2020 US General Election Thread XIII: Nocturne

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Something else I noticed is that many people bleed either blue (Dem) or red (Rep), and are incapable or unwilling to accept proven information when presented with it if it contradicts their partisan preconceptions. I mean, it’s been four fucking weeks of this BS, no evidence found of voter fraud, no voter software malfunctioning, nothing, and some still asininely remain rabid Trump supporters.

[Bombadil]

I mean it's not a lack of education per se..

They are people like Elise Stefanik in upstate New York. Stefanik is a Harvard graduate whose career began alongside Republican moderates such as Tim Pawlenty, the former Minnesota governor, and Josh Bolten, Bush’s second term chief of staff. But now she’s a full Trumpista, mimicking his campaign style of insults and defending him through his impeachment for corruptly twisting national security to dig up dirt on Joe Biden.

There's just something wrong.. the reality gap is too wide.

When it’s not education, it’s logic. Because tell me, if the DOJ, which has long arms to dig, with your own appointee, finds no widespread fraud, logically there isn’t any.

I sort of blame the media, in the move to a 24hr news cycle they filled it up with Opinion, where opinion kind of dominates the news cycle now rather than the news. I mean FOX has news that goes 'Tucker Carlson delivers damning verdict on [insert outrage of the day], and CNN does this as well.. that is the opinion is thus presented as news.

As Gustav Le Bon wrote, the 'crowd' rarely rewards the truth.

“They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them, whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim.”

I have a thought around placing all major media into a form of blind trust, so that owners have no sway over the editorial and news is not a political vehicle as a means to a predefined ends. I really don't understand how an Australian dominates the American (and UK) agenda quite so much and I feel it's no coincidence those countries have experienced real crises these past 4 years.

[RiderSyl]

JOE BIDEN is a TERRORIZED MEMBER of the “MASTER RACE”, WORLD-WIDE FOUR BILLION EYE-SIGHT TELEVISION CAMERA GUINEA PIG COMMUNIST GANGSTER COMPUTER GOD “MASTER RACE.” THEY'RE LIVING THINKING MAD, DEADLY WORLD-WIDE COMMUNIST GANGSTER COMPUTER GOD SECRET OVER-ALL PLAN: WORLD-WIDE LIVING DEATH FRANKENSTEIN SLAVERY to EXPLORE AND CONTROL THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE. With the ENDLESS “STAIRWAY TO THE STARS.”

[Kowani]

The Justice Department is investigating a “bribery for Pardons” scheme

[San Lumen]

The Justice Department is investigating a “bribery for Pardons” scheme

Posted that in the MAGA thread as I thought it belonged there rather than here

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

When it’s not education, it’s logic. Because tell me, if the DOJ, which has long arms to dig, with your own appointee, finds no widespread fraud, logically there isn’t any.

I sort of blame the media, in the move to a 24hr news cycle they filled it up with Opinion, where opinion kind of dominates the news cycle now rather than the news. I mean FOX has news that goes 'Tucker Carlson delivers damning verdict on [insert outrage of the day], and CNN does this as well.. that is the opinion is thus presented as news.

As Gustav Le Bon wrote, the 'crowd' rarely rewards the truth.

“They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them, whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim.”

I have a thought around placing all major media into a form of blind trust, so that owners have no sway over the editorial and news is not a political vehicle as a means to a predefined ends. I really don't understand how an Australian dominates the American (and UK) agenda quite so much and I feel it's no coincidence those countries have experienced real crises these past 4 years.

News should be impartial. Always. I agree with you on that point.

[Bombadil]

While we spoke of lawyers receiving threats, it's happening across the board..

Gabriel Sterling, a Republican who oversaw the implementation of the state’s new voting system, also issued the stark warning that if Trump does not rein in his supporters then “someone is going to get hurt”.

“Mr President, it looks like you likely lost the state of Georgia,” Sterling said at a press conference on Tuesday, during which he became visibly angry. “We’re investigating, there’s always a possibility, I get it. You have the rights to go to the courts. What you don’t have the ability to do – and you need to step up and say this – is stop inspiring people to commit potential acts of violence. Someone is going to get hurt, someone is going to get shot, someone is going to get killed, and it’s not right. It’s not right.”

Sterling, the voting systems manager for the Georgia secretary of state’s office, said last week that he had police protection around his home because of threats he received after election results were announced. Trump lost Georgia to Biden by around 13,000 votes.

Sterling also said that the wife of Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, had received “sexualized threats”.

[RiderSyl]

Sterling also said that the wife of Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, had received “sexualized threats”.

i'm actually getting physically sick at this detail. fucking degenerates.

[The Black Forrest]

Sterling also said that the wife of Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, had received “sexualized threats”.

i'm actually getting physically sick at this detail. fucking degenerates.

She also received death threats.

[Odreria]

Even though there’s an increasing amount of evidence that the virus didn’t start in China at all. Probably an Israeli false flag or something.

*** Warned for trolling ***

Once again I am being attacked for presenting new ideas

[Farnhamia]

They're clearly the more powerful party given that they were able to shut up the Dems when they had their meltdown.

There are some key differences this time however:

It’s simple: the math. Arizona Sen.-elect Mark Kelly, a Democrat, will take his seat later this week, leaving Senate Republicans with a 52-48 majority. But on Jan. 3, when the new Senate convenes, it’s likely Republicans will be down another member because Sen. David Perdue’s reelection fight — the subject of a Jan. 5 runoff — will still be pending. Perdue’s current term will expire, and his seat will become vacant until a runoff winner is sworn in.

Perdue’s absence would leave Republicans with virtually no margin to sustain election challenges, which require a simple majority. And that’s before factoring in the small but growing number of sitting Republicans who have acknowledged Biden’s win, called him president-elect and urged Trump to move on.

GOP Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana have described Biden as the winner or the “president-elect.” That’s more than enough to sink any challenges brought in the Senate.

"A spokesperson for Senator Collins said today that the Maine Republican had been assured by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) that he would introduce legislation protecting pre-existing Bidens."

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

There are some key differences this time however:

"A spokesperson for Senator Collins said today that the Maine Republican had been assured by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) that he would introduce legislation protecting pre-existing Bidens."

Pre-existing Bidens?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I'm legitimately confused as to why it took you this long to realize that and don't understand why it seems like the victimization of the Trump team played a key role.

You're not... ideologically dissident are you?

I'm not sure what you mean.

I'm concerned regarding the faith. The election system and legal system work because we as a people believe they generally do. Sure there's always been a few whackadoodles otherwise, but keeping the faith in the system in the general sense is the only way it can work.

With the threatening of election officials, the apparent threatening of good attorneys away from bad people, threatening of other officials who speak about the election, and how many of the victims are or are giving the appearance of bowing to these threats, we are rapidly eroding the faith.

To the point that I saw a poll earlier from Rasmussen that over 70% of republicans and 30% of democrats don't think our elections are fair anymore. 47% of the population in total.

If we collectively lose the faith in the system, then the system crumbles. You see?

The system crumbles by (a) drastically low turnout, (b) voters or officials cheating and getting away with it, or (c) overcomplicating with security checks that violate the privacy of the vote, or make it impractical/expensive to vote. Currently (c) is more of a problem than (b) from a voter's point of view, and since screwing the voters more to cover their own asses ((b)) is government's go-to I actually think no sweeping reforms are needed. Just some standards that local government are required to meet, or else lose funding.


Rasmussen can be expected to give the highest number for "people who don't think elections are fair". But Morning Consult has similar figures, and notice how Dems and Pubs diverged as the result became clear. People are answering with the 'party line' regardless of whether that's what they really believe. Or perhaps they really believe it, but in a shallow contingent way like how one really believes ones team will win before the game has even started.

Trump had 3 elections to cast doubt on the process, and it was partisan doubt from the start. "I'll accept the results ... if I win".

That's long enough that it looks like a trend to us. But when the Republicans run a decent human being with the sense not to shit in his own bed, and both parties take the line that US elections are 'free and fair' at least to the post-2000 standard, it will cease to be a partisan issue. Except in the stoopid states I guess.


I do expect both parties to further improve their primary processes. The Democrats made valid improvements since 2016, particularly in reducing the role of the superdelegates (automatic delegates) but there's more work to be done in eliminating the blatant violation of voter privacy which is a caucus. Weighting of the states seems wrong too. Republicans need a much more radical reform: the switch to proportional voting for all states, like the Dems use. 2016 was still an open contest in the early states the RNC allowed to go first because they used proportional, but that broke down as Winner Takes Most states began to vote, then even Cruz dropped out as the Winner Takes All states cut in. The latter is an even worse system in primaries, which are spread over time, than in the Electoral College which is at least all voted on one day. For both parties, "who is most likely to win" is a big factor in how people vote.

Being more than a two sided contest (ideally), primaries are the ideal place to introduce preference voting. In the count, preference voting promotes one of the "OK, but not my first choice" candidates over "Love Them Or Hate Them" candidates like Trump. Just about the best thing that could happen to the GOP would be Trump forcing them to adopt proportional-by-state preference voting in their primaries ... by declaring for 2024, early next year. Four years away from the prospect of him having power, the RNC might have the guts to do it.

[Farnhamia]

"A spokesperson for Senator Collins said today that the Maine Republican had been assured by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) that he would introduce legislation protecting pre-existing Bidens."

Pre-existing Bidens?

Spur of the moment, y'know?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Pre-existing Bidens?

Spur of the moment, y'know?

I’m afraid I’m confused here.

[Farnhamia]

Spur of the moment, y'know?

I’m afraid I’m confused here.

When the GOP tried to repeal Obamacare back in '17, Susan Collins voted for the repeal because Mitch looked her in the eyes and told her he'd make sure pre-existing conditions were protected. That set the stage for John McCain to give the thumb to Donald Trump.

[Bombadil]

Merry Christmas family, I'm granting you all pardons from criminal charges, oh and here's one for you Rudy, you sweet bag of festive nuttiness..

Donald Trump has discussed granting “pre-emptive pardons” to his children and son-in-law in addition to his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, the New York Times reports.

The lame duck president is concerned that Joe Biden’s justice department might prosecute Donald Trump Jr, Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, according to the report.

Pardons that pre-empt criminal charges are not common, but also not unprecedented, with the most famous example being Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon.

Giuliani denied that he had discussed a pardon with Trump on Twitter earlier today.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I’m afraid I’m confused here.

When the GOP tried to repeal Obamacare back in '17, Susan Collins voted for the repeal because Mitch looked her in the eyes and told her he'd make sure pre-existing conditions were protected. That set the stage for John McCain to give the thumb to Donald Trump.

Ok, but what does that has to do with the link I posted? I’m not following. Sorry.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

*** Warned for trolling ***

Once again I am being attacked for presenting new ideas

If the idea was serious, despite seeming offensively absurd, you would have presented it with some reasoning or evidence. "It seemed like a good idea at the time" can be said of just about any bad decision.

Though it might be worth questioning whether that's a regular trolling Warning, or whether being related to the origin of covid, the Warning was of the 'temporary, not permanent record' covid kind.

[Bombadil]

When the GOP tried to repeal Obamacare back in '17, Susan Collins voted for the repeal because Mitch looked her in the eyes and told her he'd make sure pre-existing conditions were protected. That set the stage for John McCain to give the thumb to Donald Trump.

Ok, but what does that has to do with the link I posted? I’m not following. Sorry.

I'm guessing it's that you can't trust the Republicans for shit in not banding together and getting what they want, and even where Republicans say they were assured by Mitch that he would not overturn the election, he totally would if he could.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Ok, but what does that has to do with the link I posted? I’m not following. Sorry.

I'm guessing it's that you can't trust the Republicans for shit in not banding together and getting what they want, and even where Republicans say they were assured by Mitch that he would not overturn the election, he totally would if he could.

Ah, in that case, yes. I see the meaning.

[Cannot think of a name]

Merry Christmas family, I'm granting you all pardons from criminal charges, oh and here's one for you Rudy, you sweet bag of festive nuttiness..

Donald Trump has discussed granting “pre-emptive pardons” to his children and son-in-law in addition to his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, the New York Times reports.

The lame duck president is concerned that Joe Biden’s justice department might prosecute Donald Trump Jr, Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, according to the report.

Pardons that pre-empt criminal charges are not common, but also not unprecedented, with the most famous example being Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon.

Giuliani denied that he had discussed a pardon with Trump on Twitter earlier today.

Pre-emptive pardons definitely shouldn't be a thing for this reason. "Let's do a bunch of illegal shit, it's cool I'll clear us all on the way out the door."

Like, I'm not even sure how it works. Do you have to admit the shady shit they did specifically or just go, "Whatever they did they're not accountable for...whatever it is."

That's some bullshit.

[Farnhamia]

When the GOP tried to repeal Obamacare back in '17, Susan Collins voted for the repeal because Mitch looked her in the eyes and told her he'd make sure pre-existing conditions were protected. That set the stage for John McCain to give the thumb to Donald Trump.

Ok, but what does that has to do with the link I posted? I’m not following. Sorry.

Your link said she was one of the Senators who could be counted on to stand against the usurpation of the election. My ... jest ... was meant to point out that she should not be depended upon for anything like that. McConnell like Kaa in The Jungle Book, never look directly into his eyes.

Edit: Sure, Eldest, don't let me explain it to her!

[Galloism]

Merry Christmas family, I'm granting you all pardons from criminal charges, oh and here's one for you Rudy, you sweet bag of festive nuttiness..

Donald Trump has discussed granting “pre-emptive pardons” to his children and son-in-law in addition to his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, the New York Times reports.

The lame duck president is concerned that Joe Biden’s justice department might prosecute Donald Trump Jr, Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, according to the report.

Pardons that pre-empt criminal charges are not common, but also not unprecedented, with the most famous example being Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon.

Giuliani denied that he had discussed a pardon with Trump on Twitter earlier today.

Pre-emptive pardons definitely shouldn't be a thing for this reason. "Let's do a bunch of illegal shit, it's cool I'll clear us all on the way out the door."

Like, I'm not even sure how it works. Do you have to admit the shady shit they did specifically or just go, "Whatever they did they're not accountable for...whatever it is."

That's some bullshit.

The second one.

But it also destroys their 5th amendment right against self incrimination. Since they can't be charged, they can't use the privilege.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Ok, but what does that has to do with the link I posted? I’m not following. Sorry.

Your link said she was one of the Senators who could be counted on to stand against the usurpation of the election. My ... jest ... was meant to point out that she should not be depended upon for anything like that. McConnell like Kaa in The Jungle Book, never look directly into his eyes.

So we may have acting president Nancy Pelosi come January 20th? Hm.