In some cases it's not just the MAGAs. I've been seeing this crap show up in the progressive circles I run in.
Sort of how there's a weird political overlap of anti-vaxxers/anti-maskers on both extreme sides of the spectrum, so there is for the Burisma thing.
True. It's like a Venn diagram.
Both sides have their fair share of people that throw out theories and accusations, then feel the onus should be on the other side to prove they are not true. It's an impossible situation. When someone does it weeks or days before an election, you really have to be skeptical since there is just no time to deal with it properly.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 11-01-2020 at 02:06 PM.
Conspiracy? I was just thinking that Biden stood on the debate stage and said he knows nothing and was involved in nothing. Which is fine if true. Again he did nothing illegal. But if he's involved, could China compromise him later? We all know how the Chinese govt operate.
Compromised like owing multi millions to a billion dollars to foreign entities?
Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
The Following User Says Thank You to Chonger For This Useful Post:
Even in this thread the argument is shifting to "people won't even entertain the idea that Biden might be corrupt."
Like, what? Is that where we're at?
Trump violates the Hatch Act, tries to do a quid-pro-quo to have a foreign country interfere in the US election... but Joe Biden might have had a parking ticket 40 years ago... I mean, people aren't even entertaining the possibility!
__________________ "Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Maritime Q-Scout For This Useful Post:
That's an interesting point. It feels like the bipartisan cynicism has reached the highest point that I can recall in my lifetime, and yet it looks like we're seeing huge increases in participation this go around as well. Where do we go from here? Is the turnout this year a blip and an aberration, or do we see an increased engagement with democratic institutions going forward?
It does feel as though there are fundamental issues with the governance system that are causing wide dissatisfaction and cynicism. Information asymmetries between those in power and the common people are less than they ever have been, and the disparity in wealth and influence is also huge right now. I'm hopeful about younger generations finding better ways, but I struggle at this time to see how the reconciliation is actually going to take place.
I am thinking it would have to start with substantive action, and a return to a society with more of a moral center .
The only possible scenario I can envision would require a Dem sweep, then it would take
- the will - an actual desire by the country to do something.
- the ability - it has to start with the Democrats having to get the trifecta so that laws can be introduced and passed
- the laws - to introduce legislation that attempts to stop dissemination of false and misleading information.
- the willingness to interpret and uphold the law - basically the Dems would have to add justices to the Supreme Court so that the the laws are upheld
Here is a study of how 15 countries are are attempting to limit false news. Interesting in the approaches and not all are democracies.
The countries included in this study are addressing the fake news problem through one or more of the following four approaches:
In the absence of legislation that expressly addresses the objectivity of news posted on social media, some of the surveyed countries apply relevant provisions of existing civil, criminal, administrative, and other laws regulating the media, elections, and anti-defamation (Canada, Japan, Nicaragua, Sweden, and the United Kingdom), even though these laws, enacted in the pre-internet era, do not always reflect current technological and telecommunications developments.
Others are choosing to enact new and more focused legislation that imposes sanctions on social media networks that spread false news, usually imposing fines and ordering the removal of information identified as false (China, Egypt, France, Germany, Israel, Malaysia, and Russia). In Malaysia and Egypt these provisions apply extraterritorially.
Another option reflected in the country surveys is to engage election authorities and digital platforms to secure a well-informed electorate, either by identifying and blocking fake news, providing fact-checking resources for the general public, or through the mass publication of “real” news during election season and beyond (Argentina, the UK, China, and Malaysia). Argentina, for example, is considering legislation that would create a Commission for the Verification of Fake News within the National Election Chamber. During national election campaigns, the Commission would recognize, label, and prevent the distribution of news considered “of doubtful credibility.” Both the UK and China have programs in place to systematically rebut fake news by publishing reliable information, while Malaysia provides a fact-checking portal.
Some of the countries are also addressing the issue in a more general way by educating citizens about the dangers of fake news (Sweden and Kenya). Sweden starts at a young age, having enlisted a famous cartoon character to teach children about the dangers of fake news through a cartoon strip that illustrates what happens to the bear’s super-strength when false rumors are circulated about him. The US Embassy in Kenya launched a media literacy campaign in 2018, initially aimed at the Kenya chapter of the Young African Leaders Initiative, with the specific goal of stopping the dissemination of fake news.
Among the countries surveyed, there is no common position regarding the definition of “fake news” and its scope. The UK government attempts to avoid use of the term altogether, instead using the words “disinformation” and “misinformation.” Countries with established anti-fake news laws have more elaborate terminology. Malaysian legislation defines fake news as “any news, information, data and reports, which is or are wholly or partly false, whether in the form of features, visuals or audio recordings or in any other form capable of suggesting words or ideas.” Russia passed a law penalizing the publication of fake news in March 2019, defining the term as “socially-significant false information distributed under the guise of truthful messages if they create a threat of endangering people’s lives, health, or property; create possibilities for mass violations of public order or public security; or may hinder the work of transportation and social infrastructure, credit institutions, lines of communications, industry, and energy enterprises.” China has made it a crime to “fabricate false information on [a] dangerous situation, epidemic, disaster or alert and disseminate such information via [an] information network or any other media while clearly knowing that it is fabricated, thereby seriously disturbing public order.” Relying on the 1881 Freedom of the Press Law, France has made it illegal to “disturb public peace through the publication, dissemination, or reproduction of fake news in bad faith.” The bad-faith publication, dissemination, or reproduction of forged or altered items, or items falsely attributed to third parties, is also prohibited.
Last edited by DeluxeMoustache; 11-01-2020 at 02:10 PM.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to DeluxeMoustache For This Useful Post:
Zizek isnt well respected, he's well known, in philosophy there's a difference between those two
He hasn't really come up with anything new in decades. He just recycles the same things over and over and leaves everything ambiguous enough that it is open for interpretation. I have seen both the left and right use his writings to try and prove their points.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
That's an interesting point. It feels like the bipartisan cynicism has reached the highest point that I can recall in my lifetime, and yet it looks like we're seeing huge increases in participation this go around as well. Where do we go from here? Is the turnout this year a blip and an aberration, or do we see an increased engagement with democratic institutions going forward?
It does feel as though there are fundamental issues with the governance system that are causing wide dissatisfaction and cynicism. Information asymmetries between those in power and the common people are less than they ever have been, and the disparity in wealth and influence is also huge right now. I'm hopeful about younger generations finding better ways, but I struggle at this time to see how the reconciliation is actually going to take place.
Now, personally I'm extremely cynical and fully expect to see most countries descending into fascism in the coming decades. That said I do think a ton could be done to actually strengthen democracies, if people just had the will.
But I don't think enough of them do. People want solutions, but they want immediate solutions where someone else does all the work and they can cheer or jeer from the sidelines. They just want the bad and different people to go away or shut up.
^That covers the what and why, but doesn't really talk about the how... specifically, it says nothing about the people behind the electoral college; the electors. And specifically it doesn't talk at all about faithless electors, which is an important point. Too bad.
The thing not included in those numbers are that they are highly correlated to one another, making the chances higher. A scenario where Democrats takes the senate probably means Democrats do well in Arizona / Michigan / North Carolina, and if Democrats do well in those states then the odds of a Biden win is much higher than 89%.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to octothorp For This Useful Post:
The thing not included in those numbers are that they are highly correlated to one another, making the chances higher. A scenario where Democrats takes the senate probably means Democrats do well in Arizona / Michigan / North Carolina, and if Democrats do well in those states then the odds of a Biden win is much higher than 89%.
Agreed. If Dems wins the senate then they win all imo.
These huge turnouts for early voting really make me wonder what the election holds. My gut says these huge numbers of voting are people who are normally ambivalent about politics who are fed up with trump and voting for the first time. I feel like the polls are most likely to be wrong in the dems direction than in trumps, but that’s just human nature not wanting to make the same mistake twice.
But I’m not in USA so I could be totally wrong, it could be the other way around And magas will come out in force on Tuesday.
.89 * .97 * .76 = 65.6% chance of a blue trifecta according to fivethirtyeight. Please oh please let it happen.
It’s actually probably better than that because the cases where Trump wins the presidency probably don’t overlap with the cases where they win the senate very much. So the Trifecta is probably closer to 76% than 65%
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
^ Agreed, these are not independent events, hence, the probabilities can't be blended in such a simplistic manner. The three of you were the real math gods in this case.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to Mathgod For This Useful Post:
.89 * .97 * .76 = 65.6% chance of a blue trifecta according to fivethirtyeight. Please oh please let it happen.
I am hoping for a Biden win...but I am not entirely comfortable with an overwhelming trifecta.
Not saying it's a foregone conclusion...but I am curious if the sentiment is the same on this board if the green new deal gets traction, passes and results in the canning of Keystone.
The vast majority of votes will be counted on election day/night
If its a large win Biden will certainly be in the lead at the end of the night and its over
The problem might be that a lot of those states that are only counting "some" on election night are large population like California and NY. There's a good chance that Republicans have more votes by the end of election night in those two states and that's a lot of Electoral Votes.
It sounds insane, but Trump could use that to say "see? I won!"
I am hoping for a Biden win...but I am not entirely comfortable with an overwhelming trifecta.
Not saying it's a foregone conclusion...but I am curious if the sentiment is the same on this board if the green new deal gets traction, passes and results in the canning of Keystone.
I am for the simple reason that the lesson all parties need to get is 'try this crap again and you will be completely wiped out for a generation', an utterly terrible Democratic domination of all three branches is temporary, if they screw up they are gone in a few years.
The GOP especially needs to be taken and out behind the woodshed and taught for all time never ever to throw their lot in with white nationalistic wanna be populist dictators because (ironically given the screaming and shouting they do about socialism and democracy) they were always going to be the threat to lead a coup and end democracy in the US
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
The problem might be that a lot of those states that are only counting "some" on election night are large population like California and NY. There's a good chance that Republicans have more votes by the end of election night in those two states and that's a lot of Electoral Votes.
It sounds insane, but Trump could use that to say "see? I won!"
I am hoping for a Biden win...but I am not entirely comfortable with an overwhelming trifecta.
Not saying it's a foregone conclusion...but I am curious if the sentiment is the same on this board if the green new deal gets traction, passes and results in the canning of Keystone.
Actually, some have argued - and I tend to agree - that if the Democrats manage to secure a massive landslide victory on Joe Biden's coattails, that it's much less likely that the left wing of the party will be able to make major incursions or implement the policies that they'd want. It would make a pretty good case that the way for Democrats to win elections is not to be the mirror extreme of the Trump right, but the party of normalcy.
As to whether you think that's a good or bad thing, YMMV, I suppose.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
