6 ms·

The worst-case scenario is the end of democracy in the USA in the next 15 years. If one side stays convinced the elections were fraudulent and Trump is a victi

The worst-case scenario is the end of democracy in the USA in the next 15 years. If one side stays convinced the elections were fraudulent and Trump is a victim , it will cause a permanent shift in how Americans see their own democratic elections. Historically, since democracy has existed, that vacuum is always filled by an authoritarian leader.

antibuddy 6y ago
However, what if the election really was fraudulent? I mean the video in Georgia after the election observer were sent home, were pretty incriminating. Also seeing how BLM got backing and did way more damage, makes this all look pretty one-sided. It's only okay if they do it.
- alwayseasy 6y ago
  Interestingly, the democrats would have fixed the elections but only managed to win the Senate in a tight run-off? After spending $100 million, the Trump campaign's legal team found no admissible evidence of election fraud, just videos they can use for future campaigns attacking democracy.
  - confidantlake 6y ago
    What is happening to this site? The comment above is alleging election fraud, which has been debunked by multiple court rulings from judges across the political spectrum. It is not downvoted, flagged, nothing. The comment responding it to it gets downvoted?
    - edbob 6y ago
      My best guess is that liberals stopped reading higher in the thread. I would hope that moderates and conservatives would not find those claims very credible, but perhaps they do or are not so offended as to downvote. I was personally fine with the integrity of the election right up until censorship ramped up. Now I have zero confidence that I would hear about any problems. I still don't think the election was "stolen" or anything, but I'm no longer confident enough to downvote such an opinion. How are we supposed to really know what's true or not when we only hear one side of the story?
      - yongjik 6y ago
        What censorship? The president himself was saying the election was stolen from him for two months and that was basically the only thing the nightly news talked about (other than COVID) every day. At some point we should be able to say "Enough, evidence or GTFO," without being accused of silencing discussion. We're way past that point.
        antibuddy 6y ago
        How is the video in Georgia debunked? They sent observers home (even a big newslet posted this on Twitter at that time), counted the ballots afterwards and Biden had a spike. And btw I am from Germany, so I am on neither "camp".
        alwayseasy 6y ago
        No you saw a conspiracy theory peddled by Rudy Giuliani, the man in charge of the Trump legal challenge to the election. The video is so wrongly interpreted, Republicans were the first one to debunk it. It's important to note, in a video, when someone leaves the screen or the room... you can't assume they've been sent home. More info here: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/dec/04/facebook-posts/no-georgia-election-workers-didnt-kick-out-observe/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/dec/04/facebook-p...
        edbob 6y ago
        I don't know anything about what the nightly news ran. All I know is that when my news sources got around to talking about it, a couple days later it's "oh I have to be very careful what I say about this, I already got a notice threatening a ban". From my perspective, the period of free discussion was extremely limited. I'm not at all sympathetic to the "we have to crush this viewpoint" camp since they amplified Hillary's claims of a "stolen election" for years. [0] You can't tell just one side "evidence or GTFO" and expect anyone to take you seriously. Especially when the new narrative is that elections are fair and unstealable, which directly contradicts the claims of an unfair stolen election in 2016. [0] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/05/06/hillary-clinton-warns-2020-democratic-candidates-stolen-election/1116477001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019...
    - alwayseasy 6y ago
      From experience, evidence-based conversations here are limited when it comes to politics unfortunately.
- vkou 6y ago
  Let's take this a step further. What if the Democrats are, as QAnon suggests, indeed baby-blood-drinking monsters who perform human sacrifices for the glory of Beelzebub, and the only way to stop them is immediate action by patriots? Sure, there's no systemic evidence that this is taking place, but what if there was? Surely, baselessly and self-servingly casting doubt on the legitimacy of the electoral process in a democracy is a small price to pay, to protect ourselves from the possibility that our immortal souls will be handed over to an Ekronic demon.
edbob 6y ago
Nothing will pour more gas on that fire than censorship. I basically agree with your analysis on that point, and I'm resentful of Trump for helping to create that problem. But I consider big tech censorship to be the first step to an inevitable end of democracy, "destroying it in order to save it".
- alwayseasy 6y ago
  It's a really hard problem because the "anti-censorship" argument is also used by the side that wants to destroy democracy once in power. Historically, Americans have succeeded at destroying ideologies by grossly impeding on free speech and other constitutional rights when there was political will. Currently, I'm not sure there is a sign of political will to restore democratic norms by suppressing white-supremacism.
  - edbob 6y ago
    > Historically, Americans have succeeded at destroying ideologies by grossly impeding on free speech and other constitutional rights when there was political will. What is the history here?
    - alwayseasy 6y ago
      Native American autonomy and agency, African Americans obtaining land after the Civil War or stimulus measures after the Great Depression, Communism... Of course, the combination of limiting free speech for decades leads to the death of the ideology because no one picks it up.
      - edbob 6y ago
        > Native American autonomy and agency, African Americans obtaining land after the Civil War Unfortunately these were suppressed with violence, far more than mere censorship. I don't think these causes are dead at all, however. Many Native Americans still pursue these goals and occasionally enjoy victories, while the other cause has changed with the times and shifted focus from land to a more vague idea of reparations. > stimulus measures after the Great Depression, Communism I don't think those are dead at all. They may not be especially popular among normal people, but one can certainly get elected and openly preach violent revolutionary ideology like "We are coming to dismantle this deeply oppressive, racist, sexist, violent, utterly bankrupt system of capitalism, this police state. We cannot and will not stop until we overthrow it and replace it with a world based instead on solidarity, genuine democracy, and equality – a socialist world." [0] The organizers of BLM have explicitly stated that they are "trained organizers, trained Marxists" in the context of BLM's having adequate ideological direction. [1][2] [0] https://www.socialistalternative.org/2020/07/07/kshama-sawant-tax-amazon-victory-speech/ https://www.socialistalternative.org/2020/07/07/kshama-sawan... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDqObO44e9s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDqObO44e9s [2] https://therealnews.com/pcullors0722blacklives https://therealnews.com/pcullors0722blacklives
jimmygrapes 6y ago
I find it odd that most of this could have been prevented if just one judge had said "you know what, you have a lot of notarized affidavits, and a reasonable claim to harm considering you lost the election by conventional wisdom, and you can't legally access any further data to prove your case unless we enter a discovery stage, so, sure, let's play this out and be done with it." I also find it odd that none of the lawsuits prevented combined the affidavits (generally considered sufficient evidence to proceed) and reasonable proof of harm. Always one or the other (or neither).
- alwayseasy 6y ago
  Or maybe the legal team lied to the public and were truthful to the 50 different judges?
Khaine 6y ago
You mean how one side for the last four years has said that Trump "stole" the election due to Russian interference. The fact is, this is all whataboutism. This is all due to instructional failure. Americans increasing do not trust the institutions, the media, the government, 'elites'. This lack of trust is the root cause for growing conspiracy theories. The answer to this is not to stifle speech, but to have more speech. After all, sunlight is the best disinfectant.
- alwayseasy 6y ago
  The Intelligence Committee of a Republican-led Senate confirmed the Russian interference and managed to write a 996 page report with all the evidence. The failure I see is Americans not wanting to read (or skim) the reports but being satisfied with sound-bites. Source: https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu...
  - Khaine 6y ago
    Couple of things: 1) I'm not an American and don't give a shit about American politics 2) Do you think that Russian interference changed the result of the election? If it didn't than the huffing and puffing about the Russians stealing the election is just as false as Trump's current claims 3) Trump supporters can equally point to affidavits and "evidence" about vote tampering. Whether you believe that evidence or not is another story. My point was not about trump or biden stealing the election, it was that institutional trust is low. People no longer believe what the government or the media put out. No doubt some of this is driven by the "narrative approach" to truth, where everything tells a story that aligns to a group's ideology.

antibuddy 6y ago

However, what if the election really was fraudulent? I mean the video in Georgia after the election observer were sent home, were pretty incriminating. Also seeing how BLM got backing and did way more damage, makes this all look pretty one-sided. It's only okay if they do it.

alwayseasy 6y ago
Interestingly, the democrats would have fixed the elections but only managed to win the Senate in a tight run-off? After spending $100 million, the Trump campaign's legal team found no admissible evidence of election fraud, just videos they can use for future campaigns attacking democracy.
- confidantlake 6y ago
  What is happening to this site? The comment above is alleging election fraud, which has been debunked by multiple court rulings from judges across the political spectrum. It is not downvoted, flagged, nothing. The comment responding it to it gets downvoted?
  - edbob 6y ago
    My best guess is that liberals stopped reading higher in the thread. I would hope that moderates and conservatives would not find those claims very credible, but perhaps they do or are not so offended as to downvote. I was personally fine with the integrity of the election right up until censorship ramped up. Now I have zero confidence that I would hear about any problems. I still don't think the election was "stolen" or anything, but I'm no longer confident enough to downvote such an opinion. How are we supposed to really know what's true or not when we only hear one side of the story?
    - yongjik 6y ago
      What censorship? The president himself was saying the election was stolen from him for two months and that was basically the only thing the nightly news talked about (other than COVID) every day. At some point we should be able to say "Enough, evidence or GTFO," without being accused of silencing discussion. We're way past that point.
      - antibuddy 6y ago
        How is the video in Georgia debunked? They sent observers home (even a big newslet posted this on Twitter at that time), counted the ballots afterwards and Biden had a spike. And btw I am from Germany, so I am on neither "camp".
        alwayseasy 6y ago
        No you saw a conspiracy theory peddled by Rudy Giuliani, the man in charge of the Trump legal challenge to the election. The video is so wrongly interpreted, Republicans were the first one to debunk it. It's important to note, in a video, when someone leaves the screen or the room... you can't assume they've been sent home. More info here: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/dec/04/facebook-posts/no-georgia-election-workers-didnt-kick-out-observe/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/dec/04/facebook-p...
      - edbob 6y ago
        I don't know anything about what the nightly news ran. All I know is that when my news sources got around to talking about it, a couple days later it's "oh I have to be very careful what I say about this, I already got a notice threatening a ban". From my perspective, the period of free discussion was extremely limited. I'm not at all sympathetic to the "we have to crush this viewpoint" camp since they amplified Hillary's claims of a "stolen election" for years. [0] You can't tell just one side "evidence or GTFO" and expect anyone to take you seriously. Especially when the new narrative is that elections are fair and unstealable, which directly contradicts the claims of an unfair stolen election in 2016. [0] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/05/06/hillary-clinton-warns-2020-democratic-candidates-stolen-election/1116477001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019...
  - alwayseasy 6y ago
    From experience, evidence-based conversations here are limited when it comes to politics unfortunately.
vkou 6y ago
Let's take this a step further. What if the Democrats are, as QAnon suggests, indeed baby-blood-drinking monsters who perform human sacrifices for the glory of Beelzebub, and the only way to stop them is immediate action by patriots? Sure, there's no systemic evidence that this is taking place, but what if there was? Surely, baselessly and self-servingly casting doubt on the legitimacy of the electoral process in a democracy is a small price to pay, to protect ourselves from the possibility that our immortal souls will be handed over to an Ekronic demon.

edbob 6y ago

Nothing will pour more gas on that fire than censorship. I basically agree with your analysis on that point, and I'm resentful of Trump for helping to create that problem. But I consider big tech censorship to be the first step to an inevitable end of democracy, "destroying it in order to save it".

alwayseasy 6y ago
It's a really hard problem because the "anti-censorship" argument is also used by the side that wants to destroy democracy once in power. Historically, Americans have succeeded at destroying ideologies by grossly impeding on free speech and other constitutional rights when there was political will. Currently, I'm not sure there is a sign of political will to restore democratic norms by suppressing white-supremacism.
- edbob 6y ago
  > Historically, Americans have succeeded at destroying ideologies by grossly impeding on free speech and other constitutional rights when there was political will. What is the history here?
  - alwayseasy 6y ago
    Native American autonomy and agency, African Americans obtaining land after the Civil War or stimulus measures after the Great Depression, Communism... Of course, the combination of limiting free speech for decades leads to the death of the ideology because no one picks it up.
    - edbob 6y ago
      > Native American autonomy and agency, African Americans obtaining land after the Civil War Unfortunately these were suppressed with violence, far more than mere censorship. I don't think these causes are dead at all, however. Many Native Americans still pursue these goals and occasionally enjoy victories, while the other cause has changed with the times and shifted focus from land to a more vague idea of reparations. > stimulus measures after the Great Depression, Communism I don't think those are dead at all. They may not be especially popular among normal people, but one can certainly get elected and openly preach violent revolutionary ideology like "We are coming to dismantle this deeply oppressive, racist, sexist, violent, utterly bankrupt system of capitalism, this police state. We cannot and will not stop until we overthrow it and replace it with a world based instead on solidarity, genuine democracy, and equality – a socialist world." [0] The organizers of BLM have explicitly stated that they are "trained organizers, trained Marxists" in the context of BLM's having adequate ideological direction. [1][2] [0] https://www.socialistalternative.org/2020/07/07/kshama-sawant-tax-amazon-victory-speech/ https://www.socialistalternative.org/2020/07/07/kshama-sawan... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDqObO44e9s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDqObO44e9s [2] https://therealnews.com/pcullors0722blacklives https://therealnews.com/pcullors0722blacklives

jimmygrapes 6y ago

I find it odd that most of this could have been prevented if just one judge had said "you know what, you have a lot of notarized affidavits, and a reasonable claim to harm considering you lost the election by conventional wisdom, and you can't legally access any further data to prove your case unless we enter a discovery stage, so, sure, let's play this out and be done with it." I also find it odd that none of the lawsuits prevented combined the affidavits (generally considered sufficient evidence to proceed) and reasonable proof of harm. Always one or the other (or neither).

alwayseasy 6y ago
Or maybe the legal team lied to the public and were truthful to the 50 different judges?

Khaine 6y ago

You mean how one side for the last four years has said that Trump "stole" the election due to Russian interference. The fact is, this is all whataboutism. This is all due to instructional failure. Americans increasing do not trust the institutions, the media, the government, 'elites'. This lack of trust is the root cause for growing conspiracy theories. The answer to this is not to stifle speech, but to have more speech. After all, sunlight is the best disinfectant.

alwayseasy 6y ago
The Intelligence Committee of a Republican-led Senate confirmed the Russian interference and managed to write a 996 page report with all the evidence. The failure I see is Americans not wanting to read (or skim) the reports but being satisfied with sound-bites. Source: https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu...
- Khaine 6y ago
  Couple of things: 1) I'm not an American and don't give a shit about American politics 2) Do you think that Russian interference changed the result of the election? If it didn't than the huffing and puffing about the Russians stealing the election is just as false as Trump's current claims 3) Trump supporters can equally point to affidavits and "evidence" about vote tampering. Whether you believe that evidence or not is another story. My point was not about trump or biden stealing the election, it was that institutional trust is low. People no longer believe what the government or the media put out. No doubt some of this is driven by the "narrative approach" to truth, where everything tells a story that aligns to a group's ideology.