In 2016, @HillaryClinton@twitter.com lost. In 2020, @realDonaldTrump@twitter.com lost. Both blame grand illegal conspiracies instead of themselves, supported by propagandists & diehards. And it's proper to do the investigations etc. But please consider how silly this all looks to the rest of us. Thanks.
@wjmaggos True or not, irrespective of the outcome, one of these has affidavits, the other does not. Also, define "grand".
RussiaGate had indictments. Aren't Trump folks claiming some coordinated efforts between voting machine makers and Dem party officials/activists and poll watchers and maybe USPS workers? Like Hillary talking about Trump and Putin and Wikileaks etc?
@wjmaggos Indictments that are thin on evidence (because state secrets) that are against foreigners who are not expected to ever show for trial.
> Aren't Trump folks claiming some coordinated efforts between voting machine makers
Yes, this is being bandied about and the claims are the evidence is coming this week. If nothing materializes, it will be exactly the nothingburger described.
> poll watchers
This one is very real and not even remotely "grand".
- Machines not properly certified in accord with state law in AZ.
- Naked ballots in PA in conflict with state law.
- Officials doing ballot curing in PA but only in Dem districts (14th Amendment?)
- Republicans denied legal access.
I mean, the number of claims are much much higher and none of them require serious coordination, just a small number of people who are ideologically aligned.
Presidential elections are enormous decentralized affairs mostly run by volunteers. Finding a ton of examples of small problems scattered throughout the country means nothing. That the ones being talked about go against Trump in swing states is because while it happens everywhere every election, the angry media and activists are making these choices. Does any of this have the capacity to switch one state? From what I've seen, it's like spending a few $1k on Facebook ads.
> Does any of this have the capacity to switch one state?
Rudy G believes if successful it will chuck 100s of thousands of ballots in PA because they were not handled according to the law. So, yes, it could swing the election.
If it does, remains to be seen. Could be a lack of evidence, could be "corrupt judges", the framing of such a result will vary. The problem is really fundamentally in comparing something that is in the history books versus active court cases.
@wjmaggos To wit, you and I can argue all day over the claims amounting to a hill of beans but there are very real, distinct people in the world who will decide this over the next 6 weeks likely.
If the fraud suits fail to deliver, millions of people will feel the system is corrupt.
If the fraud suits DO deliver, millions will believe the system is corrupt.
I keep telling everyone, shit is gonna get real weird. My stockpiles were never meant to start depletion on election night, but January.
But isn't the problem both in having so few journalists that the vast majority trusts and people (especially those with big followings) making huge claims without evidence (at least so far)? You can & should explain problems you see but do so carefully & clearly. Everything in our culture argues for the opposite, except any understanding of what makes civil discourse sustainable.
Nobody reports "truth". The best just do the work and are unafraid to piss off their own "tribe". I think Greenwald and Taibbi are great examples of that. Corporate journalists are generally untrustworthy because they have so many people to answer to. But many in the alternative media are playing to an audience too, and desperate to build a following who wants something they can use to attack the other side with, much more than they care if it's accurate.
It's just the same point I've been making. People can say crazy shit and it's so much more fun than being reasonable, so unless there's any attempt to hold them accountable, everybody is going to live in their own bubbles and the work of holding society together won't get done. And then come the guns.
First, you made the claim that Biden being the president would mean he stole it. Unfalsifiable but whatever. But you said Biden would do a number of things "day 1" and other stuff in the "days following". Other stuff after that, but let's stick with those. How about March 1st? Gives you both more than a month.
a place for liberal values on the #fediverse