All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Kirby101]

wrong post

[Mister Mets]

OMG - my sheepskin sez I am more qualified to tell you what is right and wrong. Sorry that's just authority in place of rationales. Lawmakers are no different than artists in that they deal in opinion and politicians in particular are intended to reflect opinions. I am not saying some opinions aren't better than others when it comes to verifiable and falsifiable conclusions about reality. 9/11 has material conditions and hundreds of eyewitness but elections are not such more and more so because of the role of technology and intentionally lax standards of voter ID.

As to mental health, Vincent "The Chin" Gigante should tell you all you need to know about the "science" of mental health in our law and how malleable it is.

It's not about the diploma. Lin Wood serves as an example of why we shouldn't think lawyers are to always be trusted. You could also look at Michael Avenatti on the left.

Lawyers are however held to particular standards. The state bar can go after them if they make statements that are egregiously false.

Lawmakers have staff who can research factual questions, so there's less excuse to be wrong about the facts.

We should also distinguish between opinions and falsifiable conclusions.

A lot of the discussion about whether the election was stolen comes down to things that are verifiable.

For example, Donald Trump claimed that a legal decision meant that it was impossible to match signatures.

https://apnews.com/article/ap-fact-c...cc331e83ab36e0

That's a factual question about whether election clerks in Georgia were allowed to scrutinize signatures.

One thing I've noticed with many election skeptics is that they don't care about the facts. They'll bring up stuff that they thought was suspicious (and often this is coming from amateurs unfamiliar with election procedures) and when it's refuted, they'll find other stuff. They're looking for evidence that fits the narrative, rather than following the facts where they go.

Some of them legitimately believe that the election was stolen, but they don't go with their actual reasons, which are often that the results of the election don't match the country they're familiar with. Due to geographic sorting, Republicans are more likely to live among Republicans and Democrats are more likely to live among Democrats. So a Republican may think it's suspicious that their neighborhood swung towards Trump, and Trump still lost, without taking into account that they're not familiar with the neighborhoods that swung towards Biden. A variation of this was an argument that it seems suspicious that Biden got more votes than Obama in 2008, without taking into account how unpopular Trump was compared to McCain, how the population has increased since 2008, etc.

Trump's like this. He doesn't reevaluate his positions when he's fact-checked. Either he knows he's lying, or he's looking for evidence that matches his conclusion.

This is part of why someone being wrong should reflect poorly on them. At best, it reflects carelessness.

[4saken1]

It is unfortunate that Working Families teams with Democrats so we will never know how viable any third party is.

It's unfortunate that Third Party candidates don't realize that most of the Electorate is familiar with what a spoiler vote is and that if they spent as much time trying to get Ranked Choice Voting on the ballots in more states, they might eventually stand a chance at winning some Elections. Being that RCV is only currently being used for Primaries and Special Elections in New York, however, Yang isn't doing himself or liberals in his state any favors.

[Xheight]

A lot of the discussion about whether the election was stolen comes down to things that are verifiable.

For example, Donald Trump claimed that a legal decision meant that it was impossible to match signatures.

https://apnews.com/article/ap-fact-c...cc331e83ab36e0

That's a factual question about whether election clerks in Georgia were allowed to scrutinize signatures.

One thing I've noticed with many election skeptics is that they don't care about the facts. They'll bring up stuff that they thought was suspicious (and often this is coming from amateurs unfamiliar with election procedures) and when it's refuted, they'll find other stuff. They're looking for evidence that fits the narrative, rather than following the facts where they go.

Some of them legitimately believe that the election was stolen, but they don't go with their actual reasons, which are often that the results of the election don't match the country they're familiar with. Due to geographic sorting, Republicans are more likely to live among Republicans and Democrats are more likely to live among Democrats. So a Republican may think it's suspicious that their neighborhood swung towards Trump, and Trump still lost, without taking into account that they're not familiar with the neighborhoods that swung towards Biden. A variation of this was an argument that it seems suspicious that Biden got more votes than Obama in 2008, without taking into account how unpopular Trump was compared to McCain, how the population has increased since 2008, etc.

Trump's like this. He doesn't reevaluate his positions when he's fact-checked. Either he knows he's lying, or he's looking for evidence that matches his conclusion.

This is part of why someone being wrong should reflect poorly on them. At best, it reflects carelessness.

I don't very much disagree - as yes there are a vast number that suffer under confirmation bias Left and Right. Like an equal explanation of 're-evaluation' or lack there of. Most GOP see him as sloppy with details but essentially right in effect. In the case you demonstrate AP hews to its narrative as well of misrepresentation when it does little to dispel its own.

A lawsuit by the Democratic Party, which led to the agreement, argued that minorities were disproportionately affected when they had their ballots rejected. Among other things, the settlement sets steps for local election officials to notify a voter -- by phone, mail or email -- in a timely fashion about problems with a signature.

Problems? yeah returning a ballot without any signature is a problem which was the bulk of the complaint and a fact that Trump blows past too in his vague reference. So what we have in Trump is just as well like is any number of Business Exec. that work off the gist of things. Careless yes but like you also point out that is a quality that people have an opinion about what makes a better president, sloppy but right or detailed and ineffectual. The presidency unlike a Bar Ass. has no conduct board other than the election system to create standards of what a good president is.

Yes there is a fact about checking sigs - all of which is whether it was lawful to have them be counted at all

[Mister Mets]

I don't very much disagree - as yes there are a vast number that suffer under confirmation bias Left and Right. Like an equal explanation of 're-evaluation' or lack there of. Most GOP see him as sloppy with details but essentially right in effect. In the case you demonstrate AP hews to its narrative as well of misrepresentation when it does little to dispel its own.

Problems? yeah returning a ballot without any signature is a problem which was the bulk of the complaint and a fact that Trump blows past too in his vague reference. So what we have in Trump is just as well like is any number of Business Exec. that work off the gist of things. Careless yes but like you also point out that is a quality that people have an opinion about what makes a better president, sloppy but right or detailed and ineffectual. The presidency unlike a Bar Ass. has no conduct board other than the election system to create standards of what a good president is.

Yes there is a fact about checking sigs - all of which is whether it was lawful to have them be counted at all

The problem with someone sloppy with details is that it's likely to mess up their interpretation of the big picture. How are they going to be able to solve the problem if they don't understand it? They may be able to persuade people who are similarly ignorant, though that's hardly to their credit.

This likely isn't unique to business executives. There are others in politics who are sloppy. It puts their supporters in a weird position. The candidate makes a careless straw man argument, which people familiar with the topic recognize as BS. The supporter makes a steelman version of the candidate's argument, doing the work the candidate should have done. It's also less likely to persuade, since you should address the other side's best arguments to point out why it still doesn't work.

With the specific example of the Georgia argument, there's a major difference between election clerks having no ability to match signatures (Trump's claim) and having election clerks notify individuals if there's a problem with their signature. That category can include many situations, such as an individual developing a neurological disorder that changes their signature (IE- Parkinson's) and doesn't seem to leave an opening for voter fraud as there remains a high level of scrutiny (if you're involved in massive organized voter fraud, you don't want to sign affidavits regarding signatures found to be suspicious.)

[Xheight]

The problem with someone sloppy with details is that it's likely to mess up their interpretation of the big picture. How are they going to be able to solve the problem if they don't understand it? They may be able to persuade people who are similarly ignorant, though that's hardly to their credit.

Absolutely what we are seeing as they sense something does not add up (which could be as subjective as you say and product of the bubble they live in or something which registers on a instinctive level of truth) and search around for what could verify this sense. Which is not to say that materiality does not exist just that you can't get at it because the first step any successful fraud would have to be in passing the checks and securing their status as valid votes. In the case of GA once verified as a valid sig there is no tracing mechanism to the person who supposedly cast that ballot. If you applied for (or lifted it) it from the rolls then that same marker gets you a pass. Cured or Uncured Ballots are a misdirection in standing up the mail-in ballot verification system as sound when whole organizations ran drives of registration in GA, collecting signatures, coordinating them through Stacey Abrams Fair Fight PAC, and Georgia STAND-UP and tech and mail marketing company SKDK. If you wanted to find evidence it would not be at the State house records but in the nine or more organizations that harvested voters real or imagined and not served any subpoena.

The appeal of Trump and its limits is someone who is dynamic and shoots from the hip which is the opposite of what many people see as THE problem with a Washington bogged down in the detail such that it all looks like lawyerly sophistry.

[Tendrin]

A Black mother is suing a Florida jail after she says staff members ignored her calls for help and left her to deliver her child in a cell. The baby girl, Ava Daniels, later died at a local hospital, News 4 Jax reported. Erica Thompson said during a press conference that she was six months pregnant, having contractions, and planning to go to the hospital when deputies arrested her on Aug. 9 at her mother's house on charges of driving with a suspended license and lying to officers.

Thompson said even though she couldn't stand upright because of the pain, a nurse cleared her for booking in the Alachua County Jail. “They gave me Gatorade because they said that would stop my contractions because I was just dehydrated,” Thompson told the television station.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/202...n-Florida-jail

[Tendrin]

In reality, things about the election only 'don't add up' if you are utterly convinced that you're the majority when you're ... not the majority. It's a real shock to the system to find out that the view you thought was majority opinion isn't, and so we see a lot of delusional trump supporters like Xheight screaming 'the fix is in!' when it's their own party that has been blocking election security and transparency bills for actual decades.

I know its hard to believe that the guy who told us to inject bleach in our veins and is pretty clearly willing to mouth off about whatever idiotic thought pops into his head, like nuking a hurricane or staring into an eclipse, lost an election but most Americans have come to realize that those are not great qualities in a president.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Absolutely what we are seeing as they sense something does not add up (which could be as subjective as you say and product of the bubble they live in or something which registers on a instinctive level of truth) and search around for what could verify this sense. .

What doesn't add up is that ....Trump lost. His win in 2016 wasn't by a huge amount even then. If people look back his overall win against Hillary Clinton in battle ground states was 107,000+ votes in 3 states decided that election. Its not like Trump won by a mandate as much as you hate to hear this. He barely won and even then people have joked Hillary had more grounds to demand recounts. Given the slim margin of victory.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...state-margins/


In all the sad fact is ...Trump supporters have jumped to a delusional belief he couldn't have lost. Its like a NFL fan blaming the referees when their team can't win. Because they felt that Trump wouldn't have lost by any accounts. On my FB the supporters thumped their chests bragging NO WAY HE LOSES !! NO WAY !!

The egg on the faces is something they can't accept and the tears of them still not believing it is fun.

[numberthirty]

The problem is that the math here all checks out just fine.

A guy who only won a presidency because he was actually running against a politician who was more unfavorable than him was fool enough to think that -

- He could spend his first term doing nothing but picking enough fights/winding up even less popular with no consequences.

The only chance he would have had is if HRC had not only ran again, but walked in intending on repeating Rocky's strategy in the first fight against Clubber.

Even then, it would have been a coin flip when Trump did a "Hot Garbage..." job contending with a pandemic.

The idea that Biden could walk in, and wind up with the exact same "Just Creeped By..." win that handed Trump a presidency is perfectly realistic math.

[JackDaw]

What doesn't add up is that ....Trump lost. His win in 2016 wasn't by a huge amount even then. If people look back his overall win against Hillary Clinton in battle ground states was 107,000+ votes in 3 states decided that election. Its not like Trump won by a mandate as much as you hate to hear this. He barely won and even then people have joked Hillary had more grounds to demand recounts. Given the slim margin of victory.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...state-margins/


In all the sad fact is ...Trump supporters have jumped to a delusional belief he couldn't have lost. Its like a NFL fan blaming the referees when their team can't win. Because they felt that Trump wouldn't have lost by any accounts. On my FB the supporters thumped their chests bragging NO WAY HE LOSES !! NO WAY !!

The egg on the faces is something they can't accept and the tears of them still not believing it is fun.

What is it about the Donald that has allowed him to attract so much personal support?

After 4 years in charge, I would expect the large majority of his original supporters to realise he sometimes uttered “terminological inexactitudes”. The wall didn’t get built, and Hilary didn’t go to jail, for example.

Do the central fan base really believe in their guts that he delivered on his central promise to “make America great again”? If so….what single towering achievement can anyone point to? Did public debt come down markedly? Or job employment soar?

It all baffles me…because the secret of the Donald’s success cannot just because he has some specific unpleasant views..I venture other US politicians share those views.


I know I need to pose these questions elsewhere…because I doubt the Donald has a single fan on these boards. (Perhaps that tells us something interesting about comic fans?)

[numberthirty]

Just to point it out...

He also ran on a cheaper, better alternative to the ACA once they could do away with it.

As far as I can remember, nothing like a skeletal plan ever even wound up being floated.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

What is it about the Donald that has allowed him to attract so much personal support?

After 4 years in charge, I would expect the large majority of his original supporters to realise he sometimes uttered “terminological inexactitudes”. The wall didn’t get built, and Hilary didn’t go to jail, for example.

Do the central fan base really believe in their guts that he delivered on his central promise to “make America great again”? If so….what single towering achievement can anyone point to? Did public debt come down markedly? Or job employment soar?

It all baffles me…because the secret of the Donald’s success cannot just because he has some specific unpleasant views..I venture other US politicians share those views.


I know I need to pose these questions elsewhere…because I doubt the Donald has a single fan on these boards. (Perhaps that tells us something interesting about comic fans?)

He spoke to many's belief in finding an enemy to blame for their unhappiness in life or why they hadn't achieved more success. It wasn't lack of education , lack of real employment in certain areas of the country or even lack of companies believing in some to advance them career wise. It was basically ....Donald Trump spoke to these very people and told them a reason for their failures was that immigrants and illegal immigrants were to blame.

The people latched onto this belief and even today spit it out , how those immigrants have hurt things. Yet offer no real proof on how someone named Jose who doesn't speak much English suddenly cost them a high paying job that needs skills done for it and education etc.

Trump has spent lifetime selling to people a stupid image. He basically did this with his casinos which went down as we know. He did this to USFL owners who bought into him. And we saw the result. Its only after he's ruined everything that people realize ...he was full of shit.

[Tendrin]

He gave them permission to be their worst selves and they realized they loved it. It isn't really any more complicated than that, no matter how much a shine someone tries to put on it.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

He gave them permission to be their worst selves and they realized they loved it. It isn't really any more complicated than that, no matter how much a shine someone tries to put on it.

Exactly that, and more.