Jump to content

Menu

Checking in... Anxiety about current events


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Plum said:

Thanks for sticking with me. ☺️
I’m cleaning the bbq and posting on my phone so it’s slow going. Lol 
All I can say is I can hold room on my head for the possibility. Everyone seems so certain. I’d love to believe 100% without a doubt there was no fraud anywhere. It’s the absolutism of the quote that gets me. Perhaps if they gave the people an inch on this then we wouldn’t be where we are now. 🤷🏻‍♀️
It also bothers me that I’m hesitant to even talk about this. 
 

I don't think saying that this is the most secure election in US history means that there is no fraud. There is always some fraud in every election. The question is whether there is enough evidence that the fraud was significant or made a difference in the outcome. That is what is missing here. There is always fraud and there are always errors. That's why each state has a threshold for an automatic recount. I believe there were slight variations in the vote totals during all of the recent recounts. The GA SOS mentioned during his recent interview with 60 Minutes that there were a few instances of ballots cast by deceased people. I think he mentioned 3 or 4 instances and they are being investigated. 

 

  • Like 18
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 966
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The head company officials at Parler do not have a right to be hosted on Amazon Web Services, nor do they have a right to be hosted as an app by Apple. It is completely within a company’s rights to tu

Which would then be government-controlled media. Really, I'm completely confused when champions of the 'free-market' cry victim when the free market does something they don't like. 

re folks unhappy with the 2016 electoral outcome vs folks unhappy with the 2020 outcome In 2016, there were a lot of folks deeply unhappy with the outcome of the election. I was one. We stresse

Posted Images

15 minutes ago, SKL said:

So now a doubt is a claim?

I never said "everything."

I was honest about not having provable facts ... but I've been alive in the USA for long enough to know how things work.  It is really very unlikely that the vote in every state was 100% fraud-free.  I don't need to prove that, just like I don't need to prove that some of the people on this thread are biased.

As for the rest of it, you are fully entitled to your feelings and your opinion about me and everything else.  It would be nice if you kept it civil, but I guess that's up to you.

The only person making it personal or interpreting it that way is you. I was arguing your facts, not your feelings. If you don’t think I interpreted your comments correctly, feel free to go back upthread and clarify them. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Plum said:

Thanks for sticking with me. ☺️
I’m cleaning the bbq and posting on my phone so it’s slow going. Lol 
All I can say is I can hold room on my head for the possibility. Everyone seems so certain. I’d love to believe 100% without a doubt there was no fraud anywhere. It’s the absolutism of the quote that gets me. Perhaps if they gave the people an inch on this then we wouldn’t be where we are now. 🤷🏻‍♀️
It also bothers me that I’m hesitant to even talk about this. 

Okay, so the problem I see with this -- not you, just the situation -- is absolutism, very true. Both sides want a pristine election (as we all should!) and so are assuming that the election either was *pristine* or *rank with defilement* without ceding maybe it was *clean enough to invite Grandma for dinner and her pet bloodhound but not for the CSI team*. <-- ie, there were little things wrong but nothing that would remotely invalidate the results.

Because, by proving just 1 or two old grannies died and their kids filled their ballot would not make the election fraudulent. So we don't need an absolute, really, to make a judgement on this.

As time goes on, and we see there is no credible evidence of massive or system fraud -- despite the investigations being conducted by those who want to find it most -- and we see only few-ballot mistakes being turned up by massive rechecks... at what point do we say, "the possibility is there, but the probability is not." ? When do we resign and say, "Sure, a few ballots were miscounted, Jim Bob stole his mom's ballot, and a bunch of people used purple ink so they messed up their count, but by and large this is what happened." [I am totally making up these things.] When do we say that it has been proved, to borrow a much loved American ideal, "beyond reasonable doubt" ?

  • Like 14
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I don't think saying that this is the most secure election in US history means that there is no fraud. There is always some fraud in every election. The question is whether there is enough evidence that the fraud was significant or made a difference in the outcome. That is what is missing here. There is always fraud and there are always errors. That's why each state has a threshold for an automatic recount. I believe there were slight variations in the vote totals during all of the recent recounts. The GA SOS mentioned during his recent interview with 60 Minutes that there were a few instances of ballots cast by deceased people. I think he mentioned 3 or 4 instances and they are being investigated. 

 

This is true. In one of the 4 it turned out it was a widow using her married name of Mrs. (Husband’s Name).  She seemed quite irritated by the claim she was dead or should have changed her voter registration to her own first name after voting that way for 60 years. 

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Plum said:

I don’t expect we’ll ever find out. I don’t expect there to be a smoking gun. Considering how close the elections have been on recent years, it doesn’t take widespread fraud. I get that I’m cynical. 

I think you can look at the usual differences they find with recounts, and you can see that this year's fraud would have needed to be orders of magnitudes greater than the usual discrepancies.

But also... at the end of the day, there might have been fraud this year. And 2 years ago. And in 2016. There might be fraud any time we run an election. But at some point, we simply can't go with something that isn't proven, and we move forward and say that as far as we know, the election was clean. Because otherwise, we're stuck. 

That's why people wind up checking everything they can and then just going forward. You can't just decide "I don't know," because then there's no president. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Plum said:

I don’t expect we’ll ever find out. I don’t expect there to be a smoking gun. Considering how close the elections have been on recent years, it doesn’t take widespread fraud. I get that I’m cynical. 

 

Got it. Thanks. 🙂
 

Is there any chance we’ll be able to verify our own vote online in the future? I can see all of the books I’ve ever checked out at the library but I can’t see who I voted for? I don’t know how other states do this, but mine only shows as in person, mail-in or early voting. 
 

 

I doubt it because there is a secret ballot rule, but in some areas you can see online if you voted and if your ballot counted already. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

And if anyone would like to have a system where MORE voting machines have a paper trail... I'm all for it. 

Absolutely.  I can’t believe it’s not a requirement in all states.  When I first heard that in some states a “recount” just means they hit the “total” button again because there is literally nothing to count my jaw dropped. 
 

And then a friend who lived in a state that had all-electronic machines (this was several years ago) said it was okay because the machine printed a paper receipt so you knew your vote was counted.  But the voters took the receipt with them!  There was absolutely no way of knowing that the vote registered with the machine was the vote printed on the receipt, and no way to do audits.

 


 

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Plum said:

Is there any chance we’ll be able to verify our own vote online in the future? I can see all of the books I’ve ever checked out at the library but I can’t see who I voted for?

I expect they don't keep that for privacy reasons? Your ballot is meant to be private, I think. If it's in a database somewhere, it isn't private. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Danae said:

Absolutely.  I can’t believe it’s not a requirement in all states.  When I first heard that in some states a “recount” just means they hit the “total” button again because there is literally nothing to count my jaw dropped. 
 

Yeah, that's just inappropriate. There HAS to be something to recount. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Plum said:

Right. I’m not super cool with the idea but it would allow for people to self verify and reduce the contention. 

I don't know that it would, because you'd still have to trust people to tally things honestly. Then there'd be allegations of software hacks, just like there are this year.  

The thing is that there's no one person who sees ALL the votes and can vouch for all of them. Like a lot of things in the modern world, believing that the count is (more or less) correct is a leap of faith. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Plum said:

 

Right. I’m not super cool with the idea but it would allow for people to self verify and reduce the contention. 

It would also make it much easier to pay people to vote a certain way. A different kind of fraud. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Plum said:

Yes. How dare I even bring up the notion that cybercrime is a problem and could have the potential for bad election results. I must provide proof even though I said it didn’t pass my BS detector and that it was all my opinion. You are proving my point that I’m not allowed to even bring up even the possibility, to just hold that thought in my head and say it out loud. 

Obviously you are allowed to bring it up because you did.   Your post is here, it hasn't been removed or altered in any way.   Asking for what evidence you are using to draw these conclusions (and thinking that there is something suspicious about the election and fraud must have occurred is still a conclusion, even if it's just from your BS detector) isn't preventing you from posting. 

  • Like 11
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Why would it make that easier? 

Because people could print or screenshot the way they voted as proof they did vote that way, and then get paid. 
 

This is why many jurisdictions have clear signs in voting booths that phones and cameras are not allowed. I know I heard many rumors of people buying votes in Florida in the 80’s.  Or bussing people to the polling place and giving them $5-10 each on the drive home. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Katy said:

Because people could print or screenshot the way they voted as proof they did vote that way, and then get paid. 
 

This is why many jurisdictions have clear signs in voting booths that phones and cameras are not allowed. I know I heard many rumors of people buying votes in Florida in the 80’s.  Or bussing people to the polling place and giving them $5-10 each on the drive home. 

Oooooh. Right. Because otherwise, paying for votes is much more of a fool's errand: you can pay for something, but you can't have proof of delivery. 

Very interesting. I didn't think of that. Thank you! 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Plum said:

Is there any chance we’ll be able to verify our own vote online in the future? I can see all of the books I’ve ever checked out at the library but I can’t see who I voted for? I don’t know how other states do this, but mine only shows as in person, mail-in or early voting. 
 

 

No. There’s quite a lot of effort that goes into making sure it’s not possible to link particular votes with individual voters.  That’s what all the fuss was about with the double envelopes for absentee voting.  The outside ballot has the voter number and signature, and whatever else each state requires (witness signature, ID #, etc).  Once that has all been verified the inner envelope, which is anonymous, is taken out and put in the “too be counted” pile. After that you know who voted, and you’ve got the number of votes for each candidate, but no way of connecting a specific voter to a specific ballot.

Similarly when you vote at a polling place — when you check in they confirm that you are eligible to vote and hand you a ballot but there is nothing on that ballot that identifies it as your vote. The check in-process is separate from the vote counting process.  

  • Like 13
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I don't think saying that this is the most secure election in US history means that there is no fraud. There is always some fraud in every election. The question is whether there is enough evidence that the fraud was significant or made a difference in the outcome. That is what is missing here. There is always fraud and there are always errors. That's why each state has a threshold for an automatic recount. I believe there were slight variations in the vote totals during all of the recent recounts. The GA SOS mentioned during his recent interview with 60 Minutes that there were a few instances of ballots cast by deceased people. I think he mentioned 3 or 4 instances and they are being investigated. 

If you google "gabriel sterling claim vs. fact" and look at the image results, he made a board with some of this information on it. I am not on a device I can zoom in on the screen to copy it out for anyone, but I have seen and read it at some point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Plum said:

Thanks for sticking with me. ☺️
I’m cleaning the bbq and posting on my phone so it’s slow going. Lol 
All I can say is I can hold room on my head for the possibility. Everyone seems so certain. I’d love to believe 100% without a doubt there was no fraud anywhere. It’s the absolutism of the quote that gets me. Perhaps if they gave the people an inch on this then we wouldn’t be where we are now. 🤷🏻‍♀️
It also bothers me that I’m hesitant to even talk about this. 
 

No fraud anywhere? I don’t think that is even possible, after all we are human. Although I suppose people might argue over what constitutes fraud (is allowing mail in ballots because of a pandemic fraud? is some voting or counting procedure accidentally not being followed for a few ballots fraud?). Personally, I assume all major elections have some fraud, even if it’s minuscule, but there is a vast difference between that and the idea that the election was stolen. I also personally don’t see believing there there was some fraud to be incompatible with the statement that it was the most secure presidential election in US history.

And in general, I think studies have reliably shown that disenfranchisement is a far larger problem than fraud when it comes to US elections. So personally that is of far greater concern to me.

  • Like 14
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Frances said:

And in general, I think studies have reliably shown that disenfranchisement is a far larger problem than fraud when it comes to US elections. So personally that is of far greater concern to me.

And that's because it's EASIER. Fraud requires getting lots of people on board (thousands of people, if you do this individual by individual!) and also getting them to hold their tongue. It requires not leaving a paper trail so that people can't blackmail you. It requires paying money. 

Disenfranchisement, on the other hand, just requires making it hard for groups that vote the "wrong way" to vote. 

Edited by Not_a_Number
  • Like 14
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, MercyA said:

They believe "the numbers are inflated." 

Do they think that the number of cases being reported is higher than it really is?  Do they think someone is intentionally making up numbers and reporting them?  Or, do they think that the tests have lots of false positives?  Or, something else? 

You may not know, but I am just trying to get my mind around that.  Sometimes I find it helpful to determine if my perception of the facts is different because of a different definition, a concern over statistical sampling, or something else.  Or, is it that they simply think there is someone (or a small group of people) who can really coordinate the reporting of false numbers from local public health units, to universities, to counties, to states, to countries...

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

Do they think that the number of cases being reported is higher than it really is?  Do they think someone is intentionally making up numbers and reporting them?  Or, do they think that the tests have lots of false positives?

Yes to the first; probably to the second; probably not to the third.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Plum said:

Thanks for sticking with me. ☺️
I’m cleaning the bbq and posting on my phone so it’s slow going. Lol 
All I can say is I can hold room on my head for the possibility. Everyone seems so certain. I’d love to believe 100% without a doubt there was no fraud anywhere. It’s the absolutism of the quote that gets me. Perhaps if they gave the people an inch on this then we wouldn’t be where we are now. 🤷🏻‍♀️
It also bothers me that I’m hesitant to even talk about this. 
 

That is the origin of a lot of my own anxiety about current events.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DoraBora said:

That is the origin of a lot of my own anxiety about current events.

I feel like there's been MORE talk about fraud in this election than in any other. I don't remember any other election where there was STILL serious talk of fraud 2 months later. 

If all this talk isn't buying us any certainty, when does it end? What needs to be happen until we can stop talking about it? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I feel like there's been MORE talk about fraud in this election than in any other. I don't remember any other election where there was STILL serious talk of fraud 2 months later. 

If all this talk isn't buying us any certainty, when does it end? What needs to be happen until we can stop talking about it? 

I was just talking to dh about this.  At this point, nothing will convince people because there will always be a certain... person, who will try to cast doubt on whatever happens or whatever anyone says.  Even if a nonpartisan group gets together and says there is no fraud, there will always be a... person, who says that group isn’t nonpartisan because xyz.   IOW, there’s a certain fringe that will never trust anything, ever, if it comes from a govt mouth.   (And when I say “fringe”, I’m NOT talking about ANY person on this thread).  

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I feel like there's been MORE talk about fraud in this election than in any other. I don't remember any other election where there was STILL serious talk of fraud 2 months later. 

If all this talk isn't buying us any certainty, when does it end? What needs to be happen until we can stop talking about it? 

Idk, there was an awful lot with W vs Gore. I mean there was a specific county in a specific state to hang it on, but the talk and jokes and complaints persisted for years. I’m pretty sure more than one person complained about that on one of the boards here in the past year. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Katy said:

Idk, there was an awful lot with W vs Gore. I mean there was a specific county in a specific state to hang it on, but the talk and jokes and complaints persisted for years. I’m pretty sure more than one person complained about that on one of the boards here in the past year. 

OK, that's fair, lol. I just meant... intense talk, where we're all looking into it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

OK, that's fair, lol. I just meant... intense talk, where we're all looking into it. 

Didn’t you look into it then?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Not_a_Number said:

Me? No, I was pretty tuned out. I certainly knew people who did, though. 

I was in high school, though 😛 . And in Canada. 

I was in college in a sort of honors political science program and people were very upset. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Youngest DS was a toddler and a very poor sleeper in 2000. I spent many nights rocking and watching CNN coverage. It was intense but there wasn't any social media to amplify (and misconstrue) things like now. So in comparison, and maybe because my memory has dimmed, it seems to me it was much more tame than this time around. Which is sort of weird because there were actual, legit issues then, whereas the only issue now is really just one pitiful man's inability to accept losing.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

For example, a friend's husband just bought a generator because he read online that the government was going to impose a blackout.  . 

I own a generator myself, they are quite handy, but I have to ask if he realizes that they are a pretty short-term solution? If there is a lengthy blackout or any type of disaster, it will be very difficult to get gas for one's generator, and most of us can only store a limited amount at home. 

4 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

I'm really not a history buff, although perhaps that'll change after homeschooling, but I'm just asking: what is historically the role of the president? I don't think going back to what the Constitution says or doesn't say is fruitful. 

The Constitution is kind of entirely the point. 

3 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

 I don't know what training chiropractors get. Do you know? I'd be curious. 

Four year science-related undergraduate, then four years of chiropractic training. After that, it's like medical doctors in that your specialty (or lack thereof) dictates the length of your residency. 

3 hours ago, SKL said:

I haven't seen the cases or whatever evidence they did or didn't present.  However, I doubt there was literally zero evidence.  I think the reason they didn't move forward with at least some of the court cases was because they didn't consider it an appropriate venue for the argument, or appropriate parties, or some other procedural shortfall.

There were 62 lawsuits filed; 61 of them failed. There was a small win in the 62nd one, related to verifying ballots after the fact, but I would note that it wasn't fraud-related. 

2 hours ago, Plum said:

Everyone seems so certain. I’d love to believe 100% without a doubt there was no fraud anywhere. 
 

I haven't seen this claimed here or anywhere else, rather that there was no wide-spread fraud, and fraud significant enough to even come close to altering the election. 

2 hours ago, Plum said:

Considering how close the elections have been on recent years, it doesn’t take widespread fraud.  

In places where it might not have taken widespread fraud, they really went to extraordinary lengths both before and after the election. Georgia did a recount by hand, as did Pennsylvania in certain battleground counties. 

 

  • Like 12
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I was in high school, though 😛 . And in Canada. 

We'll not have any of your excuses! 

2 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

Youngest DS was a toddler and a very poor sleeper in 2000. I spent many nights rocking and watching CNN coverage. It was intense but there wasn't any social media to amplify (and misconstrue) things like now. So in comparison, and maybe because my memory has dimmed, it seems to me it was much more tame than this time around. Which is sort of weird because there were actual, legit issues then, whereas the only issue now is really just one pitiful man's inability to accept losing.

Yes, it was much tamer. Low bar, though. 

No social media in 2000? AOL would like to have a word with you. 

  • Haha 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Kind of. I don't think historical precedent is irrelevant. I don't think people from back then could make heads or tails of our world. 

That doesn't change the fact that we have to follow the constitution. We can change it, but we have to follow how it is at any given time (and how it is interpreted, of course, but some things leave little room for interpretation). 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, katilac said:

That doesn't change the fact that we have to follow the constitution. We can change it, but we have to follow how it is at any given time (and how it is interpreted, of course, but some things leave little room for interpretation). 

Well, that's an interesting question. From what I understand, there IS room for interpretation in this one. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Well, that's an interesting question. From what I understand, there IS room for interpretation in this one. 

In which one - the role of the president? There is room for interpretation on some things and definitely not others. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, katilac said:

In which one - the role of the president? There is room for interpretation on some things and definitely not others. 

Yeah, the role. Weren't we discussing whether the president now has more powers than back then? I'd be curious how to even compare. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Yeah, the role. Weren't we discussing whether the president now has more powers than back then? I'd be curious how to even compare. 

I don't think it's that the president has more powers than envisioned in the Constitution. The president is acting within the confines of the Constitution but not in a way that was envisioned by the FFs. First, because our congress is so deadlocked, the last few presidents have promulgated (not sure it's the appropriate word to use) executive orders. EOs are essentially laws but not actually laws. Hard to explain. A law is still in effect after there is a new congress while an EO can be scrapped easily by a new administration. Most of the controversial things done by Trump were EOs such as the ban on people from certain countries. 

Another example is that we have been perpetually at war since WWII but Congress has not declared war. We are at war at the direction of the president as commander in chief. Because it is not an official "war," Congress does not have to approve. Although Congress controls spending which is necessary to carry out the president's powers as commander in chief. I'm being general here because I can't remember exactly how this works under the War Powers Act. (See this about the history of the War Powers Act.) 

Here is something from NPR discussing war. 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Yeah, the role. Weren't we discussing whether the president now has more powers than back then? I'd be curious how to even compare. 

 That was multiple posts ago. You're going to have to temper your expectations 😂

Yes, I do think the presidency has increased in power over the years, and that many of the Founding Fathers would disapprove. Not all of them (I'm looking at you, Hamilton). They generally use war or tragedy or fear or a combination as a case for the 'necessity' of certain powers, and then it's really hard to roll back. Even if you manage to roll it back pretty far in specific instances, you usually still wind up with an incremental increase in power of some kind. 

But there are some things that are not open to interpretation, like needing senate approval for cabinet members or Supreme Court justices. The process for approval can be subverted to some extent, but, in the end, the approval is required. If a president had the power to bypass this process completely, then we could safely say that America was no longer running under its constitution. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I don't think it's that the president has more powers than envisioned in the Constitution. The president is acting within the confines of the Constitution but not in a way that was envisioned by the FFs. First, because our congress is so deadlocked, the last few presidents have promulgated (not sure it's the appropriate word to use) executive orders. EOs are essentially laws but not actually laws. Hard to explain. A law is still in effect after there is a new congress while an EO can be scrapped easily by a new administration. Most of the controversial things done by Trump were EOs such as the ban on people from certain countries. 

No, I do know the basics of that stuff. I'm not quite that out of it 🙂 . 

 

22 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Another example is that we have been perpetually at war since WWII but Congress has not declared war. We are at war at the direction of the president as commander in chief. Because it is not an official "war," Congress does not have to approve. Although Congress controls spending which is necessary to carry out the president's powers as commander in chief. I'm being general here because I can't remember exactly how this works under the War Powers Act. (See this about the history of the War Powers Act.) 

Here is something from NPR discussing war. 

Yeah, that seems like it's not what they would have wanted 😛 . 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

I feel like there's been MORE talk about fraud in this election than in any other. I don't remember any other election where there was STILL serious talk of fraud 2 months later. 

If all this talk isn't buying us any certainty, when does it end? What needs to be happen until we can stop talking about it? 

You do realize that the entire "Russia Russia Russia" fuss of the majority of the last 4 years was about alleged corruption surrounding the 2016 election, right?

This was mentioned pages back, but I will say it again - I am astounded at how few posters apparently remember how vehemently and violently (and vulgarly) the 2016 results were protested, and for years, not months.

PS Watergate was also a campaign related scandal, and people still haven't gotten enough of it.

Edited by SKL
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SKL said:

You do realize that the entire "Russia Russia Russia" fuss of the majority of the last 4 years was about corruption surrounding the 2016 election, right?

This was mentioned pages back, but I will say it again - I am astounded at how few posters apparently remember how vehemently and violently (and vulgarly) the 2016 results were protested, and for years, not months.

I would say protested, yes. As in people were horrified or surprised by them, in a surreal type of way. Lots of wringing hands "about what it means", etc. 

And I do remember people calling out for an end to the electoral college with a lot of "this shouldn't have happened."

But I don't think too many people said it didn't happen.

So, protested, yes. Disputed, no.

(This is where I feel obligated to unfortunately note I voted for Trump in 2016 and so don't have a particular reason to forget my impressions from the time. I need to look up the "violently" part you mention though because I don't remember that, and I was still plugged into some of the more conservative news at the time so I find that surprising. Not questioning as much as wondering what I missed.)

edit because I completely forgot about Russia: yeah I do think there was Russian influence on the election. But at the time I don't remember that being a big storyline (or it was suppressed by my conservative news sources, take your pick), and I don't know if "influence" is the same as "stealing."

I don't remember any marches or calls to stop the steal of the election, and I remember HRC giving a pretty prompt concession once it was clear how the numbers were going.

Edited by Moonhawk
  • Like 7
  • Thanks 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Moonhawk said:

But I don't think too many people said it didn't happen.

So, protested, yes. Disputed, no.

And THAT is a pretty meaningful distinction. 

I was mostly consuming liberal media at the time, and I don't remember any sense that people thought that Trump didn't win. They may have not liked how he won; they may have hated what it represented; they may have wanted to change things to make it impossible to win in this way, but they thought he had won.

I'd be OK if people were disappointed by Biden's win. That's only to be expected. It's the "he didn't really win" attitude that's really corrosive. 

  • Like 15
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

And THAT is a pretty meaningful distinction. 

I was mostly consuming liberal media at the time, and I don't remember any sense that people thought that Trump didn't win. They may have not liked how he won; they may have hated what it represented; they may have wanted to change things to make it impossible to win in this way, but they thought he had won.

I'd be OK if people were disappointed by Biden's win. That's only to be expected. It's the "he didn't really win" attitude that's really corrosive. 

And to go further, the discussion of Russian interference wasn't focusing on overturning or questioning the votes, from what I remember.  It was on malicious social media influence spreading disinformation.  So the assumption was yes, people voted for Trump, but there was a lot of money and effort spent to sway them to vote.  Which does not invalidate the vote count one bit. 

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SKL said:

...

This was mentioned pages back, but I will say it again - I am astounded at how few posters apparently remember how vehemently and violently (and vulgarly) the 2016 results were protested, and for years, not months.

...

 

52 minutes ago, Moonhawk said:

...(This is where I feel obligated to unfortunately note I voted for Trump in 2016 and so don't have a particular reason to forget my impressions from the time. I need to look up the "violently" part you mention though because I don't remember that, and I was still plugged into some of the more conservative news at the time so I find that surprising. Not questioning as much as wondering what I missed.)

...

Well THIS has been a surreal Google search. 

Some of my favorite excerpts: 

Anti-Trump protests, some violent, erupt for 3rd night nationwide 

The protest was mostly peaceful until demonstrators met with an anarchist group, after which demonstrators vandalized buildings, kicked cars and knocked out power, KGW-TV reported. On Twitter, Portland police said many protesters were "trying to get anarchist groups to stop destroying property" and that "anarchists" were refusing to do so. Demonstrators repeatedly chanted "peaceful protest." Officers ordered protesters to disperse after the demonstration turned into what they called a riot, citing "extensive criminal and dangerous behavior." At least 26 people were arrested. Police said the crowd, which included many people armed with bats, threw projectiles at officers, who responded by pushing back against the crowd, then making arrests and using flash-bang devices, pepper spray, rubber projectiles and types of smoke or tear gas to force people to disperse.

However, most concise information is found on this Wikipedia Timeline of Protests Against Donald Trump (which likes to highlight the more notable and violent protests especially). 

Overall, I will cede there was some violence at the news of his election. This violence, I feel called to note, was in the vast minority of the demonstrations and protests. Notable parts from this refresher (that I didn't know previously from my 2016 conservative news fed) is that a lot of the chants were similar to "Love Trumps Hate" etc. There were a few things that were funny like, "We reject the President-Elect!" which sounds fun to chant because it rhymes, but ironically is acknowledging his legitimate status.

I do think I've cited the most violent protest above, though, with the Portland "riot."

---

Frankly I feel a bit nostalgic for 2016 now. 

ETA: re "protests for years" -- no, it seems that the protests were only for months. Protests after his election weren't about his actual election or legitimacy but more about policies/stances and his general character/personality, which after checking Obama's protest Wiki (not as fleshed out unfortunately) does seem to just be par for the course of a president. I can also vouch for this on a personal level since I know multiple people who attended anti-Obama protests whenever he visited their area. 

Edited by Moonhawk
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, OH_Homeschooler said:

I guess a lot of my thinking came from FB groups that I left. I was frequently baffled to learn that someone who was rabidly anti-mask, quoting crappy FB videos as their proof, were college graduates, many in fields like ag science, tech, physics, etc. (I know this thread is more about the insurrection but there is significant overlap between anti-maskers and insurrectionists so...)

Not to open a whole new can of worms but I eventually blocked a chiropractor husband of an old friend of mine on FB because he was the absolute worst posting anti-mask memes. He's also anti-vax etc., which is not uncommon among chiropractors. So I guess it's true that all the education in the world doesn't make someone smart. 

 I'll duck the rotten tomatoes and say that I am not at all surprised.  There is a lot of overlap between chiropractic and woo.  I would not conflate a chiropractic education with a necessarily scientific one.  To be fair, it's a profession that has seen a lot change in the past 15 years or so, with a move toward evidence-based practice.  There is good evidence for chiropractic management of low back pain, for example.  But lots of (maybe even most) chiro practices here are still firmly in the alt. med sphere, selling a wellness-cult flavored product that is pseudoscientific at best, and absolutely compatible with conspiracy theory belief.

  • Like 7
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...