Integrity of 2020 elections.

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Lerner, Nov 28, 2020.

Loading...
  1. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    He'll get inaugurated because he won.

    Also, you're considerably overestimating the importance of international opinion to U.S. policymakers and Americans in general.
     
  2. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Trump calls Georgia governor to pressure him for help overturning Biden’s win in the state

    For those of you who support the president, I have a serious question: are you okay with this? Because he's asking the governor of Georgia to ignore democracy and and autocratically award the votes to Trump, against the collective will of the people.

    This question can be applied to all extra-judicial actions taken by the president and his team, of course.

    Asking for a friend....
     
  3. SpoonyNix

    SpoonyNix Active Member

    When you read an article like that, do you recognize loaded words that appeal to emotion? If you recognize the loaded words, does it make you trust the reporters even less? Did you like that healthy mention of possible criminal violations of the Hatch Act? Didja like how they went to a law professor, highlighted the idea that criminal acts took place, but then a little later quoted her as saying that even if there WEREN'T crimes committed “(s)uch a move would undermine public confidence in our constitutional system and do damage to future elections".

    Doesn't it make you sad that this is what "journalism" is?
     
  4. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    Trump saw the videos of systematic cheating in GA.
    He is still fighting for what he thinks happened there.
    If elections was fraudulent then GA state legislators have rights?

    You seen the video of a person running the same ballot stack over and over in to the machine?
    This cannot be explained other than election fraud.
    So I don't advocate not to count legal votes but it appears there was infusion at night of illegal votes.

    Now I'm not a scholar or law professional but isn't the Constitution allows for this to ultimately be settled by the House.
    What a foresight the founding fathers had. They were like Computer Scientists with no computers.
    Their usage of IF " IF then Else " and "case" statements and edge conditions is amazing . Had to be God inspired.
     
  5. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    No.
     
  6. SpoonyNix

    SpoonyNix Active Member

    It doesn't make me sad, either, I suppose. More.... disappointed. It is Big Business, though, and it's not like it's ever been clean.
     
  7. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    "No," because I don't agree with the premise.
     
  8. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    Michigan Judge GRANTS Trump Team AUDIT of DOMINION MACHINES!
    GA 22 machines will undergo forensic examination.

    The judge's ruling granted a requested injunction to Antrim County resident William Bailey, who, according to court documents, alleged his ballot was not counted on November 3. Bailey's complaint did not reference the presidential race, but instead cited a local ordinance to authorize the establishment of a marijuana retailer in his county, which passed by one vote after Election Day.

    Neither Trump nor his campaign is referenced in the judge's decision, although it does grant his request for a forensic review of Dominion Voting Systems' tabulation software, which the county used to collect and count votes during the general election.

     
  9. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    He's not wrong. Story selection and loaded words and phrases are common means by which even factually accurate journalism is designed to sway opinion rather than simply report facts.
     
  10. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    I think he is.
     
  11. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Then Lerner's not the only one who only sees what he wants to see.
     
  12. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Must you be so (a) negative, (b) churlish, and (c) personal? I don't recall ever saying anything about you. Why do you do this?
     
  13. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    I think this may be unfair. At least from my understanding. Here's a copy of Spooky's statement.

    When you read an article like that, do you recognize loaded words that appeal to emotion? If you recognize the loaded words, does it make you trust the reporters even less? Did you like that healthy mention of possible criminal violations of the Hatch Act? Didja like how they went to a law professor, highlighted the idea that criminal acts took place, but then a little later quoted her as saying that even if there WEREN'T crimes committed “(s)uch a move would undermine public confidence in our constitutional system and do damage to future elections".

    Doesn't it make you sad that this is what "journalism" is?

    My interpretation was that there is a misunderstanding of the Hatch Act details. This law only applies to government workers in the executive branch. It applies to no one else. Therefore it was written as a law with no teeth. Meaning it is a law that carries no penalties. When the law was written it was assumed that the executive branch would follow the law because the executive branch is tasked with enforcing the laws of the land. The current administration has ignored all such laws with no teeth. So laws are being broken every week by this administration but there are not really any penalties. No one can be charged with a crime.

    So I didn't interpret it as an issue of loaded words and misleading journalism, I instead interpreted it as much more likely that it's ignorance of the Hatch Act on the part of Spooky.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2020
  14. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    You're right, I'm too given to intemperate remarks. I'll work harder on it.
     
    Rich Douglas likes this.
  15. SpoonyNix

    SpoonyNix Active Member

    I COULD have shared my interpretation or view of the Hatch Act. Didn't. Anywhere. You are being disingenuous and insulting. I think you ought to apologize.
     
  16. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    I apologize for referring to you as Spooky. I should have said Spoony.

    I stand by this though "So I didn't interpret it as an issue of loaded words and misleading journalism, I instead interpreted it as much more likely that it's ignorance of the Hatch Act on the part of Spooky."

    I haven't been given any information that convinces me otherwise.

    Here's the way I see it. I can't read the Washington Post article myself because I don't have a subscription. I have had a subscription in the past though and I consider the Washington Post as generally an extremely credible source. Rated Extremely High for reliability https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-post/ You on the other hand I've read very little and most of your posts are one or two lines which doesn't give one much feel for your credibility.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2020
  17. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    And shall I.
     
  18. SpoonyNix

    SpoonyNix Active Member

    I read the article yesterday no problem. Today, it says I need a subscription, so I understand if you are flying blind here.

    That said, I still did not give ANY of my personal thoughts on the Hatch Act. I never stated whether or not I thought the article was factually correct or incorrect. I brought up the loaded words and leading statements in the article and wondered to what extent that damages the trust and confidence Rich has for "journalism". The loaded words, you'll have to read the article for yourself. I actually started quoting from the article, but there were a LOT of examples and I thought, meh, they can read just as well as I can, so forget it. The article hints at the POSSIBILITY that Trump committed criminal violations of the Hatch Act. Maybe so, but why hint at potential criminal violations with nothing specific to back it up? (I know why). And then a few sentences later throw in the idea that well, even if there wasn't criminal misconduct, this undermines confidence in our constitutional system. So, journalism is- maybe there was a crime committed, but even if there wasn't, something could have happened that is really really seriously bad?!? There IS a story here, but the bias and sensationalism is ridiculous (so I ridicule it). I have had face-to-face discussions with people about the state of the Media, and many people see the problem. I just wondered about the people in this forum, as I think they are like a lot of people out there that I do not associate with, or that perhaps I do but just seldom get into deeper discussions with them. Granted, this isn't the most effective platform for that.
     
  19. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    About which I responded with an answer as deep as the question.
     
  20. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    How come Biden outperformed Clinton, Obama and others?
    Is it anomaly?
     

Share This Page