Whoa: Nearly a Third of Democrats Believe the Election Was Stolen From Trump

pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Whoa: Nearly a Third of Democrats Believe the Election Was Stolen From Trump

Post by pmward » Mon Nov 23, 2020 8:57 am

Cortopassi wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 8:34 am
I thought this was a very good comment from another blog site:

"I'm shocked how fast the Trump crowd turned on Tucker Carlson. After years of being cited as perhaps the best host on TV, he is suddenly persona non grata for saying that Powell didn't want to provide any evidence on his show.

This illustrates how cult-like US politics (particularly in Trump's corner) has become. It's not enough to agree 98% of the time with someone, it needs to be TOTAL lockstep. Anything less makes you a Satanic communist. It's completely crazy!"
Yeah I agree. It's pretty scary when having a differing opinion results in being shunned. See the debate in the other thread last week about "tyranny of the majority" as this is a fitting example happening within the Republican Party. I think this actually works against the Republican Party in the end. If they keep shunning their own, the very people they depend on for votes, casting anyone who isn't super far extreme right as "RINO's", and publicly shunning and rejecting them... how does this not wind up in fewer Republicans and Republican votes in the future? How does telling people they are not allowed to think for themselves and have to accept the leaders narrative 100% or be disowned attract new Republicans? All the moderate Republicans are basically being told they need to conform to the populist extreme or GTFO. A good chunk of those will take the GTFO option. This whole strategy just seems so short sighted. I feel like Trump is putting himself above his party. It's going to take a long time for the Republican Party to clean up the mess that Trump is leaving them with.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Whoa: Nearly a Third of Democrats Believe the Election Was Stolen From Trump

Post by glennds » Mon Nov 23, 2020 9:02 am

Simonjester wrote:
doodle wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 7:07 am
This dude coming on the forum and immediately asking how to ignore people. Lol
no sudden dawning of self awareness regarding the type of posts that are driving people to find the block button? or awareness of how badly these type of posts have lowered the level of discourse?
I can totally understand blocking someone who is consistently inflammatory or obnoxious, but speaking only for myself, I value hearing differing points of view from my own. And more importantly, understanding the the thought process behind them, or sometimes confirming the lack of a thought process.

If someone simply blocks out everyone who doesn't agree with them, they have basically created a self-reinforcing echo chamber.
Of course, keeping it civil is important.
Could you imagine if this forum ended up with two or more tribes that blocked out everyone except their fellow tribe members? Is that what's happening in society?
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Whoa: Nearly a Third of Democrats Believe the Election Was Stolen From Trump

Post by pmward » Mon Nov 23, 2020 9:04 am

It's also funny in a way, how for years people have been focusing on the divide between the extreme populists and moderates in the Democratic Party, and wondering how they could hold the ship together. But somehow, they managed to hold it together (likely just uniting under the common hatred of Trump) while the Republican Party quietly became the "boat" who's hull is starting to be torn apart in a battle between extreme populists and moderates.
User avatar
l82start
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 1291
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:51 pm

Re: Whoa: Nearly a Third of Democrats Believe the Election Was Stolen From Trump

Post by l82start » Mon Nov 23, 2020 9:12 am

i am not personally in favor of blocking, however there is a dramatic difference between intelligent debate and trolling, and the trolls don't add to the debate ... they wont be missed by those who no longer see their posts..

blocking a poster is a personal choice, i hope the frustration with trolls and the attack posts doesn't lead to tribal blocking, or to the blocking of posters who are in the majority posting intelligent commentary on either side. even if some of the partisans that normally post quality do get carried away by the moment and cross into "shit post " territory..
-Government 2020+ - a BANANA REPUBLIC - if you can keep it

-Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence
User avatar
AdamA
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2336
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 8:49 pm

Re: Whoa: Nearly a Third of Democrats Believe the Election Was Stolen From Trump

Post by AdamA » Mon Nov 23, 2020 9:14 am

drumminj wrote:
Sat Nov 21, 2020 10:25 am
sophie wrote:
Sat Nov 21, 2020 9:14 am
Wow, what's happened to this forum? It used to be a place filled with intelligent, well thought out discussions on a wide range of topics. Now it's an echo chamber where the crazies reign supreme.
I've gotten the same impression, and honestly stopped reading here for the past few weeks. The folks engaging in diatribes and personal attacks seem to be drowning out the rest.
I think that's why when Craig initially setup the forum he had a "no politics" rule.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9395
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Whoa: Nearly a Third of Democrats Believe the Election Was Stolen From Trump

Post by vnatale » Mon Nov 23, 2020 9:18 am

glennds wrote:
Sun Nov 22, 2020 10:18 pm
vnatale wrote:
Sun Nov 22, 2020 9:35 pm
2016 campaign clearly stolen from Hillary!

From the book I finished tonight...there is far, far more in the book. All reveals how despicable many on the right are and how gullible are many of their supporters.

Vinny

Vinny,
Is the book Hiding In Plain Sight by Sarah Kendzior?
No. I realized later I should have disclosed. This is it:
Capture.JPG
Capture.JPG (59.02 KiB) Viewed 4027 times

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Whoa: Nearly a Third of Democrats Believe the Election Was Stolen From Trump

Post by Libertarian666 » Mon Nov 23, 2020 9:19 am

Simonjester wrote:
doodle wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 7:07 am
This dude coming on the forum and immediately asking how to ignore people. Lol
no sudden dawning of self awareness regarding the type of posts that are driving people to find the block button? or awareness of how badly these type of posts have lowered the level of discourse?
If lunatics had self-awareness, they wouldn't be lunatics.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9395
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Whoa: Nearly a Third of Democrats Believe the Election Was Stolen From Trump

Post by vnatale » Mon Nov 23, 2020 9:21 am

pmward wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 8:57 am
Cortopassi wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 8:34 am
I thought this was a very good comment from another blog site:

"I'm shocked how fast the Trump crowd turned on Tucker Carlson. After years of being cited as perhaps the best host on TV, he is suddenly persona non grata for saying that Powell didn't want to provide any evidence on his show.

This illustrates how cult-like US politics (particularly in Trump's corner) has become. It's not enough to agree 98% of the time with someone, it needs to be TOTAL lockstep. Anything less makes you a Satanic communist. It's completely crazy!"
Yeah I agree. It's pretty scary when having a differing opinion results in being shunned. See the debate in the other thread last week about "tyranny of the majority" as this is a fitting example happening within the Republican Party. I think this actually works against the Republican Party in the end. If they keep shunning their own, the very people they depend on for votes, casting anyone who isn't super far extreme right as "RINO's", and publicly shunning and rejecting them... how does this not wind up in fewer Republicans and Republican votes in the future? How does telling people they are not allowed to think for themselves and have to accept the leaders narrative 100% or be disowned attract new Republicans? All the moderate Republicans are basically being told they need to conform to the populist extreme or GTFO. A good chunk of those will take the GTFO option. This whole strategy just seems so short sighted. I feel like Trump is putting himself above his party. It's going to take a long time for the Republican Party to clean up the mess that Trump is leaving them with.
It is NOT just YOUR feeling. Trump ALWAYS puts his own individual interests above ALL ELSE. ALWAYS!

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
sophie
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1959
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: Whoa: Nearly a Third of Democrats Believe the Election Was Stolen From Trump

Post by sophie » Mon Nov 23, 2020 9:29 am

AdamA wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 9:14 am
I think that's why when Craig initially setup the forum he had a "no politics" rule.
He did? I didn't know that. It was certainly not evident by the time I joined.

In the current situation though, you'd have a hard time blocking the medical/health aspects of current politics. As I recall, there were a LOT of very controversial health related threads in the past. Also, most political discussions were abstract commentaries on things like libertarianism, the Fed, etc. So unbelievably civil now, in retrospect.

If we had a debate on Trump-style populism rather than the exclusive focus of certain forum members on Trump himself, that would be potentially of interest. I just don't see it happening though. It's not really politics that's driving this, it's the sheer malevolence of those posters, and complete disregard of any point of view that might not be fully consistent with that malevolent set of opinions.
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Whoa: Nearly a Third of Democrats Believe the Election Was Stolen From Trump

Post by pmward » Mon Nov 23, 2020 9:32 am

Libertarian666 wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 9:19 am
Simonjester wrote:
doodle wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 7:07 am
This dude coming on the forum and immediately asking how to ignore people. Lol
no sudden dawning of self awareness regarding the type of posts that are driving people to find the block button? or awareness of how badly these type of posts have lowered the level of discourse?
If lunatics had self-awareness, they wouldn't be lunatics.
He once again proves his own point!
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Whoa: Nearly a Third of Democrats Believe the Election Was Stolen From Trump

Post by pmward » Mon Nov 23, 2020 9:35 am

sophie wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 9:29 am
If we had a debate on Trump-style populism rather than the exclusive focus of certain forum members on Trump himself, that would be potentially of interest. I just don't see it happening though. It's not really politics that's driving this, it's the sheer malevolence of those posters, and complete disregard of any point of view that might not be fully consistent with that malevolent set of opinions.
I would be down for that discussion. Admittedly, my dislike for Trump is stronger than my dislike for his policies (though I strongly dislike his isolationist, tariff, and anti-immigration policies, and believe they are bad for our economy and country).
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Whoa: Nearly a Third of Democrats Believe the Election Was Stolen From Trump

Post by pmward » Mon Nov 23, 2020 9:45 am

Libertarian666 wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 9:40 am
sophie wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 9:29 am
AdamA wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 9:14 am
I think that's why when Craig initially setup the forum he had a "no politics" rule.
He did? I didn't know that. It was certainly not evident by the time I joined.

In the current situation though, you'd have a hard time blocking the medical/health aspects of current politics. As I recall, there were a LOT of very controversial health related threads in the past. Also, most political discussions were abstract commentaries on things like libertarianism, the Fed, etc. So unbelievably civil now, in retrospect.

If we had a debate on Trump-style populism rather than the exclusive focus of certain forum members on Trump himself, that would be potentially of interest. I just don't see it happening though. It's not really politics that's driving this, it's the sheer malevolence of those posters, and complete disregard of any point of view that might not be fully consistent with that malevolent set of opinions.
I think a discussion of the etiology of TDS might be interesting, although of course blocking the usual suspects will be not only desirable but essential, as they obviously will try to overrun any such discussion.

But you've omitted a possibly small definitely but important point, which is that TDS isn't just about Trump himself, but anyone who supports him in any way or even isn't completely onboard with hatred for him.

For those with stage 4 TDS, anyone like that should be driven from society. Here's just one example, although there are many:

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/202 ... rosecuted/

It's really astounding that a significant fraction of a supposedly civilized society can have such an opinion.
The opposite is once again true (he is batting 1.000 today). THS (Tinfoil Hat Syndrome) is when someone on the "right" hates all people that dislike Trump, including but not limited to blocking everyone who states an opinion that in any way is different than Trump's, labelling anyone who does not like Trump as "level 4 TDS", believing that there was some "deep state" conspiracy, and a delusional unwillingness to come to terms with the reality that Trump lost the election. I would say Tech himself qualifies for "level 4" THS.
User avatar
sophie
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1959
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: Whoa: Nearly a Third of Democrats Believe the Election Was Stolen From Trump

Post by sophie » Mon Nov 23, 2020 9:57 am

Libertarian666 wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 9:40 am
But you've omitted a possibly small definitely but important point, which is that TDS isn't just about Trump himself, but anyone who supports him in any way or even isn't completely onboard with hatred for him.
Well, those are sort of wrapped up in what I intended to say, yes.

I have absolutely learned that simply stating that I agree about the nastiness of Trump's tweets and his irritatingly constant need for self-congratulation isn't sufficient to appease these folks, because I THEN go on to say that I consider all this less important than his policies (i.e. "Trump-ism" if you will). That does not satisfy the ravening beast, which requires a deep, unconditional and absolute hatred to the exclusion of all other considerations. My mind just doesn't work that way.

That's what borderline personality disorder is all about: an inability to see shades of gray, and a strong tendency to divide the world into people that are hated or loved - with nothing in between. That also explains the love affair with Biden, who I recognize is more polished but who is also an unscrupulous creep. And Kamala Harris is the original "Mean Girl" and I suspect would be no better than Trump in building a bipartisan consensus. Not saying the trolls/lunatics/whatever you call them meet criteria for BPD, but it sure is hard not to think of that possibility.

Actually tech I'd really rather discuss Trump-style populism, as a very enticing and likely successful way forward for the Republican Party. Could we? I'd really enjoy that.
Don
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 286
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:21 pm

Re: Whoa: Nearly a Third of Democrats Believe the Election Was Stolen From Trump

Post by Don » Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:26 pm

Libertarian666 wrote:
Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:29 am
"But, Joe Biden’s problems are not simply because many Republicans believe the election was stolen. It’s true that the poll showed a significant partisan divide on this issue: 75 percent of Republicans believe it is very likely (61 percent) or somewhat likely (14 percent) that the election was stolen from Trump. But, according to the poll, while 69 percent of Democrats say it is not at all likely (61 percent) or not very likely (8 percent) that the election was stolen from Trump, 30 percent of Democrats believe it is very likely (20 percent) or somewhat likely (10 percent) that it was.

Let me repeat, nearly a third of Democrats believe it is likely that the election was stolen from President Trump. That’s a remarkable number. Huge, in fact."

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/m ... p-n1160882
The problem is that even though many Democrats know that the election was stolen away from Trump in the middle of the night they just don't care.
Lack of a moral compass, perhaps?
User avatar
Tortoise
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2751
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:35 am

Re: Whoa: Nearly a Third of Democrats Believe the Election Was Stolen From Trump

Post by Tortoise » Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:28 pm

Don wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:26 pm
The problem is that even though many Democrats know that the election was stolen away from Trump in the middle of the night they just don't care.
Lack of a moral compass, perhaps?
Some people believe that the ends justify the means.
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Whoa: Nearly a Third of Democrats Believe the Election Was Stolen From Trump

Post by pmward » Mon Nov 23, 2020 3:52 pm

Don wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:26 pm
Libertarian666 wrote:
Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:29 am
"But, Joe Biden’s problems are not simply because many Republicans believe the election was stolen. It’s true that the poll showed a significant partisan divide on this issue: 75 percent of Republicans believe it is very likely (61 percent) or somewhat likely (14 percent) that the election was stolen from Trump. But, according to the poll, while 69 percent of Democrats say it is not at all likely (61 percent) or not very likely (8 percent) that the election was stolen from Trump, 30 percent of Democrats believe it is very likely (20 percent) or somewhat likely (10 percent) that it was.

Let me repeat, nearly a third of Democrats believe it is likely that the election was stolen from President Trump. That’s a remarkable number. Huge, in fact."

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/m ... p-n1160882
The problem is that even though many Democrats know that the election was stolen away from Trump in the middle of the night they just don't care.
Lack of a moral compass, perhaps?
Proof? If you can bring me one shred of evidence that there was "fraud" or "theft" in any way, I'm talking real proof submitted and accepted in a court of law, then we can have a discussion. Until said proof is brought to the table your arguments are all conjecture. If Trump miraculously brings some real proof to the table tomorrow that there was fraud, and that the election would have been a different outcome without the fraud, you will see me completely flip my opinion. My opinion is not set in stone, it is based on the current state of the evidence (or lack thereof). I may not have liked it, but I accepted Trump winning in 2016, and I would similarly accept him winning in 2020, if he really won. I want the president that won the election to be the president. It just so happens there is 0 proof submitted to the courts that it was Trump that won the election. Until that changes I operate under the view that Biden won, as all evidence in hand currently shows.
User avatar
Ad Orientem
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3483
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
Location: Florida USA
Contact:

Re: Whoa: Nearly a Third of Democrats Believe the Election Was Stolen From Trump

Post by Ad Orientem » Mon Nov 23, 2020 4:01 pm

pmward wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 3:52 pm
Don wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:26 pm
Libertarian666 wrote:
Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:29 am
"But, Joe Biden’s problems are not simply because many Republicans believe the election was stolen. It’s true that the poll showed a significant partisan divide on this issue: 75 percent of Republicans believe it is very likely (61 percent) or somewhat likely (14 percent) that the election was stolen from Trump. But, according to the poll, while 69 percent of Democrats say it is not at all likely (61 percent) or not very likely (8 percent) that the election was stolen from Trump, 30 percent of Democrats believe it is very likely (20 percent) or somewhat likely (10 percent) that it was.

Let me repeat, nearly a third of Democrats believe it is likely that the election was stolen from President Trump. That’s a remarkable number. Huge, in fact."

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/m ... p-n1160882
The problem is that even though many Democrats know that the election was stolen away from Trump in the middle of the night they just don't care.
Lack of a moral compass, perhaps?
Proof? If you can bring me one shred of evidence that there was "fraud" or "theft" in any way, I'm talking real proof submitted and accepted in a court of law, then we can have a discussion. Until said proof is brought to the table your arguments are all conjecture. If Trump miraculously brings some real proof to the table tomorrow that there was fraud, and that the election would have been a different outcome without the fraud, you will see me completely flip my opinion. My opinion is not set in stone, it is based on the current state of the evidence (or lack thereof). I may not have liked it, but I accepted Trump winning in 2016, and I would similarly accept him winning in 2020, if he really won. I want the president that won the election to be the president. It just so happens there is 0 proof submitted to the courts that it was Trump that won the election.

I hate to admit this, but I think I have found the evidence of fraud that Trump and his surrogates have been referring to. And I'm fairly certain the video footage was not doctored. Assuming the video is legitimate, then it is pretty much damning. In all three of the contested states, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia... they let black people vote.
User avatar
Mark Leavy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1950
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:20 pm
Location: US Citizen, Permanent Traveler

Re: Whoa: Nearly a Third of Democrats Believe the Election Was Stolen From Trump

Post by Mark Leavy » Mon Nov 23, 2020 4:09 pm

Ad Orientem wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 4:01 pm
I hate to admit this, but I think I have found the evidence of fraud that Trump and his surrogates have been referring to. And I'm fairly certain the video footage was not doctored. Assuming the video is legitimate, then it is pretty much damning. In all three of the contested states, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia... they let black people vote.
Not only that, but WOMEN!
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Whoa: Nearly a Third of Democrats Believe the Election Was Stolen From Trump

Post by pmward » Mon Nov 23, 2020 4:10 pm

Simonjester wrote: would you accept that it might take time to collect document and present "real" proof and that enough time hasn't passed yet?

FWWIW i haven't seen any real proof yet either, but i see mountains of indication of foul play, and do accept the above.. i will also accept that it may not be provable, and possibly may not exist...
I think it would take time to document and process some proof, but not all proof. There should be something out by now. What do I see? A bunch of small court cases being laughed out of the courts (even by right wing judges) specifically for "lack of evidence". We are not guilty until proven innocent in this country. It is on Trump to prove the guilt of the Democratic Party, not on the Democratic Party to prove its innocence. The lack of evidence is in itself the very argument for innocence. So, I think we all should operate from the viewpoint of the evidence at hand... and that evidence says Biden won, and should be allowed to begin his transition just like every single president before him was allowed to start their transition. We can always stop that transition in a few weeks if evidence is really brought up. We should not alter our operations as a country in any way when there is no proof to suggest altering them in any way.
User avatar
doodle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4658
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Whoa: Nearly a Third of Democrats Believe the Election Was Stolen From Trump

Post by doodle » Mon Nov 23, 2020 4:16 pm

Simonjester wrote: would you accept that it might take time to collect document and present "real" proof and that enough time hasn't passed yet?

FWWIW i haven't seen any real proof yet either, but i see mountains of indication of foul play, and do accept the above.. i will also accept that it may not be provable, and possibly may not exist...
What mountains of indication of foul play that have merit? Sure there are plenty of allegations, and conspiracies. It's easy to shout that Dominion rigged the vote tabulations in Philadelphia as that video you posted yesterday did, however Dominion wasn't even involved in tabulating the votes in Philadelphia. I assume we need to rely on our court system to separate the wheat from the chaff. Up until this point all allegations have been tossed out as complete nonsense.

I will note, there is a world of difference between the evidence brought forth so far by the Trump campaign regarding election fraud and that evidence brought to bear against the Trump administration by the Mueller reports investigation into foreign interference in 2016. Just looking at the evidence impartially at this point one would have to conclude that there is no evidence of fraud in 2020 and plenty of evidence of collusion and interference in 2016.
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Whoa: Nearly a Third of Democrats Believe the Election Was Stolen From Trump

Post by pmward » Mon Nov 23, 2020 4:19 pm

Would Republicans like it if all a Democrat had to do was make an allegation against a Republican with no proof to get their role altered in any way? Like what if during the Trump impeachment fiasco they removed Trump from power until it was all over? Would that have been fair? Of course not. An accusation is not enough, and should not ever be enough, to change anything.
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Whoa: Nearly a Third of Democrats Believe the Election Was Stolen From Trump

Post by pmward » Mon Nov 23, 2020 4:45 pm

By the way I should also mention I think Biden has taken this whole thing very well considering. He has said he wishes he could begin his transition officially, but that he is willing to be patient and that he is not going to try to fight for it in the courts. He is not trying to fight Trump in a social media PR blitz. He doesn't seem to feel any need to defend himself. He doesn't really seem phased in any real way by all of Trumps accusations and actions. He is really just kind of sitting back, doing the best he can with what is available, and letting the evidence speak for itself. All things considered, I think that the way he has handled this craziness is admirable. You know Trump wouldn't show that kind of patience, low-key confidence, and restraint if the roles were reversed. The difference in professionalism between Biden and Trump is striking.
User avatar
InsuranceGuy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2015 1:44 pm

Re: Whoa: Nearly a Third of Democrats Believe the Election Was Stolen From Trump

Post by InsuranceGuy » Mon Nov 23, 2020 4:48 pm

[deleted]
Last edited by InsuranceGuy on Mon Mar 08, 2021 5:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9395
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Whoa: Nearly a Third of Democrats Believe the Election Was Stolen From Trump

Post by vnatale » Mon Nov 23, 2020 4:48 pm

pmward wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 4:19 pm
Would Republicans like it if all a Democrat had to do was make an allegation against a Republican with no proof to get their role altered in any way? Like what if during the Trump impeachment fiasco they removed Trump from power until it was all over? Would that have been fair? Of course not. An accusation is not enough, and should not ever be enough, to change anything.
This HAS been the Republican playbook for quite some time now. From the book on Hillary I'd prior referenced today...

Vinny

The most effective anti-Clinton book of the campaign season was Clinton Cash by Peter Schweizer. Years of effort and $1.7 million of Mercer family money went into the book, which was published by HarperCollins, which was owned by longtime Clinton antagonist Rupert Murdoch. In its tone, reporting, and writing quality, Clinton Cash would not have passed muster with many editors, but HarperCollins released it as if it were a worthy work. After complaints were lodged, the publisher acknowledged that the book contained errors that required “seven or eight passages” be corrected and retailer Amazon.com contacted its customers to tell them “significant revisions have been made” and they could access the new version of the electronic book for free. Though an embarrassment for HarperCollins, these troubles didn’t change the fact that a book bearing the imprimatur of a mainstream publisher could be cited by those who needed arguments to use against Hillary Clinton.

Clinton Cash argued that as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton had secretly encouraged powerful foreigners and others to make donations to the Clinton Foundation and to pay six-figure speaking fees to her husband. In exchange, Schweizer implied, she used her office, in one way or another, to benefit the donors. (Engaged in health, education, and economic development around the world, the foundation earned top ratings from charity analysts.)8

Much of Schweizer’s argument involved inference based on the timing of events that only seemed suspect to a researcher who failed to complete an investigation. For example, Schweizer made much of a U.S. funding paid to an Irish company that worked in Haiti after the devastating 2010 earthquake. Bill Clinton was invited to speak in Ireland by the firm’s owner. Schweizer presumed he had been paid handsomely. He had, in fact, earned nothing personally, as the host made a donation to the Clinton Foundation. Schweizer made a different kind of error when it came to his claim that some sort of funny business had transpired when TD Bank began selling shares of a pipeline project after it paid Bill Clinton for speeches. In fact, the share sale announcement, which Schweizer used as a source, was a fake. No such divestment had occurred.9

The TD Bank and Irish speech tales were stricken from the electronic version of his book soon after it was published, but the most widely reported claim in the book remained. This bit focused on the sale of a Canadian-based company called Uranium One. The firm owned some uranium mines in Wyoming, which meant that federal approval was required when it was acquired in 2010 by a state-owned company in Russia. Schweizer’s supposed smoking gun was the fact that the Clinton Foundation had received more than $130 million in donations from a major Uranium One investor named Frank Giustra. The problem, for Schweizer, was that Giustra sold his interest in Uranium One three years before the Russian deal. Also, Schweizer’s Clinton Cash claim that Hillary Clinton either approved or could have stopped the sale was simply false. The State Department did have a vote on the committee that considered the sale, but eight other agencies had equal say. Finally, Clinton Cash asserted that control of 20 percent of U.S. uranium, a metal essential to energy production and the manufacture of nuclear weapons, was transferred to Russia in the sale. In fact, the Wyoming facilities had the potential to produce 20 percent of U.S. uranium, but experts said this shouldn’t be considered a measure of its actual share. Besides, 90 percent of the uranium used in the United States came from abroad.10

Despite the flaws in his argument, Schweizer received invaluable press attention for his book as its release approached. From those who were reliably anti-Hillary Clinton, he got breathless excitement. Skeptics like George Stephanopoulos of ABC News (who had worked in the Clinton White House) were much less friendly. When Schweizer sat for a prepublication interview, Stephanopoulos outlined the problems in the Uranium One story and listened as Schweizer offered the circular argument that the issue “deserves further scrutiny” because of the claims in his book. Stephanopoulos then asked, “But based on what? Based on what?”

Schweizer struggled to reply, saying, “Well, I think based on her…”

As Schweizer’s voice faltered, Stephanopoulos asked, “Do you have any evidence that she actually intervened in this issue?”

“No, we don’t have direct evidence,” confessed Schweizer. “But it warrants further investigation because, again, George, this is part of the broader pattern. You either have to come to the conclusion that these are all coincidences or something else is afoot.”11

The “pattern” Schweizer referenced was to be found in his book, but so many of his examples would be discredited that the notion that something nefarious could be concluded fell apart. However, even a casual survey of Schweizer’s background would uncover an actual pattern of flawed reporting and misrepresentations in his previous work:


•  In 1993, claims in Schweizer’s debut book, Friendly Spies, were debunked by reporters for The Times of London, who found “checkable facts do not check out” and “individuals credited for supplying information do not exist or cannot be tracked down.” Years later, the book did not appear on Schweizer’s website, where other books were listed.12

•  In 2005, comedian Al Franken caught Schweizer’s erroneous claim that he had neglected minorities by hiring just 1 black worker out of 112 people he had employed over the years. Schweizer was wrong when it came to Franken’s hiring authority (he never had the chance to employ so many folks) and wrong about the number of minority candidates he hired when he could make the choice.13

•  In 2007, USA Today editors corrected a Schweizer claim that, despite his concern for the environment, Al Gore was collecting royalties on a zinc mine. The mine had been closed for years.14

•  In 2011, Schweizer retracted a claim that Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island used “insider information” he learned as a public official to profit in the stock market.15

•  In 2011, Schweizer also made false claims of insider trading against Representative Jim McDermott. The claim didn’t match either the facts of the stock trading or the timing of government action.16

•  In 2013, Schweizer falsely claimed that as president, Barack Obama had only met once with the Health and Human Services secretary Kathleen Sebelius. As Time debunked this claim, it documented numerous meetings and explained that in using White House public logs and presidential calendars as his sources, Schweizer overlooked the fact that visits with cabinet secretaries are often not included in these reports.17

By the time Clinton Cash was published in 2015, Schweizer had been caught in so many distortions of fact that no reputable newspaper would have employed him as a cub reporter. His employment history, his benefactors, and the fact that the victims of his acts were all Democrats left little doubt about his agenda. However, just as the schemers behind the Arkansas Project had enticed mainstream reporters to take up the nonissue of Whitewater, with the aid of Bannon’s Breitbart, Fox News, and his Murdoch-owned publisher HarperCollins, Schweizer seeded the press with tantalizing hints of what Clinton Cash revealed. Long before its publication, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Fox News committed to reporting on the book in exchange for early access to its contents.18

Some mainstream outlets presented the claims in Clinton Cash with many caveats and dashes of skepticism. The editorial board of The New York Times, for example, followed the paper’s report on the Uranium One tale with a piece that noted its complexity and that “there is no indication that Mrs. Clinton played a role in the uranium deal’s eventual approval by a cabinet-level committee.” The same editorial observed that Hillary Clinton had resigned from the Clinton Foundation board to prevent conflicts of interest, and the foundation had begun to reveal more data about its operations than required by law. Nevertheless, the editorial board wrote, “the foundation’s role in the lives of the Clintons is inevitably becoming a subject of political concern.”19

Separate from the editorial, The Times’s Schweizer-inspired news report on Uranium One, which bore the headline CASH FLOWED TO CLINTON FOUNDATION AMID RUSSIAN URANIUM DEAL, explained, “Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown.” However, the overall thrust of the article made it clear that something suspicious and perhaps dangerous had occurred. The piece noted that Uranium One lands held 20 percent of U.S. uranium reserve but not that the law barred the sale of American uranium abroad. Under the subheading “The Power to Say No,” the article explained that a Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which included a representative of the Department of State, could have stopped the Uranium One sale. Actually, the committee could only make a recommendation to the president, who had the power to say no. Although the committee’s work was generally kept confidential, the department’s man on the panel said he had never been contacted by Hillary Clinton to discuss any matter under consideration. Finally, the writers described donations to the Clinton Foundation as a matter of Hillary Clinton’s husband “collecting millions in donations from people associated with Uranium One.” It was, of course, the charity that “collected” the donation, and as oversight groups had documented, more than 86 percent of the money the Clinton Foundation raised was spent on programs, with less than 11 percent going to administration.20

When the nonpartisan PolitiFact website looked into Uranium One, it concluded that the secretary of state was not authorized to stop the deal and that “there is no evidence that donations to the Clinton Foundation from people with ties to Uranium One or Bill Clinton’s speaking fee influenced Hillary Clinton’s official actions.” PolitiFact was one of many mainstream news operations that were both derided and courted by the Right. When its findings were supportive, archconservatives deemed PolitiFact authoritative. When they were not, they said that the fact-checkers were unfair.

Unfortunately for Clinton, the online fact-checkers worked in a slow and piecemeal fashion, and even when they reached conclusions, they couldn’t match the effect of the coverage the issue, and Clinton Cash, received in the early days of the 2016 campaign. The key was the tactic Schweizer’s Breitbart colleague Wynton Hall termed anchor left, pivot right. This meant enticing one big mainstream media outlet like The Times to legitimize a narrative and then using that imprimatur to expand its effectiveness. (Former Arkansas Project conspirator David Brock offered a variation on this idea, suggesting that Schweizer needed a “host body” to nourish his claims long enough for them to gain strength.)21

As ideal host bodies, The Times and The Post energized the arguments in Clinton Cash and disseminated them to other outlets, where they were reprinted. Their distillations of Schweizer became fodder for broadcasters, including the New York public radio station WNYC, which devoted more than half an hour to a conversation with one of the authors of its first big news report about Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation. From this point forward, those who would defend Schweizer and his book could point to the paper of record and note that it had seemingly certified that a genuine controversy had been revealed. Eventually, the weaknesses in the book, and the press accounts about the Uranium One story, would be revealed by many journalists, including Shepard Smith of Fox News, who would spark outrage among viewers by declaring that Hillary Clinton had not approved the sale of the mines and that the owner’s donations preceded the deal by three years.22

Shepard Smith wouldn’t reach his conclusion about the Clinton Foundation until a year after the 2016 election. The lag between fiction and fact was something that Steve Bannon and his chosen candidate, Republican front-runner Donald Trump, had always planned to exploit. Both men were first-rate propagandists with deep experience manipulating both the press and public perception. Trump had first peddled his fake biography—young real estate mogul—to The New York Times in 1976. The result was a lengthy profile that announced that a trust fund baby who had never begun, let alone finished, a project was a visionary with movie star looks who was worth $200 million. The most prestigious media source in the country even let his father declare, as if a proud papa’s evaluation meant anything, that “Donald is the smartest person I know.”
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1731
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: Whoa: Nearly a Third of Democrats Believe the Election Was Stolen From Trump

Post by pmward » Mon Nov 23, 2020 6:21 pm

pmward wrote:
Mon Nov 23, 2020 4:45 pm
By the way I should also mention I think Biden has taken this whole thing very well considering. He has said he wishes he could begin his transition officially, but that he is willing to be patient and that he is not going to try to fight for it in the courts. He is not trying to fight Trump in a social media PR blitz. He doesn't seem to feel any need to defend himself. He doesn't really seem phased in any real way by all of Trumps accusations and actions. He is really just kind of sitting back, doing the best he can with what is available, and letting the evidence speak for itself. All things considered, I think that the way he has handled this craziness is admirable. You know Trump wouldn't show that kind of patience, low-key confidence, and restraint if the roles were reversed. The difference in professionalism between Biden and Trump is striking.
How ironic I say this just a couple hours ago. Biden just got the go ahead for the official transition to begin.
Post Reply