EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2815
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
|
schaf
Germany1326 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10934 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
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/ Specifically, the CNN story confirming that it was circulating in government. Buzzfeed published right after CNN reported that Trump was briefed on the dossier. It was circulating widely in media (the oppo firm was “shopping” the story for weeks before), but was unpublished until the Comey-Trump news broke. So the critical form was “government,” which you did not mention. This is the story they gave in court, when Russians sued for defamation. In fact, the briefing only concerned the pee-tape story, as we found in sworn testimony from Trump. | ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
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. You better buckle down. This is only a lawsuit that was already decided against the suing party in State court, and the federal courts regularly defer on those ones unless state election law is clearly against it. Both parties are going to allege far stranger legal theories, and don’t be perpetually shocked and respond with “stealing election!!!!” every time. | ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
(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: 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.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/10/31/pro-trump-trucks-tried-running-biden-bus-off-the-road-campaign-says/?sh=18e4b291689e | ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
The both sides argument is conjured out of thin air with an infinitiesimal base. This applies to right wing Vs left wing terror as well as disenfranchisement of voters and general malice towards non whites from GOP / Dems. Charlottesville is the most obvious that springs to mind showing how false that narrative is. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
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 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) 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 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) 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). | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
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. 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). 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. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
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. I mean you're assuming the truth of the statement in doubt. That's a terrible starting point. A state has a duty to ensure that votes aren't changed by malicious actors, which is why the mail-in votes tend to have double envelope systems. A state also has a duty to maintain accurate voter rolls. Both are intended to forestall climbing voter fraud by making it difficult to accomplish. The record of when it happened is a fallacy; if the bank hasn't been robbed frequently in the past, it's proof positive that security regimes are unnecessary going into the future. The more money spent on terrorism prevention, and declining acts of terrorism, cannot be flipped around to mean the preventative measures weren't necessary, because less terrorism occurred. Go sue to say the voting laws are illegitimate when they're made, not prior to a vote you think you might lose. The courts are not the true arbiter to balance a timely election result with great latitude to let voters who want to vote, vote early or absentee, or in person. That goes to the state electorate. Try Democracy next time, and not insane allegations of voter suppression. The Supreme Court will smack down a bunch of these lawsuits, because the rules were agreed to beforehand and should be fairly applied now. I'd argue the recount, when the gap was so large, was an example of trying to undo the result of the election and sow discord in the minds of the electorate that the election was fairly decided. It wasn't going to honestly overturn the result, so examine your priors as to why it was attempted. Look at the polling that suggests Democrats still believe that Russia actually manipulated vote totals for the affects of strategies like this. 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. He might get dinged for the tailgating. She definitely will eat the worse one for merging into an occupied lane, side swiping the current occupant. I expect justice to be served. And to the thread, don't sideswipe other drivers just because they're tailgating/not giving you room. The turn signal is not a right to merge. | ||
|
pmh
1416 Posts
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 I am far more cynical. The democrats dont truly want to end gerrymandering. In the end both the democrats and the republicans benefit from the current system despite all the fighting that goes on between them. The system keeps out any sort of competition for the republican and the democratic party and it has been very succesfull in doing so.The democrats reluctantly allow it to keep the republican party viable and the 2 party system in tact. If the system would leave 1 party dominant all the time it would be vulnerable. It would not be sustainable in the long run and It would give way more room to unpredictable newcomers which is the last thing either the democrats and the republicans want. It seems unlikely to me the voting system in the usa will ever change significantly,at least not for as long as it does benefit both parties in one way or the other. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8152 Posts
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). I love the "We don't like loser" in your witness' profile. Can as well write "Hi, I'm a giant douchebag, here is my testimony about people behaving meanly" | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24192 Posts
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 Think it's funny they aren't even trying to have OAS come observe. EDIT: I guess they sent a couple dozen people yesterday, so it'll be interesting to see their report. Summary of their 2016 report for reference: + Show Spoiler + The report – that specifically analyzes the issues of electoral organization, the use of technology, political participation, campaign finance and media, highlights, among other issues, the following strengths: www.oas.org-The political process is public, transparent and verifiable, and is based on weights and counterweights at every step. -The systems for resolution of controversies work efficiently and expeditiously, something particularly noteworthy in the case of ordinary justice -Voting centers opened on time, had all necessary materials and were staffed with properly trained officials -“The culture of service and professionalism of electoral officials observed across the different states”, that “provided voters with a safe and convenient way to vote.” -The efforts of electoral efforts to facilitate access for persons with disabilities. Among the opportunities for improvement identified by the Mission are: -Taking measures to avoid the excessive concentration of voters and long lines in the voting centers. -Broaden the cooperation between states to compare information and avoid possible duplications in voter registries. -Expand the practice of designing electoral districts through independent, non-partisan commissions. -Analyze the impact of the decision of the Supreme Court to eliminate parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. -Establish better and stricter rules to govern PACs and super PACs. -Leave behind the polarizing and divisive campaign rhetoric and promote a civil dialogue between opposing visions. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27234 Posts
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. Some people are stupid yes, many more are simply time-limited or having other limiting factors (I merely dip my toes into the news cycle to avoid exacerbating my mental health issues. Just to clarify that/I’m talking about a more general approach to media rather than this specific story. I trust people to be able to make their own conclusions based on good information, not so much if there’s bad information, or probably worse again just tons of information, good and bad to sift through. Outsourcing the process of gathering and analysing information about the wider world is why the media exist in the first place, if people don’t trust those sources to cut through the noise they’ll go with their instincts and their gut. But yeah was a pretty bad and unclear post on my part. This story seems 1 part clearly true (the Hunter Biden gossip) and another part rather dubious (the linking to some wider Joe Biden conspiracy). | ||
| ||
