[Winstonm]

 Zelandakh, on 2020-November-22, 13:55, said:

You are still thinking like a liberal Winston. If you want a message to resonate amongst conservatives it has to be short and simple, like the #StopTheSteal hashtag that has gained traction there. #StopTheSteal takes that momentum and tries to turn it around. Sure, a more complex and detailed message would be great...but conservatives are simply not to take notice of you for long enough for that message to be heard.

How about this one? He's Fu#$ing You Over, Dip#hit

[cherdano]

 cherdano, on 2020-November-20, 19:48, said:

The Washington Post is clearly reading Ken's WC posts, and tried to force this choice:

https://www.washingt...ebc9_story.html

Three Senators responded with statement critical of Trump. Romney, Sasse and Collins. The others did not respond, or referred to previous statement made before Trump started pressuring election officials to sabotage the vote count.

Three out of 53 might be all we will get, I am afraid.

And...we are at no. four in Ken's vote: Murkowski. https://twitter.com/...655650301534210

[y66]

 cherdano, on 2020-November-22, 18:14, said:

And...we are at no. four in Ken's vote: Murkowski. https://twitter.com/...655650301534210

Criteria?

Corker (R-TN)
Toomey (R-PA) retiring in 2022

[y66]

NYT Editorial Board said:

The 2020 election was not simply free of fraud, or whatever cooked-up malfeasance the president is braying about at this hour. It was, from an administrative standpoint, a resounding success. In the face of a raging pandemic and the highest turnout in more than a century, Americans enjoyed one of the most secure, most accurate and most well-run elections ever.

Don’t take our word for it. Listen to the state and local officials of both parties in dozens of states who were tasked with overseeing the process.

“Numbers don’t lie,” Georgia’s Republican secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, said on Friday when he certified his state’s vote total following a hand recount of about five million ballots. Joe Biden won Georgia by a little more than 12,000 votes.

Same story in Michigan. “We have not seen any evidence of fraud or foul play in the actual administration of the election,’’ said a spokesman for the Democratic secretary of state there. “What we have seen is that it was smooth, transparent, secure and accurate.”

Over all, the 2020 election “was the most secure in American history,” according to a statement put out this month by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which is made up of top federal and state election officials. “There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.”

A bipartisan consensus like this may tempt some people to conclude that the dire pre-election warnings were overblown, that the risks to the election were never that serious. The reality is the opposite. The threats were many and real. There were massive logistical hurdles to running an election during a deadly disease outbreak. There was chaos sown deliberately by a sitting president to undermine Americans’ faith in the integrity of the democratic process. There was good reason to fear an electoral meltdown.

That the meltdown didn’t materialize was thanks to months of hard work and selfless commitment by tens of thousands of Americans across the country: state and local elections officials, volunteer poll workers, overburdened postal carriers, helpful neighbors and generous philanthropists.

Together, this ad hoc democracy-protection network fanned out to expand access to mail-in ballots, helping more than 100 million Americans, nearly two-thirds of all voters, to vote early or absentee. They took on poll worker shifts so that older Americans would not have to risk their lives to keep precincts open. They volunteered time to ensure votes would be counted as quickly and accurately as possible. It was a heroic effort, and the people who worked its front lines deserve Americans’ everlasting gratitude.

It is neither wise nor realistic to count on this sort of mobilization happening every four years. “The smoothness of the election was not self-executing,” said Vanita Gupta, the president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, an organization that supports voting rights. “Don’t lose sight of how much work we did to make it this way.”

The nation will need to prioritize voting rights and election administration to a degree it has never adequately done. For example, why are Americans still waiting for hours in line to cast their ballots? In 2014, a bipartisan commission said no one ought to have to wait more than 30 minutes to vote. Six years on, the country is nowhere close to that goal.

The solutions are not a mystery. Here are three of the most obvious ones.

More money. In the first wave of the pandemic last spring, elections experts and officials pleaded with Congress to provide up to $4 billion to help ensure a smooth election. Lawmakers approved one-tenth of that amount. “We get what we pay for,” said Justin Levitt, an election law scholar at Loyola Law School. “We poured trillions into pandemic recovery, and a teaspoonful into the democracy that makes it work.”

Some of the shortfall was made up by private philanthropists, who gave hundreds of millions of dollars to state and local governments. Professional sports teams offered up their empty arenas so voters could safely cast ballots in person. Donors provided masks and other protective gear for poll workers. All of that was welcome, and yet the American people pay taxes for just this purpose; they shouldn’t have to rely on the beneficence of the wealthy to keep their democracy intact.

Less voter suppression. It wasn’t so long ago that both parties supported the protection of voting rights. In 2006, Congress overwhelmingly voted to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. Today, the Republican Party is awash in conspiracy theories and — there’s no other way to put it — fundamentally distrusts the American electorate.

In hundreds of lawsuits filed over voting and election procedures in 2020 — the most ever in an election season — Republicans consistently sided against voters. In too many cases, the courts let them have their way. They blocked reasonable, targeted measures to make voting easier during the pandemic, like extending ballot-arrival deadlines or increasing the number of drop boxes.

President Trump has spent the past five years building a fantasy world in which he can lose only because the other side cheated, and far too many people are content to live in it. In the absence of a whit of evidence, a majority of Republicans say they believe Joe Biden’s victory is the result of fraud. That’s why Mr. Raffensperger, a committed Republican, is being punished for his defense of Georgia’s electoral process with everything from death threats to a potentially illegal request by Senator Lindsey Graham, a top Republican, who Mr. Raffensperger said tried to persuade him to throw out legally cast ballots.

The United States needs members of both major political parties to support voting rights and access to the polls — not just because they believe it helps democracy, but because they believe it helps them.

Thwart disinformation. America needs a far more aggressive and coordinated response to the massive disinformation campaigns polluting social media and people’s dialogue with one another.

Social-media giants like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube did more in 2020 to combat these campaigns than ever before, and yet it wasn’t nearly enough. When a lie can race around the globe in minutes, anything less than an immediate response is too slow. The labels applied to misleading or factually untrue content were often vague, and did not necessarily refute the disinformation.

Also, it’s obvious that most of the disinformation right now is coming from one side of the political spectrum. Social media companies need to confront that reality head-on and stop worrying about being called biased. That’s especially important when it comes to the accounts of high-profile figures like President Trump, who have the power to deceive huge numbers of Americans with a single tweet.

Democracy is a fragile thing, and it requires constant tending and vigilance to survive. Americans were lucky this time. They were also well prepared. When pushed to the brink, they mobilized to protect their democracy. For this moment, at least, tune out the president, his flailing dishonesty and his bottomless disregard for the American experiment. Instead, express gratitude to the millions of Americans who still believe in that experiment, and who did all they could to make this election succeed in the face of daunting odds. Then help make sure they don’t have to do it by themselves again.

[barmar]

 Winstonm, on 2020-November-21, 13:52, said:

I've long said - in fact, said so in this WC - that Trump's "base" is really only around 25% of the population; however, the results of the election have me questioning that idea. 74 million votes for Trump - after seeing him in action for nearly 4 years - makes me question the argument about the numbers of "reasonable" Republicans there truly are. I'm beginning to think I underestimated the "base" - that white privilege, which is disguised racism, isn't the common denominator across Trump's base, and that common denominator covers nearly all 74 million.

Not everyone who voted for Trump is in his "base".

There are an awful lot of die-hard Republicans who just couldn't stomach voting for a Democract, so they held their noses and voted for Trump.

There are also lots of "single issue voters", for whom some common issues are conservative judges and abortion restrictions. They're happy with Trump's policies along these lines, and they want to see them continue. They often admit that he has problems, but they're willing to overlook them to get what they want.

When you combine these with the ever-Trumpers, you get 74 million voters.

[y66]

 barmar, on 2020-November-23, 01:16, said:

Not everyone who voted for Trump is in his "base".

There are an awful lot of die-hard Republicans who just couldn't stomach voting for a Democract, so they held their noses and voted for Trump.

There are also lots of "single issue voters", for whom some common issues are conservative judges and abortion restrictions. They're happy with Trump's policies along these lines, and they want to see them continue. They often admit that he has problems, but they're willing to overlook them to get what they want.

When you combine these with the ever-Trumpers, you get 74 million voters.

This sounds right. The turnout for Trump is sobering. Racism is a factor but it's a mistake to think it's more of a factor than economic self-interest or some combination of factors other than racism that Rs value differently than Ds.

[cherdano]

 y66, on 2020-November-22, 19:41, said:

Criteria?

Corker (R-TN)
Toomey (R-PA) retiring in 2022

Ok, let's say five.
I think Ken was asking them to denounce Trump's attempt to overturn/deligitimize the election result. Ken is the judge, but in my book Toomey's statement doesn't count.

[shyams]

 shyams, on 2020-November-07, 13:13, said:

Below is an indicator of how much the betting world does not trust your nation's administration + its much vaunted checks and balances.

At this moment, I can bet £100 on Biden and make a £4 return on it.
* Given that Biden's presidency is a certainty such a return is absolutely absurd. Yet, it is there and I can honestly put a few thousand quid to give myself (what should be) a guaranteed return.
* In case someone thinks this is a quack website or that the trading is really thin, I am talking about BETFAIR --- a gamblers trading platform where punters make all bets and there is no "house" to bet against. If I had the money, I could place a bet of £100,000 and the market would barely move despite such a huge amount being placed on one outcome.
* The total amount of money traded on this specific market so far is £ 550 million (roughly US$ 720m). Yes, this is trading volume and the underlying profits or losses would be much lower because the same person would be both backing and laying on a specific outcome which means they only receive the net position as payout.

Four years ago, I had a very small amount bet on Hillary to win. I vividly remember that when I woke up on Wednesday morning (i.e. day after election), the market was already trading at 1%. By the time it was noon UK, the yield had gone to zero --- i.e. you could no longer make money by betting on Trump. If we (the outside world) believed USA to be about the same as in 2016, we should have seen yields to be sub-1% at this time. Definitely not 4%!!

I realise I am simplifying things there and creating a narrative to fit my theory ("USA's checks & balances are all distorted"). Yet I am not totally wrong -- I am showing you the true monetary cost of your corruption. And the opportunity to make a so-called "risk-free" return on your funds.

Finally, NO I am not going to put new money on this market; logic says I should but fear of Trump and the Republicans is holding me back.




If you don't believe that the market still pays to bet on Biden, here is a link to a gambling website (caution: do not click if your country has restrictive laws that prohibit your landing on their site)

By the way, this particular betting market is still open AND is paying 4% on Biden. Given that the market is not likely to last beyond 15 Dec (and it could easily end much earlier), in effect one is being paid an annualised retutn of 40%-80% "risk-free" --- the only risk is the vagaries of the American political system.

[kenberg]

 cherdano, on 2020-November-23, 07:14, said:

Ok, let's say five.
I think Ken was asking them to denounce Trump's attempt to overturn/deligitimize the election result. Ken is the judge, but in my book Toomey's statement doesn't count.

Yes. But I was thinking slightly differently. It should expected of those in positions of leadership that they speak clearly. On many topics I have no opinion and I accept that others may have no opinion. But not on this. It's too important. Silence should be taken as acquiescence.
See
https://www.washingt...cbc2_story.html
Yes, they are insisting that Trump accept the results of the election. And I agree.
But if someone really wants to speak up that he believes the communists in Venezuela sabotaged the election thus denying Trump his landslide victory then let them say so.
If they are silent, when representatives of Trump and representatives of the RNC are making such claims then we place them with those who believe this.
Silence is not acceptable when people representing the Republican establishment are making such claims.

But yes, if our ;leaders are required to state their views, I sure as hell hope they do not say that Biden is a Satanist trafficking in children.

The cited article refers to McConnel:

Quote

Asked about the former officials' statement, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's office on Monday referred to comments he made last week dismissing requests to speak out. "In all of these presidential elections we go through this process. What we all say about it is frankly irrelevant," McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters Tuesday. "All of it will happen right on time, and we will swear in the next administration on January 20."

No Mitch, what is being said is crazy, and having people in a position of leadership talking like drunken morons, interfering with a smooth transition, casting doubt on legitimacy, keeping the incoming president away from information, is not irrelevant. Not al all irrelevant. Bu thanks, you have stated your position. I hope people remember it.

[y66]

This is an encouraging development: Business Leaders, Citing Damage to Country, Urge Trump to Begin Transition by Kate Kelly and Danny Hakim at NYT

[Winstonm]

 barmar, on 2020-November-23, 01:16, said:

Not everyone who voted for Trump is in his "base".

There are an awful lot of die-hard Republicans who just couldn't stomach voting for a Democract, so they held their noses and voted for Trump.

There are also lots of "single issue voters", for whom some common issues are conservative judges and abortion restrictions. They're happy with Trump's policies along these lines, and they want to see them continue. They often admit that he has problems, but they're willing to overlook them to get what they want.

When you combine these with the ever-Trumpers, you get 74 million voters.

I think you are looking through rose-colored glasses. The Republican party now is the party of Trump. Support for the Republican party is support for Trump. About 80% of those registered Republican, according to polls, support Trump - that is only part of his base.

There are hardcore overt racists everywhere - more than we care to admit - but there are even more what I would term "internal racists", those people who would pass a lie detector when they claim they are not racist but who also say that white Americans are being discriminated against by the liberals and the economic disadvantage of minorities is because they don't want it badly enough or work hard enough.

There is a reason Trump won in 2016 the white vote across all economic spectrums, and his failings lost him some of that support in 2020 but he still won the white vote.

Do you really think the reason all those white voters picked Trump is because of judges or abortion?

We need to be clear on this: Pro-White is Anti-Minority.

[Cyberyeti]

 Winstonm, on 2020-November-23, 13:35, said:

I think you are looking through rose-colored glasses. The Republican party now is the party of Trump. Support for the Republican party is support for Trump. About 80% of those registered Republican, according to polls, support Trump - that is only part of his base.

There are hardcore overt racists everywhere - more than we care to admit - but there are even more what I would term "internal racists", those people who would pass a lie detector when they claim they are not racist but who also say that white Americans are being discriminated against by the liberals and the economic disadvantage of minorities is because they don't want it badly enough or work hard enough.

There is a reason Trump won in 2016 the white vote across all economic spectrums, and his failings lost him some of that support in 2020 but he still won the white vote.

Do you really think the reason all those white voters picked Trump is because of judges or abortion?

We need to be clear on this: Pro-White is Anti-Minority.

No I think why a lot of the white voters picked Trump is because the Democrats are "going to take our guns", "socialists" or "giving my taxes to illegals".

A BBC reporter who covered the US election said he was shocked by how normal the bulk of Trump voters were, I don't think he could work out why they were voting Trump but they were, and I think consuming dubious media may have been a lot of it.

[Winstonm]

 Winstonm, on 2020-November-22, 17:21, said:

How about this one? He's Fu#$ing You Over, Dip#hit

I find it interesting that someone I don't know echoes my views on another site's comments.

Quote

Hikasays:November 23, 2020 at 6:17 pm

Efforts to 'unify' the country will be moot if a big chunk are not shown clearly that they have been misled. Put another way, America cannot heal if it won't take its medicine

[Winstonm]

 Cyberyeti, on 2020-November-23, 16:10, said:

No I think why a lot of the white voters picked Trump is because the Democrats are "going to take our guns", "socialists" or "giving my taxes to illegals".

A BBC reporter who covered the US election said he was shocked by how normal the bulk of Trump voters were, I don't think he could work out why they were voting Trump but they were, and I think consuming dubious media may have been a lot of it.

Normal here is racist for about 45% of the population. Not overt racism. White privilege is the order of the day. Few wear hoods or armbands. There is a reason the Republican party developed the "southern strategy", and why it has been so successful. That crap about guns, socialism, and taxes is simply code for "don't let them have what is rightfully ours".

[kenberg]

 Cyberyeti, on 2020-November-23, 16:10, said:

No I think why a lot of the white voters picked Trump is because the Democrats are "going to take our guns", "socialists" or "giving my taxes to illegals".

A BBC reporter who covered the US election said he was shocked by how normal the bulk of Trump voters were, I don't think he could work out why they were voting Trump but they were, and I think consuming dubious media may have been a lot of it.

A conversation a friend had is possibly relevant. The friend, a Biden voter, was talking to her friend, a Trump voter:

Trump voter: The Democrats are all a bunch of Marxists.
Biden voter: Do you know what a Marxist is?
Trump voter: No.

Words get thrown around. Here is a true story of my early life relating to the meaning of "racist".

I grew up in St. Paul, there were no African American students in either my elementary school or my high school. I then went to the University of Minnesota where there were African Americans. And Native Americans And people of many backgrounds. Early on I realized that when African Americans were part of a gathering I was aware that they were African American. So I was worried that this made me a racist. I know I have told this before but I will tell it again. Just off campus there was a coffee shop, The Ten O'Clock Scholar. It might well still be there. We would drink coffee, discuss existentialism and play chess. I was playing against this white guy and after every move I made he analyzed it, usually unfavorably. I was getting irritated and finally turned to him and said with considerable force "Look, you can play the winner. Until then just shut up". I thought about that later and it gave me pleasure to realize that I spoke to this black guy word for word the way I would have spoken to him if he were white. So I decided I am probably not all that race conscious after all.

A point here is that for many of us, that's about as far as we ever go in thinking through race relations. My father was very blue collar but I never saw him treat a person of another race in a way other than he would treat a white person. Good enough for me, a good example for me.

But now race has become central. My simple 1950s idea of what it means to be or not be a racist might not hold up today. One could say "I know a racist when I see one" but really the term gets thrown around a lot and I doubt very much that it has the same meaning to everyone. Going back to Marx, I suppose I roughly know what a Marxist is but I tried reading some Marx back in my undergraduate years. I didn't get very far. Sort of like watching The Magnificent Ambersons. Someday I might watch it all the way through but not yet. It was on tonight. Maybe Marx first, then the Ambersons. Don't hold your breath.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2020-November-23, 20:21, said:

A conversation a friend had is possibly relevant. The friend, a Biden voter, was talking to her friend, a Trump voter:

Trump voter: The Democrats are all a bunch of Marxists.
Biden voter: Do you know what a Marxist is?
Trump voter: No.

Words get thrown around. Here is a true story of my early life relating to the meaning of "racist".

I grew up in St. Paul, there were no African American students in either my elementary school or my high school. I then went to the University of Minnesota where there were African Americans. And Native Americans And people of many backgrounds. Early on I realized that when African Americans were part of a gathering I was aware that they were African American. So I was worried that this made me a racist. I know I have told this before but I will tell it again. Just off campus there was a coffee shop, The Ten O'Clock Scholar. It might well still be there. We would drink coffee, discuss existentialism and play chess. I was playing against this white guy and after every move I made he analyzed it, usually unfavorably. I was getting irritated and finally turned to him and said with considerable force "Look, you can play the winner. Until then just shut up". I thought about that later and it gave me pleasure to realize that I spoke to this black guy word for word the way I would have spoken to him if he were white. So I decided I am probably not all that race conscious after all.

A point here is that for many of us, that's about as far as we ever go in thinking through race relations. My father was very blue collar but I never saw him treat a person of another race in a way other than he would treat a white person. Good enough for me, a good example for me.


But now race has become central. My simple 1950s idea of what it means to be or not be a racist might not hold up today. One could say "I know a racist when I see one" but really the term gets thrown around a lot and I doubt very much that it has the same meaning to everyone. Going back to Marx, I suppose I roughly know what a Marxist is but I tried reading some Marx back in my undergraduate years. I didn't get very far. Sort of like watching The Magnificent Ambersons. Someday I might watch it all the way through but not yet. It was on tonight. Maybe Marx first, then the Ambersons. Don't hold your breath.

I think when you get down to basics racism is pretty simple to understand: it is when a group of people is considered a "them" based on skin color.

What most people seem to do is transpose cultural characteristics as racial characteristics of a common "them" when culture is so much more nuanced and complex than that. But once again it is our desire for simplistic answers to complex problems that fuel racist belief tendencies.

There is only one race: the human race.

[akwoo]

Yes - when Americans say they are against "socialism" you should keep in mind that "race mixing is communism". As far as many are concerned, "socialism" means "not being racist".

[pilowsky]

Many people have difficulty understanding what constitutes racism.
These two videos may help. If you want more, google Yad Vashem.
The American civil war. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZfcc21c6Uo

Nazi Perspectives on History https://www.youtube....h?v=p9YJyUGdyz4



When Trump (and his followers) say 'the democrats" in the way that they do, and say "shifty Schiff" or "crazy Nancy" and talk of the Wuhan 'flu, or when they describe a woman as "a real looker",
what they are doing is removing the humanness, the soul, the thing that makes them a part of "us".

Once this is achieved, it is a simple thing to say, "Why, these 'things' are no more than cattle, or laboratory animals".

You see, the central mistake that many people make when they ask the question What is racism? is that they think that racists dislike or hate the 'other'.

This is not the case. Hitler did not 'hate' the Jew, the plantation owner felt nothing toward the Black. In the case of the Jew they were vermin to be cleaned up so as to make the world a better place: nothing personal at all.
In the case of the plantation owner, the Black was just the same as cattle. When you watch the first video you will witness actual testimony to that effect.

The world lives with the consequences of this inhumanity. Hollywood sanitises it.

Simply being surprised to see something unusual is not racism, it's normal; failing to appreciate that a human is a human, is racism.

[Cyberyeti]

 Winstonm, on 2020-November-23, 18:26, said:

Normal here is racist for about 45% of the population. Not overt racism. White privilege is the order of the day. Few wear hoods or armbands. There is a reason the Republican party developed the "southern strategy", and why it has been so successful. That crap about guns, socialism, and taxes is simply code for "don't let them have what is rightfully ours".

Yes but this was a British BBC reporter saying they would be relatively normal in the UK.

I know only one almost certain Trump voter that I've met in person and a few more online. He's the BF of a good friend who's lived in the Netherlands for a few years studying in his 30s and they'll be moving to the US next year. He's a reasonably intelligent guy who's been out in the real world for a while. He really misses going out in the woods and shooting cans. For him, gun control is a huge issue with the Democrats. He also doesn't believe some of the criticism of Trump that has apppeared in the media.

Some of the Trump voters I've met online (through MMOs mainly) are much less reasonable, and yes, some are racist, but to characterise them all as that is lazy.

As somebody who has been a victim of full on racism and stereotyping, I find some of the characterisation of some much more minor stuff as racism offensive. Many of the people who feel "don't let them have what is rightfully ours" feel it through privilege not race, they don't want their taxes going to "white trash" either. Basically their view is that if you can't earn your own way, you're inferior, ignoring that their privilege made it way easier. Race is a part of that, but far from all of it.

[pilowsky]

I stopped using the word 'intelligent' decades ago. It's a construct developed by Alfred Binet to sort high school students into streams. I read his book when I was 15. It was in the school library.
It was pointless then and it's pointless now. But Bridge players love IQ tests because Bridge players love keeping score. Chess players are the same. I've never met a brilliant social worker that cared less.


A person has a personality, most parents will report that they can 'see' that personality at birth and that it rarely changes. The serious quiet child stays that way. The happy cuddly child remains the same.
Competencies, on the other hand, can be acquired. The environment and genetics can enhance or detract from a persons ability to acquire competencies which may be in different areas.
I think this is why the States best Chess player when I was young was a taxi driver and the Professors could never beat him.

People can achieve remarkable things in one area but be incapable of achievement in another. Yet another good reason why racism is pointless and we should all care for each other.