Well?

[Marshall]

Pretty funny watching CNN and Jeffries' press conference. Like Pelosi, he dances around talk of Biden by saying Joe has to decide for himself. (Even though Joe has already publicly said he decided). And when he was talking about the House appropriation bill, he said the R leadership is backing away from the agreement previously made with Republicans, Democrats, President Biden, and VP Harris. . . ,

[Marshall]

I think Harris is in a good position. She would not have been my first choice (or lower), but she's smart and young and vibrant enough to pull younger voters back in the fold. And, by not having to go through a grueling primary process, she emerges unscathed at this point. The American public is most often going to choose a candidate that doesn't carry the baggage of a national record. Sure, there's stuff out there the Right can dig up on her. But it's not like years of bludgeoning. And I think she could probably do well in a debate with the Donald. She'd be better at pinning him to his mis-truths. She won't take his guff. And he'd start looking like the old cranky guy in the fight.

That's what I'm thinking today.

[millring]

Jul 11, 2024 11:21:11 GMT -5 epaul said:

Jul 10, 2024 4:17:52 GMT -5 millring said:

Things that think alike don't have to conspire to do amazing things together.

All you are saying is that Democrats cheat at elections and Republicans don't. Same exact thing Bruce says, except Bruce is more honest about it. Bruce just says Democrats cheat, Republicans don’t. No birds involved.

You say there was no conspiracy to rig or fix the election, simply that enough Democrats were just collectively moved by some invisible hand or spooky wind to individually twist, tilt, and cheat the election Biden's way.

And then you slyly say that this move to subvert the election is perfectly understandable because if these misguided people actually believe Democracy is at stake, which they do, then of course they will feel a moral obligation to twist, tilt, subvert and cheat the results however they can... and by thousands upon thousands of small cuts bleed an election of its integrity and justness..

Huh? What do you know?

But… wait…

Apparently, by your reasoning, this mysterious wind only blows in one direction.

Apparently, by your reasoning, there weren’t Trump supporters who believed only Trump could save our Democracy and protect our Freedom.

And apparently, again by your reasoning, unlike those "only Biden can save Democracy" Biden supporters, these “only Trump can save the country” Trump supporters experienced no such misplaced moral calling to twist, tilt, subvert, and subvert the election Trump’s way in order to save the country.

Only Democrats are collectively moved to cheat by secret calls in the wind. Republicans aren’t.


No need for birds. Just say what Bruce says, Democrats cheat, Republicans don’t.

That was a lot of wasted typing because that isn't even close to what I think, or what I envision may have happened.

[John B]

Jul 9, 2024 16:49:16 GMT -5 millring said:

Jul 9, 2024 16:36:47 GMT -5 John B said:

I'm confused - "they" "our" and "you"

How so?

Are you saying that you're not hearing anyone say that electing Trump would be the end of democracy? Are you saying you haven't heard him compared to Hitler? Are you saying you haven't heard there's an immanent fascism around the corner if he is elected? Are you saying you haven't heard each and every one of those fears voiced by intelligent friends and world leaders alike?

Well, if all those people actually believe that, and they're not using the usual political hyperbole, then it would be morally irresponsible for them to not fix the election if they had the know how to do so. And it doesn't even require much if any conspiracy to do so.

When I read this, and I read Paul's somewhat hyperbolic summary, he doesn't seem too far off the mark. I know you choose your words carefully.

Perhaps even if I believe that electing Mr. Trump would be the end of democracy, I also believe that we are still a nation of laws (flawed as they may be sometimes) and in this nation we still elect our leaders (as flawed as those systems might be) and that it would be morally reprehensible to fix an election.

Following your logic, if I believe me stealing, lying, cheating, and worse achieves a greater good (for whom?), I should do so.

[millring]

Jul 11, 2024 15:12:07 GMT -5 John B said:

Jul 9, 2024 16:49:16 GMT -5 millring said:

How so?

Are you saying that you're not hearing anyone say that electing Trump would be the end of democracy? Are you saying you haven't heard him compared to Hitler? Are you saying you haven't heard there's an immanent fascism around the corner if he is elected? Are you saying you haven't heard each and every one of those fears voiced by intelligent friends and world leaders alike?

Well, if all those people actually believe that, and they're not using the usual political hyperbole, then it would be morally irresponsible for them to not fix the election if they had the know how to do so. And it doesn't even require much if any conspiracy to do so.

When I read this, and I read Paul's somewhat hyperbolic summary, he doesn't seem too far off the mark. I know you choose your words carefully.

Perhaps even if I believe that electing Mr. Trump would be the end of democracy, I also believe that we are still a nation of laws (flawed as they may be sometimes) and in this nation we still elect our leaders (as flawed as those systems might be) and that it would be morally reprehensible to fix an election.

Following your logic, if I believe me stealing, lying, cheating, and worse achieves a greater good (for whom?), I should do so.

You wouldn't lie cheat or steal to stop the rise of Hitler? ...If you were in a position to do so? Do you think the resistance followed the law of the land, or do you think they followed the law of their heart?

You're also both ignoring that I wrote this: "...then it would be morally irresponsible for them to not fix the election if they had the know how to do so."

Very few people had the know how to do so.

[millring]

I'm guessing that because I used the example of a flock of birds (millions of them) that you understood my point to be that millions of Democrats acted in concert. That wasn't my intended point at all. My intended point was that people who think alike don't have to conspire -- It isn't a conspiracy every time people act in concert. Neither is it necessary for them to communicate back and forth in order to engage in the same behavior. They just have to have the same beliefs.

Back in the sixties someone coined the phrase "a conspiracy of shared idea(l)s". It's pretty apt. There's no need to conspire if everyone believes the same thing. Like minded journalists don't have to conspire to take the same perspective on a new story. Like minded politicians don't need to conspire to vote similarly on issues. They believe the same things and act accordingly.

I've said all along I don't think the election fix: 1. Required very many people to pull off. 2. Happened at the polls (at least, not in the way I suspect you are imagining me to be claiming).

And to be honest, I don't think it was people trying to make a Democrat win over a Republican. It was someone trying to defeat an immanent threat to our country -- Trump. A fascist, white supremacist, liar, cheater ... and generally morally reprehensible man who was going to take down our country. A Mussolini (and now a Hitler).

[epaul]

You can flip and twist for all you are worth, but all you have said is one side cheated this last election, the Biden side. And you keep coming up with cockamamie arguments to pretty up and support your contention.

Biden's people think Trump will wreck the country. Trump's people believe Biden will wreck the country. Both sides call devil on the other. But you say only one side will cheat and subvert the will of the people to keep their devil out, the Democrats. Yes, Bruce.

And that is a phony coat of morality you slyly paint the Democrat election stealers with, one that washes off with the first thought. Any demented nut can see a devil in the bushes, but it is not moral act when that nut lies and cheats, or worse, to keep that devil at bay. "Oh, those poor misguided Democrats. Those poor demented fools thought they were doing good when they subverted our Democracy and stole the election. I feel sad for them, poor twisted souls, but they did cheat and steal the election, as I have maintained from the beginning."

[millring]

Jul 11, 2024 16:25:19 GMT -5 epaul said:

But you say only one side will cheat and subvert the will of the people to keep their devil out, the Democrats.

No, I don't.

[epaul]

And what kind of election steal argument is it to say that people who hold common opinions will take similar actions? Of course people that tend to think alike will tend to act alike. That is why you tend to find people who like pizza in pizza parlors. And that is why people support the candidates they do. If that is all you are saying, you've said nothing. How does your belief that the election supported in that argument?

[John B]

Jul 11, 2024 15:23:03 GMT -5 millring said:

Jul 11, 2024 15:12:07 GMT -5 John B said:

When I read this, and I read Paul's somewhat hyperbolic summary, he doesn't seem too far off the mark. I know you choose your words carefully.

Perhaps even if I believe that electing Mr. Trump would be the end of democracy, I also believe that we are still a nation of laws (flawed as they may be sometimes) and in this nation we still elect our leaders (as flawed as those systems might be) and that it would be morally reprehensible to fix an election.

Following your logic, if I believe me stealing, lying, cheating, and worse achieves a greater good (for whom?), I should do so.

You wouldn't lie cheat or steal to stop the rise of Hitler? ...If you were in a position to do so? Do you think the resistance followed the law of the land, or do you think they followed the law of their heart?

You're also both ignoring that I wrote this: "...then it would be morally irresponsible for them to not fix the election if they had the know how to do so."

Very few people had the know how to do so.

Knowing me, I wouldn't know Hitler was Hitler until after he was Hitler. And I suppose I assume the resistance wasn't the Resistance until things were nearly too late. I hate to say it, but I am the type of person to follow "the rules" very emphatically, and if I make my case in an eloquent manner people will flock to my side and my side will prevail.

The problem I see is when you say "if they had the know how to do so" you don't also say very few people had (have?) the know-how. I have never heard/read you saying that, and I have never, until now, had any idea that you thought so. Comments you have made in the past have implied (or I have inferred from them) that something far more nefarious has gone on, is going on, and will go on. That the right people in the right place at the right time will make sure that votes are cast for the candidate that is not Donald Trump. And perhaps that went on before, though no evidence was ever presented in a court of law (remember, I will very emphatically follow the rules, even when I think the courts are wrong).

on edit: I type and think slowly.

[millring]

Jul 11, 2024 16:36:00 GMT -5 John B said:

Jul 11, 2024 15:23:03 GMT -5 millring said:

You wouldn't lie cheat or steal to stop the rise of Hitler? ...If you were in a position to do so? Do you think the resistance followed the law of the land, or do you think they followed the law of their heart?

You're also both ignoring that I wrote this: "...then it would be morally irresponsible for them to not fix the election if they had the know how to do so."

Very few people had the know how to do so.

Knowing me, I wouldn't know Hitler was Hitler until after he was Hitler. And I suppose I assume the resistance wasn't the Resistance until things were nearly too late. I hate to say it, but I am the type of person to follow "the rules" very emphatically, and if I make my case in an eloquent manner people will flock to my side and my side will prevail.

The problem I see is when you say "if they had the know how to do so" you don't also say very few people had (have?) the know-how. I have never heard/read you saying that, and I have never, until now, had any idea that you thought so. Comments you have made in the past have implied (or I have inferred from them) that something far more nefarious has gone on, is going on, and will go on. That the right people in the right place at the right time will make sure that votes are cast for the candidate that is not Donald Trump. And perhaps that went on before, though no evidence was ever presented in a court of law (remember, I will very emphatically follow the rules, even when I think the courts are wrong).

I have always answered the constant accusation that I believe in conspiracy theories -- and any other manner of disagreements regarding the 2020 election -- by saying that I don't think it required very many participants. I'm not sure why I would ever have said otherwise, since I've never thought otherwise.

[epaul]

So, the very few people that had the know how and wherewithal to steal the election all happened to be Democrats?
Lucky break for Biden. Especially given that the Trump administration held the reins of power and had the courts packed with friendlies.

Or, are you saying there was a super secret select group of people with super powers that were able to twist the election dials Biden's way with their invisible fingers?

Wait, isn't that a conspiracy?

[Russell Letson]

Jul 11, 2024 16:23:50 GMT -5 millring said:

My intended point was that people who think alike don't have to conspire -- It isn't a conspiracy every time people act in concert. Neither is it necessary for them to communicate back and forth in order to engage in the same behavior. They just have to have the same beliefs.

Back in the sixties someone coined the phrase "a conspiracy of shared idea(l)s". It's pretty apt. There's no need to conspire if everyone believes the same thing. Like minded journalists don't have to conspire to take the same perspective on a new story. Like minded politicians don't need to conspire to vote similarly on issues. They believe the same things and act accordingly.

I've said all along I don't think the election fix: 1. Required very many people to pull off. 2. Happened at the polls (at least, not in the way I suspect you are imagining me to be claiming).

I think I finally understand the nub of this conversation: the word "fix." A "fix" is a mechanism for getting a desired result by breaking or subverting the rules. An elective win that is the result of a correctly-run process is not the result of a fix. It may indeed be one result of people voting according to a shared body of beliefs and policy evaluations (or a shared body or emotional vectors), but that isn't a fix. Trump's 2020 loss was not the result of a fix but of choices based on sufficiently overlapping attitudes and calculations and feelings to produce a popular-vote and electoral-college win for Biden. So using "fix" in this context represents a kind of category error.

Then there's the notion of consensus reality, but I don't want to get into the epistemological weeds.

[John B]

Jul 11, 2024 16:39:02 GMT -5 millring said:

Jul 11, 2024 16:36:00 GMT -5 John B said:

Knowing me, I wouldn't know Hitler was Hitler until after he was Hitler. And I suppose I assume the resistance wasn't the Resistance until things were nearly too late. I hate to say it, but I am the type of person to follow "the rules" very emphatically, and if I make my case in an eloquent manner people will flock to my side and my side will prevail.

The problem I see is when you say "if they had the know how to do so" you don't also say very few people had (have?) the know-how. I have never heard/read you saying that, and I have never, until now, had any idea that you thought so. Comments you have made in the past have implied (or I have inferred from them) that something far more nefarious has gone on, is going on, and will go on. That the right people in the right place at the right time will make sure that votes are cast for the candidate that is not Donald Trump. And perhaps that went on before, though no evidence was ever presented in a court of law (remember, I will very emphatically follow the rules, even when I think the courts are wrong).

I have always answered the constant accusation that I believe in conspiracy theories -- and any other manner of disagreements regarding the 2020 election -- by saying that I don't think it required very many participants. I'm not sure why I would ever have said otherwise, since I've never thought otherwise.

When I hear that very few people have the know-how I read far, far more improbability into it than you must.

[millring]

The press conference went well. I wonder if that further complicates things?

[Marshall]

Yes it does.

Clearly he doesn't want to leave. He sees the Presidency as his Mission in Life. Forging a new International Order. It's a common problem; that presidents get wrapped up in international affairs and neglect domestic issues.

Gonna be tough for the party to get him out of there.

[Cornflake]

Since I would prefer that he withdraw, I'm not cheering his successes at the moment. It's an odd feeling because I like him and I appreciate what he's done. But it's time to go.

[John B]

I'm really, really pissed at the Democratic Party right now. The time to deal with this issue was three years ago.

[Cornflake]

"I'm really, really pissed at the Democratic Party right now. The time to deal with this issue was three years ago."

John, the Democratic Party is just a bunch of people like us. What were we supposed to do three years ago?

If I were Trump, I'd be hoping for Biden to do just well enough to avoid the hook.

[epaul]

Pretty tough run an effective campaign when the response after your every public appearance isn't about your message but whether you appeared to be clear-headed or looney.

"Biden sounded pretty clear today when he spoke at ..."
"Biden sounded a little looney today when addressed the ..."
"Good day for Biden, he got all the names right when he spoke at..."
"Bad day for Biden, he introduced the podium as VP Harris when he addressed the..."
"Good day ..."
"Bad day ..."