US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2815

On November 01 2020 03:30 Nevuk wrote:

How did they justify it? I recall that they got a lot of criticism and that was my recollection (I think they gave multiple justifications after criticism rolled in), but it has been 4 years.

edit:
I was able to find that yes, that was in fact their justification.



(he may have updated it later on to include "and media", as the quote I see is this everywhere) :
“Our presumption is to be transparent in our journalism and to share what we have with our readers. We have always erred on the side of publishing. In this case, the document was in wide circulation at the highest levels of American government and media,”
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/why-did-buzzfeed-publish-the-trump-dossier/512771/

On November 01 2020 03:44 plasmidghost wrote:
Holy shit, the evil fucking GOP knows that they're going to lose in a fair election and are trying to steal and disenfranchise it. These assholes cannot be gone soon enough, even though our state SC knows it's legal. Hell, our Republican governor appointed the Secretary of State that gave us the go-ahead to do it.

Texas state legislator Sheryl Cole announced the cancelation of a joint event with the Biden campaign bus and the Austin Young Democrats in Texas for “security reasons,” accusing the Trump supporters of having “escalated well beyond safe limits.”

Cole cited Travis County Democratic Party Chair Katie Naranjo, who alleged the Trump supporters “followed the Biden bus throughout central Texas” and “ran into a person's car, yelling curse words and threats,” along with photos of a damaged car, while Texas State Rep. Rafael Anchía tweeted the Trump supporters were “armed” and were “ramming volunteer vehicles & blocking traffic for 40 mins.”

Numerous videos posted to social media show a half dozen trucks sporting pro-Trump flags and decals surrounding a Trump bus and an accompanying white SUV, with one video posted by a Biden campaign volunteer showing a truck ramming the SUV on the side as it attempted to regain its place behind the bus.

A Biden campaign spokesperson told Forbes the trucks “attempted to slow the bus down and run it off the road,” that local law enforcement was called in to help the bus reach its destination and offboard passengers and that an event at the Texas AFL-CIO was canceled out of an “abundance of caution.”

On November 01 2020 05:28 plasmidghost wrote:

You say both parties allege it, but I have yet to see Dems doing this anywhere. I read both motions and it is apparent that the Dems are not using any sort of strange legal theory, when it's the Republicans that consistently have throughout my state and across the US

On November 01 2020 05:42 Nevuk wrote:
Danglar's comes from the ends justifies the means era of politics where both sides were doing scummy tactics. The only case I can recall that at all resembles this from the last 20 years though was Bush v Gore where the democrats wanted selective recounts.
(Hanging chads were such a nightmare: count one way gore wins, the other way bush wins).

The idea is that the democrats would have done the exact same thing as the GOP has if they were in power and had the opportunity, but I've seen no real evidence of that in the past decade (or at least, not to anywhere near this extent).

Whatever their actions in the past, it's clear that the democrats have the moral high ground on these issues. They haven't been saying "we'll do them when we're in power", they've been saying "when we're in power we'll ban their use".

The democrats arguing against gerrmyandering hasn't been "but we didn't get a chance to do it" - which is true, they did do it in 1990 and 2000 iirc, it has been "this is a practice that should be stopped". Same goes for electioneering, election fraud, foreign interference, voting discrimination.


BTW, Biden campaign has had to cancel several texas events after their buses were being stalked by armed trump supporters and at least one vehicle tried to ram another off the road.
Per forbes:


https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/10/31/pro-trump-trucks-tried-running-biden-bus-off-the-road-campaign-says/?sh=18e4b291689e

On November 01 2020 06:18 Danglars wrote:

Democrats are pushing to remove election law fraud controls in multiple states. These take the form of signature matching and witnesses. The Republican-spin message is that Democrats are trying to increase the amount of fraudulently cast ballots in order to steal the election.

Democrats think they're favored the more mail-in ballots count (they're overrepresented in most mail-in ballot scenarios), so they're trying to extend the deadlines when votes are cast and when votes are counted. The Republicans are trying to stop them by showing that legislature makes election law and existing extensions to early voting and mail-in ballot law are sufficient in COVID times.

These efforts should be seen as twin partisan efforts to get the most favorable interpretation of existing election law to their respective sides. Don't yell yourself hoarse saying Republican efforts are evil steal-the-election junk, and Democrats are comparatively righteous. It's just buying into the sensationalist rhetoric of people that want clicks to their news stories, and to drum up their base online. (Trump does this same exact thing all the fucking time and its maddening)


Maybe you missed Hillary's demand for a recount in Rust Belt states that Trump won. She felt it had been illegitimate and off to the races in those states. Thankfully, she didn't prevail, and the gap was large enough to frustrate her goals to sow election result uncertainty.

Make up your own mind on the merger (video)
https://twitter.com/c7den/status/1322645966470717440

Don't merge into lanes already occupied by a truck, even if you have your blinker on. This has been a public service announcement. You can take pictures of all the damage, and you'll be stuck paying for it (or your insurance).

On November 01 2020 06:23 Nevuk wrote:
Voter fraud laws are almost entirely voter disenfranchisement laws. The documented times voter fraud has happened in the past five years are almost all Trump supporters doing it and claiming they only did it because the other side was doing it.

Those laws existing in the first place is just further evidence of what you're denying.

I'm not sure I see how asking for a recount is in any way analogous to throwing out legitimate votes, especially when the margin really was within fractions of a percent for being valid for a request.

Reckless driving at the minimum (for the tailgating), even if you accept the initial merge block being valid, but as we all know, Trump supporters are probably going to be treated as a protected class in the eyes of the police in texas.

On November 01 2020 05:42 Nevuk wrote:
Danglar's comes from the ends justifies the means era of politics where both sides were doing scummy tactics. The only case I can recall that at all resembles this from the last 20 years though was Bush v Gore where the democrats wanted selective recounts.
(Hanging chads were such a nightmare: count one way gore wins, the other way bush wins).

The idea is that the democrats would have done the exact same thing as the GOP has if they were in power and had the opportunity, but I've seen no real evidence of that in the past decade (or at least, not to anywhere near this extent).

Whatever their actions in the past, it's clear that the democrats have the moral high ground on these issues. They haven't been saying "we'll do them when we're in power", they've been saying "when we're in power we'll ban their use".

The democrats arguing against gerrmyandering hasn't been "but we didn't get a chance to do it" - which is true, they did do it in 1990 and 2000 iirc, it has been "this is a practice that should be stopped". Same goes for electioneering, election fraud, foreign interference, voting discrimination.


BTW, Biden campaign has had to cancel several texas events after their buses were being stalked by armed trump supporters and at least one vehicle tried to ram another off the road.
Per forbes:


https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/10/31/pro-trump-trucks-tried-running-biden-bus-off-the-road-campaign-says/?sh=18e4b291689e

On November 01 2020 06:18 Danglars wrote:

Democrats are pushing to remove election law fraud controls in multiple states. These take the form of signature matching and witnesses. The Republican-spin message is that Democrats are trying to increase the amount of fraudulently cast ballots in order to steal the election.

Democrats think they're favored the more mail-in ballots count (they're overrepresented in most mail-in ballot scenarios), so they're trying to extend the deadlines when votes are cast and when votes are counted. The Republicans are trying to stop them by showing that legislature makes election law and existing extensions to early voting and mail-in ballot law are sufficient in COVID times.

These efforts should be seen as twin partisan efforts to get the most favorable interpretation of existing election law to their respective sides. Don't yell yourself hoarse saying Republican efforts are evil steal-the-election junk, and Democrats are comparatively righteous. It's just buying into the sensationalist rhetoric of people that want clicks to their news stories, and to drum up their base online. (Trump does this same exact thing all the fucking time and its maddening)


Maybe you missed Hillary's demand for a recount in Rust Belt states that Trump won. She felt it had been illegitimate and off to the races in those states. Thankfully, she didn't prevail, and the gap was large enough to frustrate her goals to sow election result uncertainty.

Make up your own mind on the merger (video)
https://twitter.com/c7den/status/1322645966470717440

Don't merge into lanes already occupied by a truck, even if you have your blinker on. This has been a public service announcement. You can take pictures of all the damage, and you'll be stuck paying for it (or your insurance).

On November 01 2020 05:34 plasmidghost wrote:

Independent commissions would absolutely be the best way to go, 100%. It would fix so many problems we have in the South

On November 01 2020 03:25 Danglars wrote:

Frankly, because the people that try their hardest to say these things shouldn't be published because dumb people might believe it are themselves the dumbest of the bunch. They're partisans that can't see the blinders they have on their own political analysis. They overtrust the left-wing spin at best, and eat up any propagandistic missives to make their primary diet at worst. It's just a little too out of control at the current time to "trust" anyone else. Publish it and let the public decide. The elites, sometimes also called the experts, need to right their own ship before credentialism can return to a sane level.


The mirror episode would be another user thanking Danglars for bringing up the 4-5 reasons why the story should have been published together with full accounting of the sourcing. I don't get to choose for you who you outsource your thinking to in terms of evaluating stories. Frankly, too many people deliberately confuse stories that should be published and more stories echoing back doubts, with stories that are immediately verifiable from multiple sources not in communication with each other.


I think you have a rubbish evaluation of what amounts to "solid as possible when they ship." It's a subjective scale on its face. In this case, the NYP got direct access to the email trove, Evidence #1. They contacted the store's owner. Person #1 says this is what happened. They got access to the sex videos and crack pipe pictures showing Hunter Biden, Evidence #2. The NYP obtained a federal subpoena for the laptop, Evidence #3. Evidence 1 & 2 were NYP's copy of the hard drive. They connected the emails to the background on Biden's brags on getting Sorkin fired, and the emails regarding Pozharskyi to Ukrainian business. The Post reaches out to the FBI and reports on it, and asks for comment from Hunter's lawyer and Biden's campaign. So I say to you, WombaT, how's that for making it as solid as possible when they ship?

Don't worry about the pee tape unless you're advancing a specific claim that the dossier should have been published in its unverified state and the same standard should not, however, be applied to the hard drive. You have enough to do with squaring your general views with this specific case that contradicts them.