2020 US General Election Thread XIII: Nocturne

[Greater Miami Shores]

Trump will not be President come January 20th. You lost. Why can;'t you accept this?

you can't reason with someone who wilfully and knowing embraces propaganda as fact.

Just like we all cant reason with those who strongly disagree with us. Just like I think you cant reason with those who strongly disagree with you. Because they strongly disagree with me and they strongly disagree with you. GMS.

Back to first Base, Laurel and Hardy Third Base:
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=la ... &FORM=VIRE

Please read my new sig in full context without taking it out of context. Thank you. GMS.

This goes for all of you on NS.

[Nouveau Yathrib]

Still, the fact that Trump already has 30k more votes in Queens than in 2016- with only 63% of the vote in- suggests that Trump's GOP has made significant gains among nonwhite voters in big cities like NYC.

Or.. wait for the numbers come in before assuming anything, if that 37% remaining is mail in ballots then they'll heavily swing Democrat. Throughout this election waiting for all the numbers to come in has generally been the sensible thing to do.

It seems like 45 has made gains with various nonwhite communities in other big cities- not just in the Cuban suburbs of Miami, but also San Jose and Philly (Biden actually lost votes in Philadelphia proper relative to Hillary for some reason). Nearby Hudson County, NJ (majority-minority and very Latino/Asian) also swung 5-6% towards Trump from 2016. So we can reasonably assume there will be a similar swing among nonwhite communities in Queens after all the votes are counted.

My working theory is that GOTV efforts on social media got a lot of low-info, low engagement nonwhite and immigrant voters to vote for Trump, because they see him on TV all the time and know his name is on the $1200 relief checks they got in April.

---

Of course, there is also this:

I do find it amusing how those who have fled a dictator before are trying to create another one while decrying the election process that put that dictators opponent in power.

Traumatic experiences can push a person into irrationality.

[Neanderthaland]

you can't reason with someone who wilfully and knowing embraces propaganda as fact.

Just like we all cant reason with those who strongly disagree with us.

Tarsonis is an example of someone you can reason with despite having strong disagreements with. I have done so.

[Tarsonis]

Just like we all cant reason with those who strongly disagree with us.

Tarsonis is an example of someone you can reason with despite having strong disagreements with. I have done so.

[Greater Miami Shores]

Just like we all cant reason with those who strongly disagree with us.

Tarsonis is example of someone you can reason with despite having strong disagreements with. I have done so.

Here we go again, My Point is:

Not when I strongly disagree with Tarsonis, not when Tarsonis strongly disagrees with me. The same with you and anyone on NS and Vice Versa.

When Tarsonis or anyone on NS strongly disagrees with you. I think you will strongly disagree with them.

When anyone on NS strongly disagrees with any person on NS, they will not agree with each other, they will strongly disagree with each other. There is nothing wrong with it. Proving my Point as a Fact. GMS.

[Tarsonis]

Tarsonis is example of someone you can reason with despite having strong disagreements with. I have done so.

Here we go again, My Point is:

Not when I strongly disagree with Tarsonis, not when Tarsonis strongly disagrees with me. The same with you and anyone on NS and Vice Versa.

When Tarsonis or anyone on NS strongly disagrees with you. I think you will strongly disagree with them.

When anyone on NS strongly disagrees with any person on NS, they will not agree with each other, they will strongly disagree with each other. There is nothing wrong with it. Proving my Point as a Fact. GMS.

There's a difference between not being able to find common ground on certain topics, and assuming everyone is unreasonable because they call your position unreasonable.

For example: as long as the source isn't a complete schill, I'm willing to read and evaluate many sources of information. And if a source is strong enough, i might even change my position.


You on the other hand, as exemplified by your signature, take pride in rejecting all evidence that contradicts your preconceived notions. Thus there is no reasoning with you. Your conclusions are already predetermined. There's no point in even attempting to engage in dialectic with you, because you, proudly, let Trump and his cronies do your thinking for you.

[Neutraligon]

Here we go again, My Point is:

Not when I strongly disagree with Tarsonis, not when Tarsonis strongly disagrees with me. The same with you and anyone on NS and Vice Versa.

When Tarsonis or anyone on NS strongly disagrees with you. I think you will strongly disagree with them.

When anyone on NS strongly disagrees with any person on NS, they will not agree with each other, they will strongly disagree with each other. There is nothing wrong with it. Proving my Point as a Fact. GMS.

There's a difference between not being able to find common ground on certain topics, and assuming everyone is unreasonable because they call your position unreasonable.

Indeed. I have had my mind changed multiple times by listening to others. One of the biggest is thanks to Gallo and their reporting on statistics about discrimination against men. Another was not due to this board but due to moving to a different part of the country, namely that my opinion on guns and gun control has become more "I am not sure where I stand", where before I used to be heavily in favor of very strict restrictions.

[Neanderthaland]

Tarsonis is an example of someone you can reason with despite having strong disagreements with. I have done so.

Don't let it go to your head

[Greater Miami Shores]

Here we go again, My Point is:

Not when I strongly disagree with Tarsonis, not when Tarsonis strongly disagrees with me. The same with you and anyone on NS and Vice Versa.

When Tarsonis or anyone on NS strongly disagrees with you. I think you will strongly disagree with them.

When anyone on NS strongly disagrees with any person on NS, they will not agree with each other, they will strongly disagree with each other. There is nothing wrong with it. Proving my Point as a Fact. GMS.

There's a difference between not being able to find common ground on certain topics, and assuming everyone is unreasonable because they call your position unreasonable.

For example: as long as the source isn't a complete schill, I'm willing to read and evaluate many sources of information. And if a source is strong enough, i might even change my position.


You on the other hand, as exemplified by your signature, take pride in rejecting all evidence that contradicts your preconceived notions. Thus there is no reasoning with you. Your conclusions are already predetermined. There's no point in even attempting to engage in dialectic with you, because you, proudly, let Trump and his cronies do your thinking for you.

Here we go again, Back to First Base, lol This fists all of us on NS and off NS on all issues. Decided by whom? Answer decided by those who strongly disagree with us. I think you would strongly disagree with them, I think all of you would strongly disagree with them. I know I strongly disagree with them. Proving my Point as a Fact. Peace over and out. lol again, GMS.

[Neanderthaland]

There's a difference between not being able to find common ground on certain topics, and assuming everyone is unreasonable because they call your position unreasonable.

For example: as long as the source isn't a complete schill, I'm willing to read and evaluate many sources of information. And if a source is strong enough, i might even change my position.


You on the other hand, as exemplified by your signature, take pride in rejecting all evidence that contradicts your preconceived notions. Thus there is no reasoning with you. Your conclusions are already predetermined. There's no point in even attempting to engage in dialectic with you, because you, proudly, let Trump and his cronies do your thinking for you.

Here we go again, Back to First Base, lol This fists all of us on NS and off NS on all issues. Decided by whom? Answer decided by those who strongly disagree with us. I think you would strongly disagree with them, I think all of you would strongly disagree with them. I know I strongly disagree with them. Proving my Point as a Fact. Peace over and out. lol again, GMS.

Tarsonis never said anything was "decided" by anyone. What are you talking about? Did you even read the post you're responding to?

[Bombadil]

This is the fallacy GMS falls for though he won't understand it.

“People having an uninformed opinion about something they don’t understand and proclaiming their opinion as being equally valid as facts is what is ruining the world. No one wants to do any research, they just want to be right.”

https://randysrandom.com/6-vs-9-eternal-struggle/

[Greater Miami Shores]

Here we go again, Back to First Base, lol This fists all of us on NS and off NS on all issues. Decided by whom? Answer decided by those who strongly disagree with us. I think you would strongly disagree with them, I think all of you would strongly disagree with them. I know I strongly disagree with them. Proving my Point as a Fact. Peace over and out. lol again, GMS.

Tarsonis never said anything was "decided" by anyone. What are you talking about? Did you even read the post you're responding to?

I respect all persons rights to their opinions and views, to post them to me and anyone on NS. Even while I strongly disagree with them.

I read Tarsonis Post too me: Did you read Tarsonis Post to me, not an actual question a statement.

Posted by Tarsonis to me GMS:
Thus there is no reasoning with you. Your conclusions are already predetermined. There's no point in even attempting to engage in dialectic with you, because you, proudly, let Trump and his cronies do your thinking for you.

GMS: Are Tarsonis opinions and views not already predetermined strongly disagreeing with me and us Republican Trump supporters?

Are your opinions and views not already predetermined strongly disagreeing with me and us Republican Trump supporters?

Are any persons opinions and views already predetermined strongly disagreeing with me and us Republican Trump supporters?

Are any persons opinions and views on NS and off NS, already predetermined strongly disagreeing with those who strongly disagree with them?

I say Yes.

I will admit my opinions and views are already predetermined, if we all admit our opinions and views are already predetermined, by our opinions and views?

Posted by Tarsonis: you, proudly, let Trump and his cronies do your thinking for you.

GMS: This comment above by Tarsonis is Tarsonis opinion and views not his Facts. Not Facts. They are the opinions and views of Tarsonis and all who strongly agree with him, not Facts.

[The Giant Space Wyrm]

you can't reason with someone who wilfully and knowing embraces propaganda as fact.

Just like we all cant reason with those who strongly disagree with us.

The problem here is that you are not reasoning with us. You are just saying we are wrong, and the people who agree with us are wrong too.

You are simply choosing to remain ignorant and shove your hands in your ears and say it's just our "opinions". You aren't even trying to dispute our claims like others that are technically on your side with real facts or evidence.

Heck people who are opposed to your side of the argument have provided facts and evidence that undermine their own position, such as that the impeachment trial was being managed by the Democrats but was still unable to push further.

Your arguments are all "well my mom and dad agree with me", "the patrons of this random restaurant I went to agree with me". If you can't even provide a simple defense of your position then you're wasting our time, and your time... but more importantly our time.

[Greater Miami Shores]

Just like we all cant reason with those who strongly disagree with us.

The problem here is that you are not reasoning with us. You are just saying we are wrong, and the people who agree with us are wrong too.

You are simply choosing to remain ignorant and shove your hands in your ears and say it's just our "opinions". You aren't even trying to dispute our claims like others that are technically on your side with real facts or evidence.

Heck people who are opposed to your side of the argument have provided facts and evidence that undermine their own position, such as that the impeachment trial was being managed by the Democrats but was still unable to push further.

Your arguments are all "well my mom and dad agree with me", "the patrons of this random restaurant I went to agree with me". If you can't even provide a simple defense of your position then you're wasting our time, and your time... but more importantly our time.

I have been on NS for over 10 years with different nations and most of this time with my main Miami Shores nations. I have posted many times, my views, with links and videos, and they all always get dismissed based on Facts, decided by them. The same goes for Karelia, Diarcesia and all of us Trump supporters. It is not just with me. These are Facts. GMS.

Thank you for your constructive post. GMS.

[Neanderthaland]

Tarsonis never said anything was "decided" by anyone. What are you talking about? Did you even read the post you're responding to?

I respect all persons rights to their opinions and views, to post them to me and anyone on NS. Even while I strongly disagree with them.

I read Tarsonis Post too me: Did you read Tarsonis Post to me, not an actual question a statement.

Posted by Tarsonis to me GMS:
Thus there is no reasoning with you. Your conclusions are already predetermined. There's no point in even attempting to engage in dialectic with you, because you, proudly, let Trump and his cronies do your thinking for you.

GMS: Are Tarsonis opinions and views not already predetermined strongly disagreeing with me and us Republican Trump supporters?

Are your opinions and views not already predetermined strongly disagreeing with me?

Are any persons opinions and views already predetermined strongly disagreeing with me?

Are any persons opinions and views on NS and off NS, already predetermined strongly disagreeing with those who strongly disagree with them?

I say Yes.

I will admit my opinions and views are already predetermined, if we all admit our opinions and views are already predetermined, by our opinions and views.

Posted by Tarsonis: you, proudly, let Trump and his cronies do your thinking for you.


GMS: This comment above by Tarsonis is Tarsonis opinion and views not his Facts. They are the opinions and views of Tarsonis and all who strongly agree with him, not Facts.

But... they're not. I just buzzed by the Australia thread, where someone said that the Conservatives there have done a good job with Covid. And I don't know if that's true or not. But it may very well be. Even though I don't like the Conservatives very much, maybe they have done a good job. But I'd have to look into it more to form an opinion. Because my view isn't predetermined.

Your views on Australian Conservatives probably aren't predetermined either, but I'll tell you the difference between us: If Trump said tomorrow that they did a good job, that would be your view. And if he said they did a bad job, that would be your view. Even if he had previously said the opposite.

I'm not like that. There's no one person whose opinion I take as gospel. I don't care at all what Biden, or Trump, or anyone else says about Australian Conservatives. But I do care about facts. Like the fact that they're currently measuring Covid cases in only the double-digits.

[Neutraligon]

Just like we all cant reason with those who strongly disagree with us.

The problem here is that you are not reasoning with us. You are just saying we are wrong, and the people who agree with us are wrong too.

You are simply choosing to remain ignorant and shove your hands in your ears and say it's just our "opinions". You aren't even trying to dispute our claims like others that are technically on your side with real facts or evidence.

Heck people who are opposed to your side of the argument have provided facts and evidence that undermine their own position, such as that the impeachment trial was being managed by the Democrats but was still unable to push further.

Your arguments are all "well my mom and dad agree with me", "the patrons of this random restaurant I went to agree with me". If you can't even provide a simple defense of your position then you're wasting our time, and your time... but more importantly our time.

They have tried to provide evidence, the issue is the evidence they have tried to provide is from places like breitbart, which is well known for being highly inaccurate. Meanwhile, we have been providing the actual court cases.

[Bombadil]

Just like we all cant reason with those who strongly disagree with us.

The problem here is that you are not reasoning with us. You are just saying we are wrong, and the people who agree with us are wrong too.

You are simply choosing to remain ignorant and shove your hands in your ears and say it's just our "opinions". You aren't even trying to dispute our claims like others that are technically on your side with real facts or evidence.

Heck people who are opposed to your side of the argument have provided facts and evidence that undermine their own position, such as that the impeachment trial was being managed by the Democrats but was still unable to push further.

Your arguments are all "well my mom and dad agree with me", "the patrons of this random restaurant I went to agree with me". If you can't even provide a simple defense of your position then you're wasting our time, and your time... but more importantly our time.

To be fair he's only wasting your time if you read and respond, the bigger problem is there's some 50M people who think like him. I grant a good few Republicans are capable of a reasoned view of all this.

[Tarsonis]

Tarsonis never said anything was "decided" by anyone. What are you talking about? Did you even read the post you're responding to?

I respect all persons rights to their opinions and views, to post them to me and anyone on NS. Even while I strongly disagree with them.

Yes your civility is the one point we all salute you for. However, when someone states an obvious falsehood, chalking it up to "well thats your opinion." would be intellectually dishonest.

I read Tarsonis Post too me: Did you read Tarsonis Post to me, not an actual question a statement.

Posted by Tarsonis to me GMS:
Thus there is no reasoning with you. Your conclusions are already predetermined. There's no point in even attempting to engage in dialectic with you, because you, proudly, let Trump and his cronies do your thinking for you.

GMS: Are Tarsonis opinions and views not already predetermined strongly disagreeing with me and us Republican Trump supporters?

No. You show me legit proof that the election was stolen from Trump through voter fraud, I'll stand with you. The problem is you haven't done that yet, and neither has the Trump Admin.

Are your opinions and views not already predetermined strongly disagreeing with me and us Republican Trump supporters?

Are any persons opinions and views already predetermined strongly disagreeing with me?

Are any persons opinions and views on NS and off NS, already predetermined strongly disagreeing with those who strongly disagree with them?

I say Yes.

This is what we call a cop out. Rather than defend your claims you just dismiss all contradictions as bias.

I will admit my opinions and views are already predetermined, if we all admit our opinions and views are already predetermined, by our opinions and views.

Except that wouldn't be accurate, on our part.

Posted by Tarsonis: you, proudly, let Trump and his cronies do your thinking for you.


GMS: This comment above by Tarsonis is Tarsonis opinion and views not his Facts. They are the opinions and views of Tarsonis and all who strongly agree with him, not Facts.

It's not an opinion, or a view, it's an observation.

From your sig,

"will never accept Facts decided by those who strongly disagree with me,"

"We are Proud Republican Trump Cultists."

You don't just put those up to be sparky, you unironically embrace these ideas. You dismiss all contradictions as biased, and hold up Trump and pro Trump news sources, as your guiding azimuth. Your criteria for analyzing something's validity is "If it supports Trump it is true, if it doesn't support Trump it's false."

[The Giant Space Wyrm]

The problem here is that you are not reasoning with us. You are just saying we are wrong, and the people who agree with us are wrong too.

You are simply choosing to remain ignorant and shove your hands in your ears and say it's just our "opinions". You aren't even trying to dispute our claims like others that are technically on your side with real facts or evidence.

Heck people who are opposed to your side of the argument have provided facts and evidence that undermine their own position, such as that the impeachment trial was being managed by the Democrats but was still unable to push further.

Your arguments are all "well my mom and dad agree with me", "the patrons of this random restaurant I went to agree with me". If you can't even provide a simple defense of your position then you're wasting our time, and your time... but more importantly our time.

They have tried to provide evidence, the issue is the evidence they have tried to provide is from places like breitbart, which is well known for being highly inaccurate. Meanwhile, we have been providing the actual court cases.

Then I both rescind and maintain my position. Providing False information is not evidence.

[Neutraligon]

They have tried to provide evidence, the issue is the evidence they have tried to provide is from places like breitbart, which is well known for being highly inaccurate. Meanwhile, we have been providing the actual court cases.

Then I both rescind and maintain my position. Providing False information is not evidence.

I think the term you are looking for is alternative facts

[Bombadil]

It's remarkable how much of this has been a simple debate on what a fact is. There's a reason Orwell centred the basis of totalitarianism on the concoction of "reality" through propaganda - lies are the first step in creating an authoritative state.

I read another interesting quote - it's not that a minority party may trend towards authoritarianism, it must.

The republicans have been a minority party for quite some time now, they only maintain power by trickery and lies, and frankly they've been very successful. That's why it's disturbing that it's produced a Trump because what next.. someone competent?

[Neutraligon]

It's remarkable how much of this has been a simple debate on what a fact is. There's a reason Orwell centred the basis of totalitarianism on the preset creation of reality through propaganda - lies are the first step in creating an authoritative state.

I read another interesting quote - it's not that a minority party may trend towards authoritarianism, it must.

The republicans have been a minority party for quite some time now, they only maintain power by trickery and lies, and frankly they've been very successful. That's why it's disturbing that it's produced a Trump because what next.. someone competent?

I mean...we did have the alternative facts thing come out during this administration. We have spent 4 years where a large parts of the country each live in different "realities" from each other.

[Greater Miami Shores]

The problem here is that you are not reasoning with us. You are just saying we are wrong, and the people who agree with us are wrong too.

You are simply choosing to remain ignorant and shove your hands in your ears and say it's just our "opinions". You aren't even trying to dispute our claims like others that are technically on your side with real facts or evidence.

Heck people who are opposed to your side of the argument have provided facts and evidence that undermine their own position, such as that the impeachment trial was being managed by the Democrats but was still unable to push further.

Your arguments are all "well my mom and dad agree with me", "the patrons of this random restaurant I went to agree with me". If you can't even provide a simple defense of your position then you're wasting our time, and your time... but more importantly our time.

They have tried to provide evidence, the issue is the evidence they have tried to provide is from places like breitbart, which is well known for being highly inaccurate. Meanwhile, we have been providing the actual court cases.

With all due respect to you, as I keep having to post to all of them, all conservative Republican news sources, Fox News, One America News Network, Townhall, Gop USA, The Federalist, The Epoch Times and Newsmax, are reliable news sources to us Republican Trump supporters.

I think they are allowed on NS.

A few times during the impeachment hoax on President Trump by the Democrats as we call it, I posted a video link from Politico and from Breitbart to prove my point. It was dismissed based on Facts decided by them. I am usually or always very civil. I tried to argue without success, with respect without any insults of any kind. I was even called a liar, I can prove it if I ever have too, I hope I never have too.

Many on NS, but obviously not all of them, call our right wing news sources, garbage, trash and a rag. I never call their leftist news sources like, MSNBC, The Progressive, The Guardian or any news sources, garbage, trash and a rag, I just strongly disagree with them, they should do the same with our news sources.

A certain leftist person I don't remember the name of and if I did or checked it, I will never post, had the nerve to chose for me, which news sources I should post from, comment from and link from. The nerve of this leftist person. I don't chose for them or any one on NS, what news sources, they should post from, comment from and link from. GMS.

Thank you for your post. GMS.

[Tarsonis]

It's remarkable how much of this has been a simple debate on what a fact is. There's a reason Orwell centred the basis of totalitarianism on the concoction of "reality" through propaganda - lies are the first step in creating an authoritative state.

I read another interesting quote - it's not that a minority party may trend towards authoritarianism, it must.

The republicans have been a minority party for quite some time now, they only maintain power by trickery and lies, and frankly they've been very successful. That's why it's disturbing that it's produced a Trump because what next.. someone competent?

Not sure i agree with that assessment. Sure there has been some trickery and lies, but with the exception of the anomalous Trump admin and their ridiculous attempt to hold onto power through deligitimizjng the vote, Republicans have been a fairly straight forward political party. There might have been disagreements on issues and certain events/trends might be perceived differently, but the Republicans have just long been the conservative party.

Saying they've been a minority party for long is also not true, they hold the majority of the state legislatures, they held the house up until 2018, they still hold a majority of senate seats for the moment.

They also improved in every demographic except white people this election. This view people tend to hold on the left, that they hold an implicit majority and that they've won the culture war, is verrrrryyy tenuous at best. Current voting trends actually suggest the Republicans, not the Democrats, will carry the majority in a few years.


that was at least before Trump throwing a tantrum like a child and refusing to leave the white house.

[Bombadil]

It's remarkable how much of this has been a simple debate on what a fact is. There's a reason Orwell centred the basis of totalitarianism on the concoction of "reality" through propaganda - lies are the first step in creating an authoritative state.

I read another interesting quote - it's not that a minority party may trend towards authoritarianism, it must.

The republicans have been a minority party for quite some time now, they only maintain power by trickery and lies, and frankly they've been very successful. That's why it's disturbing that it's produced a Trump because what next.. someone competent?

Not sure i agree with that assessment. Sure there has been some trickery and lies, but with the exception of the anomalous Trump admin and their ridiculous attempt to hold onto power through deligitimizjng the vote, Republicans have been a fairly straight forward political party. There might have been disagreements on issues and certain events/trends might be perceived differently, but the Republicans have just long been the conservative party.

Saying they've been a minority party for long is also not true, they hold the majority of the state legislatures, they held the house up until 2018, they still hold a majority of senate seats for the moment.

They also improved in every demographic except white people this election. This view people tend to hold on the left, that they hold an implicit majority and that they've won the culture war, is verrrrryyy tenuous at best. Current voting trends actually suggest the Republicans, not the Democrats, will carry the majority in a few years.


that was at least before Trump throwing a tantrum like a child and refusing to leave the white house.

I don't know about state legislatures too much, but at a Federal level both for Presidency and Senate they have long been behind in overall votes, they win by anomalies, many very much designed, in districting and the EC.

So they are, and have long been a minority party. I'm assuming districting for state level is similar to federal elections but, ultimately, their strategy has been since pretty much the 80's to restrict voting as much as possible.