I Can't wait for this attitude to inevitably cross the pond.
More surprising is that this protest wasn't a "flash mob" - it was planned and known about publicly for weeks - even promoted by the president. Why were they so unprepared?
Certainly possible that the explanation was "sheer incompetence" in both cases.
Some cops were either in on it, or at least sympathetic. They need to be dragged before Congress next month to answer for their behavior, assuming the republic survives.
https://mobile.twitter.com/sugaspov/status/13469199432380006...
I’m not sure I see anything wrong here?
Is this just crowd flow control in action?
What makes it particularly unforgivable is that all of this was predictable. Both respectable commentators and shadier internet boards have been talking about this for weeks. For the same city that was ready to cover every step of the Jefferson memorial with armored troops at the hint of a BLM protest to be caught flat footed by the most predictable violence in the past year is inexcusable. Heads need to (metaphorically) roll.
I have no context for where this is and if it’s true but I think you are misrepresenting the above comment.
The Capitol Police seemed to be very ill prepared to deal with events today, which is quite sad given that the protest at least was no surprise.
Same with the cops posing for selfies with the protesters, IMO they had to pretend to be friendly because otherwise it'll turn the mob against them. And they (the cops) are outnumbered.
How can things get better unless that happens?
If a prosecution is possible it will be up to Biden as to what to do. At very least I think everything his administration did should be carefully investigated, documented, and put in a museum as a warning.
If he is pardoned he will probably be at war in the state of New York for the rest of his life.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/opinion/jeff-flake-trump-...
Currently you see many conservatives repeating the meme that losing the Senate means a Republican will never win the White House again. The belief being that Democrats will change voting laws, open borders and amnesty to Dem-leaning immigrants, and possibly even pack the Supreme Court and add DC and Puerto Rico as new states.
On the flip-side, similar sentiments were often expressed on the left of Trump heralding the end of American democracy. Republicans in power would permanently end fair elections through a combination of foreign election interference, gerry-pandering, dark corporate money, and voter suppression.
Disregarding whatever merits these views have, the fact that they're widely held by a significant chunk of the citizenry creates a dangerous equilibrium. Like you say, in a healthy democracy the losing side focuses its energy on winning the next election.
But if you think the other side's gonna use dirty tricks once in power, there is no next election to win. So you go all out it to stop the other side, and start looking for dirty tricks of your own. Now you've justified your opponents' bad opinion of you, and given them even more reason to win by any means unnecessary.
I like how the possibility of respecting the 2020 status referendum in Puerto Rico instead of continuing to have the island governed by a national government in which they have no vote is considered on the more extreme end of that list.
Puerto Rico may want statehood, but Turkey also wants to join the EU. In both cases the decision lies in DC or Brussels, not San Juan or Ankara. Puerto Rico may be a protectorate, but I don't think that formally entitles them to Union membership. That being said, if the US refuses to grant them statehood, they should be free to seek sovereignty as an independent nation.
All that aside, my rough estimate is that 90% of the Continental US interest in PR statehood is motivated by political calculus in the Senate and Electoral College. If PR was a red state instead of solid blue, I'd sincerely doubt you'd see statehood regularly discussed at the top of /r/politics.
That's obviously legally dispositive, insofar as those states representatives are who votes in Congress and we are discussing a potential action of the incoming Congressional majority.
> Puerto Rico may want statehood, but Turkey also wants to join the EU.
Turkey, wasn't incorporated into the EU by conquest and then denied voting participation in Union decisionmaking.
> All that aside, my rough estimate is that 90% of the Continental US interest in PR statehood is motivated by political calculus in the Senate and Electoral College.
Probably the majority, at any rate, is political calculus (not just partisan, but also on specific policy issues; and not just the Senate/EC, as the House isn't insignificant.)
But that's always been the case with the causes for (and against) new states. (And why “continental US”, do you really think Hawai’i is an exception here?)
Probably, but that's also been the case for basically every state ever admitted to the union. Remember when the US used to consider whether a state was slave for free before admission?
Even the statehood of Hawaii was politically charged. People genuinely feared the kind of people Hawaiian would send as representatives. Including, but not limited to Communists and anti-segregationists.
Alaska was opposed on the grounds that it would be a welfare state and that it would add a bunch of democrats to Congress.
And the 2017 referendum. And the 2012 referendum.
Three referendums in a decade all advocating for statehood ought to be a pretty clear sign that there is desire for statehood...
The 2012 referendum also had the statehood question effectively boycotted by many people who favored keeping the current status, because selecting "keep the current status" wasn't an option on that question (it was a separate question altogether, where it got 46% of the overall vote). So statehood got something like 61% of the votes of people who voted on the statehood-specific question at all, but only ~46% of the votes cast in the referendum; representing that as a "yes for statehood" is also pretty weird, since that's about the same number of votes that "keep the current status" got, with the remainder presumably favoring one of the other "more-independence" options.
2020 is different and new: it's the first Puerto Rico referendum I have seen where there was a sanely worded "state: yes or no?" question that actually got a majority voting for the "state" option (52.5% or so), with something resembling sane turnout (~55%).
So yes, respecting this is probably a good idea. "Respecting" the 2012 or 2017 results by making Puerto Rico a state would not have made any sense.
Edit: Now that I have read https://senado.pr.gov/Legislations/ps1467-20.pdf page 31 lines 6-15, which define the "no" answer to mean a specific course of action which is not just "don't become a state", I am less happy with this referendum. Now we have to guess at how many people knew what the "no" was defined to mean and voted for what they perceived as the lesser of two evils based on that....
As I understand it in this referendum "yes" referred to "become a state" while "no" referred to "become independent", with no option for "keep the status quo".
The best thing to do would probably a referendum with a ranked/approval voting between all three options.
You understand incorrectly. The question asked was:
“Should Puerto Rico be admitted immediately into the Union as a State? ( ) Yes ( ) No”
- Yes: I demand that the Federal Government immediately recognize the equality of my rights and responsibilities as an American citizen with statehood in permanent union with all the states of the Union.
- No: I reject permanent union with statehood and demand that the Federal Government immediately recognize the sovereignty of Puerto Rico separate from the United States of America with a "Treaty of Independence in Free Association" or with "Total Independence".
Notably, that excludes the status quo as an option. The part right after that says:
In case the statehood "No" ends up as the majority choice, you must
immediately start a process of transition to recognize the sovereignty
of Puerto Rico separate from the United States of America with a
"Treaty of Independence in Free Association" or with "Total
Independence", following the description in this law.
Sadly, this doesn't seem to be uncommon. In one city-level referendum I am personally familiar with, both sides of the referendum submitted an argument to be put into the election materials. The "Yes" side (loosen a safety regulation) drastically misrepresented the status quo, implying that there was no safety regulation to begin with, and that their referendum would create it. But in reality, the "Yes" vote would loosen an existing regulation.
How small of a minority should be granted the power to deny the majority a say in their own national government?
Is there a good argument against this? Apart from “but my side will lose power”.
Given that the existence of the federal district is part of the Constitution, it's arguable that making DC a state requires a constitutional amendment.
You're 100% the way there if you're fine with DC becoming a state.
It just beta the same question: why don't you want DC to be a state? Because it takes power away from your side?
Just avoid the border gore and force Maryland to take the extra land, tax income, and voting population; it'll probably be enough to knock them up a House representative or two anyway.
States aren't allowed to secede, per Lincoln, so operating as a nation is irrelevant. (Texas is special.)
The original US required every state to have access to the ocean, so Colorado and Kansas shouldn't be states.
Of course those 2 senate seats that would certainly be Democratic make this a political non-starter.
In doing some research to formulate an answer, it really is quite striking that the US Constitution is the first of its kind, in that it conceives of a federation of co-equal sovereign states combined under a federal sovereign state. The Federalist Papers explicitly compare the proposed model against the then-existing models of Germany (i.e., Holy Roman Empire), Poland, Switzerland, Netherlands, and then-US. Keep in mind that none of those countries retain their same government form today.
In the Federalist Papers, the Netherlands is explicitly singled out for the problem of the domination of one state (Holland) over all the others, although my understanding of their history is that the state started out that way, so it's not a problem caused by the capital being part of Holland's territory. There are other examples I can think of single-state-dominant confederations (Germany provides a few examples!), but again, I'm hard-pressed to attribute any cause of that to the actual location of the capital.
At the end of the day, I don't think it would be a problem today. However, a lot of that also derives from having 200+ years of case law and custom firmly cementing the roles of federal and constituent state in a federal republic. In 1787, when the Constitution was written, that custom and precedent doesn't exist. When you're arguing that a federal government needs its own locus of power, independent of state authority, and a lot of people fear giving it that power, giving it a territory where no state can reasonably claim to be able to exercise state authority goes a long way to letting that locus of power be truly established.
It is an open secret that they will do all of these things given the opportunity. There's probably one or two D senators in the way of that right now.
I'm too cynical to believe that these aren't favored in part because they would help their chances are re-election, but it's also not necessary, as a republican government and a majority of republican state legislatures could not stop the entire federal government flipping democrat.
1. The democratic platform endorses "restructuring" (packing) of the lower courts.
2. A large number of democrats including Kamala Harris have endorsed court packing or other schemes to change the balance of the supreme court. Joe Biden refused to tell the american public what he thinks about court packing. He later promised to create a commission to study court packing.
3. Chuck Schumer has made it a priority to eliminate the legislative filibuster so they can pass laws with 51 votes instead of 60.
4. Democrats believe the senate unfairly benefits republicans. They want to make D.C. and Puerto Rico into states to give them an advantage. Some democrats want to make states out of every american territory. This would lock republicans out of the senate permanently.
They will do all of these things given the opportunity. Republicans are already pretty fucked due to demographic change, but democrats very openly want a one party state.
https://reason.com/volokh/2020/09/19/regardless-of-what-trum...
It's highly unlikely that the US becomes a one party state, but instead, the politics of the two parties changes. The most obvious change being that the republicans stop being the party of racists? They can easily draw more votes from minority conservatives if they drop the racism
>The most obvious change being that the republicans stop being the party of racists?
Democrats are the party of anti-white and anti-asian racists.
https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/08/202...
Also, my question wasn’t whether you believe that’s what the Democrats want. Of course the Democrats want it to be a one party state. Everyone wants their side to win.
My question was whether you believe if Joe Manchin was more liberal (for example) that by 2020 we would have two more states, a packed judiciary, etc. Because that is GP’s point. That this election is not an existential threat to either party.
>My question was whether you believe if Joe Manchin was more liberal (for example) that by 2020 we would have two more states, a packed judiciary, etc.
It's a simple matter of whether they have the votes to do it. All they need is a simple majority to accomplish all of the things I listed. You said it yourself - everybody wants to have a one party state, right? So who, besides Joe Manchin and perhaps Kyrsten Sinema stands in the way of adding new states, abolishing the filibuster, packing the courts, or any other part of the democrat agenda?
There are no shortage of voices for these things. Where are the voices against them?
If Joe Biden, who is supposed to be some kind of moderate, can't tell the American public whether he's for or against packing the supreme court, what does that say about the state of the democratic party?
It's not like we would really end up with a one party Democratic state, to begin with the party isn't cohesive enough for that to be terribly meaningful, and then you'd also get explicit divisions around issues, not more and more agreement.
(abolishing the Senate would make the Federal government a lot spicier, but the Senate is much more sclerotic and ossified than it is staid)
Republicans are very popular. Maybe not quite as popular as the Democrats. Does that give the Democrats a license to take over the federal government? I don't think so. And it wouldn't matter how many votes the democrats get, all people have a right to self determination first and foremost. Living as a permanent political minority is tyranny.
Political parties were quite literally decried by the founders and as we have now almost completely been polarized in a two-party system we have reached this level of disfunction.
This is unacceptable and both parties have been responsible for shutting out third-party candidates.
All people are subject to the rule of law of the land, whether you think it is just or unjust. You have the right to vote for whoever you want but you don't have a right to do whatever you want. Democrats haven't taken over the federal government. They were voted into office, just as several republicans/whigs/federalists/anti-federalists/literally whoever.
This is the process. This is the reality. This is America.
Choosing to reject both the facts and reality doesn't change this.
When I talking about democrats taking over the federal government, I am talking about court packing, senate packing (by adding states), and other tactics to establish they will use to establish a permanent majority. I am not talking about the recent election.
The person I replied to seems to think that all those things are justified because the democrats are more popular than the republicans.
I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to political parties or choosing to reject facts. I assume you didn't actually read the thread so you took what I said out of context.
All of these things are pure partisan powergrabs - and many democratic commentators aren't shy about it either.
> You are quite clearly advocating not just against the rule of law but also against the democratic process.
You are quite clearly immersed in the state cult and our "sacred democracy", ignoring keep ideas like balance of power that our nation was built on.
As for the cult comment, the visible cult is quite literally the group who is incapable of accepting reality and I'm not going bother trying to engage with someone who is incapable of engaging in reality.
Yes, it literally does.
Both Democrat and Republican Parties have consistently agreed that it does, via the constitution and law-setting, even where it is against the best interests of most people.
You can't make this argument against Democrats, unless you are making it against the Republicans in 2017-2019. Neither of the two political parties are as yet a permanent minority.
If that does happen, such that the Democrats start to consistently get 2/3 of the vote or 2/3 of each chamber (which doesn't look likely), then the dominating Democrats will likely split into two parties.
The choice of electoral system entrenches a two-party state; but, it doesn't say that one of those two parties necessarily has to be the Republicans.
But I just don't understand how losing an election that was looked over by members of your own party, and won by similar margins which you won by previously, can be this controversial. Let alone the fact that the party still did really well in all the other ballots including house and senate.
this all stems from videos, witness statements, and statistical anomalies that suggest the election wasn't conducted properly; and the refusal of certain parts of the government to effectively examine these claims and their supporting evidence in a public and transparent manner. You've still got people claiming there was no evidence, even after videos emerged of ballot counting without the legal requirements and of people employing sleight-of-hand to remove a thumb drive from a counting location. These incidents may or may not be significant enough to change the outcome of the election but when they don't appear to be taken seriously and investigated properly, it creates the impression that some people aren't very concerned with election integrity.
I can obviously not cover every single one, but just seeing a random van and claiming it's full of fake ballots doesn't make it true. In many of these states, the entire counting was livestreamed.
> witness statements
Anyone can give statements, but election fraud requires more than just hearsay.
> and statistical anomalies
Numbers are easy to play with, see p-Hacking. In the majority of the cases, if you apply the same calculations to previous elections, or hell, even red counties in this very same election, you get very similar strange looking results.
> refusal of certain parts of the government to effectively examine these claims and their supporting evidence in a public
Just because you've been told that it wasn't taken seriously doesn't make it true. Courts have gone through the evidence for 2 months and none of it went anywhere. But for some people, being proved wrong means not being taken seriously.
I'd like to have the VA thumb drive handoff and the GA under-the-table ballot stash explained please.
> In many of these states, the entire counting was livestreamed.
Some of these videos purportedly show poll workers scanning the same ballot multiple times.
> Anyone can give statements, but election fraud requires more than just hearsay.
There are lots of sworn first-person statements, which aren't hearsay. Also fraud requires evidence of intent. Its much easier to show that serious, legitimate questions can be raised about enough ballots to sway the outcome than to prove why observers were prevented from observing.
> Numbers are easy to play with, see p-Hacking. In the majority of the cases, if you apply the same calculations to previous elections, or hell, even red counties in this very same election, you get very similar strange looking results.
Can you link me to those majority of cases? Quality of the statistical arguments varies widely and only the non persuasive arguments seem to have been responded to.
> Just because you've been told that it wasn't taken seriously doesn't make it true.
In a situation like this, demonstrating that the concerns are being taken seriously is more important than actually taking them seriously. The apparent legitimacy of the President is likely to have more of an effect on everything than who the president is, at this point. When these allegations aren't seen to be taken seriously it creates the appearance of illegitimacy, regardless of the facts.
> Courts have gone through the evidence for 2 months and none of it went anywhere.
Actually many of these cases never reached the stage of preventing evidence. And 2 months ago there hadn't been enough time to investigate and we were already being told that it had been debunked. So its not enough to do whatever they have done, it is necessary for it to be known that they have done what is correct.
> But for some people, being proved wrong means not being taken seriously.
Can you show me some of these claims "being proved wrong"? Thats a stronger claim than there not being evidence and if you could substantiate this it might help reach some people.
I can't find any information about "the VA thumb drive handoff". Do you mean this event [0] in Wisconsin? And I assume you're referring to this non-event [1], which the Georgia Secretary of State stated in a swore affidavit did not represent an opportunity for voter fraud based on continuous security camera footage.
[0] https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/nov/17/facebook-p...
[1] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fulton-county-georgia-no-my...
[0]
> And I assume you're referring to this non-event [1], which the Georgia Secretary of State stated in a swore affidavit did not represent an opportunity for voter fraud based on continuous security camera footage.
Well that's great, someone should tell the GA SOS to release the chain of custody for those ballots. If its so easy to demonstrate that the ballots (that were hidden under a table and counted after everyone else left) are legitimate, then just release that evidence instead of asking people to trust your word.
[0]https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2020/12/04/that-is-some-handof...
You seem reasonable, and I promise I am not attacking you. I am just at a loss. I have to imagine you see that article or ones like it, but you are not satisfied by the explanation. So then what can I do to satisfy you that the claims of fraud have been addressed? What standard of proof do you need, and what guarantee do I have that you won’t shift the goalpost once I meet it?
I’m not saying you, personally, will shift the goalpost, but my discussions with those who are already convinced their is fraud is that no amount of evidence is sufficient. There will always be another “but what about.” That’s why this 11th hour demand for an audit by Sen. Cruz, Loeffler, et al is exhausting. Of course I don’t want election fraud, even if finding it means Biden loses. But after two months of courts looking into it, AG Barr refuting it, state legislatures refuting it, and more, I’d say it’s been pretty well looked at. At this point, is an audit really the difference between you feeling satisfied and not?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fulton-county-georgia-no-my...
It doesn't really explain anything, it just reports some things people said.
> It took me literally 2 minutes to find it. Did you look for such explanations yourself before asking?
Indeed I did, and I took the further step of considering whether the allegations of fraud were responded to persuasively, and I saw they were not.
> So then what can I do to satisfy you that the claims of fraud have been addressed?
An investigator's report is the usual way of satisfying the public as to the results of an investigation.
> What standard of proof do you need, and what guarantee do I have that you won’t shift the goalpost once I meet it?
The same standard that would be applied to any other criminal investigation with similar consequences. When someone who is implicated in an activity offers an explanation, attempt to verify that explanation. Document this process. When someone makes a claim ("these are normal ballots that were removed and staged for expedited processing") attempt to verify the chain of custody on the ballots.
As far as shifting the goalposts, there isn't really a way for me to guarantee that to you. You'll just have to take the risk that you're wasting your time and update your opinion of me if/when that happens, or decline to risk your precious time proving something to a stranger on the internet. Its a personal decision, there is no right or wrong here :)
> I’m not saying you, personally, will shift the goalpost, but my discussions with those who are already convinced their is fraud is that no amount of evidence is sufficient.
I empathize and I'm certain there are people out there. Surely you would also agree that there are people out there who are goal-oriented and partisan enough that they would condone election fraud in order to replace trump?
> There will always be another “but what about.”
Thats true but if you acknowledge the possibility of having reasonable questions then you can't dismiss the reasonable questions on the basis of someone else's unreasonable questions.
> That’s why this 11th hour demand for an audit by Sen. Cruz, Loeffler, et al is exhausting.
The shit is fucking exhausting but people have been making accusations and pursuing legal remedies for 2+ months and its clear that its not exactly easy to challenge the integrity of an election regardless of the amount of evidence. We've been hearing that these allegations are "debunked" since before there was an investigation. People say there's nothing to them but they can't provide any evidence to respond to the allegations except testimony by persons who are implicated. We can't get a simple chain of custody on ~9,000 ballots that appeared from under a table in the middle of the night when no (R) observers were present, and the people there dispute the process by which the obervers were removed from the room. If someone doesn't understand that the results of an election can be changed by adding illegal/fraudulent ballots then they don't understand elections well enough.
> Of course I don’t want election fraud, even if finding it means Biden loses.
Honestly ask yourself why you care election integrity. Now consider whether election integrity can be meaningfully decoupled from the appearance of election integrity in this context.
> But after two months of courts looking into it, AG Barr refuting it, state legislatures refuting it, and more, I’d say it’s been pretty well looked at.
I mean, that's probably because you're satisfied with the outcome and you question all the allegations of improprieties. Which is fine. But have you considered whether AG Barr, some state legislatures, etc. have done anything that might alleviate the concerns of someone who feels differently? The scope of effort required to debunk something for someone who doesn't believe it is far less than the scope of effort required to debunk something for someone who does believe it. In this case, the latter standard is the one that should prevail for obvious reasons.
> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fulton-county-georgia-no-my...
Mostly just repeats the claims of various parties without making efforts to substantiate them. We already know the people involved disagree about the details of what happened, that's why there needs to be a chain of custody for those ballots. That way we are less reliant on the word of partisans.
I saw your fellow conspiracy theorists's YouTube analysis of the "thumbdrive hand-off". It's not even clear it's a thumbdrive in her hand. And the logic leap is incredible. How does this "hand-off" mean election fraud? Did you watch another video of someone on the Internet saying "It means this, it can mean this", etc, and if so, why hasn't it been investigated?
https://medium.com/curiouserinstitute/a-game-designers-analy...
Do you think this is a good way of persuading people to question themselves?
> I saw your fellow conspiracy theorists's YouTube analysis of the "thumbdrive hand-off".
I'm not sure I appreciate being associated with whoever but thank you for watching the video.
> It's not even clear it's a thumbdrive in her hand.
Ok, perhaps. What else was she attempting to steal from the election building?
> And the logic leap is incredible. How does this "hand-off" mean election fraud?
For some reason, votes are stored on removable storage media. There's no incredible leap of logic to understand that sneaking one of these drives out and modifying it or losing it without affecting the chain of custody or being seen would be a component of vote fraud. This appears to be that, therefore when someone asks for video evidence that suggests there might have been vote fraud, here is an example. But if you don't care about election integrity then its probably super boring anyway so don't fret yourself.
> Did you watch another video of someone on the Internet saying "It means this, it can mean this", etc, and if so, why hasn't it been investigated?
No, its pretty obvious what the logical implications are. And I don't know why it hasn't been investigated, probably because the voting system isn't even set up to defend against this type of fraud.
thanks for the link, very interesting.
If someone seriously posts "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" I'm going to associate them with 9/11 truthers.
> Ok, perhaps. What else was she attempting to steal from the election building?
You (or the allegers) are just creating a narrative that's convenient for you/them! And filling in the details. We don't even see them leave the building!
Here's another one: the lady on the left gave the other one her car keys, and the girl and guy were about to sneak off to the carpark to make out. Or, it was a bag of weed, and they're about to go to the back of the building and get high.
Did you even confirm how the votes are stored? There are boxes with United States Postal Service in the background. So surely they're counting mail ballots. There are no computers on the desks, so, it doesn't seem the results of the counted mail ballots are being stored digitally. Do these 3 look like master hackers, or is it so easy to tamper with the digital files that it's plausible anyone (including many in republican areas) could do it, but you've only "caught" these 3 doing it?
If you ask for a video that supposedly reveals something about 9/11, and someone posts a video that fulfills your request, you are not then entitled to consider the person who responded to you as "9/11 truther." That would be ridiculous.
> You (or the allegers) are just creating a narrative that's convenient for you/them! And filling in the details. We don't even see them leave the building!
What do you think it would look like for someone to violate the chain of custody of a thumb drive on camera?
> Here's another one: the lady on the left gave the other one her car keys, and the girl and guy were about to sneak off to the carpark to make out. Or, it was a bag of weed, and they're about to go to the back of the building and get high.
None of those require or suggest the behavior seen in the video.
> Did you even confirm how the votes are stored? There are boxes with United States Postal Service in the background. So surely they're counting mail ballots. There are no computers on the desks, so, it doesn't seem the results of the counted mail ballots are being stored digitally.
Actually lots of voting machines read the ballot and record the result onto digital media.
> Do these 3 look like master hackers, or is it so easy to tamper with the digital files that it's plausible anyone (including many in republican areas) could do it
In fact its so easy that up until very recently lots of mainstream orgs (like the NYT!) were sounding the alarm.
> but you've only "caught" these 3 doing it?
Well first people said there was no evidence, now you're saying there must be more evidence or this doesn't count?
What! And how can you say the behaviors in the video is inconclusive proof of voter fraud!?! Or at least suggest voter fraud?!
Where's even the thumb drive? You've managed to see things from a few pixels and what commentators are saying what it is. What if I tell you, that's a bag of weed. Can you see a bag of weed? What, no? Can you see a thumbdrive? I can't!
> Actually lots of voting machines read the ballot and record the result onto digital media.
So... this lady, who looks like her job is to sit there and count mail ballots, also has access to the voting machines (which is nowhere to be seen near her in the video), and is allowed to have custody of the results for who knows how long, while she does other work? These assumptions would mean such lax security, that then sure, rampant voter fraud is possible. Next you and the entire fraud-founding Internet commenters will want to see the security procedures of the whole voting operation and that are to your satisfaction. I don't have all the facts and can't deny that maybe they are that mind-numbingly lax (in which case, as a supporter of a US government based on sanity rather than nutjob conspiracy theories, I would be worried that rampant and easy voter fraud benefiting Republicans happened), but don't you think there would have been Republican party officials who have actually reviewed said procedures and who would've said "Hey, why are you letting random people have custody of the digital results?".
Yeah, when votes are stored on digital media, an apparent attempt to surreptitiously remove a thumb drive from a place where votes are counted suggests an attempt at compromising the election.
> So... this lady, who looks like her job is to sit there and count mail ballots, also has access to the voting machines (which is nowhere to be seen near her in the video), and is allowed to have custody of the results for who knows how long, while she does other work? These assumptions would mean such lax security, that then sure, rampant voter fraud is possible.
Those aren't really necessary assumptions but I'm glad you can see how its evident that its possible to have enough voter fraud to affect results.
> Next you and the entire fraud-founding Internet commenters will want to see the security procedures of the whole voting operation and that are to your satisfaction.
Yes that's what we want, any guesses on whether any of this will be better next time?
> (in which case, as a supporter of a US government based on sanity rather than nutjob conspiracy theories, I would be worried that rampant and easy voter fraud benefiting Republicans happened)
You should probably decouple your vote fraud concerns from your partisan concerns because comments like this suggest that vote fraud is worse when it benefits one party than the other and that's not the case. Vote fraud is bad because it violates the integrity of the election and because it threatens the legitimacy of the government.
> but don't you think there would have been Republican party officials who have actually reviewed said procedures and who would've said "Hey, why are you letting random people have custody of the digital results?".
The point of the sleight of hand is to remove the drive without the chain of custody documents reflecting that fact. A review of the procedure wouldn't show the conduct displayed in the video, that's the point.
Here’s a video[1]. Of course from your perspective, your position makes perfect sense and isn’t extreme, and by no means am I calling you a white supremacist, but you should watch and see if you relate in any way. Please don’t dismiss it out of hand, there’s valuable lessons in it that apply to everyone, not just former white supremacists.
Have you considered pretending for a moment that my perspective is valid instead of dismissing me like this? I'm aware that we still disagree, that's because of a variety of factors including the fact that we both, as humans, suffer from cognitive biases. But assuming that I can't be reasoned with merely because you've been unable to respond to my arguments isn't getting either of us closer to understanding each other.
> We could argue about the specifics all day, but I think you should ask yourself why you want it to be true.
I don't want it to be true, I don't want any of this crap to be true, the candidates we had are horrible (not speaking ill of Professor Jorgenson, mind you). I'd prefer that there was a reasonable explanation but the problem with this where there's evidence that raises suspicions but no reasonable response is that the losing side feels disenfranchised and that's bad for the country. We want everyone to feel as though their voice was heard.
> Do you seek community?
No I have a decent social life.
> Are you angry inside and need an outlet?
No, I'm fine.
> Of course from your perspective, your position makes perfect sense and isn’t extreme,
Thanks for the video, watching it now.
Maybe you’re in a position where you do believe him. His rhetoric is such that if you believe him, he tries to get you to believe only him, sowing distrust in news organisations and election officials.
I think another problem is it’s very hard to disprove a negative. For example, prove that there isn’t a spy satellite orbiting earth. You can always say “well what about that other satellite, what about this area of space?”. It’s unknowable, and therefore comes down to who you trust. If you look up Trump’s factual inaccuracies so far, unless you already have, then you’ll have a clearer picture on which to base your trust.
No further than I can throw him, he's ridiculous.
> So when he says there’s election fraud, I don’t believe him.
Thats fair. What are your priors on election fraud in general? Do you think it happens or nah?
> I think another problem is it’s very hard to disprove a negative.
I agree, the system is not set up in order to demonstrate election integrity. Everything is on the basis of trust. So we get this scenario where things look like fraud, but can't be proven to be fraudulent because no one is trying to prevent or catch fraud, and then when people have reasonable suspicions because of this, people say "this is normal" and "you can't prove fraud happened" but when you point out things that suggest fraud may have occurred, there's no way to disprove that.
> It’s unknowable, and therefore comes down to who you trust.
Well that's kind of the point, I don't trust people I don't know. I don't trust people to be honest when no one is looking. I don't trust vote fraudsters to be honest about their behavior. And I think its foolish to expect that they would be.
> If you look up Trump’s factual inaccuracies so far, unless you already have, then you’ll have a clearer picture on which to base your trust.
This doesn't rely on trump's trustworthiness (or lack thereof), but publicly available evidence and the public record.
It doesn't take much fraud to swing an election and, aside from 2020, both 1960 and 2000 are suspect. The main thing is that how would you know if there was election fraud? There would be some evidence. You might see poll workers acting strangely around ballots. You might have ballots without a proper chain of custody. You might have reports by poll watchers that they weren't allowed to do their jobs. Well, all of those are present. So we have reason to suspect there might have been vote fraud. Its that simple.
> That’s very interesting, why don’t you trust people to be honest?
Because they are capable of dishonesty so there's no reason to assume they are trustworthy. The same reason I lock my door at night and use long passwords on my accounts.
> I personally believe in the good of people, that >90% of people are good people who want to do the right thing.
My understanding of human nature leads me to consider that naive. Please don't take offense, I'm just being forthright.
> So when people without skin in the game or anti-Biden people say there was no election fraud, I trust them.
Thats a different kind of error, how would those people be in a position to know if there was fraud?
> This is why I believe Raffensperger. But I’d be very interested to hear why you don’t trust people you don’t know?
Because they haven't earned my trust. They haven't shown any reason to be trustworthy. People lie and cheat all the time. Sometimes they even lie, cheat, and steal when its easier and more productive to be honest. Since people lie cheat and steal, if you show me a person, I'm going to be aware of their potential to lie, cheat, and steal. Its that simple.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aokNwKx7gM8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etx0k1nLn78
And this third one just shows how much of a joke some of the claims in the lawsuits are:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ua5aOFi-DKs
Like, this is basic high school level statistics they can't even get right.
That is flat-out not true. Hearsay refers to whether or not the witness actually witnessed the event they are referring to, or is merely recounting what someone told them about the event. Some of the "sworn first-person statements" have the person literally swearing that they heard someone say something, which is literally hearsay. I haven't combed through every piece of evidence in every case, but a lot of "sworn first-person statements" basically amounted to hearsay or other statements that could not legally be sustained as evidence.
> Actually many of these cases never reached the stage of preventing evidence.
The first set of cases did reach that stage, and were often rejected because the evidence they did present was insufficient to sustain allegations.
> In a situation like this, demonstrating that the concerns are being taken seriously is more important than actually taking them seriously. The apparent legitimacy of the President is likely to have more of an effect on everything than who the president is, at this point. When these allegations aren't seen to be taken seriously it creates the appearance of illegitimacy, regardless of the facts.
Here's the problem. The people who are alleging this conspiracy--first and foremost Trump himself--are unwilling to sustain any evidence to the contrary. The Trump campaign and affiliates have lost 62 lawsuits in the past two months (and that's not counting subsequent losses on appeal). The legal theories in the most recent lawsuits start making pro se sovereign citizen bullshit look sane. Hell, Michigan has already filed a motion to impose sanctions on the lawyers for making these claims, which is a rare step.
And where did that get us? They're calling Mike Pence a traitor for not exercising unilateral authority to miscount the electoral votes--an authority that he does not have (read the 12th Amendment for yourself; it's not a long document). For the first time in 230 years, a mob has broken into Congress to commit sedition [1] to prevent the election of the next president. Not even in 1861, when the treasonous South objected to Lincoln's presidency, did this happen.
Why? It's not because we didn't demonstrate the concerns were being taken seriously. It's because way too many people were willing to indulge a delusional conspiracy theory that was ungrounded in truth, and to pretend that frivolous lawsuits that were clearly contrary to all prior precedent fanned [2] that delusion.
[1] 18 USC §2384: If two or more persons in any State or Territory [...] conspire to [...] by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, [...] they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
The mob that broke into the Capitol is unquestionably guilty of the crime of sedition.
[2] I have read several of the lawsuits and their briefs. I actually left a detailed comment about the Texas v Pennsylvania case when it was first filed, explaining 6 different reasons for SCOTUS to toss the case that didn't even address the merits at all.
It actually is true that there are "lots of sworn first-person statements, which aren't hearsay." This isn't to say there are none that are hearsay.
> I haven't combed through every piece of evidence in every case, but a lot of "sworn first-person statements" basically amounted to hearsay or other statements that could not legally be sustained as evidence.
Right, and we could ignore them and talk about the ones where people testify to things that happened to them or in their presence but its much easier to respond to evidence you don't like by ignoring it and debunking "evidence" that's easy to respond to.
> The first set of cases did reach that stage
I'm not sure what you're referring to as "the first set of cases" but many of the cases were dismissed before evidence was heard. That means you can't faithfully dismiss the evidence on the basis of a dismissed court case because the court never looked at the evidence.
> The people who are alleging this conspiracy--first and foremost Trump himself--are unwilling to sustain any evidence to the contrary.
I disagree and if you could present evidence to the contrary we could perhaps resolve this.
> The Trump campaign and affiliates have lost 62 lawsuits in the past two months (and that's not counting subsequent losses on appeal).
Refer to my statement above. Most of those never even examined the evidence.
> For the first time in 230 years, a mob has broken into Congress
Its not that big of a deal, the last time a mob broke into congress was 2018.
> has broken into Congress to commit sedition
Actually they are trying (in vain) to avoid disenfranchisement. Or if you prefer not to appear to take a position on the object-level issue, its merely a "mostly peaceful protest."
> Why? It's not because we didn't demonstrate the concerns were being taken seriously.
that most certainly is why.
> It's because way too many people were willing to indulge a delusional conspiracy theory that was ungrounded in truth, and to pretend that frivolous lawsuits that were clearly contrary to all prior precedent fanned [2] that delusion.
I like how you compared the idea that people might cheat in an election to a delusion, when people cheat in elections all the time and its probably more properly considered delusional when someone insists (without evidence) that there was no fraud and all these people asserting fraud on the basis of evidence are delusional.
> If two or more persons in any State or Territory [...] conspire to [...] by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, [...] they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
Would that apply to conspiracy to violate election law?
They broke the law. They committed sedition--I copy-pasted the actual definition of the law. It doesn't matter why they were trying to break law, they still violated the law. They ignored all proper legal avenues to take the law into their own lands. You cannot in good faith ever claim to support the rule of law if you support what they did.
Let me put it like this: if I were to kill the President, I would be a murderer. It doesn't matter if I think he's a deranged nutcase whose continued presidency would irrevocably damage the country: I would still be committing first-degree murder, and will still deserve nothing less than to suffer the full consequences of that crime.
> Would that apply to conspiracy to violate election law?
There are only 51 electoral vote certificates for the 2020 presidential election. There were only ever 51 electoral vote certificates. Some cosplayers did pretend to make electoral vote certificates to compete against, but cosplaying an electoral vote does not meet the legal requirements to create a valid electoral vote certificate. Congress's job is to count those electoral vote certificates. 3 USC §15 lays out what Congress was supposed to do yesterday. There is nothing that they did that would violate their actions.
I'm not going to respond to all of your points because my blood pressure can't take this, but I will close out with this comment: what happened yesterday is the electoral equivalent of lynching. Even if you think it is justified, it is still an extralegal attempt by a mob to execute their will, damning the due process of anyone they come across.
This presumes that your perspective on the alleged fraud is factually correct. If we don't presume the facts of the matter one way or the other, it looks like they may have been petitioning their government for redress.
> Let me put it like this: if I were to kill the President, I would be a murderer. It doesn't matter if I think he's a deranged nutcase whose continued presidency would irrevocably damage the country: I would still be committing first-degree murder
I think the same argument applies to vote fraud. It doesn't matter how much you hate the president (or think him incompetent, or whatever), vote fraud is vote fraud.
> Some cosplayers did pretend to make electoral vote certificates to compete against, but cosplaying an electoral vote does not meet the legal requirements to create a valid electoral vote certificate.
So they are trying to prevent the cosplayers from successfully impersonating actual electors.
> I'm not going to respond to all of your points because my blood pressure can't take this, but I will close out with this comment: what happened yesterday is the electoral equivalent of lynching.
Thats hyperbolic and undemocratic.
> Even if you think it is justified, it is still an extralegal attempt by a mob to execute their will, damning the due process of anyone they come across.
Yeah I didn't support their actions but its kind of like the protests last summer: riots are the language of the unheard.
The cosplayers are the people who pretended to be the Republican electors in the states of Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia, despite failing to meet the statutory requirements of meeting in the appointed place, having the vote signed by the respective Secretary of State, and having the vote receipt submitted to the National Archives.
In other words, these are people whose actions as purported electors are not legitimate. It is as if I were to put on a shirt with the word "POLICE" on it and print out a badge that had the same word of it--it doesn't actually make me a police officer, merely someone cosplaying a police officer. (Although as electors are not public officials, they are unlikely to run afoul of any laws, unless there is some fraud statute that is broad enough to cover this).
Their actions did not have the force of law. The seditionous mob who wanted to stop the electoral count are the people who want to install cosplayers as electors in flagrant violation of the law.
> Thats hyperbolic and undemocratic.
A lynching is a mob taking it upon themselves to murder someone in response to an alleged crime in an extralegal attempt to achieve justice, completely in violation of all due process. What happened yesterday was a mob taking it upon themselves to overturn the lawful results of the election in response to an alleged crime in an extralegal attempt to achieve justice, completely in violation of all due process. That is the antithesis of rule of law; it is not hyperbolic or undemocratic to draw that comparison.
We've already seen that failure to meet statutory requirements is not sufficient to disqualify an election, elector, or ballot. Otherwise PA would have gone to trump because of the backdated postmarks.
> In other words, these are people whose actions as purported electors are not legitimate.
According to you. Other people feel that these are the legitimate electors. Since legitimacy is a social construct and not a physical phenomenon, there is no objective answer.
> It is as if I were to put on a shirt with the word "POLICE" on it and print out a badge that had the same word of it--it doesn't actually make me a police officer, merely someone cosplaying a police officer.
Likewise, if the result of an election is altered due to ballot stuffing and other forms of compromise, the apparent victor is not legitimate, but a cosplayer.
> What happened yesterday was a mob taking it upon themselves to overturn the lawful results of the election in response to an alleged crime in an extralegal attempt to achieve justice, completely in violation of all due process.
Yes that's your opinion. If you refrain from assuming your own opinion about unknown facts to be automatically correct, then you can see how they may have felt themselves to be members of the public who were petitioning their government or performatively airing grievances just like their antifa/blm counterparts have been doing for years.
I have yet to see any strong evidence that the election wasn't conducted properly.
I have see a lot of people on HN make vague statements along the lines of "there are things that suggest that some shady things may have taken place".
Every one of these statements was unsourced, and carried a general subtext that any claim of fraud automatically deserved attention and belief, no matter how little evidence was provided, and that the burden on proof should lie on people refuting these claims.
I usually want to assume good faith, but this is really hard here. You obviously can't say "Bill Gates sent assassins kill my parents" and, when ask with any evidence that Gates did this or that your parents are even dead, complain that people aren't taking the Bill Gates threat seriously enough. The burden of proof is on you for making extraordinary claims. The claims of widespread fraud should require extraordinary evidence as well, and there really hasn't been any.
Well have you seen any evidence at all? What evidence would you expect to see and where have you looked?
> I have see a lot of people on HN make vague statements along the lines of "there are things that suggest that some shady things may have taken place". Every one of these statements was unsourced, and carried a general subtext that any claim of fraud automatically deserved attention and belief, no matter how little evidence was provided, and that the burden on proof should lie on people refuting these claims.
Why didn't they just link to [0]?
> The burden of proof is on you for making extraordinary claims. The claims of widespread fraud should require extraordinary evidence as well, and there really hasn't been any.
Well I think its extraordinary to claim (without evidence) that an adversarial process with high stakes and poor process controls was not corrupted.
[0] https://apelbaum.wordpress.com/2020/12/03/the-georgia-ballot...
Perhaps you're right and this is a sign that democracy is fundamentally broken. If people aren't able to understand that many forms of election compromise (e.g. ballot stuffing) are indistinguishable from a normal election without properly respected controls and audits.
> but mere allegations that they were doing anything unusual.
There are allegations coupled with evidence to support them, which is what is necessary to make an accusation that can be investigated.
Maybe faith in the process should be shaken, but a volatile transition period isn't the time. I have full faith that the election process has a moderately low fraud rate, below any amount that would change the outcome. Even so, the peaceful transition of power is more important than any particular mechanism. If any of the parties involved would like to raise a court case actually alleging fraud (which is why the cases have been dismissed: because they failed to do so, and anything short of this would have no remedy), an investigation would be in order. But it appears that fifty-seven cases have been filed, finding 108 votes whose signatures were improperly validated.
So what, exactly, is the problem here? It seems like you're raising concerns of things that could have happened, without any actual weight behind them that they did happen. It's meaningless.
I doubt that its correct to allow someone to take office under the cloud of illegitimacy because of our fears of "volatility." The best thing for stability is clearly to what is necessary to ensure that the elections are both secure and known to be secure.
> I have full faith that the election process has a moderately low fraud rate, below any amount that would change the outcome.
The problem is that people with an interest in subverting the process see your faith as an asset. You have faith in elections, good. We need to demonstrate election security to people who do not share your faith.
> Even so, the peaceful transition of power is more important than any particular mechanism.
I think that making sure anyone in power is actually legitimate is probably more important than that.
> If any of the parties involved would like to raise a court case actually alleging fraud (which is why the cases have been dismissed
Many were dismissed for procedural grounds or lack of standing; additionally proving fraud requires proving intent, which is not easy.
> because they failed to do so, and anything short of this would have no remedy
Thats another problem, one shouldn't need to prove the state of mind of a hostile party in order to demonstrate that an election was corrupted.
> an investigation would be in order.
There are open investigations. Despite this, some people insist that we coronate their preferred candidate without seeing what law enforcement is able to discover.
> So what, exactly, is the problem here? It seems like you're raising concerns of things that could have happened, without any actual weight behind them that they did happen. It's meaningless.
I'm not sure what you're asking. There's a video of poll workers counting ballots that had been hidden under a table until all the R observers had left. No one has presented a chain of custody for those ballots. The people who may have stuffed the ballot box with questionable ballots say they didn't. There's an open investigation, so they won't release any evidence that would show that these ballots are legitimate (assuming they would even be able to prove that); but that doesn't stop the investigator from making a sworn statement that nothing happened; naturally there was no supporting evidence.
> without any actual weight behind them that they did happen
I'm saying it happened and its on video. I don't think the excuse "ballot stuffing is how we normally win elections" is going to de-escalate the situation.
Anyone who is dissatisfied with this election should logically be dissatisfied with every election, so should pick their battles wisely and attempt to fix the system such that their concerns are possible to alleviate. Raising concerns with this election in particular makes it seem as if this election was in any way exceptional, which except for the candidates, it was not. It's equally concerning whether the 2016 election was legitimate. Or 2012. Or 2008. Or...
There is absolutely no tracability on ballots, by design, at this stage. There is no way to prove who voted for whom, due to abuses of this knowledge in the past. There is no proof that can be provided at this point that the election was "legitimate", whatever standard of proof that requires. To provide such proof would require a change to the entire electoral system, and absolutely cannot be done retroactively.
The accusation of election fraud requires intent because fraud requires intent. The successful performance of election fraud usually involves not conveying your intent to defraud because then people wouldn't trust your role in the election.
> There is absolutely no tracability on ballots, by design, at this stage.
Yes, this is why its suspicious that people staged ballots by removing their envelopes, then hid them under a table and waited until the (R) observers had left. So if its known and understood that no one is able to prove that those ballots had a legitimate chain of custody then how are they debunking the allegation that fraud occurred? It sounds like you're saying that the way the system is set up, its not possible to prove that the election was legitimate.
> Anyone who is dissatisfied with this election would be impossible to satisfy.
Right after you point out that it was designed in a way that would be impossible to verify, you say this.
Where I disagree with your argument is that this is fundamentally the cause of what has transcended in DC.
You say that Trump lawsuits have been dismissed instead of evidence being entertained, but if according to his own lawyers there is no allegation of fraud, what exactly do you expect? Why would anyone then believe that his other lawsuits are actually trying to resolve anomalies instead of being political smoke and mirrors to point his base to?
Similarly, it is simply inconceivable that there was sufficient fraud for a "landslide" Trump victory. It has absolutely no basis in fact. Yet this is exactly what Trump is preaching to whomever is willing to listen.
The reason people are storming the capitol is not because there are too few investigations, or because fraud has occurred. The exact same rhetoric and lies that Trump is employing right now would have just the same effect if there had been precisely zero cases and zero entertainable evidence of fraud.
> I fundamentally agree with you that perception of this issue is just as important, and that the applebaum link is reasonably interpreted as fraud occurring.
I appreciate this.
> Where I disagree with your argument is that this is fundamentally the cause of what has transcended in DC.
Thats reasonable and in my opinion its too early (for me anyway) to understand fundamental causes at this time.
> You say that Trump lawsuits have been dismissed instead of evidence being entertained, but if according to his own lawyers there is no allegation of fraud, what exactly do you expect?
This is a good question and it gets into the types of election compromise and legal definition. My understanding is that (legally) fraud requires intent, and they didn't have evidence of intent. In civil election cases, (again my understanding as a layman) they are supposed to show that the number of votes that can be questioned is greater than the apparent margin of victory. So about the fraud thing, they didn't make the accusation in court because it wasn't necessary and couldn't be supported to the legal standard. But here in a normal conversation we can kind of assume that if election integrity was compromised in order to boost one candidate over another, it was intentional and call it fraud. Even though challenging the results in court might not involve alleging fraud.
> Why would anyone then believe that his other lawsuits are actually trying to resolve anomalies instead of being political smoke and mirrors to point his base to?
Its reasonable to suspect that these lawsuits are intended to rile the base and lack legal merit. I'm only really concerned with the sworn affidavits filed by observers that allege they were prevented from doing their jobs. A regular poll worker assumes a lot of liability for doing this, with questionable benefit. And if people are filing false affidavits to help trump with his propaganda, that needs to be investigated and the responsible parties need to be charged. Filing a false affidavit with the court is perjury.
> Similarly, it is simply inconceivable that there was sufficient fraud for a "landslide" Trump victory.
Its fine for you to have that as a prior but with strong words like "inconceivable" you should have some solid arguments as well.
> The reason people are storming the capitol is not because there are too few investigations, or because fraud has occurred. The exact same rhetoric and lies that Trump is employing right now would have just the same effect if there had been precisely zero cases and zero entertainable evidence of fraud.
I disagree, trump's rhetoric works precisely because there is enough reasonable evidence to call into question your perspective on election integrity, and people are upset that it's being ignored.
It is clear to me that Trump and his surroundings have no qualms about fabricating "truths" in whatever quantity fitting whatever narrative to match their aims. This has been the playbook from day 1, see [0]. It appears to work regardless of any underlying facts.
I fully admit that I am not privy to the perspective of and influences on Trump supporters at large and capitol stormers in particular. However, the idea that there is a meaningful bar of evidence to clear before his supporters buy into his statements appears largely unfounded to me. Otherwise our current reality would be incompatible with [0].
And let me be perfectly clear that virtually every human will believe a convenient "truth" at some point or another. But given the degree to which Trump's entire sphere of influence has supported any outlandish, nonsensical or downright contradictory thought he expresses, I do not see how election integrity measures would have moved the needle in this regard. (Which is not to dismiss the need for them, just their influence on this attack).
[0]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claim...
This is how politics has been for a while. Trump just adopting the winning strategy employed by Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc.
> I fully admit that I am not privy to the perspective of and influences on Trump supporters at large and capitol stormers in particular. However, the idea that there is a meaningful bar of evidence to clear before his supporters buy into his statements appears largely unfounded to me.
Yeah, people usually presume things they like to be valid, the same way they accept news media and blog posts uncritically when they agree with them. Its definitely part of the human condition and not anything significantly different among the different partisans these days.
> And let me be perfectly clear that virtually every human will believe a convenient "truth" at some point or another. But given the degree to which Trump's entire sphere of influence has supported any outlandish, nonsensical or downright contradictory thought he expresses, I do not see how election integrity measures would have moved the needle in this regard. (Which is not to dismiss the need for them, just their influence on this attack).
I'll just point out that there's a lot more diversity of opinion about trump on the right than you're aware of, which is normal. I hear the same shit from people on the right about people on the left.
> [0]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claim...
Yeah, he's a politician. This is no different than Pres. Obama "you can keep your insurance if you like it", "You didn't build that", "I'm going to close Guantanamo Bay", etc. You can say that t told more whoppers, I'm not interested in disputing that. Politicians lie, if you're going to hold one accountable then you need to be consistent. But holding politicians to their word doesn't really get much traction, its always seen as partisan.
Thus why trump got to keep his presidency in 2016
Videos appear and then are explained but it doesn't matter because there is always a shadowy conspiracy.
https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/misplac...
Release of an investigation report would go a long way to quiet these claims.
> https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/misplac...
Wouldn't display for some reason.
- Przeworski
In other words, the core concept of democracy isn't the elections or any of the other trappings, it's the fact that it's possible for one group to lose power, transition to another group and retain the possibility to transition back in a subsequent election to the original group.