Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)

[Kwak]

So do people that say that Trump is a bad person.

Cool. So any evidence of any claim whatever is equal to any other claim, got it.

 

[Houseman]

Cool. So any evidence of any claim whatever is equal to any other claim, got it.

Can evidence be objectively measured as to how strong or weak it is?

socratic method, activate!

 

[Kwak]

Can evidence be objectively measured as to how strong or weak it is?

socratic method, activate!

yes

15 Types of Evidence and How to Use Them in Investigations

Learn definitions and examples of 15 common types of evidence and how to use them to improve your investigations in this helpful guide.

i-sight.com

Hierarchy of evidence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

So um the lesson we can take away from this is do not fuck with Stacy Abrams.

Edit: It's Abrams not Adams God damn it.

 

[Agema]

Is it? Don't we hear about witnesses being interviewed by the police all the time? Don't we know about an apartment building full of witnesses and what they did or didn't say in the aftermath of the Breonna Taylor incident, and whether or not they heard the police announce themselves?

We know that from Melissa Carone's testimony, that she called the FBI, and was never called back.

Do they need to interview Carone? She reports batches were scanned multiple times: that's not a crime, it's a potential procedural mistake. Furthermore, there are checking systems in place to ensure this sort of mistake does not cause vote count errors, and these systems did not indicate an error (certainly not to the tune of 30,000 votes or whatever she claimed). She's also an unreliable witness, and her testimony is disputed by other witnesses, but hey. Are the FBI supposed to interview people who post videos of election officials moving data on flash drives, which the officials' bosses have reviewed and declared appropriate? Why?

I mean, I know the articles you linked didn't even say "The FBI and DOJ conducted a thorough investigation", so I'm erring on the side that they did not. Otherwise, the media would have gladly put that as the headline and made sure everyone knew about it. But the barest of journalistic integrity prevents them from lying like that.

I suspect they did their professional duty, like they are supposed to.

I think what you and others really want is for them to do the investigation of your fantasies, not the investigation they deem justifiable on the evidence. The problem - as per this thread - is that what Trumpistas believe and the reality of events are at variance. That square peg will never hammer into the round hole. You cannot be satisfied.

 

[Shadyside]

It is way too early to call. I'll believe it when its actually called and the Trumpists don't call it a fraud too.

Same thing will happen. They will call it fraud and they will send lawyers and lawsuits.

It's pretty advanced and the votes that remains are in heavily democrat area (and mail in which are also heavily democrat).

Let's be real. Donald most likely cost the Republicans the Senate race with his constant yelling of voter fraud. His followers think their votes will be stolen, so they didn't vote.

 

[Hades]

So the Democrats likely winning the senate kinda makes Trump's attempts to steal the election moot. Even if he somehow was able to do it after the electoral college voted for Biden, then Congress could just impeach him on the basis that he is an illegitimate president, and then his vice president for being an illegitimate vice president.

et's be real. Donald most likely cost the Republicans the Senate race with his constant yelling of voter fraud. His followers think their votes will be stolen, so they didn't vote

Isn't it hilarious!

 

[tippy2k2]

I won't say no to the Dems winning, but with Joe Manchin and the rest of the Dems, it's a pretty hollow victory.

Yay! The Democrats are taking control of everything!!!

Just you guys watch! Things aren't gonna fundamentally change so fucking hard, it'll blow everyone away! There's gonna be so much change not happening, it'll be so wonderful!!!

 

[Hades]

Yay! The Democrats are taking control of everything!!!

Just you guys watch! Things aren't gonna fundamentally change so fucking hard, it'll blow everyone away! There's gonna be so much change not happening, it'll be so wonderful!!!

Possibly but nothing is getting burned to the ground either.

 

[Silvanus]

So one Georgia senate race has been called for the Democrats, and the Democratic candidate is leading in the other with only a few votes left to count. It looks like the Democrats have taken both, and with them, a functioning majority in the Senate.

A huge thank you to Donald Trump and his fellow peddlers of the election fraud conspiracy theory. It's this that kept Republican voters home yesterday.

 

[tippy2k2]

Possibly but nothing is getting burned to the ground either.

Thank God, am I right people? We wouldn't want to set the bar TOO high.

I'll see you guys in 2022/2024 when The Republicans retake everything because nothing continues to change and a Republican who will use Trump's playbook (while probably not being the dumbest fucking person in the world) takes over.

But hey, we wouldn't want to accidentally rock the boat a little bit and have Billionaires and Corporations lose a couple bucks.

 

[Cheetodust]

Possibly but nothing is getting burned to the ground either.

Until 2024. When the lack of improvement in people's lives make them realise the dems are a bunch of corporatist whores who don't give a fuck about the working class and have no choice but to vote republican again only to discover the same thing happens and they vote democrat again ad nauseum.

I give the Brits some credit, at least they consistently vote for same party of rich elites that openly want to make life worse for anyone living below 6 figures. They at least don't seem to realise that change is needed.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

Which case you guys are wondering why Georgia has run-off elections for senators.


I love the irony

 

[Avnger]

Which case you guys are wondering why Georgia has run-off elections for senators.


I love the irony

Hypothetically a runoff setup could be considered more democratic in a first past the post system. It allows for voters to closer match their desires to the politicians they can effectively vote for. It's horrible though that the desire historically was largely rooted in bigotry.

 

[Avnger]

Thank God, am I right people? We wouldn't want to set the bar TOO high.

I'll see you guys in 2022/2024 when The Republicans retake everything because nothing continues to change and a Republican who will use Trump's playbook (while probably not being the dumbest fucking person in the world) takes over.

But hey, we wouldn't want to accidentally rock the boat a little bit and have Billionaires and Corporations lose a couple bucks.

The "bar" as you say is constrained by the majority of Americans not being Progressives. Let's take a look at the much maligned Joe Manchin as an example. He's not really much of a Democrat. His stances are generally range from rightwing liberal to conservative. HOWEVER, what would you replace him with? A more left candidate would never fly in West Virginia; the state's voters are staunch conservatives in general. Now, you might say "if he's practically a Rep, what do we lose if he's replaced with a Rep?" The answer, of course, is 2 part: a member of the Democratic caucus (which numbers is the deciding factor on the ever-important Senate Leader position) and a key Democratic vote for issues that would otherwise fail 49-51 or 50-50. This is politics as a reality; it's not politics as we wish they could be.

 

[tippy2k2]

The "bar" as you say is constrained by the majority of Americans not being Progressives. Let's take a look at the much maligned Joe Manchin as an example. He's not really much of a Democrat. His stances are generally range from rightwing liberal to conservative. HOWEVER, what would you replace him with? A more left candidate would never fly in West Virginia; the state's voters are staunch conservatives in general. Now, you might say "if he's practically a Rep, what do we lose if he's replaced with a Rep?" The answer, of course, is 2 part: a member of the Democratic caucus (which numbers is the deciding factor on the ever-important Senate Leader position) and a key Democratic vote for issues that would otherwise fail 49-51 or 50-50. This is politics as a reality; it's not politics as we wish they could be.

Which is also completely fair. I do hope that one day that people realize that Democrats are just Republicans who chuck a hard crusty old piece of bread from their five course meal (and then pretend like should be on your knees doing nothing but pleasuring them because of their benevolence).

But until that day happens, I will continue to tell them both to go sit and spin. I don't think it'll ever actually matter as people don't seem to care all that much that so many are getting shafted (even as they themselves also get shafted but hey, they're comfortable enough so "Fuck you, I got mine"). But a man can dream, can't he? Even if it seems like it'll never be anything but a dream as both sides play the same playbook every time and every time everyone just let's them do it.

 

[meiam]

So the Democrats likely winning the senate kinda makes Trump's attempts to steal the election moot. Even if he somehow was able to do it after the electoral college voted for Biden, then Congress could just impeach him on the basis that he is an illegitimate president, and then his vice president for being an illegitimate vice president.


Isn't it hilarious!

Not quite, the senate will be 50/50, which means the breaking tie vote will be the VP, so if Pence is still VP the GOP will still be in control in the senate

 

[Houseman]

Here's Trump's plan:


Here's how many turned out to DC

I wonder if there'll be a riot if things don't go their way.

And here's the promised link to the rally/speech/march from DC


Rudy just got up on stage

 

[Houseman]

yes

15 Types of Evidence and How to Use Them in Investigations

Learn definitions and examples of 15 common types of evidence and how to use them to improve your investigations in this helpful guide.

i-sight.com

Hierarchy of evidence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Well, your second link you must not have read, because it's about scientific research and medicine, not the sort of evidence one would gather for a criminal investigation.

Your first link just lists different types of evidence, and says nothing about objectively measuring strength or weaknesses. For example, from the types of your own link, here's a quiz: Which is "stronger", Digital evidence or Exculpatory evidence?

 

[ObsidianJones]

Thank God, am I right people? We wouldn't want to set the bar TOO high.

I'll see you guys in 2022/2024 when The Republicans retake everything because nothing continues to change and a Republican who will use Trump's playbook (while probably not being the dumbest fucking person in the world) takes over.

But hey, we wouldn't want to accidentally rock the boat a little bit and have Billionaires and Corporations lose a couple bucks.

I mean, this is legitimately all well and good. But what do you do when all you get is the low bar?

Republicans work over time to suppress any votes or opinions that are not their own. Efforts are continuously made to make myself and others irrelevant. To install people into office who quite literally want to undo my protections for... reasons. Or legal processes we're still keeping an eye on with bated breath that has its origins rooted in racism.

Forced to come up with a new system, Georgia created one intended to continue undermining Black voters’ influence. That was the runoff system, whose origins were detailed in a 2007 Interior Department report:

In 1963, state representative Denmark Groover from Macon introduced a proposal to apply majority-vote, runoff election rules to all local, state, and federal offices. A staunch segregationist, Groover’s hostility to black voting was reinforced by personal experience. Having served as a state representative in the early 1950s, Groover was defeated for election to the House in 1958. The Macon politico blamed his loss on “Negro bloc voting.” He carried the white vote, but his opponent triumphed by garnering black ballots by a five-to-one margin.
Groover soon devised a way to challenge growing black political strength. Elected to the House again in 1962, he led the fight to enact a majority vote, runoff rule for all county and state contests in both primary and general elections. Until 1963, plurality voting was widely used in Georgia county elections...

Essentially, Groover wanted to stop Black Georgians from voting as a “bloc” — that is, overwhelmingly for one candidate or party — while white Georgians split their votes among many candidates. In a plurality system, if Black voters were able to keep a coalition behind one candidate, they wouldn’t need the support of many white voters for their preferred candidate to win elections.

The method was popular across the former Confederacy: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas all have primary election runoffs. As the Washington Post reported, just two non-Southern states have runoff rules, and those “almost never matter”

There's one side actively working against me as a person. There's one side who doesn't. Am I supposed to wait for a benevolent third party to come out of the sky to give me everything I hope for in one fell swoop? Should I hold my votes away from Democrats until they can promise me to completely eradicate all prejudice, job inequities, and built an extension to 'the table' that is just as good as the ones everyone else already has a seat at?

Or should I withhold my vote from the Democrats because they weren't perfect... and let Republicans thank me as they try to brazenly remove rights and protections for everyone they don't consider to be apart of the desirables?

In fact, I already know that the Democrats don't have to work hard to get my and other minorities' vote because that low bar was lowered so low by Republicans that just not spitting on us is legitimate forward process. I and many others simply don't have the luxury to wait for a perfect party to come down out of the heavens because the Republicans continually try to pull down that bar lower. So much so that just adjusting to its previously low point actually brings a sigh of relief.

And that's not even getting to the corporate part. I have no love lost for Corporate Democrats. It's why I became a Progressive. But while it might offend yours and my sensibilities, all the things Corporates do for their Business Overlords, they are not actively trying to destroy a segment of the population.

So, yeah. That makes them the lesser evil. Which is usually the only thing that you can hope for when you deal with Politics and Government. We can ask Che Guevara and his good friend Fidel Castro what happens when lofty ideals meet actual power. Literally half the time, it corrupts.

I get the Low Bar. I get why it sucks that all the Corporates have to say to minorities and women is "yeah, you're people. You're owed a say" and they will get votes. But it also legitimately sucks that it will take legal processes to restore all of the things that Trump and his administration undone (From Human Rights to Environmental Protections).

Malign Corporates for being whores of Capitalism. Have it. But then malign Republicans for their odious tactics just as vociferously for making Democrats the only safe option there is.

It sucks not to have options. I do not have the option to wait for something better. I don't need to win all at once, but I need to make sure that the future generations of my extended family that are going to be born this year will not have less freedoms than I had when I was born into this nation. That will not happen with Republicans in charge.