|
|
Post by millring on Oct 26, 2023 10:56:10 GMT -5
I never once heard anyone worry that "the wrong sort of people" would be voting. Not once. Not ever.
|
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 26, 2023 11:05:04 GMT -5
Brandolini's Law "the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it”. Fortunately, you're not a part of either half of the country so no one really needs to care what smart aleck "law" you use to make yourself feel better. |
|
|
|
Post by david on Oct 26, 2023 15:03:08 GMT -5
Brandolini's Law "the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it”. Most litigation attorneys have experienced Brandolini's law. My prime example was when a non-attorney submitted a brief appealing a decision in favor of my client. The brief contained an incorrect statement of facts and about 50 different theories that were unrelated to our case facts and incorrect interpretations of the statutes and case law. I started writing an opposing brief addressing each error and realized it would take about 200,000 pages to tell the court how the brief was wrong. In the end, I pointed to a few examples of his errors and then a summary. The judges probably read a small amount of his BS. They affirmed the trial court decision without a written opinion. At some point we expect common sense to apply. So when you have 80 or so court cases, two and three recounts of votes, and disproved claims of voting machine tampering, common sense would suggest that Trump lost. And when you have politically powerful individuals, including 139 house members, 5(?) senators, and an ex-president who would benefit by unearthing evidence of voter fraud, with two or three years to do so, and who have failed to do so, it would seem to give even the conspiracy theorists pause. I think that epaul is correct that for many election deniers, it is a religion. They have drunk the Trump cool aid and no legitimate reasoning will change their minds. It will not matter how many Jenna Ellises, Sidney Powells, and Mr. Pillows are shown to be misguided clown shows. Others might be so frustrated with the current government that they don't care if the election was legitimate, it is just a means to revolt. Some want Trump to be declared president regardless of how a legitimate vote turned out, and who would say and do anything to achieve that goal. Some, like Newsmax, need it to exist. Then there is John who has found one means to question the election, i.e. the number of voters voting. There is no way to refute his theory, though various explanations are provided in the above posts. In addition to those reasons I will restate my own: Trump is loud-mouthed and repugnant. He continues to be in every daily news cast. He is larger than life. I suspect that most of Biden's votes were simply to make certain that Trump did not get another term. It motivated non-voters to go to the polls. As to Aquaduct's frequently repeated theme about Biden's dismal performance, I say it is not that we wanted Biden, we just did not want Trump. It is just as much Republicans' fault that Biden is in office: Republicans could have nominated anyone other than Trump, and I think that nominee would now be president. The fact that so many are willing to disregard the findings of the US voting system and state and federal judicial decisions, is an ugly reflection of the political divide. |
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 19,863 
|
Post by Dub on Oct 26, 2023 15:18:05 GMT -5
Local boy came out of nowhere. My dear friend of many years (she and hubby Brian were our mates on the Romania-Switzerland trip we took earlier this year) is a staffer for Mike, has been for 5 or 6 years. She says that Mike is the most ethical, morally upright person she has ever known. Will that make a difference in this role? We shall see... My knee jerk reaction to Evan’s post was one of hopeful optimism. I automatically trust pretty much anything Evan says because that’s the kind of person I’ve found him to be. As I learn more about Mr. Johnson, I think Brian’s wife must have a very different understand of ethical than I do. My guess is that Evan is the most ethical, morally upright person she’s ever known and Mr. Johnson doesn’t even come close. I’m hoping that Johnson won’t live up to his name and just be a dick.  |
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 26, 2023 16:43:52 GMT -5
Brandolini's Law "the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it”. Most litigation attorneys have experienced Brandolini's law. My prime example was when a non-attorney submitted a brief appealing a decision in favor of my client. The brief contained an incorrect statement of facts and about 50 different theories that were unrelated to our case facts and incorrect interpretations of the statutes and case law. I started writing an opposing brief addressing each error and realized it would take about 200,000 pages to tell the court how the brief was wrong. In the end, I pointed to a few examples of his errors and then a summary. The judges probably read a small amount of his BS. They affirmed the trial court decision without a written opinion. At some point we expect common sense to apply. So when you have 80 or so court cases, two and three recounts of votes, and disproved claims of voting machine tampering, common sense would suggest that Trump lost. And when you have politically powerful individuals, including 139 house members, 5(?) senators, and an ex-president who would benefit by unearthing evidence of voter fraud, with two or three years to do so, and who have failed to do so, it would seem to give even the conspiracy theorists pause. I think that epaul is correct that for many election deniers, it is a religion. They have drunk the Trump cool aid and no legitimate reasoning will change their minds. It will not matter how many Jenna Ellises, Sidney Powells, and Mr. Pillows are shown to be misguided clown shows. Others might be so frustrated with the current government that they don't care if the election was legitimate, it is just a means to revolt. Some want Trump to be declared president regardless of how a legitimate vote turned out, and who would say and do anything to achieve that goal. Some, like Newsmax, need it to exist. Then there is John who has found one means to question the election, i.e. the number of voters voting. There is no way to refute his theory, though various explanations are provided in the above posts. In addition to those reasons I will restate my own: Trump is loud-mouthed and repugnant. He continues to be in every daily news cast. He is larger than life. I suspect that most of Biden's votes were simply to make certain that Trump did not get another term. It motivated non-voters to go to the polls. As to Aquaduct's frequently repeated theme about Biden's dismal performance, I say it is not that we wanted Biden, we just did not want Trump. It is just as much Republicans' fault that Biden is in office: Republicans could have nominated anyone other than Trump, and I think that nominee would now be president. The fact that so many are willing to disregard the findings of the US voting system and state and federal judicial decisions, is an ugly reflection of the political divide. So you're up to 80 or so court cases and 2 and 3 recounts of votes. Strange that there were only ever 6 contested voting districts in the whole country. So did all those court cases and recounts happen in any of those 6 districts? Seems like a hell of a lot of stuff done in a very short time. Are you really sure or are you just stuck in your own Brandolini zone? |
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 26, 2023 17:09:22 GMT -5
I suspect that most of Biden's votes were simply to make certain that Trump did not get another term. It motivated non-voters to go to the polls. On that we can agree absolutely. Lots and lots of non-voters were registered and voted.  |
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 26, 2023 17:12:13 GMT -5
Republicans could have nominated anyone other than Trump, and I think that nominee would now be president. I doubt it. No matter who the Republicans nominate, he will become Trump. I've lived 67 years and have seen the press assassinate every Republican since Ford. |
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Oct 26, 2023 17:28:57 GMT -5
I've lived 78 years and seen no such thing. I have, however, been aware of the frailties, inadequacies, and outright fuckups of every President since Nixon*. Also whatever good they managed to do (yeah, even Nixon). And since I'm not any kind of political insider, I must have gotten the information from "the press" (along with the academic-elite and paid-PR-flack commentariat).
Maybe I haven't been reading the right newspapers and magazines.
* Oh, fuck it. Since Eisenhower. With hand-me-down evaluations of Truman and FDR from my parents and in-laws. Don't know what my great-grandparents thought of Wilson and Coolidge.
|
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Oct 26, 2023 17:32:39 GMT -5
I've lived 67 years and have seen the press assassinate every Republican since Ford. Oh, good Lord, John, you can't be serious with this statement. For starters, you do realize that "the press" is not a monolithic entity, right? So what you have observed and reacted to could not possibly encompass the breadth of media outlets, both domestically and abroad, that report on the news. "Assassinate?" Really, that is your verb of choice? |
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 19,863
|
Post by Dub on Oct 26, 2023 17:48:42 GMT -5
Republicans could have nominated anyone other than Trump, and I think that nominee would now be president. I doubt it. No matter who the Republicans nominate, he will become Trump. I've lived 67 years and have seen the press assassinate every Republican since Ford. I'm just over 81 years and my experience tracks with Russell. And I come from a family of news junkies. In my view, the press is responsible for pointing out flaws and troublespots in politicians and administrations, not becoming a cheering squad for whoever is in power. Its opinion sections may comment on the value, or lack thereof, of policies and there is no requirement that I know of that the press treat every idea as having equal merit. Giving every politician and proposal equal time and space just isn't useful or informative. |
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Oct 26, 2023 18:00:40 GMT -5
I didn't need the press to convince me to dislike Trump.
|
|
|
|
Post by howard lee on Oct 26, 2023 18:22:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Oct 27, 2023 8:20:56 GMT -5
Republicans could have nominated anyone other than Trump, and I think that nominee would now be president. I doubt it. No matter who the Republicans nominate, he will become Trump. I've lived 67 years and have seen the press assassinate every Republican since Ford. Yet we still elected Bush and Trump. Personally I think Niki Haley could beat Biden. Sure, she'd get denigrated by the left side of the press. But she's tough enough and smart enough and I think the country could go for a lady like that. |
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Oct 27, 2023 9:48:32 GMT -5
As Bill Hammond mentioned, a guy named Dean Philips is now running for president on the Democratic side. He says Biden has done a fine job but that he's too old. I agree, but I'm not ready to turn to an unvetted congressman as a result.
|
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Oct 27, 2023 9:54:09 GMT -5
As Bill Hammond mentioned, a guy named Dean Philips is now running for president on the Democratic side. He says Biden has done a fine job but that he's too old. I agree, but I'm not ready to turn to an unvetted congressman as a result. He'll be vetted soon enough by the assassins in the press.  |
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 27, 2023 10:03:14 GMT -5
As Bill Hammond mentioned, a guy named Dean Philips is now running for president on the Democratic side. He says Biden has done a fine job but that he's too old. I agree, but I'm not ready to turn to an unvetted congressman as a result. He'll be vetted soon enough by the assassins in the press. But he's a Democrat. Won't be touched. |
|
Tamarack
Administrator
Ancient Citizen
Posts: 9,379
|
Post by Tamarack on Oct 27, 2023 10:19:44 GMT -5
An interesting interview: Interview regarding Mike JohnsonThis might not be popular with people who like Mike Johnson. I should note that Kristen Kobes DuMez is a professor at Calvin University, a few short miles from where I sit. She is a Christian and a lifelong member of the Christian Reformed Church, a conservative Calvinist denomination. |
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 27, 2023 11:01:18 GMT -5
An interesting interview: Interview regarding Mike JohnsonThis might not be popular with people who like Mike Johnson. I should note that Kristen Kobes DuMez is a professor at Calvin University, a few short miles from where I sit. She is a Christian and a lifelong member of the Christian Reformed Church, a conservative Calvinist denomination. Good heavens! He probably also recited the pledge of allegiance when he was a kid in school. All that "to the Republic for which it stands" and "one nation, under God" crap. Next thing you know he'll be doubting the 2020 election too. He has to be stopped! |
|
Tamarack
Administrator
Ancient Citizen
Posts: 9,379
|
Post by Tamarack on Oct 27, 2023 12:43:53 GMT -5
Mr. Johnson can think what he likes and say what he likes. What troubles me is that Christian nationalists, Dominionists, etc. would like to set the U.S. Constitution aside, particularly the Establishment Clause, and make their sectarian religious beliefs the law of the land. I know people who call themselves conservative Christians, Trump supporters, who vehemently assert that Roman Catholics are not "True Christians". You might find it inconvenient if they get their way.
|
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 27, 2023 13:58:09 GMT -5
Mr. Johnson can think what he likes and say what he likes. What troubles me is that Christian nationalists, Dominionists, etc. would like to set the U.S. Constitution aside, particularly the Establishment Clause, and make their sectarian religious beliefs the law of the land. I know people who call themselves conservative Christians, Trump supporters, who vehemently assert that Roman Catholics are not "True Christians". You might find it inconvenient if they get their way. Even if that were true (you do know that Biden's FBI already has a leg up on investigating Catholics. Right here in Virginia no less) they've got nothing on Democrats/leftists/liberals/progressives and what not. Since my career disaster I've been following Massachusetts v. EPA and related stuff. Turns out that case was part of a two step plan by liberals and environmentalists (same thing really) to completely circumvent the Constitution and force the destruction of modern American society. The first step was Chevron v. NRDC (National Resources Defense Council for those unfamiliar with the big bullies of environmentalism) where it was decided that if an agency's authorizing legislation happened to be unclear, the Court would defer to the agency's interpretation of the statute. The second step was the aforementioned Massachusetts v. EPA where they simply ignored Congress all together and ruled that EPA had to either regulate the non-pollutant CO2 or tell the Court why they couldn't. Bush punted to the next administration and the Obama crew, like a happy dog humping a football, got the state of California to write an endangerment finding that worried about all the standard climate scare stuff like parts of California being washed into the ocean by the rising tides (which, curiously, has yet to actually happen. I'm sure because of the prompt action of Democrats). And now we're faced with EPA banning internal combustion engines by 2035. That's already starting to kill one of the industrial and economic powerhouses that this country is built on. The careful reader will notice that not a single citizen nor any of their duly elected Representatives or Senators were ever even consulted on this plan. And there isn't a damn thing you or anyone else can do about it should Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo fail to eviserate Chevron deference. Now think long and hard about that. And you know when the plan was originally hatched? 1984. Again, Chevron was decided in 1984. 40 dang years ago. Got to give them credit, they're focused on the long game. And you're worried about Christians. I'd say the Democrats are way ahead of you. |
|
