|
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 |
|
|
Norway28910 Posts
I appreciate our new conservative poster and wish more of the replies were in line with how Ender phrased his (although he also could have done without the last line). Obviously those are bad sources, but any variant of 'you are an idiot for believing in them' is a very poor way of convincing him of this. Educate, not humiliate, and if you can't adhere to that principle then you cannot claim to be part of a knowledge-based fight for societal betterment.
|
On April 07 2021 22:20 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2021 22:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 07 2021 17:37 KwarK wrote:On April 07 2021 07:48 Cbole wrote:On April 07 2021 07:28 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 07 2021 05:25 Cbole wrote:On April 07 2021 04:54 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 07 2021 02:14 Cbole wrote:On April 07 2021 01:43 Simberto wrote:On April 07 2021 01:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
People don't trust the election process because they don't understand the election process, and they trust Donald Trump instead of security officials who have said, repeatedly, that the most recent election was one of the most secure elections ever. The only way to dispel these myths is to educate people on this, which includes being able to establish - and communicate - that this lack of trust is unfounded. And if it were really about trust in the elections, then the best way to handle this is to make sure that there is always a paper trail which can (and will) be audited. I assume that is already happening in the US, i know that it is happening here in Germany. Mark every person who voted on a list. Then, after the election is done, count the amount of ballots at the polling place. If the number is not equal to the number of people who have voted, there is a problem. Have multiple people with varying party affiliations there for the counting, and have them all sign off on the result. Safeguard the ballots after the election for recounts and investigations into tampering. Basically, have a huge paper trail at every step of the way. Have people sign for stuff. That is how you build trust in an election. Not by muddling the waters with regards to who gets to vote and who doesn't. Not having a president who constantly claims that the election was fraudulent without any proof whatsoever, just because he lost, also helps. Those are all things that exist. Procedurally, some of these things were not followed, and any attempt to look into the election was denied by people claiming the fairest election ever. Regardless, I do not want this to be a rehash of what happened on the election. To reiterate and clarify, I absolutely, totally, 100% believe the correct person won, and the actions of Donald Trump in the following months stoked the fire. That is not what I am asking or debating. The entire reason I brought up was to establish that there are people who question the integrity of the election, and that that is the reason for the Georgia bill. Regardless of the background as to why the bill was passed, it has been. With that being said, I would like to ask again, how does the Georgia bill disenfranchise voters? The only legitimate answer that could be the case that was brought up was regarding voter rolls. Do you have a source for the bolded part? Not to get off topic, again, I am not debating the election or the outcome. Here are some sources to back the claim, this is as far as I will discuss. For the first claim: https://thenewamerican.com/michigan-judge-secretary-of-state-broke-law-with-absentee-ballot-directive-in-2020-election/https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/judge-rules-virginia-election-law-changes-illegalFor the second: https://electionwiz.com/2021/02/16/maricopa-county-continues-stonewalling-ariz-senate/https://headlines360.news/2021/03/09/ballot-shredding-happens-in-georgia-to-destroy-evidence/ You were replying to: And if it were really about trust in the elections, then the best way to handle this is to make sure that there is always a paper trail which can (and will) be audited. I assume that is already happening in the US, i know that it is happening here in Germany.
Mark every person who voted on a list. Then, after the election is done, count the amount of ballots at the polling place. If the number is not equal to the number of people who have voted, there is a problem. Have multiple people with varying party affiliations there for the counting, and have them all sign off on the result. Safeguard the ballots after the election for recounts and investigations into tampering.
Basically, have a huge paper trail at every step of the way. Have people sign for stuff. That is how you build trust in an election. Not by muddling the waters with regards to who gets to vote and who doesn't.
Not having a president who constantly claims that the election was fraudulent without any proof whatsoever, just because he lost, also helps With: Those are all things that exist. Procedurally, some of these things were not followed, and any attempt to look into the election was denied by people claiming the fairest election ever. And your first source is about a lawsuit that deemed that some representative did not have the authority to set the standard for what is acceptable for signatures to be considered valid in mail in ballots. The second is about an injunction that was successful so mail in ballots received after the deadline without a postmark would not be counted. The other two I didn't read, because, seriously, 'the election wizard' does not sound like a reputable source. Please, if you have a source for your bolded statement, I'd be happy to read it. Please, if you have nothing relevant, please don't quote some rando article, I don't enjoy wasting my time. My mistake, the conversations were bleeding together and I mistakenly thought I was replying to procedures not being followed for the first two posts. The last two are two instances of the election being impeded. Specifically the Arizona legislature calling for an audit and being ignored was widely publicized. Here are alternative resources, and here is a more relevant articles about papers trails: Arizona: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/04/breaking-arizonas-maricopa-county-board-supervisors-calls-emergency-meeting-morning-delay-senate-audit-2020-election-results/Alternative: https://www.publishedreporter.com/2021/04/02/arizona-senate-hires-independent-auditors-to-perform-full-forensic-audit-of-2020-election-in-maricopa-county/GOP State Senate members had recently butted heads with the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors over access to ballots or the tabulation machines, but a legal victory last month opened the doors for the newly-announced Republican-led audit of the election results. Paper trail: https://www.independentsentinel.com/still-no-chain-of-custody-for-over-400000-ballots-in-ga/Destruction of ballots: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/01/breaking-fbi-claims-jurisdiction-yesterday-took-control-shredded-ballots-analyzed-georgia-sends-back-shredder/ Those websites are all fake news buddy. They’re Infowars style conspiracy theory nonsense, not journalism. How is it that you can’t tell the difference between the two? The people writing for publishedreporter are not published reporters, no more than the people writing for bigfootofficial are officially Bigfoot. A published reporter is a reporter who is published by an actual circulated journal, not just someone who registered that url. I clicked on one of the links and there was a giant pop up poll demanding my views on Biden putting Obama on the Supreme Court. I clicked to vote no and it took me to renewtheright.com to block Biden’s Marxist agenda. It’s still not clear which seat they didn’t want Biden to give former President Obama. You can’t be serious here. This is how you get news? People not understanding what a good source is / how to hierarchize sources is imo the one biggest problem in politics today. I am just puzzled anyone can post such garbage sources and expect to be taken seriously. Well this is why the first 30 posts were source free and he kept wanting people to only talk about the bill. Because that let him avoid that they whole premise that made the bill reasonable was complete horseshit. Hopefully after reading this and considering his sources he will have a change of heart, but for some reason, just like when cult doomsday predictions fail, people don't move away from the fantasy they dive deeper in it. Confirmation bias and sunk cost fallacy are incredibly powerful forces that allow people to completely ignore facts that disagree with their beliefs.
Chances are he wont and is likely frustrated that no one (except a few like farva) engaged him on what he actually wanted to discuss/understand.
|
On April 07 2021 23:08 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I appreciate our new conservative poster and wish more of the replies were in line with how Ender phrased his (although he also could have done without the last line). Obviously those are bad sources, but any variant of 'you are an idiot for believing in them' is a very poor way of convincing him of this. Educate, not humiliate, and if you can't adhere to that principle then you cannot claim to be part of a knowledge-based fight for societal betterment.
My bad, I just got a bit exasperated by the end there. The eagle attacking the hammer and sickle made me cringe but I gave it a go anyway. I'm just disappointed that he wasn't careful with his sourcing.
|
On April 07 2021 23:29 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2021 22:20 JimmiC wrote:On April 07 2021 22:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 07 2021 17:37 KwarK wrote:On April 07 2021 07:48 Cbole wrote:On April 07 2021 07:28 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 07 2021 05:25 Cbole wrote:On April 07 2021 04:54 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 07 2021 02:14 Cbole wrote:On April 07 2021 01:43 Simberto wrote:
[quote]
And if it were really about trust in the elections, then the best way to handle this is to make sure that there is always a paper trail which can (and will) be audited. I assume that is already happening in the US, i know that it is happening here in Germany.
Mark every person who voted on a list. Then, after the election is done, count the amount of ballots at the polling place. If the number is not equal to the number of people who have voted, there is a problem. Have multiple people with varying party affiliations there for the counting, and have them all sign off on the result. Safeguard the ballots after the election for recounts and investigations into tampering.
Basically, have a huge paper trail at every step of the way. Have people sign for stuff. That is how you build trust in an election. Not by muddling the waters with regards to who gets to vote and who doesn't.
Not having a president who constantly claims that the election was fraudulent without any proof whatsoever, just because he lost, also helps. Those are all things that exist. Procedurally, some of these things were not followed, and any attempt to look into the election was denied by people claiming the fairest election ever. Regardless, I do not want this to be a rehash of what happened on the election. To reiterate and clarify, I absolutely, totally, 100% believe the correct person won, and the actions of Donald Trump in the following months stoked the fire. That is not what I am asking or debating. The entire reason I brought up was to establish that there are people who question the integrity of the election, and that that is the reason for the Georgia bill. Regardless of the background as to why the bill was passed, it has been. With that being said, I would like to ask again, how does the Georgia bill disenfranchise voters? The only legitimate answer that could be the case that was brought up was regarding voter rolls. Do you have a source for the bolded part? Not to get off topic, again, I am not debating the election or the outcome. Here are some sources to back the claim, this is as far as I will discuss. For the first claim: https://thenewamerican.com/michigan-judge-secretary-of-state-broke-law-with-absentee-ballot-directive-in-2020-election/https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/judge-rules-virginia-election-law-changes-illegalFor the second: https://electionwiz.com/2021/02/16/maricopa-county-continues-stonewalling-ariz-senate/https://headlines360.news/2021/03/09/ballot-shredding-happens-in-georgia-to-destroy-evidence/ You were replying to: And if it were really about trust in the elections, then the best way to handle this is to make sure that there is always a paper trail which can (and will) be audited. I assume that is already happening in the US, i know that it is happening here in Germany.
Mark every person who voted on a list. Then, after the election is done, count the amount of ballots at the polling place. If the number is not equal to the number of people who have voted, there is a problem. Have multiple people with varying party affiliations there for the counting, and have them all sign off on the result. Safeguard the ballots after the election for recounts and investigations into tampering.
Basically, have a huge paper trail at every step of the way. Have people sign for stuff. That is how you build trust in an election. Not by muddling the waters with regards to who gets to vote and who doesn't.
Not having a president who constantly claims that the election was fraudulent without any proof whatsoever, just because he lost, also helps With: Those are all things that exist. Procedurally, some of these things were not followed, and any attempt to look into the election was denied by people claiming the fairest election ever. And your first source is about a lawsuit that deemed that some representative did not have the authority to set the standard for what is acceptable for signatures to be considered valid in mail in ballots. The second is about an injunction that was successful so mail in ballots received after the deadline without a postmark would not be counted. The other two I didn't read, because, seriously, 'the election wizard' does not sound like a reputable source. Please, if you have a source for your bolded statement, I'd be happy to read it. Please, if you have nothing relevant, please don't quote some rando article, I don't enjoy wasting my time. My mistake, the conversations were bleeding together and I mistakenly thought I was replying to procedures not being followed for the first two posts. The last two are two instances of the election being impeded. Specifically the Arizona legislature calling for an audit and being ignored was widely publicized. Here are alternative resources, and here is a more relevant articles about papers trails: Arizona: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/04/breaking-arizonas-maricopa-county-board-supervisors-calls-emergency-meeting-morning-delay-senate-audit-2020-election-results/Alternative: https://www.publishedreporter.com/2021/04/02/arizona-senate-hires-independent-auditors-to-perform-full-forensic-audit-of-2020-election-in-maricopa-county/GOP State Senate members had recently butted heads with the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors over access to ballots or the tabulation machines, but a legal victory last month opened the doors for the newly-announced Republican-led audit of the election results. Paper trail: https://www.independentsentinel.com/still-no-chain-of-custody-for-over-400000-ballots-in-ga/Destruction of ballots: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/01/breaking-fbi-claims-jurisdiction-yesterday-took-control-shredded-ballots-analyzed-georgia-sends-back-shredder/ Those websites are all fake news buddy. They’re Infowars style conspiracy theory nonsense, not journalism. How is it that you can’t tell the difference between the two? The people writing for publishedreporter are not published reporters, no more than the people writing for bigfootofficial are officially Bigfoot. A published reporter is a reporter who is published by an actual circulated journal, not just someone who registered that url. I clicked on one of the links and there was a giant pop up poll demanding my views on Biden putting Obama on the Supreme Court. I clicked to vote no and it took me to renewtheright.com to block Biden’s Marxist agenda. It’s still not clear which seat they didn’t want Biden to give former President Obama. You can’t be serious here. This is how you get news? People not understanding what a good source is / how to hierarchize sources is imo the one biggest problem in politics today. I am just puzzled anyone can post such garbage sources and expect to be taken seriously. Well this is why the first 30 posts were source free and he kept wanting people to only talk about the bill. Because that let him avoid that they whole premise that made the bill reasonable was complete horseshit. Hopefully after reading this and considering his sources he will have a change of heart, but for some reason, just like when cult doomsday predictions fail, people don't move away from the fantasy they dive deeper in it. Confirmation bias and sunk cost fallacy are incredibly powerful forces that allow people to completely ignore facts that disagree with their beliefs. Chances are he wont and is likely frustrated that no one (except a few like farva) engaged him on what he actually wanted to discuss/understand.
You can't really separate a discussion about whether voter fraud occurs from a bill that is meant to be addressing voter fraud.
|
On April 07 2021 23:08 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I appreciate our new conservative poster and wish more of the replies were in line with how Ender phrased his (although he also could have done without the last line). Obviously those are bad sources, but any variant of 'you are an idiot for believing in them' is a very poor way of convincing him of this. Educate, not humiliate, and if you can't adhere to that principle then you cannot claim to be part of a knowledge-based fight for societal betterment.
I think saying « bro this is a garbage source, you can’t be taken seriously with that » is not public humiliation.
Yeah you are right, we can all be totally patient and uber nice all the time, but I also remember you saying stuff that would be suboptimal for gently convincing someone of your point of view. Like, « you are a terrible person if you don’t like Greta » is not much better than telling people to get real with their sources when it comes to pedagogy.
I think we are all very gentle sometimes, and somewhat less others. No one prevents you from explaining with pedagogy why posting infowars level sources is a bad idea; I don’t have the strength because frankly, it makes me a bit angry.
|
Norway28910 Posts
I said pathetic, not terrible person. 
|
On April 08 2021 02:32 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2021 23:29 Sbrubbles wrote:On April 07 2021 22:20 JimmiC wrote:On April 07 2021 22:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 07 2021 17:37 KwarK wrote:On April 07 2021 07:48 Cbole wrote:On April 07 2021 07:28 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 07 2021 05:25 Cbole wrote:On April 07 2021 04:54 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 07 2021 02:14 Cbole wrote:
[quote]
Those are all things that exist. Procedurally, some of these things were not followed, and any attempt to look into the election was denied by people claiming the fairest election ever.
Regardless, I do not want this to be a rehash of what happened on the election. To reiterate and clarify, I absolutely, totally, 100% believe the correct person won, and the actions of Donald Trump in the following months stoked the fire. That is not what I am asking or debating.
The entire reason I brought up was to establish that there are people who question the integrity of the election, and that that is the reason for the Georgia bill. Regardless of the background as to why the bill was passed, it has been.
With that being said, I would like to ask again, how does the Georgia bill disenfranchise voters? The only legitimate answer that could be the case that was brought up was regarding voter rolls.
Do you have a source for the bolded part? Not to get off topic, again, I am not debating the election or the outcome. Here are some sources to back the claim, this is as far as I will discuss. For the first claim: https://thenewamerican.com/michigan-judge-secretary-of-state-broke-law-with-absentee-ballot-directive-in-2020-election/https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/judge-rules-virginia-election-law-changes-illegalFor the second: https://electionwiz.com/2021/02/16/maricopa-county-continues-stonewalling-ariz-senate/https://headlines360.news/2021/03/09/ballot-shredding-happens-in-georgia-to-destroy-evidence/ You were replying to: And if it were really about trust in the elections, then the best way to handle this is to make sure that there is always a paper trail which can (and will) be audited. I assume that is already happening in the US, i know that it is happening here in Germany.
Mark every person who voted on a list. Then, after the election is done, count the amount of ballots at the polling place. If the number is not equal to the number of people who have voted, there is a problem. Have multiple people with varying party affiliations there for the counting, and have them all sign off on the result. Safeguard the ballots after the election for recounts and investigations into tampering.
Basically, have a huge paper trail at every step of the way. Have people sign for stuff. That is how you build trust in an election. Not by muddling the waters with regards to who gets to vote and who doesn't.
Not having a president who constantly claims that the election was fraudulent without any proof whatsoever, just because he lost, also helps With: Those are all things that exist. Procedurally, some of these things were not followed, and any attempt to look into the election was denied by people claiming the fairest election ever. And your first source is about a lawsuit that deemed that some representative did not have the authority to set the standard for what is acceptable for signatures to be considered valid in mail in ballots. The second is about an injunction that was successful so mail in ballots received after the deadline without a postmark would not be counted. The other two I didn't read, because, seriously, 'the election wizard' does not sound like a reputable source. Please, if you have a source for your bolded statement, I'd be happy to read it. Please, if you have nothing relevant, please don't quote some rando article, I don't enjoy wasting my time. My mistake, the conversations were bleeding together and I mistakenly thought I was replying to procedures not being followed for the first two posts. The last two are two instances of the election being impeded. Specifically the Arizona legislature calling for an audit and being ignored was widely publicized. Here are alternative resources, and here is a more relevant articles about papers trails: Arizona: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/04/breaking-arizonas-maricopa-county-board-supervisors-calls-emergency-meeting-morning-delay-senate-audit-2020-election-results/Alternative: https://www.publishedreporter.com/2021/04/02/arizona-senate-hires-independent-auditors-to-perform-full-forensic-audit-of-2020-election-in-maricopa-county/GOP State Senate members had recently butted heads with the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors over access to ballots or the tabulation machines, but a legal victory last month opened the doors for the newly-announced Republican-led audit of the election results. Paper trail: https://www.independentsentinel.com/still-no-chain-of-custody-for-over-400000-ballots-in-ga/Destruction of ballots: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/01/breaking-fbi-claims-jurisdiction-yesterday-took-control-shredded-ballots-analyzed-georgia-sends-back-shredder/ Those websites are all fake news buddy. They’re Infowars style conspiracy theory nonsense, not journalism. How is it that you can’t tell the difference between the two? The people writing for publishedreporter are not published reporters, no more than the people writing for bigfootofficial are officially Bigfoot. A published reporter is a reporter who is published by an actual circulated journal, not just someone who registered that url. I clicked on one of the links and there was a giant pop up poll demanding my views on Biden putting Obama on the Supreme Court. I clicked to vote no and it took me to renewtheright.com to block Biden’s Marxist agenda. It’s still not clear which seat they didn’t want Biden to give former President Obama. You can’t be serious here. This is how you get news? People not understanding what a good source is / how to hierarchize sources is imo the one biggest problem in politics today. I am just puzzled anyone can post such garbage sources and expect to be taken seriously. Well this is why the first 30 posts were source free and he kept wanting people to only talk about the bill. Because that let him avoid that they whole premise that made the bill reasonable was complete horseshit. Hopefully after reading this and considering his sources he will have a change of heart, but for some reason, just like when cult doomsday predictions fail, people don't move away from the fantasy they dive deeper in it. Confirmation bias and sunk cost fallacy are incredibly powerful forces that allow people to completely ignore facts that disagree with their beliefs. Chances are he wont and is likely frustrated that no one (except a few like farva) engaged him on what he actually wanted to discuss/understand. You can't really separate a discussion about whether voter fraud occurs from a bill that is meant to be addressing voter fraud.
You can address both, like the vox article that farv posted. "The bill is bad for XYZ reasons, but we shouldn't even be discussing the bill because of ABC reasons".
I get that the whole point is discussing the bill itself can be understood as "surrendering", but throw the guy a bone at least.
|
|
|
On April 08 2021 03:29 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2021 03:10 Sbrubbles wrote:On April 08 2021 02:32 EnDeR_ wrote:On April 07 2021 23:29 Sbrubbles wrote:On April 07 2021 22:20 JimmiC wrote:On April 07 2021 22:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 07 2021 17:37 KwarK wrote:On April 07 2021 07:48 Cbole wrote:On April 07 2021 07:28 EnDeR_ wrote:You were replying to: And if it were really about trust in the elections, then the best way to handle this is to make sure that there is always a paper trail which can (and will) be audited. I assume that is already happening in the US, i know that it is happening here in Germany.
Mark every person who voted on a list. Then, after the election is done, count the amount of ballots at the polling place. If the number is not equal to the number of people who have voted, there is a problem. Have multiple people with varying party affiliations there for the counting, and have them all sign off on the result. Safeguard the ballots after the election for recounts and investigations into tampering.
Basically, have a huge paper trail at every step of the way. Have people sign for stuff. That is how you build trust in an election. Not by muddling the waters with regards to who gets to vote and who doesn't.
Not having a president who constantly claims that the election was fraudulent without any proof whatsoever, just because he lost, also helps With: Those are all things that exist. Procedurally, some of these things were not followed, and any attempt to look into the election was denied by people claiming the fairest election ever. And your first source is about a lawsuit that deemed that some representative did not have the authority to set the standard for what is acceptable for signatures to be considered valid in mail in ballots. The second is about an injunction that was successful so mail in ballots received after the deadline without a postmark would not be counted. The other two I didn't read, because, seriously, 'the election wizard' does not sound like a reputable source. Please, if you have a source for your bolded statement, I'd be happy to read it. Please, if you have nothing relevant, please don't quote some rando article, I don't enjoy wasting my time. My mistake, the conversations were bleeding together and I mistakenly thought I was replying to procedures not being followed for the first two posts. The last two are two instances of the election being impeded. Specifically the Arizona legislature calling for an audit and being ignored was widely publicized. Here are alternative resources, and here is a more relevant articles about papers trails: Arizona: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/04/breaking-arizonas-maricopa-county-board-supervisors-calls-emergency-meeting-morning-delay-senate-audit-2020-election-results/Alternative: https://www.publishedreporter.com/2021/04/02/arizona-senate-hires-independent-auditors-to-perform-full-forensic-audit-of-2020-election-in-maricopa-county/GOP State Senate members had recently butted heads with the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors over access to ballots or the tabulation machines, but a legal victory last month opened the doors for the newly-announced Republican-led audit of the election results. Paper trail: https://www.independentsentinel.com/still-no-chain-of-custody-for-over-400000-ballots-in-ga/Destruction of ballots: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/01/breaking-fbi-claims-jurisdiction-yesterday-took-control-shredded-ballots-analyzed-georgia-sends-back-shredder/ Those websites are all fake news buddy. They’re Infowars style conspiracy theory nonsense, not journalism. How is it that you can’t tell the difference between the two? The people writing for publishedreporter are not published reporters, no more than the people writing for bigfootofficial are officially Bigfoot. A published reporter is a reporter who is published by an actual circulated journal, not just someone who registered that url. I clicked on one of the links and there was a giant pop up poll demanding my views on Biden putting Obama on the Supreme Court. I clicked to vote no and it took me to renewtheright.com to block Biden’s Marxist agenda. It’s still not clear which seat they didn’t want Biden to give former President Obama. You can’t be serious here. This is how you get news? People not understanding what a good source is / how to hierarchize sources is imo the one biggest problem in politics today. I am just puzzled anyone can post such garbage sources and expect to be taken seriously. Well this is why the first 30 posts were source free and he kept wanting people to only talk about the bill. Because that let him avoid that they whole premise that made the bill reasonable was complete horseshit. Hopefully after reading this and considering his sources he will have a change of heart, but for some reason, just like when cult doomsday predictions fail, people don't move away from the fantasy they dive deeper in it. Confirmation bias and sunk cost fallacy are incredibly powerful forces that allow people to completely ignore facts that disagree with their beliefs. Chances are he wont and is likely frustrated that no one (except a few like farva) engaged him on what he actually wanted to discuss/understand. You can't really separate a discussion about whether voter fraud occurs from a bill that is meant to be addressing voter fraud. You can address both, like the vox article that farv posted. "The bill is bad for XYZ reasons, but we shouldn't even be discussing the bill because of ABC reasons". I get that the whole point is discussing the bill itself can be understood as "surrendering", but throw the guy a bone at least. We did, multiple people talked about the bill and Farv put out at least one very detailed break down. Discussing something as if it exists in a vacuum is pointless, when we are not in a vacuum.
Woa there, look back at the last 3 pages. Farv was the exception, not the rule
|
|
|
On April 08 2021 03:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:I said pathetic, not terrible person.
My bad, I feel better now 🤨
|
I am also relieved that i am pathethic not terrible.
|
Somewhat relevant 538 article https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-being-anti-media-is-now-part-of-the-gop-identity/
I find it alarming at how far the trust has gotten among the GOP but also among independents. The narratives at play are so so strong from both aisles. But the GOP’s biggest issue is the distrust of establishments/institutions in general.
I almost want to predict that Republicans will become disenfranchised in general from politics over the next few elections, rather than a “Must stop the dems!” And “culture war.”
|
On April 08 2021 07:24 Husyelt wrote:Somewhat relevant 538 article https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-being-anti-media-is-now-part-of-the-gop-identity/I find it alarming at how far the trust has gotten among the GOP but also among independents. The narratives at play are so so strong from both aisles. But the GOP’s biggest issue is the distrust of establishments/institutions in general. I almost want to predict that Republicans will become disenfranchised in general from politics over the next few elections, rather than a “Must stop the dems!” And “culture war.” How many of those 'independents' are actually Republicans who are to embarrassed/ashamed/scared to actually come out as Republicans?
I'm always wary of reaching to much into independents in US politics.
|
On April 08 2021 07:24 Husyelt wrote:Somewhat relevant 538 article https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-being-anti-media-is-now-part-of-the-gop-identity/I find it alarming at how far the trust has gotten among the GOP but also among independents. The narratives at play are so so strong from both aisles. But the GOP’s biggest issue is the distrust of establishments/institutions in general. I almost want to predict that Republicans will become disenfranchised in general from politics over the next few elections, rather than a “Must stop the dems!” And “culture war.”
Democrats taking their rightful place as the right wing party in the US two party system (making room for a left wing party) would be great.
|
I would not mind Democrats vs Progressives being the main two parties with a libertarian/conservative combo being a distant third.
|
If I were to guess the only people objecting would be ones working for the status quo parties
aka the establishment. everyone else would profit from a little shake up. not revolution, but a nice shake up.
|
Biden tax plan is huge. If it passes it might have worldwide repercussion and seriously undermine the strategies of big companies to avoid paying taxes. The G20 immediately started working on a minimum tax rate for multinational companies.
It’s a complete game changer, globally. For France for example it would mean 500 billions a year in additional tax revenue.
I have to say that I didn’t quite expext Biden to be that energic and I’m pleasantly surprised by him governing that clearly from the left of the Democratic party.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
