5 ms·

This is insane. One side is doing everything they can to rig elections and even tried to overthrow the government and end the democratic process. And then the o

This is insane. One side is doing everything they can to rig elections and even tried to overthrow the government and end the democratic process. And then the other side is judged for being taken aback by that? Are we supposed to pretend like nothing is happening?

raxxorrax 5y ago
I firmly believe that people from the old establishment abused intelligence work against a political opposition with lies that were picked up by media without a single ounce of sensible criticism. This was such a huge scandal that I cannot condemn anyone that seriously believed that elections were manipulate, maybe Trump himself believed it since it was rather blatant. You are allowed to dislike Trump of course and his behavior relating to giving up power. But that is very much shadowed by using federal agencies to get dirt on people. That isn't democratic at all, it is dirtiest political play and I think more than some people have lost their mask.
- voz_ 5y ago
  I've lost the thread, can you explain what you mean? Who used which agencies?
- tshaddox 5y ago
  Whatever accusations you’re hinting at in your first sentence, they don’t seem to have anything to do with rigging an election even if they’re true.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- isoskeles 5y ago
  I honestly can't tell the difference between when people are talking about QAnon or BlueAnon unless a specific event is stated that would give me more context. Seems like others cannot tell the difference either.
lucian1900 5y ago
Mostly aesthetic and cultural differences. Both lie about other countries, threaten war, perform coups and bomb other countries. The US democrats exist to divert any worker resistance into channels they can then sabotage. In many ways they're more right wing than the US Republicans, especially when it comes to foreign policy.
belorn 5y ago
It is about framing the issue. A lot of people perceived the event as a bunch of hillbillies dressed up like Indians that illegally stormed a building, rather than an actually believable threat to the democratic process. They don't see anything that is even look like the end of the democratic process. It is one of the many political topics that has a strong polarizing effect, which in turn results in hate and anger.
- Nursie 5y ago
  "The Event" isn't the whole of it though, Trump tried a lot of different ways to try to get the result overturned. The events of Jan 6th are only a small part of the picture. They may not have been a believable threat. But trying to strong-arm more votes out of various places, refusal to concede, throwing around unfounded allegations of mass cheating, constantly, and then the mountain of lawsuits and talking heads... it's beyond the pale. If they don't see that threat, when would they? Because from here it looks far more like they don't care so long as it's their guy. And that's scary.
  - belorn 5y ago
    Different people will have different thresholds, through I would suspect that people will start to react if the military started to take political sides. I can only speculate, but I think a lot of people tune out when most of the events occur on twitter or in political speeches. I think also that people got a bit desensitized to mountains of lawsuits occurring from the whole period between 2016 and forward (a trend that might have started even earlier). The details are different but if people are toned out then they won't be listening to hear the details. It is generally hard to make people care about a threat that they don't perceive, and even more if they view the whole process as being done by fools and jesters. The many Capitol Building riots memes is a good example where people are mostly joking about how incompetent the people involved was, rather than portraying a realistic and scary threat. It is hard to have a more polarization response than one side laughing because they see fools and the other being scared because they see a realistic threat.
    - 5y ago
sleepysysadmin 5y ago
>This is insane. One side is doing everything they can to rig elections The democrats? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGRnhBmHYN0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGRnhBmHYN0 that's not a gaffe. If you assert it's a gaffe, you must now explain a ton more. >And then the other side is judged for being taken aback by that? Are we supposed to pretend like nothing is happening? Someone could blame the media but that's beside the point. The USA is more divided today that I have ever seen it. According to articles ive read, the divide is larger today than it has been since the civil war. Thusly probable that another civil war is coming but oh boy is this one ever going to be one sided.
- ryandvm 5y ago
  Of course it's a gaffe. Biden is visibly affected by senility. How could you think it's anything but a gaffe? Do you really think that if he was aware of systematic voter fraud strategy being developed that he would actually give a speech about it?
  - sleepysysadmin 5y ago
    >Of course it's a gaffe. I don't see it that way. Let's discuss the gaffe deeper, as I said it requires significantly more explanation. >Biden is visibly affected by senility. I'm not a doctor and haven't diagnosed him this way. I don't believe this is public knowledge that he has been diagnosed as such. What makes you believe he has dementia? What kind? This statement scares me to no end, you believe the person in charge of the largest nuclear weapon arsenal has dementia? That would need to be fixed asap if true. I don't believe it to be true. >How could you think it's anything but a gaffe? So lets get into it. If it's a gaffe, what's the gaffe. It would be egregious to give him the benefit of the doubt to the point where you don't even investigate. The gaffe can go either way, he could have just meant that they have an organization to get people engaged and voting. That would be way past the line and not appropriate to jump there. The other way the gaffe can be seen. There is a voting fraud organization and plan and the gaffe is that he accidentally admitted to it. He shouldn't have admitted to it. I could believe this level of gaffe, it's not unreasonable. It unfortunately admits to voted fraud. >Do you really think that if he was aware of systematic voter fraud strategy being developed that he would actually give a speech about it? He wasn't giving a speech about it. It was an accidental admission. Slip of the tongue, freudian slip, whatever you would like to call it. It has nothing to do with dementia. He was under immense pressure running an election during a pandemic. The hallmark of a freudian slip is that they generate out of thought supressions. He knew he can't admit to voting fraud, and was trying to suppress the thought. Now here's the thing. It's simple to solve this problem. Elections have far more to do with appearance. Democrats having heard Biden admit to voting fraud had to come out and be above board. The entire process needed to be beyond question. No drama, no nothing. They needed to make sure the process was transparent as possible. Give the republicans nothing that might question the legitimacy of the election. Unfortunately they didnt do that. They hated trump so much they needed him to lose. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/05/technology/michigan-election-ballot-counting.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/05/technology/michigan-elect... Nytimes is obviously biased, but stuff like this however is the opposite of transparent. Literally it's opaque. There's no simple reason, there's no reason at all to block the windows. Add on top of that they threw out multiple republican observers for various reasons. Most republican observers were denied access. Nobody will ever know if the election was stolen. As I said above, the republicans made it very clear they believe the election was stolen by their actions. It's just that right, it sure looks like the election was stolen.

raxxorrax 5y ago

I firmly believe that people from the old establishment abused intelligence work against a political opposition with lies that were picked up by media without a single ounce of sensible criticism. This was such a huge scandal that I cannot condemn anyone that seriously believed that elections were manipulate, maybe Trump himself believed it since it was rather blatant. You are allowed to dislike Trump of course and his behavior relating to giving up power. But that is very much shadowed by using federal agencies to get dirt on people. That isn't democratic at all, it is dirtiest political play and I think more than some people have lost their mask.

voz_ 5y ago
I've lost the thread, can you explain what you mean? Who used which agencies?
tshaddox 5y ago
Whatever accusations you’re hinting at in your first sentence, they don’t seem to have anything to do with rigging an election even if they’re true.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
isoskeles 5y ago
I honestly can't tell the difference between when people are talking about QAnon or BlueAnon unless a specific event is stated that would give me more context. Seems like others cannot tell the difference either.

lucian1900 5y ago

Mostly aesthetic and cultural differences. Both lie about other countries, threaten war, perform coups and bomb other countries. The US democrats exist to divert any worker resistance into channels they can then sabotage. In many ways they're more right wing than the US Republicans, especially when it comes to foreign policy.

belorn 5y ago

It is about framing the issue. A lot of people perceived the event as a bunch of hillbillies dressed up like Indians that illegally stormed a building, rather than an actually believable threat to the democratic process. They don't see anything that is even look like the end of the democratic process. It is one of the many political topics that has a strong polarizing effect, which in turn results in hate and anger.

Nursie 5y ago
"The Event" isn't the whole of it though, Trump tried a lot of different ways to try to get the result overturned. The events of Jan 6th are only a small part of the picture. They may not have been a believable threat. But trying to strong-arm more votes out of various places, refusal to concede, throwing around unfounded allegations of mass cheating, constantly, and then the mountain of lawsuits and talking heads... it's beyond the pale. If they don't see that threat, when would they? Because from here it looks far more like they don't care so long as it's their guy. And that's scary.
- belorn 5y ago
  Different people will have different thresholds, through I would suspect that people will start to react if the military started to take political sides. I can only speculate, but I think a lot of people tune out when most of the events occur on twitter or in political speeches. I think also that people got a bit desensitized to mountains of lawsuits occurring from the whole period between 2016 and forward (a trend that might have started even earlier). The details are different but if people are toned out then they won't be listening to hear the details. It is generally hard to make people care about a threat that they don't perceive, and even more if they view the whole process as being done by fools and jesters. The many Capitol Building riots memes is a good example where people are mostly joking about how incompetent the people involved was, rather than portraying a realistic and scary threat. It is hard to have a more polarization response than one side laughing because they see fools and the other being scared because they see a realistic threat.
  - 5y ago

sleepysysadmin 5y ago

>This is insane. One side is doing everything they can to rig elections The democrats? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGRnhBmHYN0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGRnhBmHYN0 that's not a gaffe. If you assert it's a gaffe, you must now explain a ton more. >And then the other side is judged for being taken aback by that? Are we supposed to pretend like nothing is happening? Someone could blame the media but that's beside the point. The USA is more divided today that I have ever seen it. According to articles ive read, the divide is larger today than it has been since the civil war. Thusly probable that another civil war is coming but oh boy is this one ever going to be one sided.

ryandvm 5y ago
Of course it's a gaffe. Biden is visibly affected by senility. How could you think it's anything but a gaffe? Do you really think that if he was aware of systematic voter fraud strategy being developed that he would actually give a speech about it?
- sleepysysadmin 5y ago
  >Of course it's a gaffe. I don't see it that way. Let's discuss the gaffe deeper, as I said it requires significantly more explanation. >Biden is visibly affected by senility. I'm not a doctor and haven't diagnosed him this way. I don't believe this is public knowledge that he has been diagnosed as such. What makes you believe he has dementia? What kind? This statement scares me to no end, you believe the person in charge of the largest nuclear weapon arsenal has dementia? That would need to be fixed asap if true. I don't believe it to be true. >How could you think it's anything but a gaffe? So lets get into it. If it's a gaffe, what's the gaffe. It would be egregious to give him the benefit of the doubt to the point where you don't even investigate. The gaffe can go either way, he could have just meant that they have an organization to get people engaged and voting. That would be way past the line and not appropriate to jump there. The other way the gaffe can be seen. There is a voting fraud organization and plan and the gaffe is that he accidentally admitted to it. He shouldn't have admitted to it. I could believe this level of gaffe, it's not unreasonable. It unfortunately admits to voted fraud. >Do you really think that if he was aware of systematic voter fraud strategy being developed that he would actually give a speech about it? He wasn't giving a speech about it. It was an accidental admission. Slip of the tongue, freudian slip, whatever you would like to call it. It has nothing to do with dementia. He was under immense pressure running an election during a pandemic. The hallmark of a freudian slip is that they generate out of thought supressions. He knew he can't admit to voting fraud, and was trying to suppress the thought. Now here's the thing. It's simple to solve this problem. Elections have far more to do with appearance. Democrats having heard Biden admit to voting fraud had to come out and be above board. The entire process needed to be beyond question. No drama, no nothing. They needed to make sure the process was transparent as possible. Give the republicans nothing that might question the legitimacy of the election. Unfortunately they didnt do that. They hated trump so much they needed him to lose. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/05/technology/michigan-election-ballot-counting.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/05/technology/michigan-elect... Nytimes is obviously biased, but stuff like this however is the opposite of transparent. Literally it's opaque. There's no simple reason, there's no reason at all to block the windows. Add on top of that they threw out multiple republican observers for various reasons. Most republican observers were denied access. Nobody will ever know if the election was stolen. As I said above, the republicans made it very clear they believe the election was stolen by their actions. It's just that right, it sure looks like the election was stolen.