Joe Biden Wins - Becomes 46th president of the United States

[Ev1l0rd]

Project Veritas has done some SJW stuff for the Right's cause, and isn't completely useless on a humanitarian level. They are still sensationalists, but a little more exposé and less "propagandic" than CNN. It's funny how fact checkers will rip on Veritas and not touch CNN. Of course, the mainstream fact checkers were established by democrats in attempt to maintain control over the election influencing news media. It seems kind of silly to refer to them as an authority simply based on name "fact checker". I'm a fact checker too, and while you may not be intentionally blind, you are perpetuating self-serving BS that was manufactured to deter understanding and further split society into two factions.

Project Veritas isn't a news source. It's an activist group mostly ran by a single guy who basically tries to bait people into looking like idiots by setting up fake morton forks, in the hopes that no matter what choice the person makes, they will look like an idiot, a criminal or both.

That also goes combined with the fact that they aren't above just clipping their footage in such a way that even if the mortons fork was broken/didn't work as intended that it looks like they were idiots anyway.

That's why they get torned to shreds; they're blatantly dishonest fake news spreaders with a specific goal of smearing their political opponents.

 

[notimp]

Obviously context matters. But you are defining context after the fact, which is shifting goal posts. Evidence is being garnered everyday, and what has been submitted to the courts has seemingly been rejected or rendered unsubstantial thus far. We aren't privy to all channels of information, so it is logically impossible to rule out the existence of evidence that we don't know about. (Which is what I felt was imprudent about the "zero evidence" claim--which makes it look more like a red herring)

Agree, which is why my argument was - does the potential 'impact' (what you'd get out of it) rectify the means?

And the answer likely is no. Just because a court cant dismiss a case outright (because it hasnt looked at the evidence yet, to rule out all fraud), can you rule out structural fraud at a scale that would be relevant to shift the results here. Or at least can you rule out structural fraud on a relevant scale, that can be proven - in those instances you brought forward?

And the answer to both of those seems to be - yes.

So sure, you can go through every level of judiciary, all the while looking for more 'individual confirmations'. Making up scenarios where sharpied in votes dont count, just for publicity - but should you?

(When you need about several thousands of votes in four states each.)

GOP answer should be 'no way in hell' two months from now. Until then they are seemingly featuring all of this, to keep voter activation up for the senate race.

Oh ok. I'm damaging democracy for using my voice. My bad. Maybe I should regurgitate what I've been told instead.

No, not you with your voice, the GOP with their actions. Humoring a guy that lawyered up and refused to state if he will concede, if he loses.

 

[RichardTheKing]

On a different topic than voter fraud...has anyone noticed how various organisations demanded that the Vice President be a woman, and that Biden submitted to their disgusting demands?
And that, during the debate, (33:15 to 34:00 in the video), Kamala Harris smugly rubbed into the faces of everyone watching that she indeed felt that merely being female should seriously be considered one of her qualifications for being selected for higher office. Then, after the election, she gave a Vice Presidential acceptance speech in which she gushed continuously about women and thanked Joe Biden for choosing her on the basis of her gender (2:06 to 2:30).

I refuse to see this Vice Presidency as valid, since a significant proportion of candidates were very quickly written off solely due to their being male. How utterly revolting and corrupt - if it was women being written off solely due to their gender, then there would be a massive political shitstorm.
Fucking double standards invading and perverting the very top of politics.

 

[tabzer]

Agree, which is why my argument was - does the potential 'impact' (what you'd get out of it) rectify the means?

I honestly feel like a lot of people suffered unnecessary emotional damage with the last election, and a lot of it due to the media's misleading coverage leading up to the election (and maybe after?). In the face of uncertainty, I feel that hedging expectations is worth doing to avoid the risk of being completely emotionally shocked by a turnaround in events. The burden of practicing patience not only far outweighs the burden of being completely blind-sighted, but it's a good practice in developing a a life-benefitting virtue. In my experience, everything relating to Trump is surprising and dumbfounding. It's almost as if it is his skill.

 

[notimp]

I honestly feel like a lot of people suffered unnecessary emotional damage with the last election, and a lot of it due to the media's misleading coverage leading up to the election (and maybe after?). In the face of uncertainty, I feel that hedging expectations is worth doing to avoid the risk of being completely emotionally shocked by a turnaround in events. The burden of practicing patience not only far outweighs the burden of being completely blind-sighted, but it's a good practice in developing a a life-benefitting virtue. In my experience, everything relating to Trump is surprising and dumbfounding. It's almost as if it is his skill.

Yeah, none of the 'informed' reporting is even seeing that as a snowballs chance in hell. None of the international reporting either. None of the democratic 'procedure' (where other heads of states gratulate your winner to signal legitimacy, and the process working), and therefore the diplomatic corps.

The only international heads of state that havent congratulated Biden by now are:
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54871890

Literally no one informed believes that the tactics of - here is the voter fraud call in line, if you've seen anything, please tell one of our agents, should be the course of action for the two, three months past a democratic election, where no case of mass fraud was reported so far.

Also no one of those people/pundits/sources, believes, that 'who will be the US president' will be overturned.

Not because they cant imagine themselves emotionally hurt and tactically destroyed - but simply because if you look at procedural logic, its very, very, very unlikely.

Not completely, because you have the chance to delay the declaring of the results for so long, that states can declare electoral candidates, without looking at the presidential vote results. (Just to 'save' democracy.) Again, a measure thats never been enacted in US history.

 

[tabzer]

Yeah, none of the 'informed' reporting is even seeing that as a snowballs chance in hell.

Well, they've all said that before. Consider that information is valuable. So why do you think you going to get it for free? It's a race for clicks these days and most of what you call "news" is just "entertainment".

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Do you think your education is more important to them than their demonstrated capacity to change politics? I think that's naive.

 

[notimp]

Well, they've all said that before. Consider that information is valuable. So why do you think you going to get it for free? It's a race for clicks these days and most of what you call "news" is just "entertainment".

Because I know how to vet news sources?

Because I can read partly state financed news sources from other countries, and know that they still do at least some investigative reporting?

Because the main issue here is not 'failure of reporting' but 'a lack of validity of claims' (what you claim is the problem doesnt produce enough vote flips to even come close to mattering - the personal 'fraud hotline' stuff).

Because I can read diplomatic reactions, and roughly know what they mean?

Because I dont see it as a positive, that no mass media outlet has supported Trumps claims?

Because I can read polls, where 80% of americans have 'accepted' Biden as president, vs 3% that think Trump has won? (5% undecided)

(I never was in the 'fake media cant be trusted' bunch, I always saw that as a public reaction to facebook surfacing more PR (and also more alternative opinions) to people who werent used to it).

Because democrats have lost house seats and the senate majority (likely), which indicates, that republicans have no need to push this further. None of the democratic narratives apart from Covid can be realized without their approval, and dems have lost votes with all demographics but white men?
(Give them four more years, where they cant do anything, and america will gladly vote in a Pence 2024, with a higher majority than that. Ending lame duck status for another four years.)

--

David Frum:
There will be more Gerrymandering in 2021 (Favors republicans.)

 

[AkiraKurusu]

On a different topic than voter fraud...has anyone noticed how various organisations demanded that the Vice President be a woman, and that Biden submitted to their disgusting demands?
And that, during the debate, (33:15 to 34:00 in the video), Kamala Harris smugly rubbed into the faces of everyone watching that she indeed felt that merely being female should seriously be considered one of her qualifications for being selected for higher office. Then, after the election, she gave a Vice Presidential acceptance speech in which she gushed continuously about women and thanked Joe Biden for choosing her on the basis of her gender (2:06 to 2:30).

I refuse to see this Vice Presidency as valid, since a significant proportion of candidates were very quickly written off solely due to their being male. How utterly revolting and corrupt - if it was women being written off solely due to their gender, then there would be a massive political shitstorm.
Fucking double standards invading and perverting the very top of politics.

That...that's just sickening. For fuck's sake, I can see those bigots celebrating "female empowerment" should this Harris bitch take over the Presidency, if the ageing Biden becomes no longer able to handle the office, despite only managing to force Harris into the role by making sexist demands.

Truly horrific. She didn't make it through her own merits; she shouldn't be celebrated or rewarded. The bigotry shouldn't be celebrated or rewarded. The Vice President office should be given to the most qualified candidate, REGARDLESS of their sex or skin colour.

 

[Ev1l0rd]

Or... maybe Harris was chosen because she appeals to more bases in the Democratic party.

She appeals to progressives (to some extent, you always have those who whine about her being a prosecutor), the minority groups (Biden mostly had to rely on Obama fumes during the primary, Harris helped solidify it) and she also was generally not that incompetent of a candidate.

If I look at the other candidates in the primary season, there's few who could even compare (honestly only Warren, and she wouldn't have been a desirable pick since she isn't in a safe state and her seat could end up getting swapped with a Republican seat. Pete could also have been a choice, but it's a flipflop between him and Harris and I'd say Harris appeals to the progressives more) and Senate picks are a bit of a joke.

Like, if you wanted a minority pandering veep candidate, it would have been Stacey Abrams. That's not to rig on her, her work to get Georgia to become a swing state is really impressive, but she would have fit these boxes you're all whining so much about much better, given her significant lack of political experience and not even being able to win her own senate race.

 

[tabzer]

Because I know how to vet news sources?

Do you? I have my doubts. I'm not even that confident myself. You don't acknowledge the points that I brought up and you dismiss them all-at-once as a facebook thing. "Don't trust your TV" was an adage way before the internet. I'm afraid we aren't going to have a common ground. The shift from reporting to entertainment isn't controversial to point out. It's the implication that should be--but it wouldn't be in their interest to report on that. So that's taboo because the tokened "fake news" has become cliché?

Like, if you wanted a minority pandering veep candidate, it would have been Stacey Abrams.

Stacey Abrams lacks the name recognition. It would have deterred more voters, even if she was a *more ethical choice.

 

[tabzer]

Project Veritas isn't a news source. It's an activist group mostly ran by a single guy who basically tries to bait people into looking like idiots by setting up fake morton forks, in the hopes that no matter what choice the person makes, they will look like an idiot, a criminal or both.

I was being somewhat facetious to demonstrate the fallacy of subscribing to fact checkers. Morton's forks have already been demonstrated as being ok in this thread, so I wouldn't consider that the crux of the issue. I still think that in the timeframe that they have existed, that they've done better for the world than CNN.

 

[Ev1l0rd]

I was being somewhat facetious to demonstrate the fallacy of subscribing to fact checkers. Morton's forks have already been demonstrated as being ok in this thread, so I wouldn't consider that the crux of the issue. I still think that in the timeframe that they have existed, that they've done better for the world than CNN.

Funny how you leave out the part where I point out that they're literally fake news spreaders when people realize that they're getting forked.

 

[tabzer]

Funny how you leave out the part where I point out that they're literally fake news spreaders when people realize that they're getting forked.

It's not fake news. It's "entertainment".

 

[Ev1l0rd]

It's not fake news. It's "entertainment".

Lolno. You can't on one hand claim that they do a lot of good for the world and that all their bad stuff is just for shits and giggles. That's not how this works.

This reminds me of the "I was just pretending to be retarded" meme.

 

[tabzer]

I was comparing them to CNN in respect to fact checkers. In order for me to be considerate of your opinion, I must understand whether or not you consider CNN to be above those kinds of tactics.

I never said they did a lot of good for the world.

 

[notimp]

Do you? I have my doubts. I'm not even that confident myself. You don't acknowledge the points that I brought up and you dismiss them all-at-once as a facebook thing.

Listen, I just yesterday listend to a german TV talk broadcast with the head of the former major news weekly of germany following just a transatlantic babble line, two political scientists afraid to say too much (new to the format), a heartwarming charismatic politician that broke everything down to childrens level logic and also listed off tranatlantic talking points, and a satellite link to a young nerdy looking republican (originally from austria), who while never straying to much from the republican line and mostly sticking to diplomatic niceties, blew up the entire format - by literally saying, that europe's talk circuit doesnt understand, because they also look at this through a left wing 'cultural elites' lens and spectrum. And he was right. And most of the talk guests, acknowledged it, or at least were somewhat impressed that he dared to say that.

So lets just say - I cant help but to see those nuances. Pretty much always.

Sure - sometimes I also dont know how to rank one particular source, or one particular source over time. But it has never been my problem, that I was anxious, that I couldnt trust any mainstream media outlet to report somewhat freely, within the constraints of their own ideological, or financial constraints. Which is why you read/watch many different sources at first and always look up stuff you dont understand from more than one political angle.

And no - I'm also not perfect.

But - one of the first aspects you learn in any science is to check the validity, the procedural integrity and the reliability of a claim or a hypothesis.

And if your hypothesis is "there is structural voting fraud, we just havent found it yet", and "our way to find it is a call-in-hotline", and then we'll follow mostly individual claims - this does not make several hundreds of thousands of votes 'switch over', or disappear. In several states.

Neither does recounting them.

This isnt a media trust issue. This is a - 'this cant possibly be a sollution for your problem' issue.


Also no - this one is not facebooks fault, this one is the fault of those who craft the narrative, that this election was stolen, and 'retribution' was still a possibility.

 

[Lumstar]

Fake votes are an unavoidable part of life. But forget party lines for a moment please. The slim odds of the conspiracy theory succeeding are certifiably insane. What kind of kangaroo court would overturn enough votes to change the election's final outcome? Rhetorically.

 

[notimp]

Matt Taibbi The democratss have become, essentially, an upperclass cosmopolitan party:

I'd consider the interviewer, boarderline idelogically extreme, but I still want to hear Matt Taibbis thoughts - in this case f.e.. Also I acknowledge, that this interview is made in a self referential podcast sector, where sharing viewers/listeners in ideological networks is the game to play.

Id could list this below all the news sources I post, but at some point, this becomes old.

 

[tabzer]

Listen, I just yesterday listend to a german TV talk broadcast with the head of the former major news weekly of germany following just a transatlantic babble line, two political scientists afraid to say too much (new to the format), a heartwarming charismatic politician that broke everything down to childrens level logic and also listed off tranatlantic talking points, and a satellite link to a young nerdy looking republican (originally from austria), who while never straying to much from the republican line and mostly sticking to diplomatic niceties, blew up the entire format - by literally saying, that europe's talk circuit doesnt understand, because they also look at this through a left wing 'cultural elites' lens and spectrum. And he was right. And most of the talk guests, acknowledged it, or at least were somewhat impressed that he dared to say that.

So lets just say - I cant help but to see those nuances. Pretty much always.

Sure - sometimes I also dont know how to rank one particular source, or one particular source over time. But it has never been my problem, that I was anxious, that I didnt trust any mainstream media outlet to report somewhat freely, within the constraints of their own ideological, or financial constraints. Which is why you read/watch many different sources at first and always look up stuff you dont understand from more than one political angle.

And no - I'm also not perfect.

But - one of the first aspects you learn in any science is to check the validity, the procedural integrity and the reliability of a claim or a hypothesis.

And if your hypothesis is "there is structural voting fraud, we just havent found it yet", and "our way to find it is a call-in-hotline", and then we'll follow mostly individual claims - this does not make several hundreds of thousands of votes 'switch over', or disappear. In several states.

Neither does recounting them.

This isnt a media trust issue. This is a - 'this cant possibly be a sollution for your problem' issue.

So are you saying that it is my hypothesis that there is structural voting fraud, we just haven't found it yet, and our way to find it is a call-in-hotline? Because that's a very convoluted and distracting way of misrepresenting the claim I have made about the matter.

 

[notimp]

So are you saying that it is my hypothesis that there is structural voting fraud, we just haven't found it yet, and our way to find it is a call-in-hotline? Because that's a very convoluted and distracting way of misrepresenting the claim I have made about the matter.

in a way yes. If you have indications for structural voter fraud, that are more than just people in cars staking out voting places and filming every donut box sized suitcase that was wheeled in there - get some media outlet to publicize it.

Dont hide behind 'because you are not paying for a better media source' (What? AP newswire? ), you cant possibly know whats going on.

Show and dont tell.

Because in terms of 'tell' we are hearing through the rumors grapevine, that not even Trump believes anymore, that this election will be overturned, because he is already talking about plans of running in 2024. And most of the current mobilizing is used for publicity (senate election runoffs) and to finance "PAC to save america", which no one knows what they are doing. But probably paying back election debt for Trump.