Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Winstonm]

And the label authoritarian is being used by the most authoritarian tendei to attack those who believe in people's rights, freedoms and liberty.

This explains the basic problem with the libertarian view - there is no acknowledgement that rights, freedoms, and liberties only extend to the end of their own noses, that as soon as their actions have a negative effect on others they have no right of infringement. Not wearing a mask outside during a pandemic is an action that places personal choice superior to public safety - a childish notion - and a notion that threatens others' rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There is no right to place others in jeopardy in order to adhere to dogma. Requiring public safety to take precedence over personal choice is not an attack on rights - it is an attack on a common enemy - the virus.

As I have claimed many times, libertarian views (in the sense of the current understanding of that word) are an immature philosophy IMO, similar to the me, me, me thinking of children and teenagers; the mature understanding is that me, me, me is really not as important as we.

[y66]

Could there be another explanation? Perhaps they look to their leaders (i.e. their trusted GOP leadership at the Federal or State level) to clarify the situation and tell them that Trump is wrong. When their leaders do not contradict, they tend to believe the only person who is talking; Trump!

 

In other words, Republican voters are not at fault (or exclusively at fault).

Is it reasonable to infer that the majority of the 37% of Americans who believe the global cabal conspiracy theory are Rs because 50% of Rs believe the election was stolen. No. I was being facetious.

 

Do Rs who choose to believe the election was stolen on the basis of zero evidence of widespread voter fraud deserve to be cut some slack because Donald Trump has been pushing this theory and William Barr has been laying the groundwork since August and practically the entire Republican Party has played along? Nope. People of voting age are responsible for their choices.

[johnu]

Is it reasonable to infer that the majority of the 37% of Americans who believe the global cabal conspiracy theory are Rs because 50% of Rs believe the election was stolen. No. I was being facetious.

I thought 50% sounded incredibly low.

 

Some other numbers shed more light.

 

Only 29% of Republicans believed Biden had "rightfully won". (e.g. 71% did not believe Biden was the rightful winner.)

68% of Republicans had concerns about a "rigged" vote.

52% of Republicans thought that the Manchurian President had "rightfully won"

 

It's past time for the red states to have their own country, Constitution, Congress, and courts where their ideas can be fully realized. If they want to make the Manchurian President's family official royalty who rule for life, I encourage them to secede.

 

Half of Republicans in new poll say election was 'rigged,' stolen from Trump

[y66]

Good summary here of Trump's bizarre conspiracy campaign adventures in court by Zach Montague and Alan Feuer at NYT:

 

In a chaotic effort to overturn the election results, President Trump and lawyers representing his campaign have spent weeks claiming without convincing proof that rampant voter fraud corrupted vote tallies in many battleground states.

 

But their lawsuits challenging the outcome have repeatedly broken down because of defective filings, sloppy paperwork, dubious claims by witnesses and lawyers who have admitted in court that they were not alleging fraud.

 

Here are some of the more embarrassing moments.

 

Arizona

 

Days after the election, lawyers for the Trump campaign brought a lawsuit in Maricopa County claiming, in part, that some number of Republican voters used Sharpies to mark their ballots, rendering them unreadable by voting machines and leading to uncounted votes.

 

The complaint also included affidavits from several voters and poll watchers who said that poll workers had capitalized on the confusion to nullify votes for Mr. Trump.

 

But in a hearing on Nov. 12, Kory Langhofer, a lawyer for the Trump campaign, conceded that the complaint was not based on evidence of voter fraud but rather on a “limited number of cases” of “good-faith errors” in the count.

 

“This is not a fraud case,” Mr. Langhofer said. “We are not alleging fraud. We are not saying anyone is trying to steal the election.”

 

Under questioning, witnesses repeatedly stated that they did not have any reason to believe that their ballots or those of other voters were not counted.

 

Later in the hearing, Daniel Arellano, the Arizona Democratic Party’s counsel, directed questions to Zack Alcyone, one of the witnesses, who admitted that he was a business partner of Mr. Langhofer’s.

 

Asked if he was being paid to testify in the case, Mr. Alcyone said he was uncertain.

 

“Um, not that I know of, I haven’t discussed it,” he said.

 

“But you may be?” Mr. Arellano asked.

 

“It’s possible, I guess, I’m not sure,” Mr. Alcyone said.

 

Georgia

 

A federal lawsuit brought by the conservative lawyer L. Lin Wood Jr. sought to halt the statewide certification of the vote in Georgia, claiming that systemic issues with the election process had marred the state’s results.

 

Russell J. Ramsland Jr., a cybersecurity worker and an expert witness in the case, filed an affidavit on Wednesday claiming that his company had uncovered evidence of inconsistencies in electronic voting machines. But the inconsistencies he claimed to identify were in districts in Michigan, not Georgia.

 

The affidavit also listed a number of towns and counties in which Mr. Ramsland’s analysis ostensibly showed that the number of votes cast exceeded the number of eligible voters. But most, if not all, of the places Mr. Ramsland listed appeared to be townships and counties in Minnesota, not Michigan.

 

In a hearing on Thursday, the Trump-appointed judge, Steven D. Grimberg, pushed back against claims of voter fraud.

 

“I understand that’s your argument, but what’s your evidence?” he asked after listening to Ray S. Smith III, a lawyer for Mr. Wood.

 

“To halt the certification at literally the 11th hour would breed confusion and disenfranchisement that I find have no basis in fact and law,” Judge Grimberg said.

 

He rejected the challenge.

 

Michigan

 

In an opinion issued on Nov. 13, a state court judge in Michigan methodically dismantled testimony from six witnesses who claimed to have observed irregularities in the vote-counting process in Detroit.

 

Casting doubt on their credibility and knowledge of the electoral process, Judge Timothy M. Kenny noted that the witnesses had skipped an information session that may have answered many of the questions they raised.

 

“Perhaps if plaintiffs’ election challenger affiants had attended the Oct. 29, 2020, walk-through of the TCF Center ballot-counting location, questions and concerns could have been answered in advance of Election Day,” he wrote. “Regrettably, they did not and, therefore, plaintiffs’ affiants did not have a full understanding” of the absentee ballot tabulation process.

 

In a separate case targeting absentee ballots in Michigan, a lawyer for the Trump campaign appeared to have initially filed the lawsuit in error in a federal claims court in Washington, D.C., that lacked the authority to hear it.

 

“The complaint is captioned as though it were filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan,” Judge Elaine D. Kaplan wrote in an order transferring the case to the proper court. “Instead, however, it was filed with this court, presumably by accident.”

 

Pennsylvania

 

Anticipating that Pennsylvania would be the tipping point in the election, lawyers for the Trump campaign prepared for legal challenges contesting votes in several parts of the state.

 

In recent weeks, however, the lawyers have repeatedly acknowledged when pressed by judges that no evidence of election fraud materialized.

 

In Federal District Court in Williamsport, Pa., the president’s lead lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, broke with his comments outside the courtroom backing the president’s claims of widespread fraud.

 

“This is not a fraud case,” he told Judge Matthew W. Brann.

 

In oral arguments in a case in Montgomery County on Nov. 10, Jonathan Goldstein, a lawyer for the Trump campaign, stated repeatedly that he also had not seen evidence of voter fraud in the vote that was contested there:

 

THE COURT: In your petition, which is right before me — and I read it several times — you don’t claim that any electors or the Board of the County were guilty of fraud, correct? That’s correct?

MR. GOLDSTEIN: Your honor, accusing people of fraud is a pretty big step. And it is rare that I call somebody a liar, and I am not calling the board of the D.N.C. or anybody else involved in this a liar. Everybody is coming to this with good faith. The D.N.C. is coming with good faith. We’re all just trying to get an election done. We think these were a mistake, but we think they are a fatal mistake, and these ballots ought not be counted.

THE COURT: I understand. I am asking you a specific question, and I am looking for a specific answer. Are you claiming that there is any fraud in connection with these 592 disputed ballots?

MR. GOLDSTEIN: To my knowledge at present, no.

THE COURT: Are you claiming that there is any undue or improper influence upon the elector with respect to these 592 ballots?

MR. GOLDSTEIN: To my knowledge at present, no.

 

Lawyers representing the Trump campaign in Bucks County signed court documents on Wednesday informing a judge that there was no evidence of fraud in relation to ballots they were contesting there.

 

The campaign had filed suit in the county’s Court of Common Pleas challenging more than 2,200 ballots as invalid. But in a joint stipulation of facts with lawyers for the Democratic Party, the Trump campaign’s lawyers admitted, “Petitioners do not allege, and there is no evidence of, fraud in connection with the challenged ballots.”

 

The lawyers also stated there was no evidence of any “misconduct” or “impropriety” in the election.

The [Pennsylvania] lawsuit was the Trump campaign’s last remaining major federal legal action in its attempt to challenge state results. Historians and election-law experts say the effort is unprecedented and amounts to an effort to subvert the vote.

Time is running out for the president’s lawsuits. Pennsylvania is scheduled to certify its election results Monday, all but ensuring its 20 Electoral College votes go to Mr. Biden. Michigan also is scheduled to certify results Monday, and Nevada on Tuesday.

[y66]

From Politics, Science and the Remarkable Race for a Coronavirus Vaccine by Sharon LaFraniere, Katie Thomas, Noah Weiland, David Gelles, Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Denise Grady at NYT:

 

WASHINGTON — The call was tense, the message discouraging. Moncef Slaoui, the head of the Trump administration’s effort to quickly produce a vaccine for the coronavirus, was on the phone at 6 p.m. on Aug. 25 to tell the upstart biotech firm Moderna that it had to slow the final stage of testing its vaccine in humans.

 

Moderna’s chief executive, Stéphane Bancel, a French biochemical engineer, recognized the implication. In the race to quell the pandemic, he said, “every day mattered.” Now his company, which had yet to bring a single product to market, faced a delay of up to three weeks. Pfizer, the global pharmaceutical giant that was busy testing a similar vaccine candidate and promising initial results by October, would take the obvious lead.

 

“It was the hardest decision I made this year,” Mr. Bancel said.

 

Moderna’s problem seemed fitting for late summer 2020, when the United States was reeling from not just a pandemic but unrest over racial injustice. Dr. Slaoui informed Mr. Bancel that Moderna had not recruited enough minority candidates into its vaccine trials. If it could not prove its vaccine worked well for Black and Hispanic Americans, who have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic, it would not make it over the finish line.

 

Both companies ultimately completed the crucial stages of their human trials this month and reported spectacular initial results, vaccines that appear to be about 95 percent effective against a virus that has killed 1.3 million people, a quarter million of them in the United States.

 

Few corporate competitions have unfolded with so much at stake and such a complex backdrop. At play were not just commercial rivalries and scientific challenges but an ambitious plan to put the federal government in the middle of the effort and, most vexingly, the often toxic political atmosphere created by President Trump. Betting that a vaccine would secure his re-election, he waged both public and private campaigns to speed the process.

 

Pfizer’s chief executive, Dr. Albert Bourla, had vowed to avoid the political minefield but was forced to maneuver through it nonetheless. After promising progress on a timetable that seemed to support Mr. Trump’s prediction of a breakthrough before Election Day, Dr. Bourla pushed back the schedule in late October, fearing his firm’s clinical trial results would otherwise not be convincing enough for federal regulators to grant emergency approval of its vaccine. News of Pfizer’s success was announced just after the election was called for Joseph R. Biden Jr.

 

Dr. Bourla had chosen from the start to keep Pfizer and its research partner, the German firm BioNTech, at arms length from the government, declining research and development money from the crash federal effort, called Operation Warp Speed.

 

Mr. Bancel, with a far smaller company, made the opposite bet, embracing the assistance of a government led by a science-denying president. Moderna got nearly $2.5 billion to develop, manufacture and sell its vaccine to the federal government and teamed up with the National Institutes of Health on the scientific work, a highly successful partnership that managed to sidestep the political meddling by Mr. Trump and his aides that had bedeviled other efforts to confront the virus.

 

Pfizer and Moderna alone would not meet domestic or global demand, but other companies in the United States and around the world are also rushing toward effective vaccines, some of them using more proven technologies, so other winners are likely to emerge.

 

Still, both companies, in their own very different ways, have pulled off a remarkable feat: developing a vaccine that appears safe and effective in a matter of months, rather than the years or decades that such developments usually take. They were aided by a confluence of three factors. A new method of developing vaccines was already waiting to be tested, with the coronavirus a perfect target. Sky-high infection rates accelerated the pace of clinical trials, the most time-consuming part of the process. And the government was willing to spend whatever it took, eliminating financial risks and bureaucratic roadblocks and allowing mass production to begin even before the trials were done.

 

Their apparent success showed that in an era of polarized politics, science was able to break down barriers between government, countries and industry to produce one of the few pieces of good news in a year of suffering and division.

So the head of the Trump administration’s effort to quickly produce a vaccine did not communicate the importance of having the mix of Moderna trial participants meet FDA acceptance criteria until August? That looks like a pretty basic planning error that may have cost Trump the election. You hate to see it.

[Winstonm]

Paging Dr. Berg.

 

Ken, I hope you read this: This is from the WaPo so it is behind a paywall.

 

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) rightly received praise last week when he condemned Trump for putting “overt pressure on state and local officials to subvert the will of the people and overturn the election,” adding: “It is difficult to imagine a worse, more undemocratic action by a sitting American president.”

But Romney’s statement is more a reason for distress than hope because it should not take political courage — whether on his part or from GOP state officials in Michigan and Georgia — to recognize the simple fact that Biden won. Nor do you have to be liberal to recognize that a legal strategy based on throwing out ballots cast in heavily Black Detroit or Philadelphia is racist.

 

And you only need to honor the legacy of Abraham Lincoln and Dwight D. Eisenhower to be horrified that the Republican National Committee made itself the venue last week for an incendiary, untrue and insane statement by Trump lawyer Sidney Powell. Her screed was worthy of some marginal, anti-democratic, far-right nationalist party in some other country.

 

“American patriots are fed up with the corruption from the local level, to the highest level of our government,” she said, making you wonder who is president. “We are going to take this country back. We are not going to be intimidated. We are not going to back down. We are going to clean this mess up now. President Trump won by a landslide. We are going to prove it, and we are going to reclaim the United States of America for the people who vote for freedom.”

 

 

The ballots of the majority that did not “vote for freedom” by Powell’s bizarre definition — nearly 80 million so far — can be tossed into the dustbin.

 

That’s the party Biden has to deal with. And he can take no comfort if Republicans who stayed mum during Trump’s attempted election theft turn around later and pretend that they had nothing to do with this. Their silence is complicity.

 

 

This is the result of almost 74 million votes for autocracy over democracy, and the Republican politicians cannot turn their backs on those votes. Now what?

 

 

[kenberg]

Paging Dr. Berg.

 

Ken, I hope you read this: This is from the WaPo so it is behind a paywall.

 

 

This is the result of almost 74 million votes for autocracy over democracy, and the Republican politicians cannot turn their backs on those votes. Now what?

 

 

 

As it happens, I had just finished reading it when I brought up the WC. I was thinking that I only disagree with one of his points:

"And you only need to honor the legacy of Abraham Lincoln and Dwight D. Eisenhower to be horrified that the Republican National Committee made itself the venue last week for an incendiary, untrue and insane statement by Trump lawyer Sidney Powell. Her screed was worthy of some marginal, anti-democratic, far-right nationalist party in some other country."

 

You do not have to even know who Eisenhower and Lincoln were to be horrified. In fact Eisenhower was a bit slow in condemning Joe McCarthy. But forget bout Ike. Republicans really want their party to be associated with Sidney Powell? And Giuliani? Really? Really?

And while I of course remember Ike and know about Lincoln, and I read Edmund Burke in college (Dionne cites him as well) I had to look up who Robert Nisbet was. I had heard the name before but couldn't place it. But again this doesn't matter. Crazy is crazy. And never mind whether Powell and Giuliani are actually as crazy as they sound or they are just being well-paid lawyers. It's a to try to sort that out.

We have some serious matters to attend to as we go forward.

[Winstonm]

As it happens, I had just finished reading it when I brought up the WC. I was thinking that I only disagree with one of his points:

"And you only need to honor the legacy of Abraham Lincoln and Dwight D. Eisenhower to be horrified that the Republican National Committee made itself the venue last week for an incendiary, untrue and insane statement by Trump lawyer Sidney Powell. Her screed was worthy of some marginal, anti-democratic, far-right nationalist party in some other country."

 

You do not have to even know who Eisenhower and Lincoln were to be horrified. In fact Eisenhower was a bit slow in condemning Joe McCarthy. But forget bout Ike. Republicans really want their party to be associated with Sidney Powell? And Giuliani? Really? Really?

And while I of course remember Ike and know about Lincoln, and I read Edmund Burke in college (Dionne cites him as well) I had to look up who Robert Nisbet was. I had heard the name before but couldn't place it. But again this doesn't matter. Crazy is crazy. And never mind whether Powell and Giuliani are actually as crazy as they sound or they are just being well-paid lawyers. It's a to try to sort that out.

We have some serious matters to attend to as we go forward.

 

During Watergate, CREEP stood for Committee to RE-Elect the President, meaning Nixon. I think another type of creep has been occurring for as long - the insidious creep of the Southern Strategy across the nation and all that entails. Ta Nehisi-Coates wrote The First White President and, to my knowledge, was the first to show that Trump's 2016 victory came from support by white voters across all sections of the country and economic statuses. In my view, that election was simply a culmination of the the inherent racism of the Southern Strategy. I am firmly convinced that in the U.S. only one side - the Republican side - would try to exclude as many people as possible while creating a schism between races for the sole purpose of gaining and retaining power.

 

The idea of exclusion is antipathy to the liberal mindset and worldview.

 

If we are to move forward, we must regain the balance of trust that both sides have at heart the best interests of the country - not their own raw power. As Mr. Miyagi said, Balance the key, Daniel-san.

[Zelandakh]

Not personal enough. People need to know Trump doesn't care or even like any of them.

You are still thinking like a liberal Winston. If you want a message to resonate amongst conservatives it has to be short and simple, like the #StopTheSteal hashtag that has gained traction there. #StopTheSteal takes that momentum and tries to turn it around. Sure, a more complex and detailed message would be great...but conservatives are simply not to take notice of you for long enough for that message to be heard.

[Zelandakh]

Good summary here of Trump's bizarre conspiracy campaign adventures in court by Zach Montague and Alan Feuer at NYT:

The Arizona case was largely a result of a misunderstanding. Some voters were suspicious of the "sharpie" they were given at the voting booth and went online to check their vote status. When they saw that the status was "canceled" their worst fears were realised. Only it turns out that the website they were using was specifically tracking their postal ballot and the "canceled" status was proof that the voting procedure was working to prevent people from voting both in-person and absentee. In fact Trump's lawyers here inadvertently managed to prove the absence of fraud. It's the sort of thing that could be a SNL sketch if it were not so serious.

[Winstonm]

You are still thinking like a liberal Winston. If you want a message to resonate amongst conservatives it has to be short and simple, like the #StopTheSteal hashtag that has gained traction there. #StopTheSteal takes that momentum and tries to turn it around. Sure, a more complex and detailed message would be great...but conservatives are simply not to take notice of you for long enough for that message to be heard.

How about this one? He's Fu#$ing You Over, Dip#hit

[cherdano]

The Washington Post is clearly reading Ken's WC posts, and tried to force this choice:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/most-republicans-greet-trumps-push-to-overturn-the-election-with-a-customary-response-silence/2020/11/20/91948292-2b52-11eb-9b14-ad872157ebc9_story.html

 

Three Senators responded with statement critical of Trump. Romney, Sasse and Collins. The others did not respond, or referred to previous statement made before Trump started pressuring election officials to sabotage the vote count.

 

Three out of 53 might be all we will get, I am afraid.

 

And...we are at no. four in Ken's vote: Murkowski.

[y66]

And...we are at no. four in Ken's vote: Murkowski.

Criteria?

 

Corker (R-TN)

Toomey (R-PA) retiring in 2022

[y66]

The 2020 election was not simply free of fraud, or whatever cooked-up malfeasance the president is braying about at this hour. It was, from an administrative standpoint, a resounding success. In the face of a raging pandemic and the highest turnout in more than a century, Americans enjoyed one of the most secure, most accurate and most well-run elections ever.

 

Don’t take our word for it. Listen to the state and local officials of both parties in dozens of states who were tasked with overseeing the process.

 

“Numbers don’t lie,” Georgia’s Republican secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, said on Friday when he certified his state’s vote total following a hand recount of about five million ballots. Joe Biden won Georgia by a little more than 12,000 votes.

 

Same story in Michigan. “We have not seen any evidence of fraud or foul play in the actual administration of the election,’’ said a spokesman for the Democratic secretary of state there. “What we have seen is that it was smooth, transparent, secure and accurate.”

 

Over all, the 2020 election “was the most secure in American history,” according to a statement put out this month by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which is made up of top federal and state election officials. “There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.”

 

A bipartisan consensus like this may tempt some people to conclude that the dire pre-election warnings were overblown, that the risks to the election were never that serious. The reality is the opposite. The threats were many and real. There were massive logistical hurdles to running an election during a deadly disease outbreak. There was chaos sown deliberately by a sitting president to undermine Americans’ faith in the integrity of the democratic process. There was good reason to fear an electoral meltdown.

 

That the meltdown didn’t materialize was thanks to months of hard work and selfless commitment by tens of thousands of Americans across the country: state and local elections officials, volunteer poll workers, overburdened postal carriers, helpful neighbors and generous philanthropists.

 

Together, this ad hoc democracy-protection network fanned out to expand access to mail-in ballots, helping more than 100 million Americans, nearly two-thirds of all voters, to vote early or absentee. They took on poll worker shifts so that older Americans would not have to risk their lives to keep precincts open. They volunteered time to ensure votes would be counted as quickly and accurately as possible. It was a heroic effort, and the people who worked its front lines deserve Americans’ everlasting gratitude.

It is neither wise nor realistic to count on this sort of mobilization happening every four years. “The smoothness of the election was not self-executing,” said Vanita Gupta, the president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, an organization that supports voting rights. “Don’t lose sight of how much work we did to make it this way.”

 

The nation will need to prioritize voting rights and election administration to a degree it has never adequately done. For example, why are Americans still waiting for hours in line to cast their ballots? In 2014, a bipartisan commission said no one ought to have to wait more than 30 minutes to vote. Six years on, the country is nowhere close to that goal.

 

The solutions are not a mystery. Here are three of the most obvious ones.

 

More money. In the first wave of the pandemic last spring, elections experts and officials pleaded with Congress to provide up to $4 billion to help ensure a smooth election. Lawmakers approved one-tenth of that amount. “We get what we pay for,” said Justin Levitt, an election law scholar at Loyola Law School. “We poured trillions into pandemic recovery, and a teaspoonful into the democracy that makes it work.”

 

Some of the shortfall was made up by private philanthropists, who gave hundreds of millions of dollars to state and local governments. Professional sports teams offered up their empty arenas so voters could safely cast ballots in person. Donors provided masks and other protective gear for poll workers. All of that was welcome, and yet the American people pay taxes for just this purpose; they shouldn’t have to rely on the beneficence of the wealthy to keep their democracy intact.

 

Less voter suppression. It wasn’t so long ago that both parties supported the protection of voting rights. In 2006, Congress overwhelmingly voted to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. Today, the Republican Party is awash in conspiracy theories and — there’s no other way to put it — fundamentally distrusts the American electorate.

 

In hundreds of lawsuits filed over voting and election procedures in 2020 — the most ever in an election season — Republicans consistently sided against voters. In too many cases, the courts let them have their way. They blocked reasonable, targeted measures to make voting easier during the pandemic, like extending ballot-arrival deadlines or increasing the number of drop boxes.

 

President Trump has spent the past five years building a fantasy world in which he can lose only because the other side cheated, and far too many people are content to live in it. In the absence of a whit of evidence, a majority of Republicans say they believe Joe Biden’s victory is the result of fraud. That’s why Mr. Raffensperger, a committed Republican, is being punished for his defense of Georgia’s electoral process with everything from death threats to a potentially illegal request by Senator Lindsey Graham, a top Republican, who Mr. Raffensperger said tried to persuade him to throw out legally cast ballots.

 

The United States needs members of both major political parties to support voting rights and access to the polls — not just because they believe it helps democracy, but because they believe it helps them.

 

Thwart disinformation. America needs a far more aggressive and coordinated response to the massive disinformation campaigns polluting social media and people’s dialogue with one another.

 

Social-media giants like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube did more in 2020 to combat these campaigns than ever before, and yet it wasn’t nearly enough. When a lie can race around the globe in minutes, anything less than an immediate response is too slow. The labels applied to misleading or factually untrue content were often vague, and did not necessarily refute the disinformation.

 

Also, it’s obvious that most of the disinformation right now is coming from one side of the political spectrum. Social media companies need to confront that reality head-on and stop worrying about being called biased. That’s especially important when it comes to the accounts of high-profile figures like President Trump, who have the power to deceive huge numbers of Americans with a single tweet.

 

Democracy is a fragile thing, and it requires constant tending and vigilance to survive. Americans were lucky this time. They were also well prepared. When pushed to the brink, they mobilized to protect their democracy. For this moment, at least, tune out the president, his flailing dishonesty and his bottomless disregard for the American experiment. Instead, express gratitude to the millions of Americans who still believe in that experiment, and who did all they could to make this election succeed in the face of daunting odds. Then help make sure they don’t have to do it by themselves again.

[barmar]

I've long said - in fact, said so in this WC - that Trump's "base" is really only around 25% of the population; however, the results of the election have me questioning that idea. 74 million votes for Trump - after seeing him in action for nearly 4 years - makes me question the argument about the numbers of "reasonable" Republicans there truly are. I'm beginning to think I underestimated the "base" - that white privilege, which is disguised racism, isn't the common denominator across Trump's base, and that common denominator covers nearly all 74 million.

Not everyone who voted for Trump is in his "base".

 

There are an awful lot of die-hard Republicans who just couldn't stomach voting for a Democract, so they held their noses and voted for Trump.

 

There are also lots of "single issue voters", for whom some common issues are conservative judges and abortion restrictions. They're happy with Trump's policies along these lines, and they want to see them continue. They often admit that he has problems, but they're willing to overlook them to get what they want.

 

When you combine these with the ever-Trumpers, you get 74 million voters.

[y66]

Not everyone who voted for Trump is in his "base".

 

There are an awful lot of die-hard Republicans who just couldn't stomach voting for a Democract, so they held their noses and voted for Trump.

 

There are also lots of "single issue voters", for whom some common issues are conservative judges and abortion restrictions. They're happy with Trump's policies along these lines, and they want to see them continue. They often admit that he has problems, but they're willing to overlook them to get what they want.

 

When you combine these with the ever-Trumpers, you get 74 million voters.

This sounds right. The turnout for Trump is sobering. Racism is a factor but it's a mistake to think it's more of a factor than economic self-interest or some combination of factors other than racism that Rs value differently than Ds.

[cherdano]

Criteria?

 

Corker (R-TN)

Toomey (R-PA) retiring in 2022

Ok, let's say five.

I think Ken was asking them to denounce Trump's attempt to overturn/deligitimize the election result. Ken is the judge, but in my book Toomey's statement doesn't count.

[shyams]

Below is an indicator of how much the betting world does not trust your nation's administration + its much vaunted checks and balances.

 

At this moment, I can bet £100 on Biden and make a £4 return on it.

* Given that Biden's presidency is a certainty such a return is absolutely absurd. Yet, it is there and I can honestly put a few thousand quid to give myself (what should be) a guaranteed return.

* In case someone thinks this is a quack website or that the trading is really thin, I am talking about BETFAIR --- a gamblers trading platform where punters make all bets and there is no "house" to bet against. If I had the money, I could place a bet of £100,000 and the market would barely move despite such a huge amount being placed on one outcome.

* The total amount of money traded on this specific market so far is £ 550 million (roughly US$ 720m). Yes, this is trading volume and the underlying profits or losses would be much lower because the same person would be both backing and laying on a specific outcome which means they only receive the net position as payout.

 

Four years ago, I had a very small amount bet on Hillary to win. I vividly remember that when I woke up on Wednesday morning (i.e. day after election), the market was already trading at 1%. By the time it was noon UK, the yield had gone to zero --- i.e. you could no longer make money by betting on Trump. If we (the outside world) believed USA to be about the same as in 2016, we should have seen yields to be sub-1% at this time. Definitely not 4%!!

 

I realise I am simplifying things there and creating a narrative to fit my theory ("USA's checks & balances are all distorted"). Yet I am not totally wrong -- I am showing you the true monetary cost of your corruption. And the opportunity to make a so-called "risk-free" return on your funds.

 

Finally, NO I am not going to put new money on this market; logic says I should but fear of Trump and the Republicans is holding me back.

 

 

 

 

If you don't believe that the market still pays to bet on Biden, here is a link to a gambling website (caution: do not click if your country has restrictive laws that prohibit your landing on their site)

 

 

By the way, this particular betting market is still open AND is paying 4% on Biden. Given that the market is not likely to last beyond 15 Dec (and it could easily end much earlier), in effect one is being paid an annualised retutn of 40%-80% "risk-free" --- the only risk is the vagaries of the American political system.

[kenberg]

Ok, let's say five.

I think Ken was asking them to denounce Trump's attempt to overturn/deligitimize the election result. Ken is the judge, but in my book Toomey's statement doesn't count.

 

Yes. But I was thinking slightly differently. It should expected of those in positions of leadership that they speak clearly. On many topics I have no opinion and I accept that others may have no opinion. But not on this. It's too important. Silence should be taken as acquiescence.

See

https://www.washingt...cbc2_story.html

Yes, they are insisting that Trump accept the results of the election. And I agree.

But if someone really wants to speak up that he believes the communists in Venezuela sabotaged the election thus denying Trump his landslide victory then let them say so.

If they are silent, when representatives of Trump and representatives of the RNC are making such claims then we place them with those who believe this.

Silence is not acceptable when people representing the Republican establishment are making such claims.

 

But yes, if our ;leaders are required to state their views, I sure as hell hope they do not say that Biden is a Satanist trafficking in children.

 

The cited article refers to McConnel:

Asked about the former officials' statement, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's office on Monday referred to comments he made last week dismissing requests to speak out. "In all of these presidential elections we go through this process. What we all say about it is frankly irrelevant," McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters Tuesday. "All of it will happen right on time, and we will swear in the next administration on January 20."

No Mitch, what is being said is crazy, and having people in a position of leadership talking like drunken morons, interfering with a smooth transition, casting doubt on legitimacy, keeping the incoming president away from information, is not irrelevant. Not al all irrelevant. Bu thanks, you have stated your position. I hope people remember it.

[y66]

This is an encouraging development: Business Leaders, Citing Damage to Country, Urge Trump to Begin Transition by Kate Kelly and Danny Hakim at NYT

[Winstonm]

Not everyone who voted for Trump is in his "base".

 

There are an awful lot of die-hard Republicans who just couldn't stomach voting for a Democract, so they held their noses and voted for Trump.

 

There are also lots of "single issue voters", for whom some common issues are conservative judges and abortion restrictions. They're happy with Trump's policies along these lines, and they want to see them continue. They often admit that he has problems, but they're willing to overlook them to get what they want.

 

When you combine these with the ever-Trumpers, you get 74 million voters.

 

I think you are looking through rose-colored glasses. The Republican party now is the party of Trump. Support for the Republican party is support for Trump. About 80% of those registered Republican, according to polls, support Trump - that is only part of his base.

 

There are hardcore overt racists everywhere - more than we care to admit - but there are even more what I would term "internal racists", those people who would pass a lie detector when they claim they are not racist but who also say that white Americans are being discriminated against by the liberals and the economic disadvantage of minorities is because they don't want it badly enough or work hard enough.

 

There is a reason Trump won in 2016 the white vote across all economic spectrums, and his failings lost him some of that support in 2020 but he still won the white vote.

 

Do you really think the reason all those white voters picked Trump is because of judges or abortion?

 

We need to be clear on this: Pro-White is Anti-Minority.

[Cyberyeti]

I think you are looking through rose-colored glasses. The Republican party now is the party of Trump. Support for the Republican party is support for Trump. About 80% of those registered Republican, according to polls, support Trump - that is only part of his base.

 

There are hardcore overt racists everywhere - more than we care to admit - but there are even more what I would term "internal racists", those people who would pass a lie detector when they claim they are not racist but who also say that white Americans are being discriminated against by the liberals and the economic disadvantage of minorities is because they don't want it badly enough or work hard enough.

 

There is a reason Trump won in 2016 the white vote across all economic spectrums, and his failings lost him some of that support in 2020 but he still won the white vote.

 

Do you really think the reason all those white voters picked Trump is because of judges or abortion?

 

We need to be clear on this: Pro-White is Anti-Minority.

 

No I think why a lot of the white voters picked Trump is because the Democrats are "going to take our guns", "socialists" or "giving my taxes to illegals".

 

A BBC reporter who covered the US election said he was shocked by how normal the bulk of Trump voters were, I don't think he could work out why they were voting Trump but they were, and I think consuming dubious media may have been a lot of it.

[Winstonm]

How about this one? He's Fu#$ing You Over, Dip#hit

I find it interesting that someone I don't know echoes my views on another site's comments.

 

Hikasays:November 23, 2020 at 6:17 pm

 

Efforts to 'unify' the country will be moot if a big chunk are not shown clearly that they have been misled. Put another way, America cannot heal if it won't take its medicine

 

[Winstonm]

No I think why a lot of the white voters picked Trump is because the Democrats are "going to take our guns", "socialists" or "giving my taxes to illegals".

 

A BBC reporter who covered the US election said he was shocked by how normal the bulk of Trump voters were, I don't think he could work out why they were voting Trump but they were, and I think consuming dubious media may have been a lot of it.

 

Normal here is racist for about 45% of the population. Not overt racism. White privilege is the order of the day. Few wear hoods or armbands. There is a reason the Republican party developed the "southern strategy", and why it has been so successful. That crap about guns, socialism, and taxes is simply code for "don't let them have what is rightfully ours".

[kenberg]

No I think why a lot of the white voters picked Trump is because the Democrats are "going to take our guns", "socialists" or "giving my taxes to illegals".

 

A BBC reporter who covered the US election said he was shocked by how normal the bulk of Trump voters were, I don't think he could work out why they were voting Trump but they were, and I think consuming dubious media may have been a lot of it.

 

A conversation a friend had is possibly relevant. The friend, a Biden voter, was talking to her friend, a Trump voter:

 

Trump voter: The Democrats are all a bunch of Marxists.

Biden voter: Do you know what a Marxist is?

Trump voter: No.

 

Words get thrown around. Here is a true story of my early life relating to the meaning of "racist".

 

I grew up in St. Paul, there were no African American students in either my elementary school or my high school. I then went to the University of Minnesota where there were African Americans. And Native Americans And people of many backgrounds. Early on I realized that when African Americans were part of a gathering I was aware that they were African American. So I was worried that this made me a racist. I know I have told this before but I will tell it again. Just off campus there was a coffee shop, The Ten O'Clock Scholar. It might well still be there. We would drink coffee, discuss existentialism and play chess. I was playing against this white guy and after every move I made he analyzed it, usually unfavorably. I was getting irritated and finally turned to him and said with considerable force "Look, you can play the winner. Until then just shut up". I thought about that later and it gave me pleasure to realize that I spoke to this black guy word for word the way I would have spoken to him if he were white. So I decided I am probably not all that race conscious after all.

 

A point here is that for many of us, that's about as far as we ever go in thinking through race relations. My father was very blue collar but I never saw him treat a person of another race in a way other than he would treat a white person. Good enough for me, a good example for me.

 

But now race has become central. My simple 1950s idea of what it means to be or not be a racist might not hold up today. One could say "I know a racist when I see one" but really the term gets thrown around a lot and I doubt very much that it has the same meaning to everyone. Going back to Marx, I suppose I roughly know what a Marxist is but I tried reading some Marx back in my undergraduate years. I didn't get very far. Sort of like watching The Magnificent Ambersons. Someday I might watch it all the way through but not yet. It was on tonight. Maybe Marx first, then the Ambersons. Don't hold your breath.