Sunday, February 28, 2021

"The Trump Storm Is Over -- Act Like It"

I found this comment on a NY Times op-ed last week. I don't remember which article and it doesn't matter; the comment stands on its own, and strikes me as very wise and intelligent. Trump is already fading and emasculated; Jack Dorsey, CEO of Twitter, may have done more to save American democracy than anyone since FDR beat Hitler. Republicans don't seem to stand for anything right now, just against things, and what they are against isn't very smart -- pandemic relief (supported by about 70% of Americans), facemasks and democracy itself. Their face is now dominated by dolts like Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and Ron Johnson (R-WI). Greene clearly didn't come to Congress to serve the public, apparently lacks all empathy, and is predictable and boorish beside. Ron Johnson bought his way into office and apparently isn't smart enough to understand how embarrassing his ridiculous conspiracy theories look to anyone who can think. This is the Republican party, bereft, lost without Trump, the worst president in US history, and can't even keep the lights on in Texas while people, including children, die. What a callus clown show, while Biden has quietly and very competently taken charge and is making a real difference in life in America (more later), moving forward, as the NY Times commenter suggests, as fast as possible.

39 comments:

David in Cal said...

I question whether Biden is moving "competently". See video at https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/02/what-am-i-doing-here.php

Cheers

David Appell said...

BFD. I lose track of what I'm doing 10 times a day.

OnymousGuy said...

Powerline. GMAFB.

David Appell said...

Years ago I made a comment at Powerline presenting some science regarding their climate denial, and they banned me immediately.

David in Cal said...

OG - Powerline is pretty accurate. Even if they weren't, you can watch the video of the President and decide for yourself what it means.

Cheers

David Appell said...

Climate deniers are never accurate and not truth seekers.

David in Cal said...

David - What's your definition of "climate denier"?

J. D. said...

Trump's still claiming he won the November election because he says millions of dead people voted. People died and many will spend years in prison because he can't ever lose gracefully. Personally I find someone who momentarily loses track in a speech far preferable.

Layzej said...

DiC: "What's your definition of "climate denier"?"

Anyone who uses the phrase "climatista" is unable/unwilling to hold an adult conversation on the subject. They've picked a side - truth be damned.

David in Cal said...

Were there enough voting irregularities so that they swung the defeat of Stacy Abrams for Governor of GA? Were there enough irregularities so that they swung the Trump's defeat?

I would answer both questions, "Probably not". However, we cannot be sure. To answer "yes" or "no" as definite fact is a false statement IMHO. Trump is incorrect when he says he definitely won. Trump's opponents are incorrect when they say Trump definitely lost.

Cheers

Layzej said...

An open mind is all very well in its way, but it ought not to be so open that there is no keeping anything in or out of it.

Entropic man said...

" David in Cal said...
David - What's your definition of "climate denier"?"

I use Neil deGrasse Tyson's definition.

"A sceptic questions the claims and then embraces the evidence; a denier questions the claims and then rejects the evidence."

David Appell said...

Hi David. Fair question, but due to typing limitations i"m going to have to punt for right now. Later.

Layzej said...

DiC: we cannot be sure. To answer "yes" or "no" as definite fact is a false statement IMHO

This postmodernism doesn't appeal to me. We can't really know anything. Ok. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Sure.

But from a practical point of view, why should we waste time believing something for which there is no evidence?

J. D. said...

"Trump is incorrect when he says he definitely won."

You've ignored that Trump carried on pushing this fantasy for two months which included holding rallies where he spent a long time pushing that lie and the lie that his VP could stop Biden becoming president which would have disenfranchised millions of voters. So it doesn't bother you that the actions of the ex President of the United States caused the assault on the Capitol with thugs chanting "stop" the steal"and "hang Pence"?
He also put many election workers at risk with his lies.

Trump is incorrect when he says he definitely won. Trump's opponents are incorrect when they say Trump definitely lost.

Quite a few Republicans admit he lost and you can be pretty sure nearly all of them would admit privately that he did lose. They won't admit it publically because they've seen what happens to those who dare to go against Trump. Whoever would have guessed that electing a sociopath would have caused such a mess?

David Appell said...

Layzej hit it on the head.

Equal probability Biden won by even more.

Same logic applies to all 50 states, no?

Did Gore really lose?
Did JFK really win?

David Appell said...

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/12/trump-looking-fraud-all-wrong-places/617366/

David in Cal said...

Layzej asked a good question: "why should we waste time believing something for which there is no evidence?" I have two basic answers:

1. There is evidence, although it's not conclusive. The pattern of votes coming in was suspicious. At one point, I told my wife that if Trump won the states in which he was leading, he'd be re-elected. However, in several swing states, including PA and MI IIRC, there was a late plethora of votes that swung the election to Biden.


2. What's the evidence that the election was fair? That's a serious question. You've taken as a default that the election was fair. However, recall that I once posted a link to an article about an organization that was in the business of providing fake absentee ballots. So we know that it can be done. We also know that there was plenty of motivation to win the election by hook or by crook on both sides.

3. BTW I read about large numbers of ballots that supposedly looked suspicious. As I recall, they were unfolded or they had similar writing or they included a vote for President only. However, the source was not main stream, so I don't necessarily trust that allegation. OTOH, nobody in the main stream checked on that sort of thing, AFIAK.

David Appell said...

David, be specific. Very specific. These vague claims are exactly the problem that Trump caused, and you took it hook, line and sinker.

David in Cal said...

Coincidentally I just saw an article illustrating that the kind of voter fraud I worried about has actually happened. See Justice of the peace and three others arrested on 150 counts of voter fraud in Texas
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/texas-voter-fraud-justice-of-peace-charges

Cheers

J. D. said...

The only credible evidence of anyone doing anything illegal that would have a significant effect on the presidential election was Trump asking the Georgia secretary of state to find him 12000 votes.

DiC: You are still completely ignoring that Trump also pressured his VP to overturn the election result and then stirred up a crowd to the extent they were threatening to execute him. You are also ignoring that several people died and many of Trump's supporters face long jail sentences because he would not accept defeat. Have you got anything to say about that?

Layzej said...

DiC: in several swing states, including PA and MI IIRC, there was a late plethora of votes that swung the election to Biden.

Wow. Who could have predicted? Remember everyone was talking about the expected red mirage / blue shift due to mail in ballots favouring Democrats? Trump even tried to close down the postal service and invalidate mail in ballots to ensure Democrats were disenfranchised. How is it the least bit suspicious that it happened exactly as everyone expected?

That is not evidence of fraud. Not in the least.

DiC: nobody in the main stream checked on that sort of thing, AFIAK

There were 60+ lawsuits and dozens of investigations. Don't presume that any stone was left unturned.

Coincidentally I just saw an article illustrating that the kind of voter fraud I worried about has actually happened. See Justice of the peace and three others arrested on 150 counts of voter fraud in Texas

In 2018 by a republican. Unlikely to have swung the 2020 election for Biden.

OnymousGuy said...

Layzej,
You have cut DIC down to the size of Trump’s member.
Good one.

Layzej said...

I hope I'm not being too uncivil. This retreat from reality drives me crazy.

OnymousGuy said...

Yes, that voter fraud business is getting out of hand.

NOT1

Former Kansas Rep. Watkins signs agreement to avoid prosecution in voter fraud case

Former Kansas Congressman Steve Watkins has entered into a diversion agreement with the Shawnee County District Attorney’s Office to avoid a criminal trial in the voter fraud case that came to define his brief tenure in Congress.
Watkins, a Topeka Republican who served one term in the U.S. House, faced three felony charges related to voting in the wrong Topeka city council district in the 2019 municipal election.
https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article249643093.html

David in Cal said...

Layzej - you say there were dozens of investigations. From what I read, there were very few truly thorough investigations or maybe none at all. I cannot debate this. The reports say different things. It's a matter of which reports one believes.

Cheers

Entropic man said...

David in Cal

"The reports say different things. It's a matter of which reports one believes. "

People believe the reports that confirm their pre-existing beliefs.

That is called confirmation bias.

People reject the reports that go against their pre-existing beliefs.

That is called cognitive dissonance.

Anyone who makes evidence-based decisions for a living will tell you that it is possible to put aside one's own biases and judge evidence objectively, but it takes a conscious effort which most people are not trained for.



Layzej said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Layzej said...

DiC: "From what I read, there were very few truly thorough investigations or maybe none at all. I cannot debate this. The reports say different things. It's a matter of which reports one believes."

No. There are people on the internet who will tell you whatever you want to hear. Your choices aren't limited to

1) listening to the liars on this side,
2) or that side,
3) or listening to both and throwing up your hands.

You also have the option to look at the evidence.

But you are so disinterested in truth that you can't be bothered to look. You can't even be bothered to read it when it is handed to you.

I sent you a link on the Georgia investigation report.

To which you replied, it "is not sufficient" because fraud "could only be detected by a very sophisticated audit of the computer by a team with exceptional expertise. This has not been attempted."

In spite of the fact that this was the VERY FIRST point addressed in the report! You didn't even read it when it was handed to you. And you still haven't read it. This is evident by your comment: "From what I read, there were very few truly thorough investigations or maybe none at all."

Well yes. Maybe from what you've read. But only because you refuse to look at it!

We don't need to debate whose lies are more compelling. We can look at the evidence.

David Appell said...

David, I hope you reply to Layzej 6:13 pm.

Also, why don't we need to do a "truly thorough investigation" of the computer systems in the states where Trump won?

Layzej said...

DA: "why don't we need to do a "truly thorough investigation" of the computer systems in the states where Trump won?"

The truth is, you shouldn't use computer systems at all unless they print out a paper ballot that can be verified by the voter and referenced during a recount. These are things that should be resolved before the election.

It's plainly ridiculous to take issue only afterwards, and only where you don't like the results.

David in Cal said...

David - since you asked, I will respond to Layzej 6:13

1. I don't know how thorough the GA computer audit or how is was done. Maybe it was fully adequate.

2. Let's classify possible fraud into 3 categories:
A. Computer fraud B. Adding fraudulent absentee ballots. C. All other.
Every state is different. That adds up to 150 types of fraud. What evidence do we have regarding the other 149 types?

IMO the process is not that transparent. I couldn't answer my question.

Cheers

David in Cal said...

David, Layzej - I just came across this article. It begins

Months after the 2020 election, state and local officials in Georgia have failed to produce chain of custody documents for over 404,000 absentee votes put in drop boxes, according to a damning report by The Georgia Star News.The report indicates that the state failed to produce chain of custody documentation for an estimated 404,691 absentee vote by mail ballots, which were placed into drop boxes and delivered to county registrars to be counted in the 2020 election. This means that 67.5% of the states estimated 600,000 absentee vote by mail ballot count was found to not have chain of custody documentation....

It is worth noting that the outcome of the 2020 election in Georgia was decided by less than 12,000 votes, which would be nearly 3% of the 404,000 absentee vote by mail ballots deposited into drop boxes and counted by county registrars.


https://nationalfile.com/huge-georgia-fails-to-produce-chain-of-custody-for-404000-absentee-ballots-months-after-contested-election/

OnymousGuy said...

Media fact Check writes:
“ Overall, we rate National File an extreme right Tin-Foil Hat Conspiracy website based on the promotion of unproven/debunked claims and a Strong Pseudoscience purveyor based on using junk science to support claims. ”

My own point of view is that I don’t see why anyone would waste their time on this shytte.

David in Cal said...

OG - I want future elections to be considered reliable by all sides.

OnymousGuy said...

David, I;’m in agreement with that. And for that reason I am very much in favor of H.R.1.

But referencing extreme wrong-wing nuttery is, in my view, self-neutering.

David in Cal said...

OG - My understanding of HR1 is that it will make elections less reliable.

Cheers

Layzej said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Layzej said...

DiC: "I don't know how thorough the GA computer audit or how is was done"

So read the report.

Every state is different. That adds up to 150 types of fraud. What evidence do we have regarding the other 149 types?

If you're interested in how election security is maintained in each state, you should do some research on that. Your statement amounts to "I am ignorant about election security, therefor election security is in doubt."

OnymousGuy: “Overall, we rate National File an extreme right Tin-Foil Hat Conspiracy website based on the promotion of unproven/debunked claims and a Strong Pseudoscience purveyor based on using junk science to support claims. ”

The National File story is just a repost from InfoWars. This is Alex Jones.

And the Alex Jones story is based on a blog post. A post from a blog created specifically to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the election.

That blog has already been caught lying about chain of custody. Trump ran an ad leading up to the insurrection based on false claims from the "Georgia Star News" blog. CNN investigated and found: "When asked about the ad's claims, DeKalb County provided CNN with the chain of custody documents in question."

What even are you filling your head with DiC? "But I read it on the internet!" is not compelling. Anyone can post to the internet.