Blow to US Democracy -Split from: U.S. presidential election modelling

[iNow]

6 hours ago, koti said:

Naw, I’ve withdrawn from knife fights with iNow right around the time when Philly was burning accompanied with looting and curfew. 

Did you cast personal aspersions and fail to support them with evidence when asked there, too?

[koti]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Did you cast personal aspersions and fail to support them with evidence when asked there, too?

When dealing with hopelessly biased stances I tend do that to avoid further antagonizing. I would really like to see where you found personal aspersions towards yourself from me though because I fail to see any. In case you find any - tough luck, I’m a dick remember? 

Edited January 8, 2021 by koti

[J.C.MacSwell]

From Fox News

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-wont-attend-biden-inauguration

 

""To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th," the president tweeted.

The president’s tweet comes after he spoke at a rally Wednesday, telling supporters that he would "never concede" and repeated unsubstantiated claims that the election was "stolen" from him and that he won in a "landslide.""

Seems Trump, while unwilling to concede, is at least acknowledging that Biden will be inaugurated.

Edited January 8, 2021 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

14 minutes ago, koti said:

I would really like to see where you found personal aspersions towards yourself from me

This was already boring last night, but just to clarify in hopes of moving along:

* MigL introduced the idea that members here support violence during protests (or look passed it / ignore it) when it's executed by people supporting a cause with which they agree. The implication was one of hypocrisy. I was one of the members implicitly being charged with this

* I challenged that. I have a vastly different recollection of these discussions and recall ALL of us saying violence is not okay and that we deplore it. I requested a direct quote or two as evidence to demonstrate what resulted in MigLs alternative understanding in case I was mistaken

* You spoke up reinforcing MigLs claim and said something to the effect about humanity being doomed if we on SFN cannot see how hypocritical we are being

* I asked you the same thing I asked MigL... Again a plain and simple request for an actual quote or two which led you to this conclusion. My supposition was that you and MigL have misinterpreted the intended meanings of posters here, that you're arguing against caricatures and fictions and frankly strawmen

* You flippantly blew me off, I said thanks for confirming you couldn't support your claims with evidence, and now we've repeated this exchange 2 or 3 times... Me: Please share a quote. You: Nah, no thanks.

That's fine dude, but again... You're asserting things about the behaviors of members on these forums. You've been challenged on the validity and veracity of your claims. You've been asked to back them up. You have refused now at least 4 times to support your assertion with actual posts despite those entirely reasonable requests.

It's too bad too, because this is a text-based medium so it's actually possible and not terribly hard to quote someone in support of our assertions... That is, of course, so long as we're not here to act solely as an insufferable... well... 

 

19 minutes ago, koti said:

tough luck, I’m a dick remember? 

Yes, I do... and I appreciate the very clear reminder of that fact here. 

[MigL]

Put down those knives guys ...

[koti]

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

This was already boring last night, but just to clarify in hopes of moving along:

* MigL introduced the idea that members here support violence during protests (or look passed it / ignore it) when it's executed by people supporting a cause with which they agree. The implication was one of hypocrisy. I was one of the members implicitly being charged with this

* I challenged that. I have a vastly different recollection of these discussions and recall ALL of us saying violence is not okay and that we deplore it. I requested a direct quote or two as evidence to demonstrate what resulted in MigLs alternative understanding in case I was mistaken

* You spoke up reinforcing MigLs claim and said something to the effect about humanity being doomed if we on SFN cannot see how hypocritical we are being

* I asked you the same thing I asked MigL... Again a plain and simple request for an actual quote or two which led you to this conclusion. My supposition was that you and MigL have misinterpreted the intended meanings of posters here, that you're arguing against caricatures and fictions and frankly strawmen

* You flippantly blew me off, I said thanks for confirming you couldn't support your claims with evidence, and now we've repeated this exchange 2 or 3 times... Me: Please share a quote. You: Nah, no thanks.

That's fine dude, but again... You're asserting things about the behaviors of members on these forums. You've been challenged on the validity and veracity of your claims. You've been asked to back them up. You have refused now at least 4 times to support your assertion with actual posts despite those entirely reasonable requests.

It's too bad too, because this is a text-based medium so it's actually possible and not terribly hard to quote someone in support of our assertions... That is, of course, so long as we're not here to act solely as an insufferable... well... 

 

Yes, I do... and I appreciate the very clear reminder of that fact here. 

I remember you saying in one of the threads a couple years ago in a context related to rape that we should believe all women to provide them safety. It was something along those lines, I can’t find it in the search function, might have been longer than 2 years. I think that was the moment when I decided its better for me to keep my distance.

Let me ask again, where did I use personal aspersions towards yourself? It would be much more effective if you could this time type some more paragraphs but this time containing an answer to my question.

Edited January 8, 2021 by koti

[iNow]

1 hour ago, koti said:

I remember you saying in one of the threads a couple years ago in a context related to rape that we should believe all women to provide them safety. It was something along those lines, I can’t find it in the search function

I said our default position should be to assume that the woman is telling the truth in majority of these cases. Also, none of this is about excusing violence during BLM protests while admonishing it during StopTheSteal protests. See the difference?

 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Put down those knives guys ...

I'm American, remember? I brought a gun to the knife fight.

Edited January 8, 2021 by iNow

[koti]

36 minutes ago, iNow said:

I said our default position should be to assume that the woman is telling the truth in majority of these cases. Also, none of this is about excusing violence during BLM protests while admonishing it during StopTheSteal protests. See the difference?

That right there imo is a perfect example of what MigL was talking about. Also the word „majority” was definitely not part of that post but „all” was.

 

Quote

I'm American, remember? I brought a gun to the knife fight.

Cute and would be funny but considering the context (raid on the Capitol) it's a little awkward.

Edited January 8, 2021 by koti

[iNow]

42 minutes ago, koti said:

the word „majority” was definitely not part of that post but „all” was.

I disagree. Prove me wrong with a direct quote, if you'd like. 

3 hours ago, koti said:

When dealing with hopelessly biased stances I tend do that to avoid further antagonizing. I would really like to see where you found personal aspersions towards yourself from me though because I fail to see any.

Earlier, I was primarily referring to the claims of hypocrisy, but what’s super funny is how you did it again right here in the sentence immediately preceding your request for me to find an example. 

1 hour ago, koti said:

Cute

Thanks. I try. 

[koti]

49 minutes ago, iNow said:

I disagree. Prove me wrong with a direct quote, if you'd like.

I can't find it, might be my faulty memory but it's irrelevant. MigL's comment about many examples on this forum of excusing, turning  a blind eye or rationalizing actions when they agree with a certain cause and you defending against this is the reason I commented. Can you say with a clear conscience that SFN is not biased towards any political views?

[swansont]

21 hours ago, koti said:

One thing which is very apparent to me when seeing the analogies between populists elevating to power in US and PL (Hungary, Bielarus too) which might not be very apparent to the US citizens right now but should be is that Trump is not a Republican just like our government here is not right wing although people tend to categorize both like that. Trump imo is republicans bad science experiment gone wrong but he cannot be considered a Republican himself. The sooner people start to understand this and accept it, the sooner it will be possible to get rid of that psycho. George W. Bush wrote a very strong statement today condemning Trump. I just hope Obama/Clinton plus Bush and a couple other prominent republicans would unite all together to condemn Trump.

I think the problem is that Trump is very much a Republican. For many in the GOP, he only just now crossed the line with sedition and insurrection (and for others, he hasn’t crossed it yet. Elected officials and the GOP base)

The senate could have convicted him after he was impeached, but chose not to. The voters could have voted for someone else, or stayed home, but he got even more votes after 4 years of his actions being front and center. He’s been carrying out the GOP’s policies - restrictive immigration if you aren’t white and Christian, tax cuts for the rich, voter suppression, deregulation, no healthcare, abd fully-aligned with Mitch McConnell’s aim to un-do pretty much everything Obama did.

No, the notion that Trump is not a Republican doesn’t hold water.

2 hours ago, koti said:

Can you say with a clear conscience that SFN is not biased towards any political views?

To the extent that it appears to be, it’s because certain political views are reprehensible, and the site is biased towards views that reject them. That would give the appearance of this bias.

White supremacy would be one example, or political stances that reject treating groups of people equally.

The membership is slanted heavily toward those that are interested in science, and it’s not the site’s fault that some political groups reject science that they don’t like.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, koti said:

Can you say with a clear conscience that SFN is not biased towards any political views?

I've not made any claims whatsoever about bias on this forum. That was you guys, remember?

[koti]

43 minutes ago, iNow said:

I've not made any claims whatsoever about bias on this forum. That was you guys, remember?

Okay. I presume I will have to take that as an answer.

[iNow]

I really wish you’d stop derailing the thread by asking me to defend claims I haven’t made. 

[Arete]

A woman carrying a Gadsden flag was trampled to death in the Capitol building riot. 

[iNow]

I’ve also seen stories saying a man tazed himself to death in the testicles, but I’m trying to be extra cautious of unverified sources right now. Fake news is now real... sadly. 

[CharonY]

Quote

Rosanne Boyland, a 34-year-old resident of Kennesaw, Georgia, was one of four civilians who died in the rioting, according to Washington, DC police. A Capitol Police officer also died from injuries in the melee.

Police did not disclose the cause of Boyland’s death.

However, Justin Winchell, a friend who accompanied Boyland to a Trump rally near the White House and marched with her to the Capitol, told Atlanta CBS affiliate WGCL that she was trampled to death in a massive crowd surge when protesters clashed with Capitol Police.

According to Reuters

[CharonY]

As related piece of information which somewhat connects to the whole matter (specifically with regard to BLM which protests police violence) is in this article. 

Quote

Between May 1 and November 28, 2020, authorities were more than twice as likely to attempt to break up and disperse a left-wing protest¹ than a right-wing² one. And in those situations when law enforcement chose to intervene, they were more likely to use force — 34 percent of the time with right-wing protests compared with 51 percent of the time for the left. Given when this data was collected, it predominantly reflects a difference in how police respond to Black Lives Matter, compared with how they respond to anti-mask demonstrations, pro-Trump extremists, QAnon rallies, and militia groups.

Quote

The differences in intervention weren’t because BLM protests were particularly violent. ACLED found that 93 percent of the protests associated with BLM were entirely peaceful. “Even if we were to put those [7] percent of demonstrations aside and look purely at peaceful [BLM protests], we are seeing a more heavy handed response [compared with right-wing protests],” Kishi said.

Quote

This data is new and limited, but it is in keeping with long-documented biases in how police think about and treat Black people compared with white people, and with research that shows police and military personnel overlapping significantly with the same far-right groups they treat preferentially.

Quote

And Maguire says this represents a jarring breach between the treatment right-wing extremists expect and the reality. The consequences of that worry him. He’s been watching this year as those extremists’ beliefs about themselves and their relationship with police grew increasingly religious and apocalyptic. “[They told me] that leftists are godless and they hate god and hate America. That’s what I heard from folks on the right. [But] they were god fearing moral people and police would always back them for that reason,” he said. Now, you have a situation where police are giving these people more leeway and, at the same time, right-wing groups may perceive their relationship with police being undermined. “I can … see the possibility that people who feel the police have broken some type of implicit or imagined pact may try to outmaneuver police and behave destructively,” he said.

 

[beecee]

Observations from an old fart, from down under:

Over the last few years, observations by many people in my country have made on American politics range from, [1] four years ago: How the bloody hell did the USA, the leader of the free world elect someone like Trump as their President? [2] After numerous gaffs and outrageous comments over those 4 years, why did his own party persevere with him? [3] Why the more recent unbelievable actions and words by Trump and that other fool acting as his Lawyer, have not immediately been acted upon?

Trump, from my observations, has over the last four years, only acted on behalf of the typical reactionary racist redneck in American society. I don't really believe that the near half of Americans that voted for Trump, are typical as defined by the reactionary racist redneck.

We have our own right wing perhaps more subtle version of Trump as our Prime Minister. He totally ignores the science for climate change, and also the present pandemic, although thankfully most of our state Premiers have taken in the science and acted to keep it under control. He is condoned because many people [like in the USA, near half] do not accept the fact that short term pain, means long term gain with relation to the Pandemic and climate change. I see it as a "f*&% you, I'm alright Jack" mentality.

Those two important factors seem to be somewhat lost in the extreme crazy behaviour of Trump, and his outright attack on American democracy. We have a saying in Australia sometimes used in jocular fashion, when something extraordinary happens in the States, "Only in America" That has been used constantly over the last four years.

 

[koti]

23 hours ago, iNow said:

I really wish you’d stop derailing the thread by asking me to defend claims I haven’t made. 

Where would you say I am deraling an already split thread on politics iNow? Would you say its more towards testical taze or political bias?

Edited January 9, 2021 by koti

[swansont]

50 minutes ago, beecee said:

Observations from an old fart, from down under:

Over the last few years, observations by many people in my country have made on American politics range from, [1] four years ago: How the bloody hell did the USA, the leader of the free world elect someone like Trump as their President? [2] After numerous gaffs and outrageous comments over those 4 years, why did his own party persevere with him? [3] Why the more recent unbelievable actions and words by Trump and that other fool acting as his Lawyer, have not immediately been acted upon?

The US is not alone in electing a leader who pandered to a base with bigotry and other base emotion, while having an interesting relationship with facts. Trump is perhaps an extreme example.  

And by the polls, there are plenty of supporters who are comfortable with his foray into sedition and insurrection.

 

Quote

Trump, from my observations, has over the last four years, only acted on behalf of the typical reactionary racist redneck in American society. I don't really believe that the near half of Americans that voted for Trump, are typical as defined by the reactionary racist redneck.

Not half of Americans. Less than half of voters; Trump did not get a majority even when he won, and about a third of eligible voters did not vote (edit: in 2020). And we have a voting system with an intrinsic bias, and, as it happens, it’s biased in Trump’s direction.

 

 

[beecee]

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

 And by the polls, there are plenty of supporters who are comfortable with his foray into sedition and insurrection.

Yeah, that's sad.

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

Not half of Americans. Less than half of voters; Trump did not get a majority even when he won, and about a third of eligible voters did not vote. And we have a voting system with an intrinsic bias, and, as it happens, it’s biased in Trump’s direction.

Yep, I do understand that, which is why I said "near" half. We of course in Australia also have compulsory voting, and while that's not fool proof [nothing stopping a voter from writing on his voting paper whatever he likes] I see it as at least an effort in making sure all eligible voters can and do have their say. I would also agree that the more radical and extremist be the potential voter, the more likely would he/she be to make sure he gets in his man to get his extreme views acted on. So, is compulsory voting the answer? 

[swansont]

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

So, is compulsory voting the answer? 

Remove the barriers to voting/expand the opportunities (early voting, more locations, mail-in + drop boxes, same-day registration) 
Pay people to vote if they do it in person - cover a few hours of low-end wages so they can afford to take off work, and make it so employers must give the time off.

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

Remove the barriers to voting/expand the opportunities (early voting, more locations, mail-in + drop boxes, same-day registration) 
Pay people to vote if they do it in person - cover a few hours of low-end wages so they can afford to take off work, and make it so employers must give the time off.

Do they not do that in the US?

[CharonY]

27 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Do they not do that in the US?

There are different state laws (I think in Canada it is regulated federally), and many do not require time off. In cases where it is allowed one might get 1-2 hours (usuall) paid time off. A big issue is that this time might often not be enough, especially in poor and minority neighbourhoods. Some data suggests that e.g. black voters are 3x more likely to wait 30 mins or longer compared to white voters. In those cases one or even two hours may not be enough to get back to work on time. This year the situation has been especially bad, but there has been a confluence of many issues.