Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)

[Drathnoxis]

Is that a Killer 7 reference?

It is, but it also just makes good sense. Since all the voting happens in schools, obviously all the power to forge the election is in the hands of the Secretary of Education.

Oh, but maybe Trump did buy off the Secretary of Education, but all the mail in votes because of Covid swung things in Biden's favour anyway. That's why Trump was so against voting by mail! He didn't have enough money to also buy the Postmaster General.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Oof, this leaked audio is horrendous. Joe Biden is so disrespectful to his supporters.

My favorite part is the unashamed Vilsack defense when he was told black Georgians hate him.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Here's a question for the Trump supporters on here.


What do you say if Trump taps a vigilante paramilitary force to overturn the election instead of using the actual military?

 

[Houseman]

What do you say if Trump taps a vigilante paramilitary force to overturn the election instead of using the actual military?

As long as they're properly deputized/federalized.
I don't see why he would ever need to do such a thing.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Oral Argument: Donald J. Trump v. Joseph R. Biden - WisconsinEye

On December 12, 2020, the Wisconsin Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Donald J. Trump, et al. v. Joseph R. Biden, et al. Case #2020CV7092.

wiseye.org

Live court case

The Trump attorney was asked if he could find any one person who falsely claimed to be indefinitely confined. The attorney responded that he submitted an affidavit where he found 10 people who, on their social media profiles, were out at rallies. Then someone, I don't know what her role was, mocked him for relying on Facebook as a form of evidence.

So, photos aren't evidence if they are posted to social media, according to her.

The attorney is making a statement about "human drop-boxes" in "Democracy in the park", and some other woman asked him to point him to one single person who voted at this event. He said that it would be impossible, because the ballot doesn't contain that information.

What do they expect? Did they expect for the Trump team to arrest and interrogate someone and get a confession?

 

[Silvanus]

You do note Obama's UN speeches, but again, from the source you quote, " Trump’s speech, however (as the article acknowledges Obama speeches), was likely the first time a U.S. president has explicitly brought up the decriminalization of homosexuality in remarks before the United Nations. "

Long story short, is in this instance, Trump, the 1st POTUS to endorse gay marriage before election, did not deserve to lose to Joe, DOMA, Biden for being anti-gay. And that's just an example.

These are just speeches and statements, though, aren't they? He didn't actually do anything positive. Trump's actual actions were detrimental to the LGBTQ community, and then he made some vaguely positive statements and insisted gay people should support him.

 

[Silvanus]

The Trump attorney was asked if he could find any one person who falsely claimed to be indefinitely confined. The attorney responded that he submitted an affidavit where he found 10 people who, on their social media profiles, were out at rallies. Then someone, I don't know what her role was, mocked him for relying on Facebook as a form of evidence.

Can you give a timestamp for that bit? I want to have a look-see. If Wiseye doesn't let you rewind (I couldn't find a way to do it on their feed, anyway), it's also streaming on Youtube here where you can rewind.

 

[Houseman]

Can you give a timestamp for that bit? I want to have a look-see. If Wiseye doesn't let you rewind (I couldn't find a way to do it on their feed, anyway), it's also streaming on Youtube here where you can rewind.

-41:57

 

[ObsidianJones]

My point is, yes. You can find articles like this as @Silvanus did earlier. They do not appear to jibe with other sources we find. They do the best they can to twist even thing that should be a positive into a negative.

You do note Obama's UN speeches, but again, from the source you quote, " Trump’s speech, however (as the article acknowledges Obama speeches), was likely the first time a U.S. president has explicitly brought up the decriminalization of homosexuality in remarks before the United Nations. "

Long story short, is in this instance, Trump, the 1st POTUS to endorse gay marriage before election, did not deserve to lose to Joe, DOMA, Biden for being anti-gay. And that's just an example.

Unacceptable.

Rollbacks. 175 issues. Trump. LGBTQ. Address it or withdraw your assertion that Media is the blame for how people view Trump. It's the 175 infringements on the LGBTQ community that colors more to me than him making a speech while his actions proves to be against any positive sentiment for the LGBTQ community.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

As long as they're properly deputized/federalized.
I don't see why he would ever need to do such a thing.

Oh so you're okay with him having his own SS?

 

[Houseman]

Rollbacks. 175 issues. Trump. LGBTQ. Address it or withdraw your assertion that Media is the blame for how people view Trump. It's the 175 infringements on the LGBTQ community that colors more to me than him making a speech while his actions proves to be against any positive sentiment for the LGBTQ community.

Even something innocuous could be framed as a "rollback" or an "issue", depending on how the media wants to spin it.
For example, the HHS site says

In 2016, the previous administration issued a regulation implementing Section 1557 (the 2016 Rule) that redefined sex discrimination to include termination of pregnancy and gender identity, which it defined as “one’s internal sense of gender, which may be male, female, neither, or a combination of male and female.”

On December 31, 2016, a federal court preliminarily enjoined, on a nationwide basis the prior administration’s attempt to redefine sex discrimination in the 2016 Rule, concluding that the provisions were likely contrary to applicable civil rights law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. A second federal court agreed. On October 15, 2019, the first federal court issued a final judgment, and vacated and remanded these provisions as unlawful; this final ruling is binding on HHS. HHS has not been able to enforce these provisions since December 2016, and the provisions have been vacated since October 2019.

Look at that, that's a neutral explanation, listing only the facts.

I'll hazard a guess and say that each of your "175 issues" is something like that. Media spin, sensationalist reporting by biased and activist journalists.

 

[Silvanus]

-41:57

Argh, it no longer seems to be streaming live. Youtube now marks it as "private" and the Wiseye stream has stopped too.

 

[Houseman]

Oh so you're okay with him having his own SS?

...Why would I not be?

 

[bluegate]

...Why would I not be?

What?

 

[Houseman]

What?

What?

---

Talking about the Michigan hearings, it seems the standards that these judges demand from the plaintiffs are completely backwards. "You prove to US that all these people weren't legitimately indefinitely confined!"

What do they really expect? Shouldn't they be asking for doctors notes and things like that, and shouldn't a lack of such documentation on their end prove that they have no way of determining who was indefinitely confined, and who isn't?

 

[Kwak]

...Why would I not be?

So you can continue the pretence of just being a rational socratic devil's-advocate debater and not an actual pro-fascist?

 

[Houseman]

So you can continue the pretence of just being a rational socratic devil's-advocate debater and not an actual pro-fascist?

How does not being okay with the Secret Service help the image of being a " rational socratic devil's-advocate debater" instead of a oh wait by SS you guys mean Hitler's SS, not the Secret Service, is that why everyone is confused?

 

[Houseman]

Let's just pretend that this chart is true:

Now think about what kind of legal safeguards we have to prevent such a thing from happening.
Can you see how this sort of thing might be dangerous?

 

[Seanchaidh]

How does not being okay with the Secret Service help the image of being a " rational socratic devil's-advocate debater" instead of a oh wait by SS you guys mean Hitler's SS, not the Secret Service, is that why everyone is confused?

...

 

[Silvanus]

Let's just pretend that this chart is true:

No.

 

[Houseman]

No.

Okay, we don't have to. Just think about what sort of legal safeguards there are preventing a company from engaging in mass manipulation, censorship, and propaganda pushing one political party over another, and think about what sort of damage that could do.

If you find it difficult to imagine, just think about what would happen if, say, China or Russia were in control of all of these companies.