Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[pilowsky]

Two things: first, why do our media people continue to phrase election fraud claims as "without evidence" as the conspiracy-minded will simply hear "hidden evidence". Framing is critical. Call it what it is: lies, bull, nonsense- but don't toss around the word evidence.

 

 

I heard that Irish guy on CNN interview a couple of people at a rally and when he said "But that's just a conspiracy theory" one of them replied (with a completely straight face) "What's wrong with a conspiracy theory?".

You are talking about a population where the majority are happy to waste half a day a week with a bunch of other people chatting about the existence of life after death.

Actual life. After death.

It doesn't matter what words you choose unless they wake up one morning and realise they've been duped you have no chance.

[Winstonm]

I heard that Irish guy on CNN interview a couple of people at a rally and when he said "But that's just a conspiracy theory" one of them replied (with a completely straight face) "What's wrong with a conspiracy theory?".

You are talking about a population where the majority are happy to waste half a day a week with a bunch of other people chatting about the existence of life after death.

Actual life. After death.

It doesn't matter what words you choose unless they wake up one morning and realise they've been duped you have no chance.

 

All the more reason to frame very carefully. Sure, there are those that cannot be reached, but there are some who will respond to the cognitive dissonance created when confronted continually by truth.

[johnu]

All the more reason to frame very carefully. Sure, there are those that cannot be reached, but there are some who will respond to the cognitive dissonance created when confronted continually by truth.

 

There are a lot who can't be reached, e.g. flat earthers, anti-evolutionists, January 6 insurrectionists, 2020 election fake fraud Trump stooges, etc. They are all cut from the same cloth.

 

Take for instance flat earthers. AFAIK, most of them deny the existence of gravity. That's right, they deny that gravity exists because the existence of gravity makes the concept of a flat earth both impossible and (more) ridiculous.

 

Hundreds of thousands of actual pictures and thousands of hours of video from space showing a spherical earth? Photoshop and computer generated CGI. Actual astronauts talking about their observations? Actors and NASA employees paid to deceive the world to debunk the flat earth reality. International Space Station? Doesn't exist, and photos taken from earth are fake. Astronauts sent into space? Fake, nobody is in those space rockets and the actors who play the astronauts just hang out at a secret luxury resort until it is time for them to "return" to earth. Satellites sent into space to orbit earth and do various missions? Fake, they actually end up crashing into the middle of the ocean while NASA and private companies collect billions for crashing rockets so that the truth about the flat earth can be suppressed.

 

Why don't the oceans fall off the flat earth? There is a hundreds of feet high wall of ice known as Antarctica circling the flat earth which keeps the water from flowing over the edge. How do flat earthers know that there is an end of the earth in Antarctica? Well, nobody can go there because NASA has an army of soldiers, fighter planes, and warships that prevent anybody from even approaching Antarctica. Why? Because NASA's mission is to prevent the world from knowing the earth is flat. What about the permanent scientific bases in Antarctica, and the cruises that go to Antarctica? Must be fake because nobody is allowed to go there.

 

Other planets, the moon, stars, galaxies? Projections on a dome that cover the flat earth (apparently like a planetarium, except the size of the flat earth). What is the dome made of? Firmament! What's firmament? The material that makes up the dome around flat earth. What's it made of? It's made of firmament!?! Weren't you paying attention???

 

The sun? A spotlight 300 miles in diameter, 3000 miles from flat earth projected on the dome. A spotlight??? Right, that's why there is day and night. Night happens when the spotlight isn't pointed at your location on flat earth.

 

Instead of responding to the truth, flat earthers continually need to invent more conspiracies to show that the truth isn't real.

[pilowsky]

When you say "there are a lot" I think this understates it dramatically.

 

There is a tendency in even the most rational of us to believe that success is possible in the absence of knowledge or skill.

Everyone that enters a Bridge tournament believes somewhere in a dark recess of their mind that they can win.

This is codified in the American psyche: "you can do anything if you try hard enough".

Well, you can't.

 

Pew Research writes that

A slim majority of Americans (56%) say they believe in God "as described in the Bible."

 

Since when does 56% count as slim?

Particularly when 56% 'say'?

Ask Americans if they think it is possible that ... [insert mad idea here]. The number will be larger.

 

[Winstonm]

\

When you say "there are a lot" I think this understates it dramatically.

 

There is a tendency in even the most rational of us to believe that success is possible in the absence of knowledge or skill.

Everyone that enters a Bridge tournament believes somewhere in a dark recess of their mind that they can win.

This is codified in the American psyche: "you can do anything if you try hard enough".

Well, you can't.

 

Pew Research writes that [/color]

 

Since when does 56% count as slim?

Particularly when 56% 'say'?

Ask Americans if they think it is possible that ... [insert mad idea here]. The number will be larger.

 

 

From the ones I've seen going in and out of WalMart, you would be hard-pressed to find many slim Americans at all.

 

 

[pilowsky]

Ah, that explains it.

I was putting the emFARsis on the wrong syllARble.

[Winstonm]

https://masshumanities.org/files/programs/douglass/speech_complete.pdf

[barmar]

Two things: first, why do our media people continue to phrase election fraud claims as “without evidence” as the conspiracy-minded will simply hear “hidden evidence”. Framing is critical. Call it what it is: lies, bull, nonsense- but don’t toss around the word evidence.

The media I listen to (NPR) calls it "the Big Lie" all the time.

 

But I don't think it really matters. The people who believe in Trump simply don't care what the liberal media says, so it doesn't matter how they frame it. If the media calls it a lie, they think the media is lying about that.

 

Also, reporters are not supposed to report opinions, just facts. "without evidence" has less of a value judgement attached to it, it's just a statement of fact that was determined by all the court cases.

[Winstonm]

The media I listen to (NPR) calls it "the Big Lie" all the time.

 

But I don't think it really matters. The people who believe in Trump simply don't care what the liberal media says, so it doesn't matter how they frame it. If the media calls it a lie, they think the media is lying about that.

 

Also, reporters are not supposed to report opinions, just facts. "without evidence" has less of a value judgement attached to it, it's just a statement of fact that was determined by all the court cases.

 

If one side is NASA and they are reporting about the Mars landing while a small group calls it a hoax, is it newsworthy that someone is saying hoax?

News has an obligation to facts, not bothsideism; it is not judgmental to call hoax claims ludicrous or ridiculous or fantasy. If media owes facts, it is wrong to grant even the slightest legitimacy to nonsense.

 

Overton’s window for a large, perhaps majority of Republicans now encompasses nonsensical conspiracy theories of all kinds. To give any credibility at all to those views only reenforces the legitimacy of that window, normalizing conspiracy theories of all kinds and the people who peddle them.

[kenberg]

The media I listen to (NPR) calls it "the Big Lie" all the time.

 

But I don't think it really matters. The people who believe in Trump simply don't care what the liberal media says, so it doesn't matter how they frame it. If the media calls it a lie, they think the media is lying about that.

 

Also, reporters are not supposed to report opinions, just facts. "without evidence" has less of a value judgement attached to it, it's just a statement of fact that was determined by all the court cases.

 

I wonder if the following would be better. I think everyone agrees that Trump urged his followers to march on the Capitol. I think just about everyone agrees that he called on his followers to prevent the certification of the 2020 presidential election. What more is said could depend on whether the news report is about reviewing the results of Jan 6 or it is speaking of something new that happened on the day of the report, something related to Jan 6. In the latter case, just move on to the new report. If, for some reason, the new news requires knowing more details about Jan 6 then give them Not a one-sentence, or half-sentence, summary but a pretty full discussion. I think that you are right: Firstly, Trumpees are not listening to NPR. But if they are tied to chairs and must listen, they consider "The Big Lie" to be a lie. With many of them, they will not be listening no matter what is said, their minds are made up (actually, my mind is made up also, just in the opposite direction). But if the intent is to again present the facts of Jan 6, hoping someone will listen, then do it with substance, not with a slogan.

[Winstonm]

I wonder if the following would be better. I think everyone agrees that Trump urged his followers to march on the Capitol. I think just about everyone agrees that he called on his followers to prevent the certification of the 2020 presidential election. What more is said could depend on whether the news report is about reviewing the results of Jan 6 or it is speaking of something new that happened on the day of the report, something related to Jan 6. In the latter case, just move on to the new report. If, for some reason, the new news requires knowing more details about Jan 6 then give them Not a one-sentence, or half-sentence, summary but a pretty full discussion. I think that you are right: Firstly, Trumpees are not listening to NPR. But if they are tied to chairs and must listen, they consider "The Big Lie" to be a lie. With many of them, they will not be listening no matter what is said, their minds are made up (actually, my mind is made up also, just in the opposite direction). But if the intent is to again present the facts of Jan 6, hoping someone will listen, then do it with substance, not with a slogan.

I can see the signs already: Without Evidence=Evidence Hidden!

[johnu]

Also, reporters are not supposed to report opinions, just facts. "without evidence" has less of a value judgement attached to it, it's just a statement of fact that was determined by all the court cases.

 

"without evidence" has an innocuous sound to it. Completely debunked lies made up by ultra right fringe wackos, and without a shred of actual evidence is a much better description.

[thepossum]

 

 

Also, reporters are not supposed to report opinions, just facts.

 

How many do? The vast majority of all news (of any quality(?) or political leaning) is simply reporting what someone said or wrote

 

I appreciate those are facts but they are not primary evidence

 

Also it is very simple to cobble together facts or falsehoods into any narrative you like. Even easier these days

[Winstonm]

It is termed “access journalism”, and it is little more than stenography. If all reporters were supposed to do is report what each side “claimed “ to be true Nixon would have never resigned. A reporters job is not to report facts but to determine facts and then report.

[cherdano]

Also, reporters are not supposed to report opinions, just facts. "without evidence" has less of a value judgement attached to it, it's just a statement of fact that was determined by all the court cases.

Firstly, that distinction doesn't work. Journalists always contextualise facts, and make active choices which context to include.

 

Second, "without evidence" means something very different than "lying", and the way it is often used can be very misleading. If I claim that the global climate isn't warming, I am not making a claim "without evidence", I am making a claim clearly contradicted by the available evidence. (Whether that amounts to "lying" is a different matter, one of intent, and one you might not be able to judge without knowing whether I am dumb enough to believe some of the climate B.S. out there.) If I claim I have enough money in my bank account to buy a car without financing, that's a claim without evidence unless I provide some.

Yet journalists often use "without evidence" when "thoroughly contradicted by all available evidence" would be more accurate.

[Winstonm]

Firstly, that distinction doesn't work. Journalists always contextualise facts, and make active choices which context to include.

 

Second, "without evidence" means something very different than "lying", and the way it is often used can be very misleading. If I claim that the global climate isn't warming, I am not making a claim "without evidence", I am making a claim clearly contradicted by the available evidence. (Whether that amounts to "lying" is a different matter, one of intent, and one you might not be able to judge without knowing whether I am dumb enough to believe some of the climate B.S. out there.) If I claim I have enough money in my bank account to buy a car without financing, that's a claim without evidence unless I provide some.

Yet journalists often use "without evidence" when "thoroughly contradicted by all available evidence" would be more accurate.

 

If I may add, “without evidence” is a phrase directed at the claimant. not the claim. It suggests that the claimant is simply too lazy to supply evidence, which is not newsworthy, instead of the newsworthy fact that the claimant and the claim itself is disingenuous.

[Winstonm]

The WaPo had a headline today that began, Democrats, Manchin reach agreement..,

 

That sounds about right.

[y66]

From The Delightful Implosion of Boris Johnson by Michelle Goldberg at NYT:

 

Johnson’s career is ending, at least for now, the way Trump’s should have ended — with public revulsion leading his own party to oust him. Like Trump, Johnson initially wanted to cling to power when it was no longer feasible; unlike with Trump, there was never a prospect of him summoning an armed mob. Watching Johnson’s fall after living through Trump is like chasing a slasher film with a cozy mystery. Both may be murder stories, but only one has a reassuring order to it.

 

“We deserve a better class of bastards,” Dunt said on the podcast. We all do. Still, as an American, I have to say: Be thankful for what you’ve got.

[Winstonm]

Once again the crackerjack American media has fallen for flimflam, this time the WaPo headline that “Trump Considering Waiving Executive Privilege for Steve Bannon”—except there IS NO EP TO WAIVE. Bannon was not a government employee at the time in question and Trump is not President.

That’s strike two, WaPo. Better choke up and try to make contact with some facts.

[kenberg]

Once again the crackerjack American media has fallen for flimflam, this time the WaPo headline that "Trump Considering Waiving Executive Privilege for Steve Bannon"—except there IS NO EP TO WAIVE. Bannon was not a government employee at the time in question and Trump is not President.

That's strike two, WaPo. Better choke up and try to make contact with some facts.

 

I looked it up and it now says he is considering waving a claim of executive privilege for Steve Bannon.

https://www.washingt...rump-january-6/

 

I cannot recall with confidence what the wording was when I first read it, but even if"claim" wasn't part of it I understood the meaning to be that Trump was considering withdrawing the legal filing of a claim for executive privilege for Bannon.

[Winstonm]

There is no Executive Privilege for Steve Bannon. That is the story.

 

You don’t even have to put Trump’s name in the story to tell the story. Headline should be, “ Ex-president makes ridiculous claim about non-existent executive privilege “.

 

Then the story explains that EP is the current president’s to claim or waive, not the past, and it doesn’t apply to Steve Bannon anyway. You tell a factual story and educate your readers without providing free publicity to a grifter trying to take down the American electoral system

.

[kenberg]

Here are the first couple of paragraphs of the aPo story:

 

Former President Donald Trump is considering sending a letter to Stephen K. Bannon saying that he is waiving his claim of executive privilege, potentially clearing the way for his former chief strategist to testify before the House select committee investigating the pro-Trump riot at the Capitol.

 

The letter would reiterate that Trump invoked executive privilege in September 2021, when Bannon was first subpoenaed by the House committee. But it would say that the former president is now willing to give up that claim — the validity of which has been disputed — if Bannon can reach an agreement on the terms of an appearance before the panel. The letter was described by three people familiar with it, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity.

 

 

As headlines go, I regard the headline, "Trump considers waiving claim of executive privilege for Steve Bannon", as reasonably accurate. It's a headline, so of course it doesn't tell the whole story. But as far as news is concerned, the news would appear to be that perhaps Bannon will be appearing before the committee without having to first go through a court battle over executive privilege.

 

A broader point: I hope the Democratic leadership concentrates on what needs to be done to win elections. Worrying that the phrasing of a headline is not caustic enough is more like preparing explanations for why elections are lost. Dems have some serious work to do, and I am not so sure they are doing it.

 

 

[Winstonm]

Here are the first couple of paragraphs of the aPo story:

 

[/size][/font][/color]

 

As headlines go, I regard the headline, "Trump considers waiving claim of executive privilege for Steve Bannon", as reasonably accurate. It's a headline, so of course it doesn't tell the whole story. But as far as news is concerned, the news would appear to be that perhaps Bannon will be appearing before the committee without having to first go through a court battle over executive privilege.

 

A broader point: I hope the Democratic leadership concentrates on what needs to be done to win elections. Worrying that the phrasing of a headline is not caustic enough is more like preparing explanations for why elections are lost. Dems have some serious work to do, and I am not so sure they are doing it.

 

 

[/font]

 

 

In the first four years after leaving the presidency, how many times do you recall the names of ex-presidents making headlines? Every time the name Trump is placed in a headline it is a shot-in-the-arm for Republicans. It's free advertising for the grifter and the party he still leads.

 

I'm a little unclear on what "work" you think the Democrats can and should be doing. Without eliminating the filibuster or having a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, the big plans cannot happen. All that's left is executive orders and blather. Trump was, and still is, an expert at making blather appear to be concrete action; yes, it is effective; yes, it would be great if the Democrats could find a candidate who could compete or even outcompete that oratory, not with bombast, but with delivery of the message, I am here, I am doing something, even when unable to do something.

 

One thing I think you miss is the nature of the enemy-I hate to say it, but these people have become the enemy of choice, and I really don't think you appreciate how much influence nationally they are providing. This is why we should not give free advertising to them, or their leader, Trump.

 

 

Three weeks before he won the Republican nomination for Pennsylvania governor, Doug Mastriano stood beside a 3-foot-tall painted eagle statue and declared the power of God.

 

"Any free people in the house here? Did Jesus set you free?" he asked, revving up the dozens before him on a Saturday afternoon at a Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, roadside hotel.

 

Mastriano, a state senator, retired Army colonel and prominent figure in former President Donald Trump's futile efforts to overturn the state's 2020 election results, was addressing a far-right conference that mixed Christian beliefs with conspiracy theories, called Patriots Arise. Instead of focusing on issues like taxes, gas prices or abortion policy, he wove a story about what he saw as the true Christian identity of the nation, and how it was time, together, for Christians to reclaim political power.

 

The separation of church and state was a "myth," he said. "In November we are going to take our state back, my God will make it so."

 

Mastriano's ascension in Pennsylvania is perhaps the most prominent example of right-wing candidates for public office who explicitly aim to promote Christian power in America. The religious right has long supported conservative causes, but this current wave seeks more: a nation that actively prioritizes their particular set of Christian beliefs and far-right views and that more openly embraces Christianity as a bedrock identity.

 

Maybe you are right and I am wrong. But I remember the "silent majority" and "Democrats for Reagan" too well to think rationality wins elections. Elections are a popularity contest, and framing and exposure have much to do with who gets stuck in the minds of voters.

 

[Gerardo]

Moore v Harper

[y66]

re: Moore v Harper:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/06/us/politics/supreme-court-state-legislatures-elections.html

 

Even some scholars who think the independent state legislature doctrine is pernicious nonsense say they would like a definitive resolution of the issue, and preferably not in an election year.

 

“I think they should take it,” Vikram Amar said of the North Carolina case. “This thing is just brewing and bubbling.”