2024 Republican Primary

[SGR]

Better late than never, I hope:
I looked at the comments you made before Christmas, SGR, and as you took the trouble to write in some detail, I thought I'd return the compliment:-

If Trumpers were throwing cases at the courts without proper standing, then their usual policy of stirring up a bunch of smoke and doubts to confuse people backfired on them in this case, because a total of 62 cases filed doen't look good for them, as they have at most 1 court finding partially in their favour. 

Per the bolded, this seems a little opinionated, as you're construing the purpose of these court filings to be to 'stir up a bunch of smoke and doubts to confuse people' rather than taking them in good faith at face value to be for the purpose of clearing up questions about the integrity of the election.

No dichotomy, SGR: as in many countries, the US democratic system more or less works, but that doesn't mean that it's not vulnerable to someone in power determined to dismantle it. I think today Hungary and Israel illustrate how that can happen, plus a zillion historical examples from Africa and Latin America.

With all due respect, I don't really take comparisons of the United States to completely corrupt countries/governments in Latin America and Africa that seriously. Just because Idi Amin took power and abused it in Uganda doesn't teach us practically anything instructive or useful as to the risks the government of the US faces. As for Israel and Hungary, you'd have to explain more what you mean for me to properly respond - do you believe the systems of checks and balances in those countries is as strong as what we have in the United States?

I looked at your links, and enjoyed the dubious pleasure of reading Trump´s actual words. It's true that neither quote was quite as bad as the versions popularised by CNN and other news channels. As I conceded originally, he didn't actually say "drink bleach", but his suggestions about disinfectant were pretty irresponsible. As Nimbly pointed out, plenty of people took him to mean "drink disinfectant" and a whole bunch of cleaning supply companies had to issue statements about "Don't drink our product".

Do you truly think most people took him to mean that based on what he actually said - or how the media reported on it? Who's really the 'irresponsible' party here? You don't think it's the media who had full access to what he said and still chose to completely misrepresent it?

Bleach or Charlottesville, in both cases there has been selective editing, biased reporting, and as your links prove, accuracy and precise words matter. In that spirit, I feel you have used the wrong word to describe these controvertial news stories about Trump's declarations: the two news stories are not "hoaxes" because they are based on things that happened, even if those things were distorted in biased and inaccurate reporting. But a hoax is something different: something like the Pizzagate conspiracy or the Ruby Freeman USB memory stick - something that never existed at all.

I don't think I've used the wrong word at all. Oxford defines hoax as: "an act intended to make somebody believe something that is not true, especially something unpleasant". Whether it's bigfoot videos, videos of 'UFO's or political misrepresentations - to that end, all hoaxes are based on things that 'happened', otherwise, they'd gain no traction at all. The 'happened' part all depends on the context of how it's presented, we can even have video evidence of something 'happening' but the way it's presented is entirely fictional. Take the Covington Kids incident for example - the media reported it as a young and racist Trump supporter antagonizing a Native American - and we can even see the video, but the context of it was the exact opposite of what many media outlets reported. The Native American went up to him and his group and antagonized them. And thanks to the initial media representation of the matter, this young dude was branded as a racist, extremist, and a bigot. As a result, CNN settled a multi-million dollar lawsuit filed by him and his lawyer.

It's something that bugs me about Trump: he is so quick to bring out labels like "hoax" and "fake news" that the whole issue of bias in the media isn't examined in the more nuanced way that it should be, with both sides agreeing that they are guilty and could do better.

I'd argue that when Trump brings out those labels, he's giving a clear signal that he believes the media is lying, and often times they are (often by omission of details or context). But so many liberals and democrats are so accustomed to demonizing Trump or believing he always lies that they never consider he's telling the truth. As the cases I've brought up show, sometimes he is. (and to be fair, more Republicans and Trump supporters should be more skeptical of what he says - recent example being Trump saying Nikki Haley can't run for president because of her heritage - she was born in the United States so this claim is complete bullshit)

And yes, thanks SGR - I had a great time in the UK. I hope you had a good Christmas too.

Glad to hear it buddy! I did have a good Christmas! And it's good to have you back on the forum! 

[Lisnaholic]

Per the bolded, this seems a little opinionated, as you're construing the purpose of these court filings to be to 'stir up a bunch of smoke and doubts to confuse people' rather than taking them in good faith at face value to be for the purpose of clearing up questions about the integrity of the election.

Yes, that's my opinion, SGR, based on things like Steve Bannon's pre-election declaration of intent to undermine the 2020 election result:-

...and although he doesn't specifically refer to lawsuits, Wikipedia does:-

Both before and after the election, the campaign for incumbent president Donald Trump filed a number of lawsuits contesting election processes, vote counting, and the vote certification process in multiple states... Many cases were quickly dismissed, and lawyers and other observers noted that the lawsuits are not likely to have an effect on the outcome of the election. Trump, his supporters, and his attorneys asserted widespread election fraud in public statements.

The Trump campaign suffered several setbacks on November 13, 2020. The Department of Homeland Security released a statement saying that the election was the "most secure in American history" and that there was no evidence any voting systems malfunctioned.[33] Sixteen federal prosecutors assigned to monitor the election sent a letter to Attorney General William Barr saying there was no evidence of widespread irregularities. A law firm hired by the campaign in Pennsylvania quit amidst concerns they were being used to undermine the electoral process.

Four lawsuits orchestrated by conservative lawyer James Bopp in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania were dropped on November 16 after a federal appellate court said voters could not bring some constitutional claims.

Federal judges in Georgia and Michigan rejected last-ditch efforts by pro-Trump lawyer Sidney Powell to overturn the election results on December 7, 2020.[39] United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Judge Linda Parker wrote, "[T]his lawsuit seems to be less about achieving the relief Plaintiffs seek—as much of that relief is beyond the power of this Court—and more about the impact of their allegations on People's faith in the democratic process and their trust in our government." In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Judge Timothy Batten wrote, "They want this court to substitute its judgment for two-and-a-half million voters who voted for Joe Biden... And this I am unwilling to do."

^ Nothing above suggests to me a good faith clearing up of questions. That's why I agree with Judge Linda Parker:- "This lawsuit seems to be less about achieving the relief Plaintiffs seek ...and more about the impact of their allegations on People's faith in the democratic process and their trust in our government."

With all due respect, I don't really take comparisons of the United States to completely corrupt countries/governments in Latin America and Africa that seriously. Just because Idi Amin took power and abused it in Uganda doesn't teach us practically anything instructive or useful as to the risks the government of the US faces. As for Israel and Hungary, you'd have to explain more what you mean for me to properly respond - do you believe the systems of checks and balances in those countries is as strong as what we have in the United States?

It's your choice if you decline to learn from comparisons, SGR. I find that in all kinds of situations, comparisons are a great way to get a more balanced perspective, a deeper understanding of the thing you are mainly focused on. I've done it with my job vs. other jobs, scientists have done it with our sun vs. other suns, buying this sofa vs. buying that sofa, etc, etc. No reason why we shouldn't apply the same approach to US politics, as authors Levitsky and Ziblatt make clear:-

Democracies may die at the hands of elected leaders—presidents or prime ministers who subvert the very process that brought them to power...Democracy's erosion is, for many, almost imperceptible.

How vulnerable is American democracy to this form of backsliding? The foundations of our democracy are certainly stronger than those in Venezuela, Turkey, or Hungary. But are they strong enough?

Answering such a question requires stepping back from daily headlines and breaking news alerts to widen our view, drawing lessons from the experiences of other democracies around the world and throughout history.

Here's a link to an article they wrote for the American Academy In Berlin, from which the above quote is taken:  https://www.americanacademy.de/how-democracies-die/
The article explains way better than I can why international comparisons may be useful in building up a more complete, balanced picture of US politics today.

Do you truly think most people took him to mean that based on what he actually said - or how the media reported on it? Who's really the 'irresponsible' party here? You don't think it's the media who had full access to what he said and still chose to completely misrepresent it?

^ This point about the bleach remark is a good one! The media could have been more responsible and nipped the idea in the bud, but then half the media has a deer-in-the-headlights approach to Trump, and must have been wondering, as so many people did, "Is he saying we should ingest disinfectant? Better not say anything til Trump clarifies what he means."

I don't think I've used the wrong word at all. Oxford defines hoax as: "an act intended to make somebody believe something that is not true, especially something unpleasant". Whether it's bigfoot videos, videos of 'UFO's or political misrepresentations - to that end, all hoaxes are based on things that 'happened', otherwise, they'd gain no traction at all. The 'happened' part all depends on the context of how it's presented, we can even have video evidence of something 'happening' but the way it's presented is entirely fictional.

.

I really can't agree with the bold, SGR. Some hoaxes are flat out not true (as your own quoted definition makes clear) and are not based on things that happened. Here's an example:-

I'd argue that when Trump brings out those labels, he's giving a clear signal that he believes the media is lying, and often times they are (often by omission of details or context). But so many liberals and democrats are so accustomed to demonizing Trump or believing he always lies that they never consider he's telling the truth. As the cases I've brought up show, sometimes he is. (and to be fair, more Republicans and Trump supporters should be more skeptical of what he says - recent example being Trump saying Nikki Haley can't run for president because of her heritage - she was born in the United States so this claim is complete bullshit)

^ It's true that Trump has a talent for talking in soundbites which has served him well, and words like "hoax" and fake" deliver his message in a quick, clear fashion. I still prefer a different style of speech myself.
I notice that you're honest enough to call out Trump's latest line about Nikki Haley, and for my part, in defence of the bold, I'd like to remind you of the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. In Trump's case, it's a better bet, statistically, to assume that he's lying. 

Glad to hear it buddy! I did have a good Christmas! And it's good to have you back on the forum! 

^ Thanks SGR. I appreciate that.
I'm hoping that one day you and I might be back in the Album Club so we have a chance to swap opinions about music and not just politics, where we seem to be at rather opposite ends of the spectrum

[Psy-Fi]

"She's Arrogant, Conceited & Elitest" - Why Nikki Haley Thinks She's Better Than You

[Shhon]

[Shhon]

[jadis]

https://twitter.com/alfonsothrillfr/status/1746562185910784461?s=51

[jadis]

"She's Arrogant, Conceited & Elitest" - Why Nikki Haley Thinks She's Better Than You

Resentful misogynist losers

[jadis]

Looks like Donnie just gave MLK the best birthday present ever

[Psy-Fi]

Trump easily wins Iowa caucus in historic landslide, urges unity to 'straighten out death and destruction'

DES MOINES, Iowa — The first contest was no contest at all.

Former President Donald Trump won the Iowa caucus in a blowout Monday night — confirming his standing as the clear front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination.

With 97% of the expected vote in, Trump had 51.1% support, followed by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (21.2%), former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (19.1%) and biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy (7.7%), who ended his campaign and gave Trump his support as the result became clear.

The 77-year-old Trump recorded the biggest margin of victory in the modern history of the Iowa GOP caucus, dating back to 1976, and become the first Republican candidate to get more than 50% support in a contested caucus.

[Nimbly9]

So it's going to ultimately be Biden vs Trump vs RFK Jr. like I thought.  Bring it onnnnn!

[Psy-Fi]

Asa Hutchinson drops out of the 2024 presidential race


I guess I haven't been paying close enough attention to the Republican Presidential race, because I didn't know he was in it.

[SGR]

Yes, that's my opinion, SGR, based on things like Steve Bannon's pre-election declaration of intent to undermine the 2020 election result:-

...and although he doesn't specifically refer to lawsuits, Wikipedia does:-
^ Nothing above suggests to me a good faith clearing up of questions. That's why I agree with Judge Linda Parker:- "This lawsuit seems to be less about achieving the relief Plaintiffs seek ...and more about the impact of their allegations on People's faith in the democratic process and their trust in our government."

That's fair - what was the context of that Bannon quote? He seemed mostly right on the money with what he said Trump would do - but I thought he didn't have any ties to the administration after his ousting - Trump calling him "Sloppy Steve", etc.

Regardless, all of this does lead to a larger point that we've discussed before - and that's election reform - and making the election completely transparent and auditable, which it is not currently. If it was, Republicans (and Democrats) wouldn't be able to cast doubts on the integrity of the election. My belief though is that neither party will do anything about it, because they got elected with the system as it currently is - so what would be their impetus to change it?

Here's a recent revelation in Virginia:

https://apnews.com/article/virginia-election-errors-biden-trump-6555f052332d06c83ef797852f81fa72

A northern Virginia county is acknowledging that it underreported President Joe Biden's margin of victory over Donald Trump there in the 2020 presidential election by about 4,000 votes, the first detailed accounting of errors that came to light in 2022 as part of a criminal case.

We're still finding votes four years later, which proves they didn't know they were lost when the election was certified and that we have a system that can't even tell you if we've got all the votes and have counted them. Given that we have a system like that, how is that supposed to engender trust in 'our democracy' or our voting system?

It's your choice if you decline to learn from comparisons, SGR. I find that in all kinds of situations, comparisons are a great way to get a more balanced perspective, a deeper understanding of the thing you are mainly focused on. I've done it with my job vs. other jobs, scientists have done it with our sun vs. other suns, buying this sofa vs. buying that sofa, etc, etc. No reason why we shouldn't apply the same approach to US politics, as authors Levitsky and Ziblatt make clear:-
 

Here's a link to an article they wrote for the American Academy In Berlin, from which the above quote is taken:  https://www.americanacademy.de/how-democracies-die/
The article explains way better than I can why international comparisons may be useful in building up a more complete, balanced picture of US politics today.

I'm not declining to learn from comparisons. I'm simply stating I'm very skeptical of those comparisons because I believe the USA's system of governance, its checks and balances, its constitution, and its court systems are much more resilient to complete corruption or breakdown than say, countries in Latin America or Eastern Europe. I take those comparisons about as seriously as when Republicans warn we're turning into the Soviet Union or Communist China.

I've heard about that book before. Never read it - but taking a quick look at its Wikipedia entry:

The book, which offers stark warnings about the impact of the Republican Party and Donald Trump's presidency on U.S. democracy, influenced Joe Biden prior to his decision to run in the 2020 U.S. presidential election.
...
...
In an interview, Levitsky identifies two objectives of the book: one is defeating Trump and the other is shoring up our democracy.

Suffice it to say, Levitsky may have valid or compelling arguments in the book, but knowing it comes from a place of bias, even with the stated goal of defeating a political candidate, makes it difficult to take at face value. If he didn't want that bias to leak out, he should've said its stated goal was something to the effect of 'to better inform the public so that they can make the best voting decisions'.

^ This point about the bleach remark is a good one! The media could have been more responsible and nipped the idea in the bud, but then half the media has a deer-in-the-headlights approach to Trump, and must have been wondering, as so many people did, "Is he saying we should ingest disinfectant? Better not say anything til Trump clarifies what he means."

I think you're perhaps giving journalists and reporters a bit too much grace. It's supposed to be their job to seek clarification, to look at the set of facts they have, transcripts, video, etc and then give people the facts with accurate reporting. Not to wait around until clarification comes (if it does come), and in the meantime, write completely sensationalized articles to increase their bottom line and drive clicks (which is why they do it). To be critical of Trump, he often times speaks off the cuff, unscripted - and that was not what was needed during the COVID-19 pandemic - and Trump's eventual response to this media criticism that he was 'being sarcastic' was shortsighted - he seemed to want to be rid of the whole matter instead of fighting it (like he normally does). But the media was doing this kind of stuff long before COVID-19 (e.g. the 'calling nazis fine people' lie). Here's Trump's transcript about the light disinfectant that led the media to suggest he was talking about injecting bleach - you can clearly see he's not talking about bleach here, but if you remove the context, and just focus on 'injection' and 'disinfectant', obviously it would be easy to mislead the public about what he was suggesting, and that's what happened:

Trump, April 23: A question that probably some of you are thinking of if you're totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it's ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said that hasn't been checked, but you're going to test it. And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you're going to test that too. Sounds interesting, right? And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it'd be interesting to check that. So that you're going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we'll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute. That's pretty powerful.

I really can't agree with the bold, SGR. Some hoaxes are flat out not true (as your own quoted definition makes clear) and are not based on things that happened. Here's an example:-



^ It's true that Trump has a talent for talking in soundbites which has served him well, and words like "hoax" and fake" deliver his message in a quick, clear fashion. I still prefer a different style of speech myself.
I notice that you're honest enough to call out Trump's latest line about Nikki Haley, and for my part, in defence of the bold, I'd like to remind you of the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. In Trump's case, it's a better bet, statistically, to assume that he's lying. 

I understand what you mean - some hoaxes are completely baseless (e.g. a pact between Trump and extraterrestrials), while others are not completely baseless (e.g. a Bigfoot video [even what's depicted isn't a Bigfoot, we see that something is there]), but to double back to the original point though, that 'hoax' is the wrong word for these media misrepresentations, I still disagree on that. If we look at the Cambridge definition: 'a plan to deceive someone, such as telling the police there is a bomb somewhere when there is not one, or a trick',
the media plans the stories to deceive people into thinking Trump (and it's not just him, but he's what we're talking about) said or suggested something that he actually did not, even though they have all the evidence in front of them to disprove their story, for the purpose of driving engagement and increasing profits. But you could simply call it 'lies' or 'fake news' too.

^ Thanks SGR. I appreciate that.
I'm hoping that one day you and I might be back in the Album Club so we have a chance to swap opinions about music and not just politics, where we seem to be at rather opposite ends of the spectrum

Yeah, maybe after football season is over and/or after I get my house - I'll be less busy and join in on the fun again. I had a lot of fun discussing our opinions on the albums in my last run. And even if we do disagree on things politically, it's all good - if everyone agreed on things politically, there certainly wouldn't be much fun in discussing it. 

[Shhon]

[DJChameleon]

Vivek suspended his campaign to fully endorse Trump

[SGR]

Vivek suspended his campaign to fully endorse Trump

Do you think he'll start to go out and stump for Trump? If he does, I think he'll be highly effective. Vivek articulates practically the same messages as Trump, but he's much more incisive and articulate.