9 ms·

I think this is an important point. Many of us here live in cities, but in rural America there is a stunning amount of people who really believe that Joe Biden

I think this is an important point. Many of us here live in cities, but in rural America there is a stunning amount of people who really believe that Joe Biden lost the 2020 election and that there was a massive, coordinated campaign of voter fraud. In many dominantly red states, this is not considered a fringe conspiracy theory but more or less generally accepted as fact.

adventured 4y ago
- pstuart 4y ago
  It was an attempted insurrection -- there's plenty of evidence to support that.
  - bandyaboot 4y ago
    It was an actual realized insurrection. Were you meaning to say it was an attempted coup?
    - pstuart 4y ago
      Yes, it was an attempted coup. I fear the next one will be better executed.
phpisthebest 4y ago
The solution to that is not suppression of the idea(s), in fact attempts to suppress anyone talking about the election only serve as fuel to expand the number of people that believe it, as "what are they trying to hide" becomes of the main part of the story. Greater, and Actual Transparency combined with a trust worthily network of news outlets would go along way to shut down these types of discussions Sadly we have neither government nor really judicial transparency in any meaningful way, and we are at a point in time where trust in "news" is lower than trust in congress... Want to tone down the number of people that believe in conspiracy... More Facts, less Spin...
- ethbr0 4y ago
  > More Facts, less Spin What the United States needs to target is the economics of news. Actual news. Not infotainment. Don't attempt to regulate good/bad news: economically incentivize good reporting and disincentivize bad reporting. The market will follow. If 24/7 news channels weren't profitable... there wouldn't be any 24/7 news channels.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    Well as we have seen in this Alex Jones case, and other recent defamation cases it seems both the public and the legal system are turning from "defamation is almost impossible to win" to something else the Economics of news is going to be very different is media can not hide by "anonymous sources" and "it is just opinion" while spreading lies about individuals or events. I think the next cases may find more well known news outlets in the defendants chair of defamation action
- pstuart 4y ago
  > Want to tone down the number of people that believe in conspiracy... More Facts, less Spin... Really? More facts will change their minds? Who will they trust with those facts? This is bordering on cult-like behavior and it shows no signs of improving -- I'm not optimistic about this at all.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    Trust is built over decades, and torn down in minutes. News outlets (on both sides) have been caught in multiple partisans lies, disinformation, and spin/suppression of inconvenient facts for "their side" for many years now, this has eroded the trust in media and makes presentation of facts harder. Neither side wants to acknowledge anything that would be seen as supporting the position of the "others" So in the context of the election, you have one side that refuses to concede that Biden was elected by the people, but you also have the other side refusing to concede that because of COVID and other factors the 2020 election has some pretty non-standard events that (while not impacting the outcome of the presidential election) is the basis of the questioning of the integrity of the election, instead we have people saying the 2020 was the freest, fairest election in all of history because their side won.. neither position is true or healthy, and both position have Cult-Like behavior
rayiner 4y ago
- tptacek 4y ago
  We conducted an undisputed (and still somewhat close) presidential election in 1944, in the middle of World War 2, just prior to the Battle of the Bulge and with half a million servicepeople in the Solomon Islands and the Philippines. But somehow we're meant to dignify the objections of gullible voters who don't understand how a drop-off box works. Spare us.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    FDR was a popular President who had already won 3 elections by landslide margins, and won a fourth term by 400+ electoral votes. And of course wars have a uniquely unifying effect on populations. You could make a similarly flippant remark about people not knowing how electronic voting machines work. At the end of the day, the Taiwanese, French, etc., don’t count votes the way they do for funsies.
philliphaydon 4y ago
- tjr225 4y ago
- bandyaboot 4y ago
  Read the Mueller report. Read the Report on Russian interference in the 2016 elections from the Republican controlled Senate Intelligence Committee. The difference is that one has a tremendous amount of supporting evidence. The other has none.
  - roenxi 4y ago
    Here is [0] a copy of the Muller report. It is vague, as is usual for political hit jobs. There is hard evidence that someone leaked truthful statements out of the DNC, which is a major political scandal (honest accounting of what the {R|D}NC if thinking? Available to the public?! heaven forfend, that is not how journalism is done). Which bits of evidence in it do you think are compelling, actionable and importat? Bearing in mind that the evidence is so uncompelling that right-wing advocates bring up the Muller report more than left-wing ones and you're probably going to get some resistance whatever you pick out. The introduction and summary are mostly fluff and allusion, so I'm not bothering reading the whole thing unless you want to point to something specific. [0] https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/18/mueller-report-searchable.pdf https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/18/mueller-report-sea...
    - bandyaboot 4y ago
      You’re responding to “Read the Mueller report.” With [I’m not going to read the Mueller report]. Thanks for letting me know. I mean, honestly, you’re bothered by lack of details so because of that…you’re choosing not to read the parts where one would expect to find the details.
      - roenxi 4y ago
adamredwoods 4y ago
Not only accepted as fact, but some US states starting to initiate laws around it: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-may-2022 https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voti...
- TaylorAlexander 4y ago
  It always seemed like that was the intent. Republicans know that restricting voting rights helps them, and Trump moved the needle significantly with his work to do that. His super PAC raised something like $160m post election, so someone may have been paying for him to do all that.

adventured 4y ago

pstuart 4y ago
It was an attempted insurrection -- there's plenty of evidence to support that.
- bandyaboot 4y ago
  It was an actual realized insurrection. Were you meaning to say it was an attempted coup?
  - pstuart 4y ago
    Yes, it was an attempted coup. I fear the next one will be better executed.

phpisthebest 4y ago

The solution to that is not suppression of the idea(s), in fact attempts to suppress anyone talking about the election only serve as fuel to expand the number of people that believe it, as "what are they trying to hide" becomes of the main part of the story. Greater, and Actual Transparency combined with a trust worthily network of news outlets would go along way to shut down these types of discussions Sadly we have neither government nor really judicial transparency in any meaningful way, and we are at a point in time where trust in "news" is lower than trust in congress... Want to tone down the number of people that believe in conspiracy... More Facts, less Spin...

ethbr0 4y ago
> More Facts, less Spin What the United States needs to target is the economics of news. Actual news. Not infotainment. Don't attempt to regulate good/bad news: economically incentivize good reporting and disincentivize bad reporting. The market will follow. If 24/7 news channels weren't profitable... there wouldn't be any 24/7 news channels.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  Well as we have seen in this Alex Jones case, and other recent defamation cases it seems both the public and the legal system are turning from "defamation is almost impossible to win" to something else the Economics of news is going to be very different is media can not hide by "anonymous sources" and "it is just opinion" while spreading lies about individuals or events. I think the next cases may find more well known news outlets in the defendants chair of defamation action
pstuart 4y ago
> Want to tone down the number of people that believe in conspiracy... More Facts, less Spin... Really? More facts will change their minds? Who will they trust with those facts? This is bordering on cult-like behavior and it shows no signs of improving -- I'm not optimistic about this at all.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  Trust is built over decades, and torn down in minutes. News outlets (on both sides) have been caught in multiple partisans lies, disinformation, and spin/suppression of inconvenient facts for "their side" for many years now, this has eroded the trust in media and makes presentation of facts harder. Neither side wants to acknowledge anything that would be seen as supporting the position of the "others" So in the context of the election, you have one side that refuses to concede that Biden was elected by the people, but you also have the other side refusing to concede that because of COVID and other factors the 2020 election has some pretty non-standard events that (while not impacting the outcome of the presidential election) is the basis of the questioning of the integrity of the election, instead we have people saying the 2020 was the freest, fairest election in all of history because their side won.. neither position is true or healthy, and both position have Cult-Like behavior

rayiner 4y ago

tptacek 4y ago
We conducted an undisputed (and still somewhat close) presidential election in 1944, in the middle of World War 2, just prior to the Battle of the Bulge and with half a million servicepeople in the Solomon Islands and the Philippines. But somehow we're meant to dignify the objections of gullible voters who don't understand how a drop-off box works. Spare us.
- rayiner 4y ago
  FDR was a popular President who had already won 3 elections by landslide margins, and won a fourth term by 400+ electoral votes. And of course wars have a uniquely unifying effect on populations. You could make a similarly flippant remark about people not knowing how electronic voting machines work. At the end of the day, the Taiwanese, French, etc., don’t count votes the way they do for funsies.

philliphaydon 4y ago

tjr225 4y ago
bandyaboot 4y ago
Read the Mueller report. Read the Report on Russian interference in the 2016 elections from the Republican controlled Senate Intelligence Committee. The difference is that one has a tremendous amount of supporting evidence. The other has none.
- roenxi 4y ago
  Here is [0] a copy of the Muller report. It is vague, as is usual for political hit jobs. There is hard evidence that someone leaked truthful statements out of the DNC, which is a major political scandal (honest accounting of what the {R|D}NC if thinking? Available to the public?! heaven forfend, that is not how journalism is done). Which bits of evidence in it do you think are compelling, actionable and importat? Bearing in mind that the evidence is so uncompelling that right-wing advocates bring up the Muller report more than left-wing ones and you're probably going to get some resistance whatever you pick out. The introduction and summary are mostly fluff and allusion, so I'm not bothering reading the whole thing unless you want to point to something specific. [0] https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/18/mueller-report-searchable.pdf https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/18/mueller-report-sea...
  - bandyaboot 4y ago
    You’re responding to “Read the Mueller report.” With [I’m not going to read the Mueller report]. Thanks for letting me know. I mean, honestly, you’re bothered by lack of details so because of that…you’re choosing not to read the parts where one would expect to find the details.
    - roenxi 4y ago

adamredwoods 4y ago

Not only accepted as fact, but some US states starting to initiate laws around it: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-may-2022 https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voti...

TaylorAlexander 4y ago
It always seemed like that was the intent. Republicans know that restricting voting rights helps them, and Trump moved the needle significantly with his work to do that. His super PAC raised something like $160m post election, so someone may have been paying for him to do all that.