Cont: 2020 Presidential Election part 3

[Emily's Cat]

I do think that Emily's Cat seems to be quite careful in parsing claims about Trump but quite footloose when describing the actions of Democrats. It does not result in a fair comparison and weakens her claim that both sides are driven by partisanship to similar degree.

I thought I was pretty footloose about both of them.

 

[johnny karate]

As a general comment... "according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity" and similar vagaries tend to make me less than certain of what I'm reading.

The statement appeared on the official government Twitter account of the House Oversight Committee.

If you had the slightest interest in learning the truth, you would already know this.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

They will be recounting the presidential race and all other offices on these ballots I assume?
Because if ballot counting was wrong it's wrong for all seats on that ballot right?

I got the impression it was just the top of the ticket.

 

[johnny karate]

They made a large enough claim about it to prompt an investigation of it.

The claim of Russian interference came from and was verified by the intelligence community and the investigation into it was initiated by Republicans.

You’re just embarrassing yourself now.

 

[Emily's Cat]

In the current political climate, to see both sides as the same it basically requires people to always interpret Republicans in the best light possible while also interpreting Democrats in the worst light possible.

Not exactly. It requires that when one is presented with whitewashed interpretations of one of the parties, one make an effort to evaluate a more nefarious possible interpretation than is being shown. And if one is presented with a malicious interpretation of one of the parties, one make an effort to evaluate a more benign possible interpretation than is being shown.

The challenge here is that ISF is generally left-leaning, which is fine overall. But the claim to skepticism seems to get pocketed when it comes to politics. Democrats' are consistently presented by the vast bulk of posters in a whitewashed light, and Republicans in a malicious light.

This tendency has been present for as long as I've been a member here, and probably long before that. But it has become significantly stronger since 2016.

 

[Emily's Cat]

We don't need alt history. We need only look back to 2016. With smaller margins, Clinton conceded defeat right away. No law suits. No denial of privileges for transfer of power. No Dem senators refusing to refer to Trump as President Elect.

Yet again, you're operating in counter-factual mode, riding a phony baloney centrist high horse.

Clinton conceded, yes. As an individual. Because even though I dislike her as a person, she's a lot smarter than Trump and a hell of a lot less of a blowhard. But also because the margins in key states were larger than they are in this election.

But there were multiple protests and marches from democrats opposed to Trump taking office.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Unfortunately, if they uncover a few isolated, statistically insignificant accusations of fraud with any merit, a mountain of utter ******** heaped up beside it will be both implied to be, and inferred to be, just as valid.

This is already being done. Fox News talking heads and other alt-right sources are using said incidents to mislead their cultists.

Meanwhile the non-cultists have a different opinion.

The Hill: Poll: Nearly 8 in 10 Americans say Biden won, despite Trump refusing to concede

according to a Reuers/Ipsos poll released Tuesday.

 

[Paul2]

Here is what is happening in PA. (Link is to Yahoo News story).



They have nothing but allegations and "concerned citizens" who have no other reason for thinking that their state's popular vote is in question except what Trump and the GOP has fed them. But, based on that, they want to take "extraordinary measures" to override the electoral system they themselves (the legislature's GOP majority) set up.

Now, it's not likely that this will actually come to anything- as the article explains, it's the state's governor who "appoints electors, in accordance with the state’s popular vote returns." And that governor is a Democrat. But it's the mindset here that is concerning- the way this body of government seems so willing to just set aside a popular vote (that, as of now, has Biden up by a little under 50,000, with votes yet to count), for no other reason than that they don't like the results. And this is from the party that ostensibly wants the voter to have confidence in the integrity of their electoral process...while they're exploring avenues that will let them just set aside what those voters in that process have said.

I haven't been too concerned about Trump and his GOP enablers actually being able to bully their way to a win- and I'm still not overly concerned. But there's a scenario still in play here that's not an impossible one. If they somehow succeed in their "extraordinary measures" in PA, then, via recount, erase Biden's current 14,000 vote lead in GA, then all they need is AZ (where Biden's lead has shrunk to just under 13,000) and hanky-pank NV somehow to overcome or erase Biden's 36,000 vote lead there. Bam- by my math, with AK called today, that gives Trump 270 EC votes.

All very unlikely; but then, it's not that long ago when I would have thought that one of America's two major political parties even considering this sort of ******* was unlikely.

i cant imagine a scenario in which that happens, though, at the state level, given the Dem. governor.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Many people are still firmly convinced that Trump had direct coordinated activity with Russia in order to steal the 2016 election, and that the pee tapes are real.

People believe whatever they need to believe in order to assuage their emotional distress. And at this point, politics in the US is not at all about logic or reason, it's almost entirely about emotions. It's not identity politics anymore, it's political identity.

More false equivalence.

 

[johnny karate]

Not exactly. It requires that when one is presented with whitewashed interpretations of one of the parties, one make an effort to evaluate a more nefarious possible interpretation than is being shown. And if one is presented with a malicious interpretation of one of the parties, one make an effort to evaluate a more benign possible interpretation than is being shown.

The challenge here is that ISF is generally left-leaning, which is fine overall. But the claim to skepticism seems to get pocketed when it comes to politics. Democrats' are consistently presented by the vast bulk of posters in a whitewashed light, and Republicans in a malicious light.

This tendency has been present for as long as I've been a member here, and probably long before that. But it has become significantly stronger since 2016.

A lecture about skepticism from someone who a short while ago claimed that the investigation in Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election originated with and was coordinated by Democrats as a means to dispute the results.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'm not so certain. They may not have claimed it to be fraudulent, but I give it good odds that they would be challenging the votes in pretty much the same way in any state that was close. It's a difference in tactic, not in strategy.

I don't understand. The margins in 2016 were smaller than the margins this year, and Democrats didn't challenge the votes then.

I'm not sure what you are giving odds on.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Your lame bothsidesism continues to be unimpressive and unconvincing.

Your lame ad hominems and personal attacks continue to lack reason and logic.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I don't understand. The margins in 2016 were smaller than the margins this year, and Democrats didn't challenge the votes then.

I'm not sure what you are giving odds on.

A look at EC's body of work might shed light on EC's current posts.

 

[timhau]

I'm not so certain. They may not have claimed it to be fraudulent, but I give it good odds that they would be challenging the votes in pretty much the same way in any state that was close. It's a difference in tactic, not in strategy.

Just an idea: instead of the bothsidesism, you could actually look at what happened in 2016, when several states were very close.

 

[johnny karate]

Clinton conceded, yes. As an individual. Because even though I dislike her as a person, she's a lot smarter than Trump and a hell of a lot less of a blowhard. But also because the margins in key states were larger than they are in this election.

But there were multiple protests and marches from democrats opposed to Trump taking office.

Yes, the thing we’re specifically talking about didn’t occur, but this totally different other thing did!

 

[Emily's Cat]

The statement appeared on the official government Twitter account of the House Oversight Committee.

Stacyhs didn't provide a link, she only mentioned a WAPO article and provided a quote.

If you had the slightest interest in learning the truth, you would already know this.

Please stop these incessant insinuations. They are nothing more than personal attacks.

 

[Meadmaker]

But also because the margins in key states were larger than they are in this election.

There's the error. They aren't.

Things seem closer this year because it took so much longer to count, and because the lead changed hands in several swing states. In fact, they aren't even done counting the first time, but in fact the margins are larger this time.


(Now I have to go look that up to be sure I'm right.....)

 

[acbytesla]

Even engineers and educators and other professionals apparently able to apply critical thinking skills in other areas can allow their critical thinking skills to be overpowered by their emotional and psychological needs.

Understood. But I think that lends support to my case that labeling them as “morons” is simplistic.

Eddie is right. Labeling people as morons that are locked into confirmation bias is a mistake. Read "The Believing Brain"

All of have us have biases. We can train ourselves to overcome some of them, but we will never eliminate all of them. The best example of that IMV is Albert Einstein's reluctance to accept Quantum Physics. Even when he finally conceded that this theory had merit, he did so in language that showed his doubt.

 

[johnny karate]

Your lame ad hominems and personal attacks continue to lack reason and logic.

Pretty much everyone is explaining to you why you’re wrong and why no one buys your pretense of being politically neutral.

Playing the victim isn’t a particularly compelling response.

Try making better, less disingenuous arguments that actually align with facts and reality.

 

[johnny karate]

Stacyhs didn't provide a link, she only mentioned a WAPO article and provided a quote.

Luckily, you don’t let something like ignorance of the facts prevent you from forming an opinion.

Please stop these incessant insinuations. They are nothing more than personal attacks.

Please make less terrible arguments.