A Deeply Fractured US

[Remius]

I gather for you the source of distrust is limited to pseudo news, social media, and ignorance of facts. The absolute malfeasance by three letter agencies in support of political candidates has no bearing at all, hey? Those are facts. You can despise the man all day long, but if you ignore the corruption in the attempts to unseat him and prevent him from running, you are in fact working off emotions. TDS.

Calm yourself.

It’s always TDS as a rebuttal. You realise I didnt even mention Trump lol. You did. Think on that.

Again you are working on feeling. I don’t despise him but I certainly think he is wholly unfit for the office. But that wasn’t the discussion now was it.

We were taking about electoral fraud and your belief it happened in enough of a capacity to change the outcome. And that it will again. Unless your side wins of course.

 

[Lumber]

I'd like to see some substantial and factual proof that millions of people actually believe the government is headed up by 'lizard people'

12 million, apparently:

Conspiracy craze: why 12 million Americans believe alien lizards rule us

Psychologists are trying to determine why otherwise rational individuals can make the leap from “prudent paranoia” to illogical conspiracy theories

www.theguardian.com

Or 4% of the US pop:

Behind the Belief: Lizard People | The Psychology of Extraordinary Beliefs

u.osu.edu

Study on the conspiracies at large that mentions it:

Suspicious conspiracy theories

Conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists have been accused of a great many sins, but are the conspiracy theories conspiracy theorists believe epistemically problematic? Well, according to some recent work (such as Cassam Quassim, Keith Harris, and ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

And counter point:

"No, 12 million Americans don’t believe the country is run by shape-shifting lizards"

No, 12 million Americans don't believe the country is run by shape-shifting lizards

A new Public Policy Poll on conspiracy theories has been getting a lot of attention. Among the survey's big findings are that 51 percent of…

foreignpolicy.com

 

[brihard]

This is fun. I do not know why some of you people seem to get butt hurt on this.

But seriously, for the folks who suggest there are no ways elections can be frauded, what do you think or make of the fact a huge (millions) portion of the voting public down there believe it's not totally legit and nor do they believe the media/government line that its all fine?

Is this not a gigantic problem? Are the beliefs of tens of millions of people to be completely fucked off? What is being done to change that?

Not butthurt at all, just laughing at those who drink this stuff up and who beclown themselves by doing it publicly. Mockery from my part just means nfind something amusingly stupid, not that my feelings are hurt.

 

[QV]

Calm yourself.

It’s always TDS as a rebuttal. You realise I didnt even mention Trump lol. You did. Think on that.

Again you are working on feeling. I don’t despise him but I certainly think he is wholly unfit for the office. But that wasn’t the discussion now was it.

We were taking about electoral fraud and your belief it happened in enough of a capacity to change the outcome. And that it will again. Unless your side wins of course.

I enjoy our talks

Correct, on the whole with all the questionable shit I do not believe the election in 2020 was entirely clean. Correct, I do believe it can happen again. The US and other countries interfere in foreign elections and it would be naïve to suggest it can't happen at home.

Whether Trump is wholly unfit for office is a matter of opinion. He already completed a term with notable accomplishments and the country didn't descend into a totalitarian regime as some suggest it would.

Voters have the last two terms to compare. Trump's term (with all the bureaucrats obstructing that went with it) and Biden's term. The question will be "when was I better off?". My guess is the majority will answer under 45.

Not butthurt at all, just laughing at those who drink this stuff up and who beclown themselves by doing it publicly. Mockery from my part just means nfind something amusingly stupid, not that my feelings are hurt.

You remind me of those stellar CAF leaders that get mad or mock people when a fault is pointed out and then are shocked when we land in a bad spot. In this case the fault is half the country doesn't trust it's government or institutions. This is a gigantic problem and folks that comment like you tend to not read the room correctly. You'll say "beclowning!" or some orange man bad comment. Ironically, people like you also emphatically supported an obvious disaster in the making, Trudeau, and now look - terrible situation, revised opinion, but still overly critical of potential alternatives.

This is all entertainment.

 

[Remius]

I enjoy our talks

Correct, on the whole with all the questionable shit I do not believe the election in 2020 was entirely clean. Correct, I do believe it can happen again. The US and other countries interfere in foreign elections and it would be naïve to suggest it can't happen at home.

A far cry from your previous assertions. And something everyone here would agree with. That is not the initial argument you made though.

Whether Trump is wholly unfit for office is a matter of opinion. He already completed a term with notable accomplishments and the country didn't descend into a totalitarian regime as some suggest it would.

Of course it is a matter of opinion. My opinion is that he is wholly unfit for the job.

Voters have the last two terms to compare. Trump's term (with all the bureaucrats obstructing that went with it) and Biden's term. The question will be "when was I better off?". My guess is the majority will answer under 45.

they had one term and voted him out. I suppose you’ll be proven right if he is elected again. I can live with that. I doubt you will accept the alternative to that result though.

You remind me of those stellar CAF leaders that get mad or mock people when a fault is pointed out and then are shocked when we land in a bad spot.

Ad hominem.

In this case the fault is half the country doesn't trust its government or institutions. This is a gigantic problem and folks that comment like you tend to not read the room correctly. You'll say "beclowning!" or some orange man bad comment. Ironically, people like you also emphatically supported an obvious disaster in the making, Trudeau, and now look - terrible situation, revised opinion, but still overly critical of potential alternatives.

He’s using beclowning for those that keep pushing conspiracy theories like the election fraud issue despite all evidence to the contrary. The same is done for flat earthers and moon landing denialists. But for some, they can’t accept that the one explanation they cling to is wrong.

This is all entertainment.

And yet in the same breath you deride the ones who say the same.

On a serious note though, I do not believe that governments do enough to stop disinformation and certainly do not position themselves in the best light when trying to explain their actions. It could be that they really can’t do that in the face of unreasonable beliefs that get ingrained. Changing an idea or narrative that someone really believes because believing the truth would mean losing what little control they think they have.

 

[QV]

On a serious note though, I do not believe that governments do enough to stop disinformation and certainly do not position themselves in the best light when trying to explain their actions. It could be that they really can’t do that in the face of unreasonable beliefs that get ingrained. Changing an idea or narrative that someone really believes because believing the truth would mean losing what little control they think they have.

An election that is not clean is illegitimate. No point in rebutting the rest.

But on the quoted above we agree. The solution is absolute transparency. For example, saying "there is no evidence of election fraud so we aren't going to take a deep dive" is no longer enough. There needs to be demonstrable transparent processes and audits - and there is not.

 

[Lumber]

There needs to be demonstrable transparent processes and audits - and there is not.

Umm, what?

Quick Facts:

As of the 2020 election, 27 states and DC had provisions for an automatic recount for thin election margins and 43 states allowed requested recounts under certain circumstances.

As of the 2020 election, routine post-election audits were required by law in 34 states and DC to check the accuracy of the results and/or review election procedures and equipment.

Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin held recounts or audits of the 2020 election beyond the scope of automatic recounts or traditional audits.

Biden’s margin of victory increased in Arizona by 360 votes and in Wisconsin by 87 votes, and decreased in Georgia by 891 votes. The change in votes is not known for Texas, and Pennsylvania audit results are pending as of June 6, 2022.

A study found that 31 recounts occurred in the 5,778 statewide elections from 2000 to 2019; three races, all with margins of victory less than 0.05%, were overturned.

2020 Election Recounts and Audits - 2020Election.org

Last updated August 2022 Quick Facts: As of the 2020 election, 27 states and DC had provisions for an automatic recount for thin election margins and 43 states allowed requested recounts under certain circumstances. As of the 2020 election, routine post-election audits were required by law in 34...

the2020election.org

EDIT:

In fact! The only really questionable and non-transparent process in the whole 2020 election affair was 5 Republican lead audits that were hell bent on finding enough fraud to overturn the results (surprise: they did not).

 

[QV]

Umm, what?

2020 Election Recounts and Audits - 2020Election.org

Last updated August 2022 Quick Facts: As of the 2020 election, 27 states and DC had provisions for an automatic recount for thin election margins and 43 states allowed requested recounts under certain circumstances. As of the 2020 election, routine post-election audits were required by law in 34...

the2020election.org

EDIT:

In fact! The only really questionable and non-transparent process in the whole 2020 election affair was 5 Republican lead audits that were hell bent on finding enough fraud to overturn the results (surprise: they did not).

Nobody believes "independent fact checkers".

In fact "trust the experts" has also run it's course.

Do you not see the depth of the problem at hand yet? This is a real serious issue that won't go away with "yeah independent fact checkers looked, its all good" answer.

 

[KevinB]

Nobody believes "independent fact checkers".

In fact "trust the experts" has also run it's course.

Do you not see the depth of the problem at hand yet? This is a real serious issue that won't go away with "yeah independent fact checkers looked, its all good" answer.

Several of those also went to court. Being cross examined repeatedly.

Meanwhile neither party will confront the vote harvesting elephant…

Because they both abuse the crap out of it.

 

[TacticalTea]

vote harvesting elephant…

Say more.

 

[brihard]

I enjoy our talks

Correct, on the whole with all the questionable shit I do not believe the election in 2020 was entirely clean. Correct, I do believe it can happen again. The US and other countries interfere in foreign elections and it would be naïve to suggest it can't happen at home.

Whether Trump is wholly unfit for office is a matter of opinion. He already completed a term with notable accomplishments and the country didn't descend into a totalitarian regime as some suggest it would.

Voters have the last two terms to compare. Trump's term (with all the bureaucrats obstructing that went with it) and Biden's term. The question will be "when was I better off?". My guess is the majority will answer under 45.



You remind me of those stellar CAF leaders that get mad or mock people when a fault is pointed out and then are shocked when we land in a bad spot. In this case the fault is half the country doesn't trust it's government or institutions. This is a gigantic problem and folks that comment like you tend to not read the room correctly. You'll say "beclowning!" or some orange man bad comment. Ironically, people like you also emphatically supported an obvious disaster in the making, Trudeau, and now look - terrible situation, revised opinion, but still overly critical of potential alternatives.

This is all entertainment.

I did not vote for Trudeau and have never said ‘Orange Man Bad’ or offered any opinion on Trump I didn’t ground in evidence. Generally I avoid commenting on his character entirely, and stick to factual discussions of court proceedings. Thanks for coming out.

 

[TacticalTea]

Ah, those crazy (corrupt) Democrats

Texas Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar, wife indicted on charges of bribes tied to Azerbaijan

Texas Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar is claiming innocence ahead of a potential indictment against him, according to a statement released from his office.

abcnews.go.com

 

[kkwd]

Ah, those crazy (corrupt) Democrats

Texas Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar, wife indicted on charges of bribes tied to Azerbaijan

Texas Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar is claiming innocence ahead of a potential indictment against him, according to a statement released from his office.

abcnews.go.com

He's a lightweight when compared to Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey. Here is the indictment from DOJ along with a press release. To tell the truth I'm jealous, those are some beautiful bars of gold shown, the stacks of cash are pretty sweet too. Senator Fetterman had things to say on the matter and even hired George Santos to troll Menendez.
Menendez Press Release
Menendez Indictment
NPR Article

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Joe and Hunter are just pissed that these guys are cutting their grass and their profits.

 

[FJAG]

Joe and Hunter are just pissed that these guys are cutting their grass and their profits.

Your BDS is showing again.

 

[QV]

Why isn't there a serious effort to get to the bottom of this by the gov?

https://x.com/rasmussen_poll/status/1787808853830070766?s=46

 

[KevinB]

Why isn't there a serious effort to get to the bottom of this by the gov?

https://x.com/rasmussen_poll/status/1787808853830070766?s=46

Bad link.

 

[KevinB]

While I disagree with the author significantly on a lot of issues, I don’t see a lot wrong in his opinion here.

Judge "I'm stalling as slow as I can" Cannon delays Trump documents case for the eleventy-seventeenth time

Okay, it’s a complicated case, but this is getting ridiculous.

open.substack.com

 

[brihard]

While I disagree with the author significantly on a lot of issues, I don’t see a lot wrong in his opinion here.

Judge "I'm stalling as slow as I can" Cannon delays Trump documents case for the eleventy-seventeenth time

Okay, it’s a complicated case, but this is getting ridiculous.

open.substack.com

Meh. With his court calendar clearing up maybe we’ll see the judge in Georgia schedule the RICO trial this summer.

 

[Brad Sallows]

While I disagree with the author significantly on a lot of issues, I don’t see a lot wrong in his opinion here.

I can guess from the tone he isn't unbiased. He just seems really bitter. Kind of pointless to be raging that a matter that has been dragging on for years suddenly has to pick up the pace.

The original date set was 20 May (13 days away). That's an important relevant detail that I didn't find in his article (unless I somehow missed it). Not much time to clear up pre-trial stuff. One of the issues on that list reads like the question of whether Smith's appointment (office) is constitutionally valid for what he's doing, and I suppose that's very important to decide before starting a trial. Another (not on the list) is the scope-of-immunity question, which ought to be (maybe has to be) decided in order to determine what is chargeable and what is not. It's also a fact that Trump can't be physically present in two places at once, if the rules say he has to be present while each trial is in session. Bragg was first out of the gate, so I suppose his show takes precedence.

It's the prosecution's fault that they may have shuffled around some of the evidence, and that has to be sorted out. Evidence that requires context (eg. where it was in the pile) is useless until that is fixed. It might be important that the classified folders shown in a widely published photo were not actually original containers for the documents in them, but were just being used by agents as temporary covers during collection. The defence deserves time to figure out whether the when and how of White House involvement in the early stages of the investigation might benefit them. Ditto whether GSA already had some of the boxes, before ordering someone on Trump's staff to fetch them. (Some are calling that a setup; it could just as easily have been bureaucratic ignorance. But there's a difference between "took with them" and "were told to collect".)

I suppose it would have helped if all the responsible authorities had managed not to let everything pile up until the last few months before the election. Their combined lack of urgency doesn't constitute someone else's emergency.