unnamed financiers then possible minority report policies on their way followed up by healthy dose of more unresolved crimes and conspiracies (in legal sense) ongoing

We’re joined by Rachel Corbett to talk about the history of criminal profiling, who murders, guessing, and her recent article on the art dealer & torturer Andrew Crispo.

Read The Monsters We Make by Rachel Corbett: https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-mons...

No idea what Brace puts down as their job position for CVs at mo but he'd perchance want to consider updating it to 'Lt Commander Shitpost of the Hgh Seas' to closer reflect the present career trajectory he rocketing through if thar yonder hilarious feed of twitter receipts are anything to go by. Enshittified Google ain't meeting requests I tried for anything, there yet , just know they're roaming wild out past these valleys, managing to fool Elon musk and his band of blubbering baby-brained boys retweeting his mad screeds with hearty versions of "Yeah this dude gets it!" On an almost regular basis lol

 

[Agema]

Poll-watching makes the results more validated.

Good poll-watching makes the results more validated. Indifferent or bad poll-watching will make little difference or could even make it worse.

What can also happen is a load of rabble rousers turn up and fill the space with objections and disruption no matter how wrong or spurious. And they can pour onto the internet and scream claims of fraud and errors and cheating and bias, such that even if the validation is good, to erode public trust in it. We know this can happen, because it has happened before, as recently as 2020.

 

[Schadrach]

Pastor leads leads wild dedication ceremony for Trump’s giant gold statue

The president himself called into the ceremony to thank the religious leader and guests in attendance

www.independent.co.uk

Oh, ok, that's a relief

Preachers shouldn't overtly lie like that. They can talk about crazy things, I expect them to believe crazy things with little to no evidence, but "this golden idol is not a golden idol" is a bit too far. Unless he meant that it's not literally a calf, rather than the metaphorical sense?

Trump Mobile announced the T1 mobile phone in June 2025, made in America, accepting prepurchases with a $100 deposit. 590,000 people put down those deposits.

At least 4 shipping deadlines are now well in the past. And the terms have been updated several times since those orders were placed. "Made in America" became "America-proud design", which is of course legally meaningless. And a disclaimer has been added stating that deposits don't constitute a purchase, but an opportunity to buy "if" the product is eventually made, at their discretion. No refunds obviously.

The images of the T1 on the website were photoshopped Samsungs.

Nearly 600,000 Buyers Paid $60 Million for a Gold Trump Phone That Has Never Arrived

Trump Mobile's T1 phone, launched in 2025, has yet to deliver to customers, raising concerns over deceptive practices and prompting calls for a federal investigation.

www.ibtimes.co.uk

Sad part is they could have just bought the cheapest available android on aliexpress in bulk, some shiny gold paint and had them painted and flashed with "TrumpOS" (reskinned GrapheneOS) here and it would have been a "Made In America" gold smartphone and then come up with an excuse why Democrats prevented them from meeting the original specs and MAGA would have eaten it up.

 

[tstorm823]

No no no no no. Let's be absolutely clear: if any of us here tried the shit that Matt Walsh did on that video, you would be all over it. If that were a newspaper article (from a non-conservative source) doing similar, you would be all over it. You're now all over a video response criticising his methodology. So what does it say about you that Walsh - posturing as "education" to an audience of millions, no less - gets such a soft pass?

A) A newspaper article that solely exist to report facts should be held to higher standards than an entertainer, even in edutainment situations.
B) Walsh makes no claim he's an expert, he's quite up front that he's just so shlub on the internet. Nor does he position himself as unbiased, he wears his bias openly.

A person trying to convince you of their position should not be comparable to objective reporting. I have no issue with left-wing people making left-wing arguments, my complaints are about news sources misleading people with deceptive headlines.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Sad part is they could have just bought the cheapest available android on aliexpress in bulk, some shiny gold paint and had them painted and flashed with "TrumpOS" (reskinned GrapheneOS) here and it would have been a "Made In America" gold smartphone and then come up with an excuse why Democrats prevented them from meeting the original specs and MAGA would have eaten it up.

But why spend a little money to fleece the imbeciles when you can spend no money at all and have it not make a lick of difference, because the imbeciles will make excuses for you?

 

[Agema]

A) A newspaper article that solely exist to report facts should be held to higher standards than an entertainer, even in edutainment situations.
B) Walsh makes no claim he's an expert, he's quite up front that he's just so shlub on the internet. Nor does he position himself as unbiased, he wears his bias openly.

Sorry, but no. Walsh is setting himself up to correct what he says is educational bias, using the a structured intellectual form (dishonestly as a con). No matter what disclaimers he makes, he is absolutely posturing as an expert (or reporting expertise). He's doing so from a well-funded media operation with a budget comparable to a University and audience comparable to a newspaper. We can and should hold him to the standards he is pretending to.

You're talking like it's still the 1990s. Legacy media is less and less relevant to younger people: influencers, content creators and web outfits like the Daily Wire are more and more where they are getting their news and views. If they want to present stuff apparently serious and educational, we hold them to appropriate standards.

"Edutainment" is a word to describe a category of entertainment media designed to educate. It not a licence to lie and misinform on the education part, or there for you to arbitrarily excuse people you like for being awful.

 

[tstorm823]

Sorry, but no. Walsh is setting himself up to correct what he says is educational bias, using the a structured intellectual form (dishonestly as a con). No matter what disclaimers he makes, he is absolutely posturing as an expert (or reporting expertise). He's doing so from a well-funded media operation with a budget comparable to a University and audience comparable to a newspaper. We can and should hold him to the standards he is pretending to.

You're talking like it's still the 1990s. Legacy media is less and less relevant to younger people: influencers, content creators and web outfits like the Daily Wire are more and more where they are getting their news and views. If they want to present stuff apparently serious and educational, we hold them to appropriate standards.

"Edutainment" is a word to describe a category of entertainment media designed to educate. It not a licence to lie and misinform on the education part, or there for you to arbitrarily excuse people you like for being awful.

Budget and audience size aren't don't define what he's doing. If you want to compare like to like, it's more like the History Channel. I think you'll find he compares well to Ancient Aliens. The History Channel, for the record, is not going to give you any better on-screen sources, if any at all.

For the record, I googled "Aristotle Politics" and clicked the first free version I found, it was translated by Benjamin Jowett, and the quote Walsh used is on page 34: https://archive.org/details/aristotlespolit00aris/page/34/mode/2up

Almost every concrete complaint in that video, from page discrepancies to very minor phrasing changes, can be explained entirely by different editions of books. And you absolutely ate it up. Not only did you revel in "his citations weren't formatted right, such a moron" for an hour, you thought it compelling enough to base your own claims here on it. You thought "right-wingers are so historically illiterate, Imma hit tstorm with this one!" It seems you've dropped the illiterate part and are now focused on dishonesty and misinformation instead, but you have not not identified lies or misinformation.

 

[BrawlMan]

So much for so called "good Christians". Y'all do know false idle worship is forbidden, or you just make exceptions for old, dickless, Trump?

​

 

[Satinavian]

I mean, we all knew that various "fundamental" American Christians stray quite a lot from teachings of Jesus particularly regarding wealth, compassion and pacifism.

But literally building a golden statue of a politician and using religious language to glaze him is next level. There is literally a golden statue story in the bible as an example of what not to do.

And here i thought prosperity gospel nonsense was the worst mainstream heresy.

 

[Schadrach]

But why spend a little money to fleece the imbeciles when you can spend no money at all and have it not make a lick of difference, because the imbeciles will make excuses for you?

Every time you do something like this that's just an overt scam, you lose a few and have to wait a little longer before you fleece them again. If Trump announced the Trump W1 Smartwatch, Made in America, gold and with an American flag engraved on it tomorrow, a significant number of Trump phone buyers aren't going to bite again that quickly.

You can get cheap Android phones for <$50, cheaper than that in bulk. Some of them already have a gold case option. Which just leaves the engraving and flashing - and you're really only doing that to made the "Made In America" claim not a total fabrication. For an additional $400/phone (or more if you claim the price has gone up because something something immigrants something something Newsom), it really feels like a dumb move to take the low payoff when the much higher payoff has a relatively low bar of effort.

 

[Agema]

Almost every concrete complaint in that video, from page discrepancies to very minor phrasing changes, can be explained entirely by different editions of books.

Okay, so you're just bloviating a big fat straw man. Fredda is completely upfront that it is not a direct refutation of Walsh's video - and he clearly states so in his preamble. It is explicitly an attack on Walsh's methodology: his opinion is that Walsh's whole approach is so flawed that it is fundamentally unreliable. But if it is completely unreliable, then the truth of the facts in it are very questionable.

Then, you're just wrong. Fredda makes a large number of serious criticisms. Even about the rationale for the video, because Walsh can't even provide meaningful evidence for the myths he seeks to correct (thus the whole endeavour is a sort of straw man). He does identify a range of serious errors in the way Walsh uses both primary and secondary sources. History is a interconnected web of understanding where not all sources are reliable, and they need critical analysis and context. Walsh just cherry-picks any shit that suits him, even if it's laughably low-grade or compromised.

To give an example of a serious lapse, he cites "historian Simon Webb", who as far as Fredda could identify has no real bona fides as a historian, and appears to be a colossal racist. (I wonder if we might be concerned about the reliability of a racist on a racially-sensitive topic?) But anyway, Matt Walsh has decided to base a chunk of his discussion of history on an unqualified racist. I guess now that publicity could inspire millions of Walsh's viewers to explore Simon Webb's informative views on race science and the fundamental intellectual inferiority of black people, and they can benefit from, to paraphrase you, "an attempt to teach people things about race they may not know about".

And you watched that, and you absolutely ate it up. Then you even watched a video clearly pointing out the concern, and you still didn't think it was a problem. Walsh may not be a perfect vessel, but you're optimistic that Matt Walsh is giving people an exciting insight into history they previously never new... as told by racists.

Now, I'm going to loop this right back to where discussion of this video started, which was about how you conservatives often seem to have a problem spotting and calling out racism. And look where you are here! You have not only failed to spot the racism concern, but despite even watching a video telling you there was a racism concern, you still refused to even mention it, and decided to give your seal of approval. Quad erat demonstrandum.

 

[Chimpzy]

Preachers shouldn't overtly lie like that. They can talk about crazy things, I expect them to believe crazy things with little to no evidence, but "this golden idol is not a golden idol" is a bit too far. Unless he meant that it's not literally a calf, rather than the metaphorical sense?

The latter, because that's obviously a Golden Ass.

 

[tstorm823]

To give an example of a serious lapse, he cites "historian Simon Webb", who as far as Fredda could identify has no real bona fides as a historian, and appears to be a colossal racist...

Then you even watched a video clearly pointing out the concern, and you still didn't think it was a problem.

Correct, because I understand the deficiency of ad hominum criticism. If not coupled with serious factual errors, it's meaningless noise.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

No. You made up what other people thought and pretended it was real

At least we can blame this on the GOP. This is what they have done for about 60 years. You are just repeating them.

The Dems are conserative and racist and are very worried about immigration. They just don't do it like Trump like how are they not interested in breaking the constitution

I literally quoted him saying something that is not true...

And once again you are pivoting claims, belying that you don't actually understand or even care about the particulars, but rather just feel entitled to your conclusion that it "must be Biden's fault", which you evidently think would necessarily make ICE's 2025-2026 actions justified as an equal and proportionate response.

You want to talk about using CBP One? That was used to help schedule asylum appointments. Which is to say: Going through the proper channels.

You want to talk about Sanctuary Cities? Given your invocation, I have my doubts that you even know what that term means. See, its frequent usage is that of not just a vague buzzword, but genuine slander, with the speaker falsely insinuating that the city either refuses or even actively impedes immigration law. In actuality, the term is used to describe cities with very simple policies that typically amount to things like prioritizing the preservation of the broader rule of law and refusing to break it just for ICE's convenience.

Quite literally, the typical qualifiers are thus:

• Local police do not proactively enforce federal immigration law. (Which should not be controversial, as local police generally are not tasked with enforcing civil federal immigration law unless operating under specific authority or agreements. To put it simplistically, it's simply not their jurisdiction.)
• City employees are limited in when they can ask about immigration status. (Which is to encourage residents to report crimes, seek medical care, or cooperate with local government without fear of immigration consequences)
• Local jails may decline to hold people past their release date solely for ICE unless there’s a judicial warrant. (As without a judicial warrant that's a Fourth Amendment violation, which is to say against the law)
• Local resources and budgets are reserved primarily for local public safety priorities. (Again, basic legality. The federal government generally cannot require states or municipalities to use their own personnel/resources to administer federal regulatory programs)

That's literally how low the bar is, but even then it's more frequently used as a buzzword and dogwhistle to bullshit that a political rival has flooded their area with 'undesirables'. Take 2008, for instance, in which Mitt Romney accused Rudy Giuliani of running a Sanctuary City and Giuliani retorted that Romney was running a Sanctuary Governor's Mansion.

And regardless - even when focusing on the more defensible usage rather than the rhetorical buzzword usage - that's a local government decision. Moreover, it typically amounts to little more than "a city that follows ordinary constitutional limits and reserves local resources for local governance".

So, even if we did take your assertions at face value, trying to pin it on Biden would still be ridiculous, as that would amount to accusing the federal government of being responsible for local governance decisions. And that does not hold up to scrutiny.

So once again: The claims you have now pivoted to are irrelevant to the point that you invoked them to support.

CBP One allowed a lot more asylum seekers in and Trump shut that down on Day 1 iirc. Asylum seekers don't just get to travel across countries and continents to go to the country they want to go to, that's what they were doing.

You have Sanctuary city policies like not honoring ICE detainers and allowing criminals back on the streets for really no reason outside of not wanting to cooperate with ICE.

 

[Asita]

CBP One allowed a lot more asylum seekers in and Trump shut that down on Day 1 iirc. Asylum seekers don't just get to travel across countries and continents to go to the country they want to go to, that's what they were doing.

And? That you are dissatisfied with the volume means jack diddly and does nothing to justify ICE's actions. That's because ICE's purview is enforcing immigration law. Never mind that ultimately what you're complaining about isn't a substantive change in the process but instead streamlining the scheduling for that process.

You're essentially arguing that the system should be intentionally hobbled with deliberate inefficiencies because you want those inefficiencies to act as an bottleneck to artificially limit the number of cases that even get heard.

You have Sanctuary city policies like not honoring ICE detainers and allowing criminals back on the streets for really no reason outside of not wanting to cooperate with ICE.

That's just plain false. Sanctuary city policies do not entail 'criminals back on the streets for really no reason outside of not wanting to cooperate with ICE'. That's genuinely slanderous propaganda that the Trump Administration has been asserting without basis to attack cities for not racially profiling perceived immigrants as de-facto criminals, using incidents for which they've already paid their debt to society (such as traffic violations from years ago) as a pretext to accuse them of criminality, and/or refusing to derail proper legal proceedures (such as bail or releasing if no charges are pressed) just on ICE's say-so. They do not release them just because they 'don't want to cooperate with ICE'. They release them because that's what the law requires under the circumstances.

Similarly, what is presented as "not honoring ICE detainers is - as I already said but you evidently failed to read - declining to hold people past their release date solely for ICE unless there’s a judicial warrant. (As without a judicial warrant that's a Fourth Amendment violation, which is to say against the law).