Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)

[Houseman]

That is not what you claimed. What you claimed was "No Americans have experienced being mistreated by the army."

I am aware of that. However, you have to remember context.
Even if I was wrong, and that Americans have been mistreated by the army, unless this mistreatment would make people be afraid to go to the polls (which they shouldn't have to anyway, because mail-in ballots exist), then it is irrelevant.

You could say "The army kicked me out of my house and bought my land out from under me under eminent domain! I was mistreated!", but that doesn't mean you're necessarily intimidated and scared of the army so that you can't vote. Context.

But yes, I was wrong, The army mistreated Americans, but not in any way that would cause them to be intimidated and not go vote (which again, even if they were intimidated in such a way, there's always mail-in ballots).

 

[gorfias]

This honestly isn't meant as an insult:

That's because you're an older white, straight, cis, upper-middle-class male who politically identifies with "authorities" in general and the people who would be carrying the automatic weapons in particular.

It shouldn't be too hard to see why that's not the case for everyone though.

Like who? Were I working poor and a racial minority (I'm a Jew and a minority but US census wise, you are correct. I am an old straight upper middle class white guy), I would still view the police as a force meant to protect me.
My real concern is, I think the people really worried about this sort of thing are people that wouldn't really have the right to vote (previous felony record... which I personally want reversed, that they should be allowed to vote... maybe even while still in prison. You lost your liberty of movement... not the right to an opinion and representation) or illegally or unlawfully in the country. Maybe posing as someone else so a photo ID might reveal fraud.

 

[SilentPony]

I am aware of that. However, you have to remember context.
Even if I was wrong, and that Americans have been mistreated by the army, unless this mistreatment would make people be afraid to go to the polls (which they shouldn't have to anyway, because mail-in ballots exist), then it is irrelevant.

You could say "The army kicked me out of my house and bought my land out from under me under eminent domain! I was mistreated!", but that doesn't mean you're necessarily intimidated and scared of the army so that you can't vote. Context.

But yes, I was wrong, The army mistreated Americans, but not in any way that would cause them to be intimidated and not go vote (which again, even if they were intimidated in such a way, there's always mail-in ballots).

So in your opinion the mistreatment of US civilians at the hands of the US army, including simulated chemical warfare, exposing prisoners to high doses of radiation, psychological torture and brainwashing, straight up murder at the guns of enlisted personal, all of was conducted on either poor, lower class citizens, and/or minorities is not enough to justify why some groups may not trust the US army to run an election in good faith?

 

[Houseman]

So in your opinion the mistreatment of US civilians at the hands of the US army, including simulated chemical warfare, exposing prisoners to high doses of radiation, psychological torture and brainwashing, straight up murder at the guns of enlisted personal, all of was conducted on either poor, lower class citizens, and/or minorities is not enough to justify why some groups may not trust the US army to run an election in good faith?

Simulated chemical warfare that took place +70 years ago would not intimidate anybody from voting, no.
Exposing prisoners to radiation, psychological torture and brainwashing would not intimidate anybody from voting, no.
After skimming your links, I don't see anything about "Straight up murder at the guns of enlisted personnel".

Even so, if they're scared, why can't they just vote by mail?

...is not enough to justify why some groups may not trust the US army to run an election in good faith?

Oh, before it was "they're too intimidated to vote!" and now it's "we don't trust them to run an election in good faith"? Nice moving of the goalposts there.

 

[Kwak]

I was going to take this to absurd lenghts by saying something like "I wouldn't trust conservatives to breathe responsibly". But thing being what they are, perhaps not so absurd.

Well, many of them are against using masks in a pandemic, so there you go.

 

[Chimpzy]

Well, many of them are against using masks in a pandemic, so there you go.

That was the implication, yes.

 

[SilentPony]

SNIP

Too intimidated to vote is part of not running an election in good faith. And I disagree entirely, the US Army has proven through its history it is willing and able to disregard the rights of US citizens to further its own goals, we have no reason to believe they're not doing so somewhere now, or that they won't do it again in the future.
If you're looking for a group to safeguard an election, perhaps an organization with a history of violating the constitution and human rights isn't the best choice.

I just don't think in a country with civilian oversight of the military, the military has any business running the election that elects the very civilians who oversee them. It could be seen as a form of gerrymandering, but rather than politicians picking voters who will elect them, its the military picking politicians who will oversee them.

 

[Mister Mumbler]

(which they shouldn't have to anyway, because mail-in ballots exist)

Oh, so what you are saying is that if people are afraid to go to vote in person for whatever reason, then they can just do mail-in ballots instead? What an amazing and novel concept that absolutely won't cause people to throw conippition fits over it at all...


Oh.........

 

[Houseman]

Too intimidated to vote is part of not running an election in good faith.

Oh, so you didn't mean that people would be afraid to show up at the polls and come face-to-face with a uniformed member of our military, you meant being afraid to vote at all, because they'd think that they'd mishandle the election! Of course, you meant that all along? You didn't just move the goalposts once you realized you didn't have evidence for your position and then pretend that's where the goalposts were all along, of course not.

No, this is not reasonable. Nobody says, or will say "The military conducted dangerous chemical experiments, so I don't trust them in this completely unrelated task of counting ballots".

But even so:

the US Army has proven through its history it is willing and able to disregard the rights of US citizens to further its own goals

So have civilians. Civilians, who you rely on to run elections and count ballots, are the cause of a majority of crimes. See, this is your belabored logic used against you. "X group is responsible for crimes, therefore, X group is not qualified to run elections". See how silly that is?

Oh, so what you are saying is that if people are afraid to go to vote in person for whatever reason, then they can just do mail-in ballots instead? What an amazing and novel concept that absolutely won't cause people to throw conippition fits over it at all...


Oh.........

No, I'm exposing the hypocrisy inherent in forgetting about mail-in ballots when it's convenient for their argument. They shouldn't have any reason to complain about in-person intimidation as long as it's optional.

 

[Mister Mumbler]

Anyway, the weird thing about this whole "we should have the military there" is that it is 100% about intimidating people, because why else would you want the military there in the first place. We're talking about people who are trained to kill others, they are not the Mystery Inc. gang, they don't know dick about signature forensics, the only thing they could do is be threatening.

 

[Houseman]

Anyway, the weird thing about this whole "we should have the military there" is that it is 100% about intimidating people, because why else would you want the military there in the first place.

Uh, to do the job correctly. That's why. Because the civilians aren't currently doing the job correctly.

 

[SilentPony]

SNIP

No goal post was moved, you just claimed that. Like you claim a lot of things, none of which are true. Like how you claimed the US army never mistreated US citizens. Lots of claims, just reality is a little different.

And yes its completely reasonable to say that the US army has committed crimes against US citizens, and because we have civilian oversight of the military the military shouldn't run elections.

 

[Elijin]

So now we're looking longingly at those second and third world countries who have elections run by their military and going "Can we do that?"

How do people still think this guy argues things he believes? He selects arguments based on their capacity to outrage and/or frustrate. He doesn't make any attempt to hide it, including regularly admitting he does it for fun.

 

[Houseman]

And yes its completely reasonable to say that the US army has committed crimes against US citizens, and because we have civilian oversight of the military the military shouldn't run elections.

So, like I said, your logic is X group has committed crimes, therefore X group shouldn't run elections.
Just replace "X" with "civilians" and see how silly that sounds.

So now we're looking longingly at those second and third world countries who have elections run by their military and going "Can we do that?"

Yeah, like Afghanistan, when the military ran their election, and everybody voted with their fingerprint, and it was probably the most secure election they've ever had.
Let's do that. There's no reason why we should hold Afghanistan's elections to a higher standard than we do our own, right?

How do people still think this guy argues things he believes? He selects arguments based on their capacity to outrage and/or frustrate. He doesn't make any attempt to hide it, including regularly admitting he does it for fun.

Maybe they find it fun, too.

 

[SilentPony]

So, like I said, your logic is X group has committed crimes, therefore X group shouldn't run elections.
Just replace "X" with "civilians" and see how silly that sounds.

Civilian is not a group, and stop pretending it is. Civilian just means not in the military. The military is a specific group, civilian is just everyone else.
And we do actually have a system where committing crimes does mean we don't trust you, its called a Felony. Part of it is not being able to vote. So think of the military committing crimes against US citizens as a felony, but rather than revoking the militaries right to vote, we simply don't allow them to run the election.

And why do you think the military is better equipped to run an election? They don't have the training, professionals and in general military grade equipment is far inferior to civilian models. The military is used for fighting wars, what overlap do you think there is with government elections? And you claimed the US military ran a secure Afghanistan election. To which election are you referring to specifically?

 

[Houseman]

Civilian is not a group

Of course it is. So are Republicans. So are Democrats. So are men. So are women. So are cops. So are military. So are retirees. They're all groups. Stop pretending they aren't.

And we do actually have a system where committing crimes does mean we don't trust you, its called a Felony.

And there are so many civilian felons. How can we trust civilians?! Or Republicans? Or Democrats? Or men? Or women? Or cops? Or the military? Or retirees?!

And why do you think the military is better equipped to run an election?

Because they have training on how to follow orders, because they hold each-other accountable for their screw-ups, and the punishment for screwing up is harsher than in the private sector. If they need specific election training, they can get it done in record time.

And you claimed the US military ran a secure Afghanistan election. To which election are you referring to specifically?

I double-checked, and it was Iraq actually, in 2005
Here's the perspective of a Designated Marksman overlooking the line to the polling place from his vantage point

 

[SilentPony]

Because they have training on how to follow orders, because they hold each-other accountable for their screw-ups, and the punishment for screwing up is harsher than in the private sector. If they need specific election training, they can get it done in record time.

Do you have any evidence to support this, or is this just another of your claims?

 

[Houseman]

Do you have any evidence to support this, or is this just another of your claims?

Do I have any evidence to support that people in the military are trained to follow orders? I thought that was common knowledge. I thought that everyone knew that was the point of boot camp. I'm pretty sure you don't need a source for that.

As for the rest, my source is from the active duty guy I spoke to yesterday.

 

[SilentPony]

As for the rest, my source is from the active duty guy I spoke to yesterday.

Oh fuck me, I'm convinced! Lets turn over the entire election system and set up snipers outside schools and churches and other polling places because some fucker said it was a good idea!

Well I talked to a retired colonel last week and he said the military isn't equipped to handle elections at all, and that anyone who thinks it is is a doo-doo head. Not my words, his.

Oh and point on the 2005 Afghanistan election: the ink they used for the fingerprinting that they claimed couldn't be washed off was in fact able to be washed off, opening the door for people to vote more than once.

 

[Houseman]

the ink they used for the fingerprinting that they claimed couldn't be washed off was in fact able to be washed off

Of course, otherwise people wouldn't be able to vote in the next election, their fingers would be marked until the day they died.
The only question is HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO WASH OFF THE INK.

And nobody said "if a method has a single flaw we can't use it", so I don't know why you're even trying this argument. You must be really out of ideas