Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)

[Hades]

Like I said, "Even if it's true that one person got special treatment, it doesn't mean that all republicans got the same special treatment."
So you're just deflecting from the true issue and the real question of " 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. "

No but the leader of their faction, the one with the most extreme views and the most influential voice did get special treatment. And to some extent that may have helped to legitimize and bolster the insanity. Twitter went years of Trump poisoning his own audience, proudly lying and spreading disinformation and going ''Yup that's okay! Even if it breaks all our rules''.

I am not engaging in the argument about 'manipulation and mass censorship'' because at the moment there isn't one. Its just a fact that Trump lost the election and that his attempt to steal the election are not legitimized by anyone with any credibility. After the courts, the supreme court, cyber security and Barr are were either unwilling or unable to even entertain the possibility that there was fraud twitter is well in its right to treat Trump's whining about it as either gibberish or outright lies.

 

[Houseman]

No but the leader of their faction, the one with the most extreme views and the most influential voice did get special treatment.

And still, it's only one account.

Look at any tweet from the President, and see what the responses are. It's all mockery. You'll have to scroll for minutes or hours before you find one supporting tweet.
When you can flood the "airwaves" with large amounts of people, that's what controls the narratives. What's one voice lost in the crowd, compared to a cacophony of willing megaphones?

I am not engaging in the argument about 'manipulation and mass censorship'' because at the moment there isn't one

I'm not asking you to believe that it is currently happening. I'm asking you, "wouldn't it be bad if it were?"
It's a simple yes or no question.

 

[Houseman]

A USPS sub-contractor, who voted for Jo Jorgensen, testifies about 10,000 missing ballots.
Watch it before youtube censors this sworn testimony, since we're all okay with mega-corporations deciding what we can and can't think.

 

[Kwak]

I already said I thought you meant "Secret Service" as opposed to "Schutzstaffel"
They're the same initials.

Thought you would go for 'why shouldn't he have a social security number'?

 

[Houseman]

Thought you would go for 'why shouldn't he have a social security number'?

That would be SSN

 

[ObsidianJones]

I'm going to take a crack at this.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/12/whistleblower-companies-broke-the-law-to-build-trumps-wall.html#comments

Donald Trump’s early, unachieved goal of building a border wall during his first term was a lofty one, and according to two law-enforcement officers involved with the project, the companies contracting out the work may have lowered the standard from the “great,” “big, beautiful” project that he promised.

According to two whistleblowers — a former deputy sheriff in San Diego County and an FBI agent on construction-security detail — some companies working on the wall had failed to properly run their personnel through the necessary Customs and Border Protection vetting process, going so far as to hire armed guards from across the border to protect the job sites. The New York Times obtained a copy of the complaint first filed in February, and much of it has to do with companies called Sullivan Land Services Co. and the more Trump-appropriate Ultimate Concrete. The Times reports:

The whistle-blowers said Ultimate Concrete went so far as to build a dirt road to expedite illegal border crossings to sites in San Diego, using construction vehicles to block security cameras …

Ultimate Concrete “constructed a dirt road that would allow access from the Mexican side of the border into the United States,” the whistle-blowers said in the complaint. “This U.C.-constructed road was apparently the route by which the armed Mexican nationals were unlawfully crossing into the United States.”

An S.L.S. project manager then pressured one of the whistle-blowers in July 2019 to not include information about the Mexican security guards in reports required to be submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers.

So there are whistleblowers. And complaints. So we treat everything as true and assume absolute guilt. That's how it goes, right?

And if we bring it to a court that doesn't believe there's sufficient evidence of an actual crime, we get to go on rants on how the court turned traitor.

 

[gorfias]

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.

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.

1) This column by a gay man:

5 Big Misconceptions About The Trump Administration’s LGBTQ Record

If you cut through the false narratives peddled by the media, you’ll find Trump has been one of the greatest presidents for LGBTQ Americans in history.

thefederalist.com

2) Gay people are people. They need a good economy. They need a POTUS that isn't trying to get them killed in other people's wars. They need a POTUS willing to condemn White Supremacy and the rioters who burn down cities like ANTIFA, all of which DOMA Biden opposes, including really condemning white supremacy. Actually, I've got to think about that last one. If he's selling out the US to China, I'd think him OK with Asian supremacy, as long as he gets his.
And in fairness, you aren't necessarily FOR Biden. But the positions you're taking helped make him POTUS over Trump. I don't think you're going to find anyone but the top 1% better off for it.

 

[Thaluikhain]

2) Gay people are people. They need a good economy. They need a POTUS that isn't trying to get them killed in other people's wars. They need a POTUS willing to condemn White Supremacy

All of those are true, and are things Trump has not shown himself to be good at doing (willing to condemn white supremacy really stands out). Beyond not starting any new boots on the ground wars, I guess, but "hasn't gone out of his way to start this specific problem" isn't much of a bar, one I think Obama cleared as well, despite increasing drone strikes.

Secondly, that's not all LGBT people need.

Also, you seem to have dodged those 175 issues again. And I'm not surprised.

 

[gorfias]

All of those are true, and are things Trump has not shown himself to be good at doing (willing to condemn white supremacy really stands out). Beyond not starting any new boots on the ground wars, I guess, but "hasn't gone out of his way to start this specific problem" isn't much of a bar, one I think Obama cleared as well, despite increasing drone strikes.

Secondly, that's not all LGBT people need.

Also, you seem to have dodged those 175 issues again. And I'm not surprised.

And you wrote this while keeping my 2) while cutting 1). I'm not surprised.

As for Trump denouncing white supremacy, it's all over the place. Pretending it isn't is gas lighting people. Lie often enough I guess you think makes a thing true.
Example: https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/trump-has-condemned-white-supremacists/
A guy who appears to bless his daughter's mixed marriage is not a very good example of white supremacy.

 

[Adam Jensen]

So, because the media said it was okay, it's okay?
The media commands the FBI now?

I could ask you the same thing, considering the fact that it was OAN that lied about it and tried to manipulate the facts to convince people that something shady was happening. And they managed to convince you. It was the pro-Trump media that lied. So because the pro-Trump media said it was not okay, it's not okay? The pro-Trump media commands the FBI now?

But we both know that this is not about the media. At least not about other media that don't act like Trump's personal propaganda. The real media just report on what was said. The bottom line is that everyone other than OAN and insane Trumpets who don't know how election works explained that it was a routine procedure. Yet you still cling on to this conspiracy, despite knowing who's behind it. That's insane.

 

[Generals]

What is proven is defined by a court of law, and as of yet, no court of law has investigated the claims themselves.

Which means as of yet no crimes have been proven and therefor there is no reason to suspect these areas are more likely to commit fraud.

Well the democrats are free to hold their own hearings on election fraud in these republican counties and vote centers. They're free to allege that republicans kept democrat observers at a distance and locked them out while they counted ballots in secret. They're free to testify in front of senators and judges about the fraud they witnessed. But they aren't doing that.

And would that be productive? It's toxic for the democratic process which is based on the idea that people accept the results. If all elections started with both sides claiming they can only lose due to fraud and throw random lawsuits after the results come in, trust in the electoral process would dissapear. And than you're likely to see protests/riots after each election like in many banana republics.

And mind you there is a big difference between wanting to improve electoral processes and security and doing what Trump did. I would have no issue with a post election audit to analyse potential issues to come up with improvements for next time (and if said audit comes up with huge issues than perhaps question the outcome). But here Trump claimed since 2016 a loss could only be explained by fraud and then he claimed the election was stolen. That's a very bold claim which errodes the trust of the people in the electoral process.

 

[Agema]

There's the big trick. Just hide whatever crime you're doing behind minorities, so when people try to prosecute the crime, just blame them of racism.

I think the key point to take away is the judge said Trump had ample time to formally protest the election system prior to the election. He didn't. Trump said 2016 was fraudulent because he couldn't even accept he hadn't won the popular vote, and apparently spent four years doing precisely nothing about it, despite the states in control of most of these elections having Republican legislations and/or governors during his term.

So is Trump a liar, or merely totally incompetent?

If we really want to know about who the cheat is around this matter, I advise everyone to read about Trump's golf habits. Or cheating his subcontractors by not paying them, cheating his creditors, his fraudulent charity, his fraudulent "university", and so on.

 

[Buyetyen]

And you wrote this while keeping my 2) while cutting 1). I'm not surprised.

Probably because your 1) was, "I found this one gay dude who agrees with me, so all of them have to agree with me!" Which is the ultimate clueless straight guy thing to say. A single quisling is not an adequate sample size and does not change the fact that Trump has been a failure to the queer community. This isn't transactional, my dude, Trump can't just throw out a few symbolic gestures to a minority and expect to be loved.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Probably because your 1) was, "I found this one gay dude who agrees with me, so all of them have to agree with me!" Which is the ultimate clueless straight guy thing to say. A single quisling is not an adequate sample size and does not change the fact that Trump has been a failure to the queer community. This isn't transactional, my dude, Trump can't just throw out a few symbolic gestures to a minority and expect to be loved.

Well, partly that and partly that Gorfias's 1 was someone else's and not their own. No point arguing with someone who isn't even on the forum.

But, as Cheetodust (and, I think others, sorry to have forgotten who) has been saying, there's no point anyway. Trying to convince people they shouldn't defend the man/people/system that hurting their country, is either trivially easy or impossible, so I think I'll bow out. Respect for people still trying, but it's not seeming a worthwhile endeavour.

 

[Houseman]

it was OAN that lied about it and tried to manipulate the facts to convince people that something shady was happening

Prove it

I would have no issue with a post election audit to analyse potential issues to come up with improvements for next time (and if said audit comes up with huge issues than perhaps question the outcome)

Great, let's do that.

I think the key point to take away is the judge said Trump had ample time to formally protest the election system prior to the election. He didn't.

I watched the oral arguments and the justices made this argument too. Trump's attorney said something like "so what, we're supposed to speculate on the harm that could be done in advance? That would put an undue cost and burden on any candidate's team"

 

[Generals]

Great, let's do that.

Well it won't be for this election because the post-election backlash and nonsense being thrown around has made any kind of serene audit impossible. And right now it seems no one is interested in a real audit aimed at finding flaws and points to improve. Democrats want this farce to be over with and Republicans just want to hear Trump won or that somehow an investigation/audit/whatever can prove without a shred of doubt there were no issues with the elections. (Which is simply an impossible burden of proof at this point)

I watched the oral arguments and the justices made this argument too. Trump's attorney said something like "so what, we're supposed to speculate on the harm that could be done in advance? That would put an undue cost and burden on any candidate's team"

Speculate?! What speculation? Trump already claimed he lost the popular vote in 2016 due to fraud. And once the polls went down for him he predicted a loss due to massive fraud. For the Trump side this shouldn't be considered "speculation" at all, it was the expected outcome.

 

[Houseman]

Well it won't be for this election

Yeah, kind of like the school-shooting "now is not the time to improve things, the bodies aren't even cold yet!" thing, right? Gotta wait for that perfect moment that will never come.

And right now it seems no one is interested in a real audit aimed at finding flaws and points to improve.

Well, Trump is inspiring state legislators (the guys who write the rules and pass the bills) into having hearings where they can hear all the bad stuff that happened. Hopefully, they'd use that information to either fix things now, fix things going forward, or both. That's at least an effort to do something close to a real audit.

Actually, the system is supposed to be set up in a way that the elections are secure, and such an audit isn't really needed, because the whole process is being audited by adversarial parties in real-time. That's the concept of "challengers". The only difference is that this time, people used covid as an excuse to prevent the challengers from doing their jobs. They couldn't challenge suspicious-looking ballots, because they couldn't see the ballots, so that introduced a boat-load of doubt and grumblings.

Speculate?! What speculation? Trump already claimed he lost the popular vote in 2016 due to fraud. And once the polls went down for him he predicted a loss due to massive fraud. For the Trump side this shouldn't be considered "speculation" at all, it was the expected outcome.

This time, the rules were all different due to covid. That's what they would have had to speculate about, and then get in front of, all before the election proper.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

38 days to go.

 

[Houseman]

 

[Cheetodust]

Oh well

Oh well now I'm convinced. I feel silly.