US Presidential Election 2020

[Brad Sallows]

"I don't like the opinion piece you cited, so I'm just going to point to this privately-run website as if it's some kind of W3 validation tool for truthiness."

Whataboutism: you did it before; I believe you'll do it again; why should I yield political advantage until you demonstrate good faith first?

If you disagree, grow a spine and engage with counter-arguments and facts, FFS.

 

[Remius]

"I don't like the opinion piece you cited, so I'm just going to point to this privately-run website as if it's some kind of W3 validation tool for truthiness."

Whataboutism: you did it before; I believe you'll do it again; why should I yield political advantage until you demonstrate good faith first?

If you disagree, grow a spine and engage with counter-arguments and facts, FFS.

Take a breath and calm down.

I posted it for context and for people to make up their own minds about the source.  I’ve posted many things with sources and arguments.  Clearly this touched a nerve.  Why is checking Or questioning the source of the information a bad thing?  Some people could do with more of that.

I have nothing against the opinion piece but who writes it and their credibility does.

 

[mariomike]

Take a breath and calm down.

I posted it for context and for people to make up their own minds about the source.  I’ve posted many things with sources and arguments.  Clearly this touched a nerve.  Why is checking Or questioning the source of the information a bad thing?  Some people could do with more of that.

I have nothing against the opinion piece but who writes it and their credibility does.

Especially when entire "articles" copy / pasted on here are from what are clearly alt-right (if that word still exists) propaganda churning disinformation sites.

 

[Remius]

Further to this is a piece from Axios. Any complaints about this source?https://www.axios.com/democrats-mail-voting-pivot-838522b7-8dac-42b4-a566-1ba93818654d.html
Straight from Joe Biden's Twitter account. Any heartache with Joe's words?
https://www.axios.com/democrats-mail-voting-pivot-838522b7-8dac-42b4-a566-1ba93818654d.html

No they seem factual and highly rated. And their argument isn’t quite the same.

A pivot is not the same as “realizing the danger of mail in ballots” that the Pj opinion piece is stating.

The Axios article is making the case that given the current climate with conspiracy theories from the right and a President spreading false info about rampant mass voter fraud that the democrats are encouraging early voting in person but nowhere does it state that they are against mail in voting.  They believe the president is trying to erode the validity of mail in ballots (which favours democrats as whole) so they are trying to get people to vote early enough.

This isn’t a told you so moment like PJ is stating.  It’s an adapting to a chaotic situation caused by one person.

 

[Jarnhamar]

"Mixed"? What is your source for that "quote", Jarnhamar?

That would be Media Bias Fact Check, from the very same site  Remis linked.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/

Reference this picture.

Overall, we rate CNN left biased based on editorial positions that consistently favors the left, while straight news reporting falls left-center through bias by omission. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to several failed fact checks by TV hosts. However, news reporting on the website tends to be properly sourced with minimal failed fact checks

Whataboutism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

lol
Kettle this is pot, radio check over.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Why is checking Or questioning the source of the information a bad thing?

It's tiresome scrolling past the same half-dozen posts on the theme "we (a bunch of people in a basement somewhere) rate blah blah blah" about opinion pieces, particularly when some of the underlying items are trending news that the people who worship at the mediabiasbasement altar evidently don't read widely enough to know about, and particularly for the material that originates with a (theoretically) more reliable agency.  The opinions expressed in the NYT and WaPo and on CNN and MSNBC and Fox don't carry any greater weight just because of whatever reputations their straight news departments hold.  (Well, scratch the NYT, in which the news department's monoculture decided the opinion shop had too many opinions, and the WaPo, where some of the staff started to try the same stunt.)

If you want to weigh in on the Democrats' recent about face on in-person voting, read about it.  If you want to weigh in on why bills are stalled in the House and/or Senate because of procedural wrangling and poison pills, read about the details.  If you want to weigh in on why mail-in balloting is under attack, do more than just whine about Trump undermining democracy - read about the custodial problems the USPO has had with ballots and the advice from jurisdictions that already competently do widespread by-mail voting to jurisdictions that want to do so to proceed cautiously or wait it out for this election until they have time to prepare properly.  Instead of fixating on the published article's ownership, consider the sources cited in an article - if altrightwebwars.com cites the NYT or FiveThirtyEight, it's the NYT's and FiveThirtyEight's  credibility you need to evaluate.

"Whataboutism" has become the cry of the hypocritical caught out in their hypocrisy, attempting to move from defence to attack by pointing out the "tu quoque" ad hominem fallacy.  But the essence of "whataboutism", as I've written before, isn't "what about the past", it's "what about the future".  They did it before; they will do it again; why should I believe their sincerity until they prove it when they're the ones with political advantage to lose?

 

[Donald H]

If you want to weigh in on the Democrats' recent about face on in-person voting, read about it.

It's become very doubtful that America still has the rule of law and the capacity to conduct a national vote anymore! A lot of which can be attributable to the Corona virus but a lot of which is Trump's malfeasance too.

Just imagine if this was happening in Canada!!

:cheers:

 

[Brad Sallows]

Axios: "Why it matters: Democrats are exponentially more likely to vote by mail than Republicans this year — and if enough mail-in ballots are lost, rejected on a technicality or undercounted, it could change the outcome of the presidential election or other key races."

Those problems antedate conspiracy theories du jour and Trump's anxieties.  Mailed ballots are more at risk of being mislaid than in-person ballots, and mailed ballots typically are rejected at higher rates (for errors) than in-person ballots.

That a few sacks of mail were found discarded and a handful of mailed ballots found discarded are objectively miniscule faults, but subjectively such incidents have a large impact on perceived (output) legitimacy.  Perceived legitimacy - trust - counts more than the objective measures.

There is also a custodial problem which can't be wished away.  The chain of custody for "shotgun" mail balloting is weaker than that of on-demand mail balloting, which in turn is weaker than that of in-person voting.  Repeated reports of the numbers of people improperly retained on registered voter lists, coupled with a tendency by Democrats to resist cleaning up voter rolls, weakens perceived legitimacy.  For that, Democrats have no-one but themselves to blame.  Those who want to increase the mechanisms of voting have the most interest in reassuring voters that the mechanisms are tamper-resistant - not by words, but by deeds - but they will not do so.

 

[Donald H]

Axios: "Why it matters: Democrats are exponentially more likely to vote by mail than Republicans this year — and if enough mail-in ballots are lost, rejected on a technicality or undercounted, it could change the outcome of the presidential election or other key races."

Those problems antedate conspiracy theories du jour and Trump's anxieties.  Mailed ballots are more at risk of being mislaid than in-person ballots, and mailed ballots typically are rejected at higher rates (for errors) than in-person ballots.

That a few sacks of mail were found discarded and a handful of mailed ballots found discarded are objectively miniscule faults, but subjectively such incidents have a large impact on perceived (output) legitimacy.  Perceived legitimacy - trust - counts more than the objective measures.

There is also a custodial problem which can't be wished away.  The chain of custody for "shotgun" mail balloting is weaker than that of on-demand mail balloting, which in turn is weaker than that of in-person voting.  Repeated reports of the numbers of people improperly retained on registered voter lists, coupled with a tendency by Democrats to resist cleaning up voter rolls, weakens perceived legitimacy.  For that, Democrats have no-one but themselves to blame.  Those who want to increase the mechanisms of voting have the most interest in reassuring voters that the mechanisms are tamper-resistant - not by words, but by deeds - but they will not do so.

Sure Brad, blame the Demos, and rightfully so, but that doesn't change the fact that America has become incapable of conducting a fair and democratic election.

And then blame the Trump presidency too because without it it's hard to imagine the situation could exist.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The US is perfectly capable of conducting a "free and fair" election.  Notwithstanding all the hand-wringing, the rules will be known in advance and the various jurisdictions - remember that elections are not run out of the White House - will execute their local processes accordingly.  Where results are close, there will be rules governing mandatory recounts, and perhaps some litigation for other challenges.  In the latter cases, outcomes will be decided in courts.  This will all amount to rule of law.  At election's end, the US will have decided more positions by open election than Canada ever does (elected head of government, independent of legislative branch elections; elected bicameral legislature; similarly structured elections at state levels).

With a USSC vacancy open, the tensions would exist no matter which Republican occupied the presidency right now.

 

[Spencer100]

On a different note:

This campaign ad! 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=Wd6b_8OlwXU&feature=emb_logo

Save Texas!  LOL 

Imagine an ad like that in Canada?

Bonus:  Superhero Landing! 

 

[Remius]

A good list of fact checking on the election.  That is if you trust the fact checker or not,

Just for info.  Good stuff on both sides of the election.

https://www.snopes.com/collections/2020-election-collection/?fbclid=IwAR14ioSwyLb7EPPgui2VdzIpMzHkO7MIKYS5S1FDOZ5G2qqgIZ-9iZN3dxg

 

[Remius]

Well, not very surprising about Trump’s taxes.

https://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAKBN26I10L


To be honest I doubt this will have any effect on his base support.  In any other world this is pretty damaging though.

 

[MilEME09]

Well, not very surprising about Trump’s taxes.

https://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAKBN26I10L


To be honest I doubt this will have any effect on his base support.  In any other world this is pretty damaging though.

Considering if true the case for criminal fraud could be found. If he looses in November, information like this could lead to a very deep financial audit by the IRS of him at the very least.

 

[CBH99]

I can't remember if I've said this before, or just thought it.  So I'll re-post my 0.02 just incase.


Personally, I'm not overly concerned or curious if a wealthy business person becomes POTUS & has irregularities in their taxes.  Most wealthy people do, hence one of the things that makes them wealthy.

What I AM curious to see is how a public servant like Nancy Pelosi ends up being worth more than $100M


:2c:

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Most wealthy people end up avoiding taxes because they can hire good investment and tax advisors and accountants to avoid doing so. The question should be how much in professional fees did you pay to avoid paying the last bit of taxes? I suspect that it becomes a point of pride to dodge the government, although they never publicly admit to it, regardless of cost.

 

[Good2Golf]

...The question should be how much in professional fees did you pay to avoid paying the last bit of taxes? I suspect that it becomes a point of pride to dodge the government, although they never publicly admit to it, regardless of cost.

Or it could be a business case....overall spend on accountants to optimize taxation regulations and minimize taxes, being less than trying to do ones taxes themselves and not deducting as much as they could, so paying more in taxes?

 

[OldSolduer]

I can't remember if I've said this before, or just thought it.  So I'll re-post my 0.02 just incase.


Personally, I'm not overly concerned or curious if a wealthy business person becomes POTUS & has irregularities in their taxes.  Most wealthy people do, hence one of the things that makes them wealthy.

What I AM curious to see is how a public servant like Nancy Pelosi ends up being worth more than $100M


:2c:

Same can be said of Obama and others politicians of both sides.

 

[mariomike]

I doubt this will have any effect on his base support. 

Ain't that the truth! 

 

[Remius]

I can't remember if I've said this before, or just thought it.  So I'll re-post my 0.02 just incase.


Personally, I'm not overly concerned or curious if a wealthy business person becomes POTUS & has irregularities in their taxes.  Most wealthy people do, hence one of the things that makes them wealthy.

What I AM curious to see is how a public servant like Nancy Pelosi ends up being worth more than $100M


:2c:

She has a husband, Frank Pelosi, a successful businessman, who seems largely responsible for that. 

That being said, I’m sure having a wife with a long career in politics helped.