|
Post by james on Nov 10, 2020 9:53:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Nov 10, 2020 11:08:40 GMT -5
Orwell didn't go far enough.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 10, 2020 11:29:56 GMT -5
Makes me wonder what Sidhe's hearing the odds of civil war are now.
|
|
|
Post by coachdoc on Nov 10, 2020 11:47:53 GMT -5
Right on Omaha.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Nov 10, 2020 11:50:56 GMT -5
Orwell didn't go far enough. My current take on things goes something like this: I have no objection to Trump working the system as hard as he can right now. There are more than a few things that, at first blush, seem iffy. For example, on Tuesday night, contrary to all experience and precedent, several important states announced they were going to stop counting. At the time (Michigan/Wisconsin/Pennsylvania) all showed Trump with relatively substantial leads. The next morning, the country wakes up and those states are suddenly saying lots of Biden votes came in, and now it's close/Biden is ahead. In and of itself, that doesn't prove anything, but I hope we can all agree that for the good of the country, some reasonable accounting of those events is called for. I read things here and there where certain tranches of votes arrived (IIRC, this was Michigan) where 100k votes were added to the total, and 100.000% of them were Biden votes. Again, maybe the initial reporting was wrong, and maybe there's a perfectly innocent explanation, but no one should expect that to simply go unquestioned. We need answers. For the good of everyone. And no one should want answers more than Team Biden. All that said, unless Team Trump can come up with some substantive evidence of wide spread fraud, probably by the end of the week, it will be time to let this go. What I can't abide is early claims that all this has been "debunked". Says who? We need to take these claims seriously, and if they are false, demonstrate why they are false. Simply waving them away as "debunked" is not the answer.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Nov 10, 2020 12:29:32 GMT -5
We need answers. For the good of everyone. Part of getting answers might be offering evidence, which, as the poet observes, "in our case we have not got." For example, the assertion that "several important states announced they were going to stop counting" while Trump was ahead. Where's the evidence? Politifact and USA Today reviewed the claim and find it wanting: www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/nov/04/facebook-posts/battleground-states-did-not-stop-counting-votes-el/www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/11/04/fact-check-no-vote-counting-democrat-led-states-hasnt-stopped/6163978002/So of course the claim "doesn't prove anything," mainly because it's not true. Massive voter fraud and manipulation on the scale claimed by some of the Trumpists would require considerable logistical and planning efforts, along with cooperation (or co-optiation) of all the non-Trumpist news media. And of course, that's exactly what the most vocal Trumpists claim to believe. (And some of them probably do believe it.) But Occam's razor shaves that shaggy beast. As for "Trump working the system as hard as he can," he always has, especially the parts of the system closest to the edges, or where unnoticed or unresolved contradictions allow maneuvering room for litigation and rules-lawyering--or where mere tradition has governed behavior and can be ignored by the sufficiently brazen. One of Trump's favorite tactics amounts to "Where does it say I can't?" Through those gaps he drives his actions, daring anyone to stop him. "So sue me." And while you're wasting your time in court, he's stealing the silverware.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 10, 2020 12:36:00 GMT -5
We need answers. For the good of everyone. Part of getting answers might be offering evidence, which, as the poet observes, "in our case we have not got." For example, the assertion that "several important states announced they were going to stop counting" while Trump was ahead. Where's the evidence? Politifact and USA Today reviewed the claim and find it wanting: www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/nov/04/facebook-posts/battleground-states-did-not-stop-counting-votes-el/www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/11/04/fact-check-no-vote-counting-democrat-led-states-hasnt-stopped/6163978002/So of course the claim "doesn't prove anything," mainly because it's not true. Massive voter fraud and manipulation on the scale claimed by some of the Trumpists would require considerable logistical and planning efforts, along with cooperation (or co-optiation) of all the non-Trumpist news media. And of course, that's exactly what the most vocal Trumpists claim to believe. (And some of them probably do believe it.) But Occam's razor shaves that shaggy beast. As for "Trump working the system as hard as he can," he always has, especially the parts of the system closest to the edges, or where unnoticed or unresolved contradictions allow maneuvering room for litigation and rules-lawyering--or where mere tradition has governed behavior and can be ignored by the sufficiently brazen. One of Trump's favorite tactics amounts to "Where does it say I can't?" Through those gaps he drives his actions, daring anyone to stop him. "So sue me." And while you're wasting your time in court, he's stealing the silverware. According to exactly you. Which is obviously true based on your (and politifact's and usatoday's) ability to see through not only walls, but time and space. Seriously. That's how courts work (or at least how they're supposed to). It's still a Constitutional system, like it or not. All this is written down with meticulously enumerated specific roles and responsibilities. What do you have against that?
|
|
|
Post by james on Nov 10, 2020 12:40:29 GMT -5
I lost count after the ninth case was rejected by the courts. There are others ongoing. No problem at all with that. No way on earth that Biden will not be confirmed as President though.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 10, 2020 12:45:32 GMT -5
I lost count after the ninth case was rejected by the courts. There are others ongoing. No problem at all with that. No way on earth that Biden will not be confirmed as President though. And eventually someone who matters will make that determination. Chill.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Nov 10, 2020 12:47:15 GMT -5
We need answers. For the good of everyone. Part of getting answers might be offering evidence, The issue is avoiding the Catch-22. Which is to say, it's not sufficient to say, today, "there's no evidence", in as much as doing so begs the central question: Suppose, arguendo, that operatives manufactured 250k votes out of thin air. How would we know? How can we be certain that no vector for such skulduggery exists in any of the states in question? Which is to say, who says we'd even know it (ie, evidence) if that happened? Given the novelty and unprecedented stress on previously unstressed systems caused by the dramatic increase in vote by mail, what basis in fact or reason do we have that election integrity is the same as it always was? My preference is to see every possible such corner thoroughly dusted. I'd think Biden partisans would want that too.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Nov 10, 2020 12:58:22 GMT -5
At this point, I do.
Dust away.
And let the dusters bill Trump and his indebted campaign.
If any dustbunnies make past the judicial gatekeepers and into a adjudicated courtroom, then it is Team Trump suing how many individual states (and their taxpayers) in how many courtrooms? Don't worry, Trump lawyers, he's good for the bills. Step to the plate Trump donors, you aren't done yet, it's just beginning.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Nov 10, 2020 13:08:34 GMT -5
Peter: Reporting is not a Constitutional process--which you would know if you'd ever done any. (Hey, questioning competence and experience cuts both ways.) Reporting involves looking for evidence behind claims and, um, reporting the results. If Trump claims that in North Carolina "all of a sudden everything just stopped" and the the North Carolina State Board of Elections tells Factcheck.org that "the tallying stopped 'because there were no more votes to count at that time'" and that they would continue to count incoming mail ballots according to state law*--that's reporting. It needn't be litigated (though it can be fact-checked, second-sourced, and the rest of the journalistic protocols), even though some Trump operative might want to challenge North Carolina voting laws. (Which would be dumb, since Trump won the state.) I am not aware of any of the rumors and claims of vote manipulation and fraud getting a toehold in the courts--the case that sticks in my mind (because it's so egregious) is the one where Trump lawyers claimed that GOP observers were not allowed at the Philadelphia count. When the judge pressed them, they replied that that Trump did indeed have "a nonzero number of people in the room." The judge (a Bush-administration appointee) denied their petition to stop the count**. (Note what they were asking for.) And so on. No need to see through walls--just follow up on claims and report on the evidence. * www.factcheck.org/2020/11/trump-misleadingly-claims-that-ballot-count-was-called-off/** www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/philadelphia-republican-observers-vote-count/2020/11/06/982385ac-2055-11eb-ba21-f2f001f0554b_story.html
|
|
|
Post by james on Nov 10, 2020 13:09:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Nov 10, 2020 13:20:43 GMT -5
When a claim is made, it's reasonable to ask for evidence. And "well, it's not impossible" or "can you prove it's not so?" or "what if [[insert scenario here]]?" are not evidence.
Suppose, arguendo, that we are living in a simulation, that the entire universe is a computer program constructed by godlike aliens--that we are characters in a vast role-playing game. I mean, you can't prove that's not the case, can you? I mean, shouldn't you be dusting every metaphysical corner to make sure that's not the case?
(Actually Robert Heinlein laid out scenarios rather like this twice in the early 1940s.)
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Nov 10, 2020 13:22:49 GMT -5
When a claim is made, it's reasonable to ask for evidence. And "well, it's not impossible" or "can you prove it's not so?" or "what if [[insert scenario here]]?" are not evidence. And neither is projecting a superseded expectation of bureaucratic efficiency onto new events.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 10, 2020 13:23:48 GMT -5
Peter: Reporting is not a Constitutional process--which you would know if you'd ever done any. (Hey, questioning competence and experience cuts both ways.) Reporting involves looking for evidence behind claims and, um, reporting the results. If Trump claims that in North Carolina "all of a sudden everything just stopped" and the the North Carolina State Board of Elections tells Factcheck.org that "the tallying stopped 'because there were no more votes to count at that time'" and that they would continue to count incoming mail ballots according to state law*--that's reporting. It needn't be litigated (though it can be fact-checked, second-sourced, and the rest of the journalistic protocols), even though some Trump operative might want to challenge North Carolina voting laws. (Which would be dumb, since Trump won the state.) I am not aware of any of the rumors and claims of vote manipulation and fraud getting a toehold in the courts--the case that sticks in my mind (because it's so egregious) is the one where Trump lawyers claimed that GOP observers were not allowed at the Philadelphia count. When the judge pressed them, they replied that that Trump did indeed have "a nonzero number of people in the room." The judge (a Bush-administration appointee) denied their petition to stop the count**. (Note what they were asking for.) And so on. No need to see through walls--just follow up on claims and report on the evidence. * www.factcheck.org/2020/11/trump-misleadingly-claims-that-ballot-count-was-called-off/** www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/philadelphia-republican-observers-vote-count/2020/11/06/982385ac-2055-11eb-ba21-f2f001f0554b_story.htmlRussell, I've been on the receiving end of Gell-Mann amnesia professionally in a political environment enough to know that's simply bullshit. I've written about it here at least a couple times. Even followed one instance of a press release by professional activists that made it all the way into a number of newspapers including the beloved Star Tribune with no fact checking at all and only some cursory editing to remove enough words to allow it to fit in the available column space (ironically, in different edits and different spaces that might make it look like some "journalist" actually put some effort into it). No, nothing cuts both ways. I've lived it.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Nov 10, 2020 13:29:38 GMT -5
Whatabout whatabout whatabout whatabout whatabout. . . .
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 10, 2020 13:44:48 GMT -5
Whatabout whatabout whatabout whatabout whatabout. . . . Hey, if that's all you've got.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Nov 10, 2020 14:31:15 GMT -5
Senate hearing was interesting today. Yup, they knew it was all Clinton's doing back in 2016 but brushed it under the rug and some of y'all still believe Trump had something to do with the Russians. Orwell didn't go far enough is right.
|
|
|
Post by james on Nov 10, 2020 18:24:58 GMT -5
|
|