3 ms·

Some of the Republican leadership, including the President, have presented evidence of election irregularities. Much of this evidence is worrisome, even if it d

Some of the Republican leadership, including the President, have presented evidence of election irregularities. Much of this evidence is worrisome, even if it does not impact a single vote. For instance - if you run a poll monitoring system and the county operations team cheers and claps when one party's monitors are asked to leave, it does not inspire confidence in the process. If you rely on a voting machine vendor whom both parties have expressed strong reservations against, it does not inspire confidence either. When people do not have confidence in the most basic aspect of democracy, you start to see what you did in DC. Regardless of party or country. Absolutely nothing has been done to assuage these concerns, and most responses have been dismissive. It is most likely going to reoccur whenever something like this happens. When you examine the specific actions here, the President's remarks immediately prior to the incident exonerate him because he said in plain language to "peacefully and patriotically protest at the Capitol". There is no way to credibly accuse him of inciting a mob to be violent, but one could certainly accuse him of inciting a protest. This would not be unusual since there have been many peaceful protests at the Capitol during supreme court hearings and gun control related protests.

mrunkel 6y ago
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/01/06/us/fact-check-electoral-certification https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/01/06/us/fact-check-electo...
- plutonorm 6y ago
  I'm not a trump supporter, but I sure as hell don't trust main stream media. They lost the ability to supply me with objective fact long, long ago
  - Alkhwarizmi 6y ago
    Then go dig yourself a big hole and bury yourself deep within it. Congrats on being a bafoon. NOT all media is bad, and If you equate the kinds supported by Murdoch’s and Mercers and CNN or the like, then you are hypocritical at best.
  - halter73 6y ago
    Who do you trust to supply you with "objective facts" about politics? Why not at least take a look at the New York Times article? Are you afraid you'll forget you don't trust them and take everything at face value? Even if you don't trust the journalists and editors at the NYT, the article links to primary sources from the US Supreme Court, Wisconsin Supreme Court, Pennsylvania Department of State and more so you can do your own research. As a non-Trump-supporter who doesn't trust the mainstream media, where do you get your objective facts about politics? Do you just watch CSPAN or something? It seems like you'd miss out on a lot of important news that way.
    - plutonorm 6y ago
      There are powerful reality filters embedded in the culture of organisations, of classes of people, and with political groups. It is extremely difficult to tease things apart and find the truth in this environment. By exposing yourself to a source you are opening yourself to be being unduly swayed by that source. Unless I am prepared to sit down and investigate the story, the sources found in the story and follow up with my own research, then I will not expose myself to it. I have not investigated this story thoroughly, but I have tried to get to the bottom of many other stories. Usually at the bottom I find uncertainty. I find lack of evidence. Confusion, bending, warping of reality to fit an agenda. There so much noise it's almost deafening. "Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see". We are like children in the school playground spinning tales for each other. Imprinting our own thoughts and values and goals into the stories we tell. Barely aware of our own motives.
      - wtfiswiththis 6y ago
        Trump lost the election fair and square. This is something you'll have to deal with regardless of your intent to read information on the subject or not. But if you are going to be like this, please don't peddle doubt and disinformation to others.
ryanobjc 6y ago
There are rules for poll monitors. They have to follow specific rules and laws to participate. They cannot talk to workers. They can only ask questions to supervisors and inspectors only. They cannot be disruptive. I mean how would you like to be trying to count things and get interrupted by "poll monitors"? That is what happened here. The GOP poll monitors kept on breaking the rules and acting like asses. And they were eventually kicked out, totally legally and according to the rules they signed up for. And the Democratic poll watchers clapped, which may be 'unseemly' but isn't proof of "elections irregularities". The president, with the 1/4 billion he raised, the full support of the GOP and their allies and supporters _at every level of every government_ and with the backing of the federal government were unable to raise a lawsuit that could convince even judges appointed by Trump. If there was evidence of fraud that could sway the election they would have found it, period. They didn't, ergo it doesn't exist. The reason people didn't have confidence in the most basic aspect of democracy is because they have been lied to endlessly. Without ANY knowledge of how the system works, they took these lies at their face value. Many things were done to assuage those concerns, and they dismissed the evidence out of hand. For example, Georgia.... does paper ballots counted by optical tabulators. They did a by-hand recount. The hand-counted totals matched the machine tabulation. This totally rules out any computer or machine problems. But people STILL bring up the 'dominion changed the votes' lies. And you are encouraging it with your irresponsible comment. You're feeding the lies, by encouraging a sense of 'uncertantity' when there is NOT uncertantity. The GOP Secretary of State in Georgia just presided over 2 elections which delivered major Democratic wins. Suggesting that he is 'on the take' just illustrates the sheer desperation of the losers of this election will take to cast any shadow of doubt on anyone if it comforts the sting of their loss, even as they know that their wild accusations will never have an end, and now resembles a literal witch hunt. When your cast of enemies has to grow to include the GOP leaders in the Senate, and the VP, both of who have endlessly protected Trump, then you really don't have reality on your side.
- throwawaybchr 6y ago
  Based on polling there are plenty of folks in both parties who think things were fishy with the election. I am confident that if you took each claim and systematically argued it out in public you would have seen that number go down drastically to an insignificant one. I think GOP lawmakers had the right idea to hold some kind of public audit of it. Giuliani had a lot of incorrect / blatantly false facts and so he was dismissed out of hand, but many of his witnesses came across as credible and describe things very differently from your explanations. Logistically I don't think anyone wanted to back the election fraud argument for political reasons but there is still very much a need for it because plenty of people feel like it was stolen. As for the President - whether he's making it up or whether he's among those who believe it was stolen, nobody reads minds so you cant know one way or another unless you add your own personal bias into it. Now you can be very angry about the fraud claims because they are baseless etc and be emotional about it or be a problem solver and recognize that those people are fellow citizens and there is no divorce option. Railing against Trump 24x7 actually makes the problem worse because nobody is going to be persuaded. You can also call me also irresponsible for bringing their concerns up, but what you can't really do without being dishonest is to deny that there are millions who believe this stuff, out of whom a few dozen got mad enough about it want to break in to the Capitol, and succeeded. The fact remains that the media does a tremendous disservice to the public by not casting a wide tent, and the President capitalised on this because frankly what other option is there if you want to win? The American media hoaxed the public into thinking he called Nazis very fine people when he instead said they should be condemned totally, and was said in the context of the broader debate about statues of controversial historical figures. Now you can again cheerlead for the media and say they are the finest journalists on the planet, but the fact is that more than half the country doesn't believe them. You can dismiss them all as brainwashed or stupid or whatever you like but they're going to be around for a very long time.

mrunkel 6y ago

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/01/06/us/fact-check-electoral-certification https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/01/06/us/fact-check-electo...

plutonorm 6y ago
I'm not a trump supporter, but I sure as hell don't trust main stream media. They lost the ability to supply me with objective fact long, long ago
- Alkhwarizmi 6y ago
  Then go dig yourself a big hole and bury yourself deep within it. Congrats on being a bafoon. NOT all media is bad, and If you equate the kinds supported by Murdoch’s and Mercers and CNN or the like, then you are hypocritical at best.
- halter73 6y ago
  Who do you trust to supply you with "objective facts" about politics? Why not at least take a look at the New York Times article? Are you afraid you'll forget you don't trust them and take everything at face value? Even if you don't trust the journalists and editors at the NYT, the article links to primary sources from the US Supreme Court, Wisconsin Supreme Court, Pennsylvania Department of State and more so you can do your own research. As a non-Trump-supporter who doesn't trust the mainstream media, where do you get your objective facts about politics? Do you just watch CSPAN or something? It seems like you'd miss out on a lot of important news that way.
  - plutonorm 6y ago
    There are powerful reality filters embedded in the culture of organisations, of classes of people, and with political groups. It is extremely difficult to tease things apart and find the truth in this environment. By exposing yourself to a source you are opening yourself to be being unduly swayed by that source. Unless I am prepared to sit down and investigate the story, the sources found in the story and follow up with my own research, then I will not expose myself to it. I have not investigated this story thoroughly, but I have tried to get to the bottom of many other stories. Usually at the bottom I find uncertainty. I find lack of evidence. Confusion, bending, warping of reality to fit an agenda. There so much noise it's almost deafening. "Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see". We are like children in the school playground spinning tales for each other. Imprinting our own thoughts and values and goals into the stories we tell. Barely aware of our own motives.
    - wtfiswiththis 6y ago
      Trump lost the election fair and square. This is something you'll have to deal with regardless of your intent to read information on the subject or not. But if you are going to be like this, please don't peddle doubt and disinformation to others.

ryanobjc 6y ago

There are rules for poll monitors. They have to follow specific rules and laws to participate. They cannot talk to workers. They can only ask questions to supervisors and inspectors only. They cannot be disruptive. I mean how would you like to be trying to count things and get interrupted by "poll monitors"? That is what happened here. The GOP poll monitors kept on breaking the rules and acting like asses. And they were eventually kicked out, totally legally and according to the rules they signed up for. And the Democratic poll watchers clapped, which may be 'unseemly' but isn't proof of "elections irregularities". The president, with the 1/4 billion he raised, the full support of the GOP and their allies and supporters _at every level of every government_ and with the backing of the federal government were unable to raise a lawsuit that could convince even judges appointed by Trump. If there was evidence of fraud that could sway the election they would have found it, period. They didn't, ergo it doesn't exist. The reason people didn't have confidence in the most basic aspect of democracy is because they have been lied to endlessly. Without ANY knowledge of how the system works, they took these lies at their face value. Many things were done to assuage those concerns, and they dismissed the evidence out of hand. For example, Georgia.... does paper ballots counted by optical tabulators. They did a by-hand recount. The hand-counted totals matched the machine tabulation. This totally rules out any computer or machine problems. But people STILL bring up the 'dominion changed the votes' lies. And you are encouraging it with your irresponsible comment. You're feeding the lies, by encouraging a sense of 'uncertantity' when there is NOT uncertantity. The GOP Secretary of State in Georgia just presided over 2 elections which delivered major Democratic wins. Suggesting that he is 'on the take' just illustrates the sheer desperation of the losers of this election will take to cast any shadow of doubt on anyone if it comforts the sting of their loss, even as they know that their wild accusations will never have an end, and now resembles a literal witch hunt. When your cast of enemies has to grow to include the GOP leaders in the Senate, and the VP, both of who have endlessly protected Trump, then you really don't have reality on your side.

throwawaybchr 6y ago
Based on polling there are plenty of folks in both parties who think things were fishy with the election. I am confident that if you took each claim and systematically argued it out in public you would have seen that number go down drastically to an insignificant one. I think GOP lawmakers had the right idea to hold some kind of public audit of it. Giuliani had a lot of incorrect / blatantly false facts and so he was dismissed out of hand, but many of his witnesses came across as credible and describe things very differently from your explanations. Logistically I don't think anyone wanted to back the election fraud argument for political reasons but there is still very much a need for it because plenty of people feel like it was stolen. As for the President - whether he's making it up or whether he's among those who believe it was stolen, nobody reads minds so you cant know one way or another unless you add your own personal bias into it. Now you can be very angry about the fraud claims because they are baseless etc and be emotional about it or be a problem solver and recognize that those people are fellow citizens and there is no divorce option. Railing against Trump 24x7 actually makes the problem worse because nobody is going to be persuaded. You can also call me also irresponsible for bringing their concerns up, but what you can't really do without being dishonest is to deny that there are millions who believe this stuff, out of whom a few dozen got mad enough about it want to break in to the Capitol, and succeeded. The fact remains that the media does a tremendous disservice to the public by not casting a wide tent, and the President capitalised on this because frankly what other option is there if you want to win? The American media hoaxed the public into thinking he called Nazis very fine people when he instead said they should be condemned totally, and was said in the context of the broader debate about statues of controversial historical figures. Now you can again cheerlead for the media and say they are the finest journalists on the planet, but the fact is that more than half the country doesn't believe them. You can dismiss them all as brainwashed or stupid or whatever you like but they're going to be around for a very long time.