|
Post by coachdoc on Oct 27, 2023 14:16:57 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. I find it depressing that I find this analysis just so.
|
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 19,863
|
Post by Dub on Oct 27, 2023 14:40:09 GMT -5
One of the things I think Peter and I may agree on (I hope I’m not putting words in his mouth) is that activists of all stripes discovered long ago that it’s much easier tho get one judge to rule on a question than to get 538 elected representatives to learn about the government they’re supposed to manage and actually produce working mechanisms that fairly represent the will and needs of the American people. I know it’s a lot to ask but they did say they wanted the job.
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Oct 27, 2023 14:48:48 GMT -5
One of the things I think Peter and I may agree on (I hope I’m not putting words in his mouth) is that activists of all stripes discovered long ago that it’s much easier tho get one judge to rule on a question than to get 538 elected representatives to learn about the government they’re supposed to manage and actually produce working mechanisms that fairly represent the will and needs of the American people. I know it’s a lot to ask but they did say they wanted the job. That's a mouthful. Oh that it could be thus!
|
|
|
Post by coachdoc on Oct 27, 2023 21:20:59 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. Now there was a Republican that I could like. An honest and decent man.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 28, 2023 7:40:38 GMT -5
One of the things I think Peter and I may agree on (I hope I’m not putting words in his mouth) is that activists of all stripes discovered long ago that it’s much easier tho get one judge to rule on a question than to get 538 elected representatives to learn about the government they’re supposed to manage and actually produce working mechanisms that fairly represent the will and needs of the American people. I know it’s a lot to ask but they did say they wanted the job. I'd certainly agree with one small caveat. The 538 discovered back in the 60s that it's easier politically to set up agencies to do the heavy lifting. Then they have a much better shot at a 50+ year career with all the attendant graft that makes them blindingly rich in the meantime. They purposely avoid legislating anything and simply fund the frivolity. Until the money runs out, which could be any day now.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 28, 2023 21:45:34 GMT -5
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. Now there was a Republican that I could like. An honest and decent man. Still, you wouldn't have voted for him -- no matter the Democrat alternative, right?
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Oct 29, 2023 8:14:00 GMT -5
He makes an impressive aircraft carrier.
I voted for Dubyah first time around. Voted for his old man too.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Oct 29, 2023 9:33:13 GMT -5
"Still, you wouldn't have voted for him -- no matter the Democrat alternative, right?"
John, you seem to find something nefarious about liking a candidate but not voting for him. I don't.
I liked Ford but I didn't vote for him. My vote is usually determined by which candidate's views of public policy are most like mine. That's usually the Democratic candidate. That was true when Ford and Carter were the choices. It was also true when Bush and Gore were the choices, even though I liked Bush and disliked Gore.
The only times I can recall when a candidate's personal merit or traits had a major effect on my vote were in 2016 and 2020.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 29, 2023 9:40:07 GMT -5
Not nefarious. It's just that it's a common assertion that if only Republican nominees were more "moderate" Democrats would vote for them. It's just doesn't ring true.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Oct 29, 2023 10:24:48 GMT -5
The Republicans are going to have to get more moderate if they want to win elections. I remember how in 1964, Goldwater was presented as "a choice, not an echo." The point was that he was genuinely distinct from all the mainstream politicians. That was true. He proceeded to win, what, five states?
Candidates have to appeal to the center, simply because that's where most of the votes tend to cluster. Positioning yourself at either end of the spectrum may be courageous but it doesn't tend to win elections.
I'd seriously consider voting for Republican candidates if they were more moderate but I'd probably still vote for Democrats most of the time. I remember considering a vote for Bush in 2000 and deciding against it because I wouldn't like his Supreme Court appointments. I was right about that.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Oct 29, 2023 11:20:34 GMT -5
It's just that it's a common assertion that if only Republican nominees were more "moderate" Democrats would vote for them. It's just doesn't ring true. Minnesota used to be a state where the IR (Independent Republicans) often fielded actually-moderate and actually-competent candidates who also won statewide elections--Dave Durenburger is one who comes to mind. But in the years we've lived here, the IRs have been taken over by the least tolerant, most absolutist either/or factions of the party and the culture. I have mentioned before that our very good friends, staunch Iowa Republicans, were driven out of Minnesota Republican politics by the inflexible, intolerant pro-life (and eventually pro-Trump) faction that came to dominate outstate local IR caucuses. I don't know who they actually voted for, but I do know that they were frozen out of active participation in GOP operations. Like Don, I distinguish between my sense of personality and policy/competence in a candidate, and in any case, I am reluctanct to vote for a Republican who would be likely to go along with the party's local and national policies. (Let alone a loon like Michele Bachmann or a right-wing talking-points guy like Tom Emmer.) I can (barely) imagine a scenario in which the IR puts up a strong, decent, competent candidate for MN District 6 and the DFL foolishly fields a sentimental favorite of some sort--say, the nice but inexperienced mother of a murdered child. But the choice I was given wasn't Patti Wetterling or a Durenburger-type but Patti or Tom Emmer. I held my nose and voted for the nice lady who at least isn't an opportunistic GOP tool. (Fortunately, Emmer isn't a loon or an obvious crook, though I shudder to think of him in the line of succession.) Why should I vote for a candidate, however amiable and decent as an individual, who is likely to go along with the toxic programs and policies of the party whose support he needs to get and keep the job? Or who, in the current environment, feels the need to avoid offending the noisy and clearly pathological MAGA wing, no matter how non-crazy and non-toxic his personal positions might be. The Democrats have their own loud, absolutist members, but the party as a whole has so far managed not to be crippled by them.
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Oct 29, 2023 13:11:38 GMT -5
The Republicans are going to have to get more moderate if they want to win elections. I remember how in 1964, Goldwater was presented as "a choice, not an echo." The point was that he was genuinely distinct from all the mainstream politicians. That was true. He proceeded to win, what, five states? Candidates have to appeal to the center, simply because that's where most of the votes tend to cluster. Positioning yourself at either end of the spectrum may be courageous but it doesn't tend to win elections. I'd seriously consider voting for Republican candidates if they were more moderate but I'd probably still vote for Democrats most of the time. I remember considering a vote for Bush in 2000 and deciding against it because I wouldn't like his Supreme Court appointments. I was right about that. Seems to me the center has largely disappeared. The "sides" (I hate that we have sides) have retreated to their corners.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Oct 29, 2023 14:30:43 GMT -5
Not nefarious. It's just that it's a common assertion that if only Republican nominees were more "moderate" Democrats would vote for them. It's just doesn't ring true. Some would. Some wouldn’t. There’s enough people in the middle ground politically speaking in the swing states to swing an election.
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Oct 29, 2023 16:16:06 GMT -5
Thinking of how Mike came to be speaker, I see a bit of David's story. "Surely this is the guy!" Uh, nope. "Surely this one! He's a big Trump guy." Uh, nope. Isn't there ANYONE? Well there's this guy out tending sheep, but he's the youngest, you don't want him.
I love an underdog.
Somebody sent me a link to Hannity's interview with him. It's actually worth a listen. He answers a lot of the questions raised by the hand-wringers out there. When asked about Obergfell, for instance, he states flatly, "it's the law of the land. It's settled."
Reminded me a bit of the concerns surrounding Kennedy being Roman Catholic. Johnson put the concerns to rest in a similar way. At least that's how I see it.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Oct 29, 2023 16:56:01 GMT -5
A couple of observations. First, I grew up at the tail-end of the anti-Catholic, the-Pope's-gonna-rule period, and those loony attitudes were a fact. (One of my grandfathers was a staunch anti-Catholic.) Kennedy's charisma managed to overcome the worst of that nonsense, but I have still encountered the Catholics-aren't-really-Christians notion in the years since (some of them quite recent). It now seems to be officially a fringe sentiment, but it ain't dead yet. (And as an escaped Catholic, I don't have a dog in that fight, other than the America-is-a-secular-nation one.)
Second, I recall some fairly recent assurances about settled law that turned out not to be as firm as one might want.
I haven't done a deep dive into Johnson's public utterances and policy positions, but his activities re: the 2020 election and his soft spot for Trump are not reassuring. And that's before we get to his soft spot for conservative-Christian views on sexuality, domestic life, and church-state relations.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 30, 2023 5:51:23 GMT -5
It appears that people who won't vote for inflexible intolerant people vote for inflexible intolerant people.
|
|
|
Post by coachdoc on Oct 30, 2023 8:09:02 GMT -5
Now there was a Republican that I could like. An honest and decent man. Still, you wouldn't have voted for him -- no matter the Democrat alternative, right? Wrong. I did actually vote for him.
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Oct 30, 2023 9:46:54 GMT -5
Minnesota used to be a state where the IR (Independent Republicans) often fielded actually-moderate and actually-competent candidates who also won statewide elections--Dave Durenburger is one who comes to mind. And Arne Carlson, one of Minnesota's better governors.
But, Russell, check your terminology.
During the Ford administration, the good and decent Republicans in Minnesota -- rightly ashamed and embarrassed by the Nixon's illegal shenanigans -- adopted the Independent Republican (IR) name to show that they were above such things. And they were, electing people like Durenberger and Carlson. I voted for both of them.
Sometime during the late 90s, though, the IRs decided they'd had enough of this good and decent and independent thing and officially dropped the "Independent" so they could jump right on the Bush W and Michele Bachmann bandwagons.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Oct 30, 2023 10:55:52 GMT -5
"How did you do that?" Usually you pull a lever or ink in one of those little squares.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Oct 30, 2023 11:23:48 GMT -5
But, Russell, check your terminology. It was the IR when we moved here from Illinois, and it took a while for me to notice that the "GOP" in Minnesota didn't mean quite the same thing as it did in Illinois. In fact, one of C's former students wound up as a staffer for Durenburger and gave us a backstairs tour of the Capitol. I didn't notice the rebranding via removal of the "I" when it happened, but thanks to the experiences of our Republican friends, I did notice the takeover of the state party machinery, first by absolutist anti-abortion forces, then by every shirt-tail right-wing faction. The Republicans have constructed their own big-tent model, except it's populated by escapees from the carnie's sideshows.
|
|