I think this is an important point. Many of us here live in cities, but in rural America there is a stunning amount of people who really believe that Joe Biden lost the 2020 election and that there was a massive, coordinated campaign of voter fraud. In many dominantly red states, this is not considered a fringe conspiracy theory but more or less generally accepted as fact.

Not only accepted as fact, but some US states starting to initiate laws around it:

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voti...

It always seemed like that was the intent. Republicans know that restricting voting rights helps them, and Trump moved the needle significantly with his work to do that. His super PAC raised something like $160m post election, so someone may have been paying for him to do all that.

You don't see how wanting the system changed is any different than claiming the election was completely stolen by illegal means and then taking drastic measures to try and overturn said election? I think you have not thought very deeply about this whole situation.

Read the Mueller report. Read the Report on Russian interference in the 2016 elections from the Republican controlled Senate Intelligence Committee. The difference is that one has a tremendous amount of supporting evidence. The other has none.

The major conspiracy theory was that trump colluded with Russia to win the election. As far as I’m aware the Mueller report said Russia stood to benefit from a trump presidency but Trump didn’t collude.

So Trump won legitimately. Even if people voted with the wrong information. And the losing side threw its toys out of the cot.

Then when Biden won, the losing side threw its toys out of the cot.

In both cases there’s conspiracy theories. Russian collusion and rigged elections.

Here is [0] a copy of the Muller report. It is vague, as is usual for political hit jobs. There is hard evidence that someone leaked truthful statements out of the DNC, which is a major political scandal (honest accounting of what the {R|D}NC if thinking? Available to the public?! heaven forfend, that is not how journalism is done).

Which bits of evidence in it do you think are compelling, actionable and importat? Bearing in mind that the evidence is so uncompelling that right-wing advocates bring up the Muller report more than left-wing ones and you're probably going to get some resistance whatever you pick out.

The introduction and summary are mostly fluff and allusion, so I'm not bothering reading the whole thing unless you want to point to something specific.

[0] https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/18/mueller-report-sea...

You’re responding to “Read the Mueller report.” With [I’m not going to read the Mueller report]. Thanks for letting me know.

I mean, honestly, you’re bothered by lack of details so because of that…you’re choosing not to read the parts where one would expect to find the details.

I've got a few pages left in me. I'm pretty sceptical you can find anything that I'll admit is evidence of anything that is even abnormal, let alone concerning (I'm anticipating stuff like "presidential candidate talks to Russians!" as though it isn't the presidents job to negotiate with Russians, or those hilariously small amounts of money that got spent on posting social media articles).

Which section do you think is the most powerful? What in the document upsets you?

It is pretty normal in my experience that people pretty quickly walk back from pretending that the report actually contains anything, because they can't point to it and rely on the fact that there is this fake consensus that something evil happened so there is no need to provide any evidence of anything specific. If you want to point at something I'll read it, but I think you're bluffing on a weak hand here - this report is political swill. Nobody cites from it when they have a point to make against Trump or the 2016 election.

PS: And I'll just add - telling people to "go read a 450 page document to convince yourself I'm right" is an unreasonable ask. I read a lot of that report at the time it was released and I'm pretty convinced there was nothing in it.

I seems like maybe you’ve decided to read more into my original comment than what’s actually there.

The entirety of what I’m saying right now is “Both the Mueller and Senate Intel committee reports contain pretty extensive evidence and detailing of a significant interference campaign by the Russians on the 2016 election”. I was responding in regards to “blaming Russians” which was far from a baseless conspiracy theory.

And yet you've now made it through 3 posts without doing anything as gauche as mentioning what that evidence is, providing a sample of it or articulating what the Russians have done that you don't like apart from being foreign. As alluded to previously, the biggest complaint most have seems to be that they were allegedly [^] bringing honesty into a political context. They have no power to influence US elections, as shown by their inability to do anything apart from one push in 2016. Look how they couldn't manage "interference" in 2012 and it magically disappeared by 2020. Possibly Russians can be defeated with concentrated Democrat fanfiction [&]?

One momentary peak of Russian power that you are struggling to narrow down to an example, despite having a 450 page report that you don't feel like quoting from because, presumably, nobody thinks the issue is important enough to explain to the doubters.

You've got nothing. The Muller report is a high-class version of exactly the same conspiratorial gibber that Jones is pumping out.

[^] And although I don't care on the point, I haven't seen the evidence for this either, I assume all the intelligence agencies have tools to pretend to be other agencies when hacking things. I expect even on this point it isn't clear it was the Russians but if it was I support them for good journalism.

[&] Which is what the Muller report seems to be. Rather steamy, no plot.

I’ve made it through now 4 posts having chosen not to engage with you on topic because you made it clear from the outset that you’re not capable of having a good faith exchange on this.

You pre-dismissed anything I might have cited. You say things like I’m bluffing on a weak hand, I’ve got nothing, and I’m supposed to say to myself “Yes, this person is worth expending effort on, let’s have a totally real open minded debate.” Get over yourself.

I’m gonna go out in a limb here and say you’re scared to cite anything in fear of it having a rebuttal.

As I said in my reply the report concludes that Trump didn’t collude with Russia to win the election. So the major conspiracy theory is throw out the window. It holds as much weight as Biden stealing the election.

> I’m gonna go out in a limb here and say you’re scared to cite anything in fear of it having a rebuttal.

Again, I’m not going to get in the weeds with someone who isn’t arguing in good faith. There’s no good that can come from it. In this case it’s extra pointless because I agree with this person. Nothing in the Mueller report is going to convince them of anything.

> As I said in my reply the report concludes that Trump didn’t collude with Russia to win the election. So the major conspiracy theory is throw out the window. It holds as much weight as Biden stealing the election.

The report doesn’t do anything of the sort. The report is entirely focused on assessing evidence of criminal liability. Since collusion isn’t an actual crime the report nothing directly to say on the matter, much less actually coming right out and concluding that it didn’t happen. That’s just ridiculous.

There is evidence that is presented in the context of other matters of potential criminal liability that would be relevant to any discussion of “collusion”. One example would be Manafort and Gates sharing internal polling data with the Russians. You would have to contort yourself pretty hard to rationalize this as something other than coordinating with Russias’s campaign of interference/assistance.

> Again, I’m not going to get in the weeds with someone who isn’t arguing in good faith.

The only reason you think you can anticipate my response is because I've correctly anticipated that you don't have an argument. If something comes up that is outside my predictions neither of us knows what I'd do. But I'm predicting a bluff and it has been a long thread of posts now.

> One example would be Manafort and Gates sharing internal polling data with the Russians.

The Russians could hire a polling company at any time. American's don't keep their opinions quiet. How do you want to spin that in to something interesting? Since Manafort's team won the election, it was probably a "hey, we're serious candidates, you should be ready to negotiate with us if we win" thing. Since one of the president's official duties is negotiating with Russians to try and prevent escalations.

Care to reference a page number for this one so I can make sure I'm dealing with the same topic?

It was an attempted insurrection -- there's plenty of evidence to support that.

It was an actual realized insurrection. Were you meaning to say it was an attempted coup?

Yes, it was an attempted coup.

I fear the next one will be better executed.

We conducted an undisputed (and still somewhat close) presidential election in 1944, in the middle of World War 2, just prior to the Battle of the Bulge and with half a million servicepeople in the Solomon Islands and the Philippines. But somehow we're meant to dignify the objections of gullible voters who don't understand how a drop-off box works. Spare us.

FDR was a popular President who had already won 3 elections by landslide margins, and won a fourth term by 400+ electoral votes. And of course wars have a uniquely unifying effect on populations.

You could make a similarly flippant remark about people not knowing how electronic voting machines work. At the end of the day, the Taiwanese, French, etc., don’t count votes the way they do for funsies.

The solution to that is not suppression of the idea(s), in fact attempts to suppress anyone talking about the election only serve as fuel to expand the number of people that believe it, as "what are they trying to hide" becomes of the main part of the story.

Greater, and Actual Transparency combined with a trust worthily network of news outlets would go along way to shut down these types of discussions

Sadly we have neither government nor really judicial transparency in any meaningful way, and we are at a point in time where trust in "news" is lower than trust in congress...

Want to tone down the number of people that believe in conspiracy... More Facts, less Spin...

> Want to tone down the number of people that believe in conspiracy... More Facts, less Spin...

Really? More facts will change their minds? Who will they trust with those facts?

This is bordering on cult-like behavior and it shows no signs of improving -- I'm not optimistic about this at all.

Trust is built over decades, and torn down in minutes.

News outlets (on both sides) have been caught in multiple partisans lies, disinformation, and spin/suppression of inconvenient facts for "their side" for many years now, this has eroded the trust in media and makes presentation of facts harder.

Neither side wants to acknowledge anything that would be seen as supporting the position of the "others"

So in the context of the election, you have one side that refuses to concede that Biden was elected by the people, but you also have the other side refusing to concede that because of COVID and other factors the 2020 election has some pretty non-standard events that (while not impacting the outcome of the presidential election) is the basis of the questioning of the integrity of the election, instead we have people saying the 2020 was the freest, fairest election in all of history because their side won..

neither position is true or healthy, and both position have Cult-Like behavior

Sorry but not buying the "both sides are the same" bit.

> Neither side wants to acknowledge anything that would be seen as supporting the position of the "others"

You seem to be holding up your side of that argument but I don't roll that way. I abhor partisan politics and am happy to point out flaws of the Dem establishment.

As to the last election, it was as fair as one can hope for -- you're taking the defense of the legitimacy of the election to cult-like behavior? What exactly is the left doing that's cult like in that regard?

And thanks for the lecture on the veracity of news -- gosh I had no idea that people like William Randolph Hearst ever existed and manipulated the media generations ago.

Maybe too hard for you, but nuance is a thing -- any source of information is going to have bias and imperfection and it's a matter of understanding that bias and taking nuggets of knowledge. Case in point: while the NYT has made many egregious mistakes (supporting the Iraq war being a biggie), I still trust them as a news source more than Fox.

Fox news was designed as a propaganda wing of the GOP. This is documented. And yet all of you on the right happily lap it up and dismiss any source that doesn't satisfy your preconceived biases.

And as far as COVID goes -- prior to the past president viruses were not political. Bush was at least pro-science in that regard.

>>it was as fair as one can hope for -

I dont think when you have governors of various states in real time changing election rules, and regulations under "emergency" powers can be considered "fair it one can hope"

Also contrary to to democrat talking points there have been successful legal challenges to those election regulation modifications done by governors or election boards.

2020 election was unusual for a variety of reasons not just COVID, and it should not be controversial to say we need to look at all of the changes, emergency orders, and other activities that were happening to ensure everything was handled correct, something I don't think many on "the left" want to even acknowledge

>>while the NYT has made many egregious mistakes (supporting the Iraq war being a biggie), I still trust them as a news source more than Fox

Most likely because your personal bias leans in the same direction as NYT, so you are looking for confirmation of your worldview which NYT, most of the time, provides you.

>>And yet all of you on the right happily lap it up

I am not on the right, nor do I watch fox news ( or CNN or MSNBC or NYT), I get most of my news from varied sources (my RSS feed is currently following over 250 feeds) i also love the GroundNews App / Website.

Ideologically I am a homeless nomad, and reject all political parties, I would love a system where political parties are completely banned. Individualism is my preferred state

>And as far as COVID goes -- prior to the past president viruses were not political. Bush was at least pro-science in that regard.

and you believe only the right has politicized covid? Interesting

> I dont think when you have governors of various states in real time changing election rules, and regulations under "emergency" powers can be considered "fair it one can hope"

Which changes that were made as we tried to navigate a presidential year election during a pandemic do you believe made the election unfair? Why did the vast majority of the complaining about these changes come after the election rather than as they were being made?

All of them, and there were lots of complaints while it was happening.

I dont believe governors have, or should have, the power to change election law at all, for any reason even "during a pandemic"

I also dont believe governors should have most of their so called "emergency powers" that is ripe for abuse, and many governors did just that, and continue to do just that even outside the election context

There's been dozens of lawsuits and no smoking gun. We had a pandemic going on and so mail in/drop of ballots were promoted.

Show some evidence for this concern or just drop it. Ironically, election security is in peril because the GOP is installing officials that are ready to steal the next election.

I don't treat the NYT as gospel; it's yet another input for consideration. I'm painfully aware of confirmation bias and do my utmost to take whatever truth becomes apparent.

"Political" has varied meanings/interpretations. In the context of laws and regulations vs. partisan power mongering.

Dealing with a pandemic required unfortunate actions which are political in the first sense. The anti-vax movement has been embraced by the GOP and it is very much political in sense of identity.

I do agree with you on the corruptive nature of political parties.

Long and short of it: I "lean left" but don't make my identity about that. There are classic elements of old school conservatism that I agree with but modern conservatism has now been coopted by the Evangelicals and they are bat shit crazy. Goldwater was prescient and correct in his concern about that happening.

Cult-like behaviour seems quite the norm across the USA though. Cheering for politics as if it was a sport, everything needs to be an spectacle, lack of pragmatism and an obtuse clinging to absolutist, dogmatic thinking (as you can see from any discussion around freedom of speech).

It's rather bizarre that instead of seeing this cult-like behaviour (in the news, in politics, etc.) as an emergent property from the general American culture most will blame the news and the politicians for creating it. It's the inverse, they are just feeding what the populace actually is and behaves like.

> More Facts, less Spin

What the United States needs to target is the economics of news. Actual news. Not infotainment.

Don't attempt to regulate good/bad news: economically incentivize good reporting and disincentivize bad reporting. The market will follow.

If 24/7 news channels weren't profitable... there wouldn't be any 24/7 news channels.

Well as we have seen in this Alex Jones case, and other recent defamation cases it seems both the public and the legal system are turning from "defamation is almost impossible to win" to something else

the Economics of news is going to be very different is media can not hide by "anonymous sources" and "it is just opinion" while spreading lies about individuals or events.

I think the next cases may find more well known news outlets in the defendants chair of defamation action

and it's still more important to have free speech because who decides "truth" and "lie"... and what happens when those in power switch and the other side decides.

Want Biden or Obama to have some power? Are you going to be okay with Bush or Trump gets that power?

I don’t think I suggested granting a particular power to the president. I just engaged in a discussion on the nature of truth and lies.

I would suggest that you at least try to put yourself in the position of these parents when thinking about this topic (as impossible as that may be). Imagine having your child murdered then having this waste of life make up vicious lies about you and your dead child.

Political parties and Presidents don't decide what truth is and what lies are in the United States, or other free countries.

Yes they can. They cannot enforce their decisions directly. They can certainly influence, and perhaps even form alliances that propagate those decisions. With those alliances, some decisions can be made into law.

If they can't enforce their decisions, they're not really making decisions. GP was implying that regulating speech meant "truth" and "lies" would depend entirely on which political party happened to be in power at the time. But we already live in a society in which speech is regulated, and that doesn't happen. Trump tried as hard as he could, but every lie he spouted was still pushed against, much to his dismay. He convinced people who already bought into the party line, but no one else was forced into accepting or spreading his point of view.

Freedom of speech still exists where debate, conflict and truth discovery can still occur. Regulating speech mediates free speech, but doesn't have to eliminate it. The marketplace of ideas can accept that some ideas are not worth keeping.

> If they can't enforce their decisions, they're not really making decisions.

Why are you talking?

For that matter, why do we have media, or even schools?

BE AFRAID!!! BE VERY AFRAID!!