That's fine as a disclaimer, but I'm curious as to how many of these you plan to follow up on? I'm sure it's very easy, in a giant messy election with 150+ million votes, to find plenty of run-of-the-mill typos and irregularities, most of which get explained or sorted out afterwards, and none of which suggest deliberate fraud or have the potential to change the outcome.
Think of how easy it is to notice and pass along all of these...and then never think of them again. Very easy to do that and go on believing the election was fraudulent, even creating that impression in the minds of anyone who read the things you shared, only to conveniently avoid spending a few seconds trying to invalidate them, or checking a bit later to see if any really withstood scrutiny. And if you don't do that, then what value are the reports, since they get passed along with they conform with existing beliefs, and never even get seen if they don't?
What use are facts if we never allow them to change our minds?
I would like to respond to this point - it's not always easy to follow up on things - even with general stories, like local crimes and such - they often have no follow up and are gone from being reported on in the next news cycle (this has always bugged me about the "news" in general).
Another thing that I touched upon in a former post is the reports that Big Tech is suppressing information that aids Trump or Republicans or is derogatory for Democrats. This has been a repeated story on FOX and conservative talk radio for weeks now... and speaking of FOX...
I noticed that FOX News had almost a whole evening of election fraud reports yesterday that were allegedly major news stories which would be (or maybe should be) covered by a variety of sources on the Internet - even if the purpose is to refute them, yet when doing Google searches, I can't even find mention of most of them.
So, it may be difficult to follow, follow up on or try to confirm certain claims when information is being taken off or excluded from the Net for reasons of bias... IF that is occurring.
It is effectively impossible to actually remove those sorts of things from the Internet. I'm sympathetic to the idea that Internet companies can and do influence debate (like whether a given rumor is questioned more or less depending on whether Twitter flags it or not, for example), but it's really just not plausible to suppress it in the way you're talking about, in a way that would simply vanish proof from the Internet, magically absolving anyone who believes it's there of having to produce it. You'll have to agree that's...well, let's say "convenient." Anyone can start a site.
No follow-up is also, I should note, exactly what you'd expect if something was just a ridiculous rumor, too, if the outlets in question have their own sympathies and are thus disinclined to post debunkings.
It is effectively impossible to actually remove those sorts of things from the Internet. I'm sympathetic to the idea that Internet companies can and do influence debate (like whether a given rumor is questioned more or less depending on whether Twitter flags it or not, for example), but it's really just not plausible to suppress it in the way you're talking about, in a way that would simply vanish proof from the Internet, magically absolving anyone who believes it's there of having to produce it. You'll have to agree that's...well, let's say "convenient." Anyone can start a site.
No follow-up is also, I should note, exactly what you'd expect if something was just a ridiculous rumor, too, if the outlets in question have their own sympathies and are thus disinclined to post debunkings.
Well, I use the LV massacre as kind of an example - it seemed like after a number of months the news coverage went dead. Which would not be surprising if a concise conclusion had been reached, but it was a case with so many outstanding and unanswered questions. It seemed like so many leads were just dropped at one specific point in time.
Sure people could start web sites about it, but it seemed that the news media and government was done with it, and according to a lot of early claims, they were shutting down people with pertinent information about it.
It is effectively impossible to actually remove those sorts of things from the Internet. I'm sympathetic to the idea that Internet companies can and do influence debate (like whether a given rumor is questioned more or less depending on whether Twitter flags it or not, for example), but it's really just not plausible to suppress it in the way you're talking about, in a way that would simply vanish proof from the Internet, magically absolving anyone who believes it's there of having to produce it. You'll have to agree that's...well, let's say "convenient." Anyone can start a site.
No follow-up is also, I should note, exactly what you'd expect if something was just a ridiculous rumor, too, if the outlets in question have their own sympathies and are thus disinclined to post debunkings.
In my experience even if you remove an ad off of a site, it will still show on google for a period of time. Can google remove content themselves, or is that more like a conspiracy theory? Even so, there's still other search engines.
Why wouldn't the democrats investigate as well? If they could find some issues that went against them I would think it would weaken the republican's case.
Thanks for that video link. I didn't watch it, I don't have the time right now, I'm on a short work break. So I will address your earlier quote of Bidens:
I 100% agree with Biden on that. If Brazil doesn't start protecting the Amazon from slash and burn destruction farming, and if Brazil won't accept 20 billion in exchange for preserving parts of the Amazon, then I fully support harsh economic sanctions on Brazil.
I'm no hypocrite, so if the USA doesn't rejoin the Paris Accord Agreement and start doing our part in lowering carbon emissions, I would then support other countries placing harsh economic sanctions on the USA. Earth is more important than any one country.
I disagre. That's how war starts.
Our governament takes care of Amazon (even the last one, which I dislike, used to take care) - Yes, there are burning seasons in the rainforest, but before we talk about harsh economic sanctions, we need to understand the problem. As I said before, what's going on there, is a complex problem. There's no group of people in the middle of the jungle setting fire just to see how it burns. Also, most of the destruction of our forests (not only in Brazil) are the products we buy at the supermarket and at butchery, but no one wants to talk about that...
I'm against any kind of interferance like this. Armenia vs Azerbaijan - Ukrain vs Russia - WAR! All about territory. If other countries start trying appropriating Amazon, war will be inevitable in that region.
"I would then support other countries placing harsh economic sanctions on the USA" With all due respect, Citizen, this is easy to say when you live in a well-developed country. My reality is tougher. Crime and poverty are huge here! Economic sanctions will increase not only poverty, but also crime.
Turns out people are a little more careful about serious accusations when there are actual consequences for it.
When you posted this I wanted to say that it wouldn't surprise me if somebody got to him, but I didn't want to post something like that just based on a thought. This is starting to get interesting.
Yup, came in here to post just that. What a mess. Guess we'll let the legal process sort it out.
My standard for "got to him" is fairly high, since that makes it sound like he was threatened with murder or something. What usually happens is people are fast and loose with an accusation, but then they're in a situation where they're gonna go to jail if they lie, so suddenly they're not so sure.
And yes, there are caches and archives and stuff for various sites, as well. It's just not plausible to scrub the Internet, full stop. That will never plausibly be why someone cannot find evidence of this stuff, if it exists.
Yup, came in here to post just that. What a mess. Guess we'll let the legal process sort it out.
My standard for "got to him" is fairly high, since that makes it sound like he was threatened with murder or something. What usually happens is people are fast and loose with an accusation, but then they're in a situation where they're gonna go to jail if they lie, so suddenly they're not so sure.
This is particularly pertinent, since Trump is saying things about election observers not being presented that his lawyers are admitting isn't true. It's pretty wild.
Identifying the use of dog whistles often takes a certain amount of guesswork. I watched what he said live and thought it was clear what he was saying. I took what he said at face value, not only because is it a real issue, but because he's not the first politician to bring it up. I think someone believing they can see into his brain and detect hidden messages and motivations requires a certain level of delusion. Obama deported a record number of people. I'm not criticizing him; I'm just saying that's what it is and it's not a pleasant thing. Trump was trying to nip it in the bud before it came to that, not a bad thing. There has been many times when he said we want them to come in, we just want them to come in legally. Oh but he thinks they're rapists? Is this some kind of reverse dog whistle? Sometimes people want to overthink things.
I don't think I explained myself very well. I wasn't trying to be negative about Trump. I was merely trying to explain why some people were talking about him being racist because you didn't appear to know/understand why. If that's not the case, that's fine. Things can definitely be overthought and, as I said later on, everything is filtered through our own prejudices.
I was certainly naive about it yet still have every right to be angry about it. You must not forget that I had no favoritism towards Trump. The proof of that is the fact that I did not vote for him despite my dislike for his opponent. I was a blank canvas forming my opinion in real time based on what I was actually seeing. On the other hand, you didn't like him even before he ran for president, and I know this from a prior conversation we had. That's fine, but then you must realize that you have an already formed opinion of the man which could very easily affect how you judge him going forward.
I thought I did say you had the right to be angry? Again, it appears I've not explained myself very well. Your opinion and thoughts are every bit as relevant as everyone else's and I extend that to the 140+ million who voted, regardless of which way they voted and any who spoilt their ballots as a protest. As much as I didn't want Trump to win (never hidden that) I was delighted to hear so many people voted. Regardless of the winner, the more people that vote the better IMO. It might not give the result which I'd want (as happened here with the Brexit vote) but it tells you where you are as a nation and helps reveal the issues a nation has. If people listen, these can then be addressed and, maybe, something can be done about it to make people happier.
Start with Clinton's deplorables quote and end with Michelle Obama's quote, and look at everything in between. They are demonizing 70 million people. The lies I posted are a big part of that puzzle. Doesn't anybody else have a problem with this?
Sorry, I'm not really seeing the connection or point here.
But to address what you said. What was the Michelle Obama quote? Clinton made a huge mistake saying that, IMO. It's not a great thing to think, but to say it publically when you're trying to win an election is remarkably stupid. You may think it and your voters might think it, but it doesn't make you look good and there's a good chance your calling someone they like/love deplorable. Even if they still voted for them, it would probably make you think less of them. A former PM here made a similar mistake about the party/issue which has reset the political faultlines in the UK.
I think this is where a lot of the talk of racism comes from (in the UK at least.) A lot of people who voted to Leave (Brexit) feel (quite rightly in many cases) that they've been labelled as racist simply for voting Leave because many/most/all racists voted Leave. They're 'guilty' by association and that's not fair, but it's how it's gone.
I would say it's where your bias is showing through.
I'm definitely bias and, again, maybe I've not really represented well what my intent was. I wasn't holding myself up as a paragon of neutrality. I was seeing you as someone who was recently interested (4 years) in presidential politics and was frustrated/confused as to why things were as they were. Similar to what I saw from you in the White Privilege thread (where I didn't interject and wished I had). I was trying to answer these questions in the hope it'd help. If that's not who you are or how you see it, that's OK. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I learned long ago that while the internet might help someone make up their mind, it'll almost never change it.
I'm not calling anybody a racist. I'm just pointing out, without judgement, that Harris attacked Biden's questionable voting history during one of the debates. During the time Harris pointed out, Biden used the "racial jungle" quote. I was very specific in saying that I wouldn't call Biden a racist because I don't know what he was thinking or what's in his heart.
In the long post you didn't say you knew what she meant, it was a reply to someone else earlier in the thread.
For anyone who watched it, including democrats, her implication was quite clear. I refer to the issue she raised as Biden's racially questionable voting history, as I don't like to flat out call people a racist without evidence, something many others think is a perfectly decent thing to do. During the time alluded to by Harris, Biden did say he didn't want his kids growing up in a racial jungle. You can decide for yourself how to interpret that statement. Watch the clip again and you will see that it was quite clear what she was doing.
Hey HK I'll get back to you later but you're not going to believe what I just said to someone without thinking. As a lot of you know I deliver alcohol. We have invoices the customer signs, we keep the top white copy and they keep the bottom yellow copy. So I just delivered to an Asian restaurant. The woman (Asian) signs the invoice and holds the two copies with 2 different hands in order to ask, which do I keep. I said, I'm white and you're yellow
To expound a little on vote margins and recounts and all that, here's the numbers that would need to flip:
Insofar as someone is just interested in electoral integrity, fair enough. We all should be. But we really need to nip the stolen election narrative--which a lot of people, even some elected officials, are baselessly floating--right in the bud. It's just wildly implausible, even if you wanna believe there's a lot of sus stuff going on.
To expound a little on vote margins and recounts and all that, here's the numbers that would need to flip:
Insofar as someone is just interested in electoral integrity, fair enough. We all should be. But we really need to nip the stolen election narrative--which a lot of people, even some elected officials, are baselessly floating--right in the bud. It's just wildly implausible, even if you wanna believe there's a lot of sus stuff going on.
Totally agree with what you're saying here. What I'm wondering is, in the event that they could prove that there was systemic fraud across multiple states, yet it didn't affect enough votes to change the outcome, what happens? I'm not talking about votes from people who are deceased in every state. I'm talking about proof of an actual scheme.
If that happens, then they should (and would) prosecute the people involved and institute expanded fraud protections and oversight.
In the case of mail ballots (which seem to be the focus of the accusations), that's hard to fathom, given some of the stuff I mentioned earlier about bar codes, but yeah, that would definitely necessitate a major reevaluation.
Mail voting, BTW, has been used for decades in some states (a friend of mine in Washington has been using it as long as he's been voting). I think the issue is that COVID meant a lot of places, like my state, had to ramp things up quicker, whereas places like Washington have had a lot of time to get good at it. So this is probably as messy as it's ever gonna be. It's definitely not ideal, but it's also the kind of logistical problem that gets better and more robust the more you do it.
Closed Thread
That's unfortunate.