2024 US Presidential Election

[Psy-Fi]

Trump, RFK Jr. face hostile reception at Libertarian convention amid efforts to sway voters

[Lisnaholic]

They may not be the exact same - but there's certainly an intersection - a venn diagram if you will. But by all means, if you think the Democrats' current approach and strategy is working and will be successful in winning the election with their current voter engagement and enthusiasm, more power to you.

Yes, Venn diagram is a good way to describe it. I'm not saying that the Dems have a winning strategy, SGR, I was saying that random snippets of rallies don't tell us much of value about the election.

The irony is not lost on me that the clip you sent me as a rebuttal in your first response is from MSNBC, which is essentially the highly partisan left wing version of Fox News (they're even more biased than CNN). This outlet, who you claim are a sign of healthy media coverage in fact-checking Trump's crowd size claims, are the same outlet that have a history of spreading lies about Trump, which we've already discussed in a different thread. But these lies were much more impactful and important to know the truth about than Trump's crowd size numbers. So important, that Biden originally announced he was running for president in 2020 because of one of the lies (which he certainly knew was a lie by then).

Yes, I don't think there's a media outlet that doesn't lie and mis-represent, but some are worse at that than others.

 I notice that, on the one hand, you have previously made a point about the unreliability of the Charlottevilllle quote, but then go on to accept that that quote was the reason Biden is running for President. Why not go the extra mile and conclude that the whole quote-and-inspiration-to-run story is just a made-for-tv simplification, and that Biden was considering running anyway? They just stitched together a story that made it sound good: that's advertising, not politics. 

MTG is a clown. But for this whole DOJ authorizing the use of deadly force in the FBI raid of Mar-a-Lago deal, I haven't come to my own conclusion about that completely. To me, it seems like a 'cover your ass' manuever so that if something crazy and unexpected happens, and one of the FBI agents needs to use deadly force, they can't be prosecuted for it afterwards. I'll admit that I haven't dug deep into the subject, but if someone could show me evidence that the DOJ granting the FBI authority to use lethal force in a raid like this is a real anomaly, maybe I'd change my mind. Otherwise, I think the whole story is a nothing-burger that Republicans will attempt to use to paint Trump as a victim/martyr of a corrupt justice system.

Yep, I think it's already sufficiently debunked, along with so many empty accusations from the GOP.

When my mum was telling me about life during WWII, she said this: "There was a new news story every day and it was hard to understand what was really happening". To me that's a problem with so much election coverage: this poll, that rally turns the election into a kind of personality contest. That's not the big picture to my mind. More important are some of the fundamental policy divides between the two parties. Not all, but some are outlined in this BBC article, which, in terms of bias, is probably fairer than the US cable tv news channels:-

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68790777 

[SGR]

Yes, Venn diagram is a good way to describe it. I'm not saying that the Dems have a winning strategy, SGR, I was saying that random snippets of rallies don't tell us much of value about the election.

That's fair, you didn't necessarily say that. To clarify my previous point (perhaps I initially did so poorly), I understand what you mean by the snippets of rallies not being a valuable comparison point in isolation about voter enthusiasm, I was trying to, with a little levity and humor, make the point of the difference in voter enthusiam between Democrats (quiet sit down with elevator music) and Republicans (cheering crowds, rap videos being shot) that is indicated in real polling. Unfortunately, it seems like I didn't get a laugh out of you. 

Yes, I don't think there's a media outlet that doesn't lie and mis-represent, but some are worse at that than others.

 I notice that, on the one hand, you have previously made a point about the unreliability of the Charlottevilllle quote, but then go on to accept that that quote was the reason Biden is running for President. Why not go the extra mile and conclude that the whole quote-and-inspiration-to-run story is just a made-for-tv simplification, and that Biden was considering running anyway? They just stitched together a story that made it sound good: that's advertising, not politics. 

I'm not sure I completely understand your point here. It's not that the Charlottesville quote was 'unreliable', it's that it was a lie by omission to make it seem like Trump believed that neo-nazis/white nationalists were "fine people" and that he was sympathtetic to them and their causes.

You're probably right that Biden was going to run anyways, and it was a 'made for TV simplification' of his reason(s) for running, but is that supposed to make the lie better somehow? My issue isn't that it was 'Biden's reason for running', it's that the lie was so impactful (in terms of how the media spread it, without the context that makes it completely untrue), and so many people believed it, that Biden used it to kick off his campaign - and that the media outlets that you appreciate for 'fact checking' and believe are a 'sign of healthy media coverage' also freely traffic in lies like this when the lie is damaging someone who's not 'their guy' and it benefits their side to spread the lie. To be fair, it's not just Dems/Liberals, I'm sure Fox News does it too against Biden and Democrats (though I can't immediately think of an example that's as damaging and egregious as this one), but I don't regularly watch Fox/CNN/MSNBC.

Yep, I think it's already sufficiently debunked, along with so many empty accusations from the GOP.

When my mum was telling me about life during WWII, she said this: "There was a new news story every day and it was hard to understand what was really happening". To me that's a problem with so much election coverage: this poll, that rally turns the election into a kind of personality contest. That's not the big picture to my mind. More important are some of the fundamental policy divides between the two parties. Not all, but some are outlined in this BBC article, which, in terms of bias, is probably fairer than the US cable tv news channels:-

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68790777 

There's definitely a 'fog of war' element to election coverage. It's hard to know who and what to believe. I'm not sure if 'personality contest' is the right term, but I think it's definitely a 'popularity contest'. I agree, it would probably be ideal if elections could be solely about policy differences and records of the politicians in question, but that will never be the reality of it. Human beings, I think probably by their nature, are incapable of mechanistically and robotically analyzing policy differences to make their voting decisions. People, by and large I think, vote with their emotions. Sometimes, it's about the candidate that makes you feel good. Other times, it might be the candidate who makes you feel fear about the other candidate. I think fear is probably the biggest driver, but there's also identity which is a large driver of actions. For Democrats that identity messaging might be: "Are you a good person who wants to give immigrants a chance at a better life and provide universal health care to everyone?", for Republicans: "Are you a Patriot who respects our heritage and wants to uphold the rule of law?". I think it was one of Trollheart's threads, but I posted a link to a study on how malleable the behavior of children are when you motivate them by identity.

One addition to the 'voting on policy differences' thing. Even if human beings by and large were remotely capable of appreciably doing this, it would all be for naught with the way our media is structured. Not just the mainstream TV media, but internet/Youtube/print media, etc. Could you imagine a world where Sean Hannity or Joy Reid popped up on the TV on a nightly basis to report only policy differences, direct quotes from new statements the candidates made recently, how the polling is looking, recent economic indicators that might sway the election to one candidate or the other based on their proposed policies, etc. (i.e. reporting nothing but dry facts)? Firstly, no one would watch it because it would be too boring, and secondly, outrage is what makes them money.  So yeah, in our media landscape, and by our nature (I think), we cannot escape the emotions which drive our voting behavior.

By the way, not a bad article from the BBC. It didn't come across as very biased to me, but definitely a little on the brief side in terms of the issues. A decent summary at least. 

[Psy-Fi]

Libertarians choose Chase Oliver as presidential nominee.

[SGR]

Libertarians choose Chase Oliver as presidential nominee.

    

Great job Mises Caucus, you backed a loser who had to stop his remarks at the convention short because he took a weed edible beforehand. What a bunch of unserious clowns.

[Lisnaholic]

Unfortunately, it seems like I didn't get a laugh out of you. 

Sorry if I took you too seriously, SGR !

I'm not sure I completely understand your point here. It's not that the Charlottesville quote was 'unreliable', it's that it was a lie by omission to make it seem like Trump believed that neo-nazis/white nationalists were "fine people" and that he was sympathtetic to them and their causes.

You're probably right that Biden was going to run anyways, and it was a 'made for TV simplification' of his reason(s) for running, but is that supposed to make the lie better somehow? My issue isn't that it was 'Biden's reason for running', it's that the lie was so impactful (in terms of how the media spread it, without the context that makes it completely untrue), and so many people believed it, that Biden used it to kick off his campaign - and that the media outlets that you appreciate for 'fact checking' and believe are a 'sign of healthy media coverage' also freely traffic in lies like this when the lie is damaging someone who's not 'their guy' and it benefits their side to spread the lie. To be fair, it's not just Dems/Liberals, I'm sure Fox News does it too against Biden and Democrats (though I can't immediately think of an example that's as damaging and egregious as this one), but I don't regularly watch Fox/CNN/MSNBC.

Is it worthwhile or possible to differentiate between lies generated/propagated by media and lies generated/propagated by politicians? That's my question concerning your statement in bold. I accept what you say about the Trump "both sides" quote being cut from its complete context and thus misused, but I don't think it beats in egregiousness these lies:

- Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss defamed by Guiliani and others
- Dominion Voting machines ditto
- "Stop the Steal" even though there was no steal

The first two lies have done specific and lasting damage to innocent victims. The last two lies have energized millions of supporters who are ready to deny any election result that doesn't go their way and thus those lies have undermined trust in the democratic process in a big way, that shows little sign of being repaired anytime soon.
so, yeah, I count those lies as more egregious than a mis-used quote attributed to Trump - which, as you suggest, is pretty much business as usual "on both sides" for media coverage.

There's definitely a 'fog of war' element to election coverage. It's hard to know who and what to believe. I'm not sure if 'personality contest' is the right term, but I think it's definitely a 'popularity contest'. I agree, it would probably be ideal if elections could be solely about policy differences and records of the politicians in question, but that will never be the reality of it. Human beings, I think probably by their nature, are incapable of mechanistically and robotically analyzing policy differences to make their voting decisions. People, by and large I think, vote with their emotions. Sometimes, it's about the candidate that makes you feel good. Other times, it might be the candidate who makes you feel fear about the other candidate. I think fear is probably the biggest driver, but there's also identity which is a large driver of actions. For Democrats that identity messaging might be: "Are you a good person who wants to give immigrants a chance at a better life and provide universal health care to everyone?", for Republicans: "Are you a Patriot who respects our heritage and wants to uphold the rule of law?". I think it was one of Trollheart's threads, but I posted a link to a study on how malleable the behavior of children are when you motivate them by identity.

One addition to the 'voting on policy differences' thing. Even if human beings by and large were remotely capable of appreciably doing this, it would all be for naught with the way our media is structured. Not just the mainstream TV media, but internet/Youtube/print media, etc. Could you imagine a world where Sean Hannity or Joy Reid popped up on the TV on a nightly basis to report only policy differences, direct quotes from new statements the candidates made recently, how the polling is looking, recent economic indicators that might sway the election to one candidate or the other based on their proposed policies, etc. (i.e. reporting nothing but dry facts)? Firstly, no one would watch it because it would be too boring, and secondly, outrage is what makes them money.  So yeah, in our media landscape, and by our nature (I think), we cannot escape the emotions which drive our voting behavior.

By the way, not a bad article from the BBC. It didn't come across as very biased to me, but definitely a little on the brief side in terms of the issues. A decent summary at least. 

Yes, "popularity contest" is a better phrase.

I read through your take on what people consider when voting, and I appreciate how, as a polite debater, you put in a lot of "I think"s and "probably"s - because we can´t generalize or say for sure. My feeling is that you overstate how "incapable" people are of analysing policy differences. And although I know it's just a graphic and amusing example, (the idea of Sean Hannity and Joy Read breaking out the statistics and graphs, etc,) even so, I think you could've also mentioned that people can and do turn to other, drier sources of information too. In fact, you and I do it, SGR, and I'm sure we are not alone.

 

For Democrats that identity messaging might be: "Are you a good person who wants to give immigrants a chance at a better life and provide universal health care to everyone?", for Republicans: "Are you a Patriot who respects our heritage and wants to uphold the rule of law?".

^ I don't set out to be argumentative, SGR, but rereading this, I'm not entirely happy with the way you mention these "identity messages" from the Dems/GOP  as if they were just two equal alternatives. The Dem one seems accurate enough, but the GOP one seems to me to be based on two false jingoistic concepts:-
i) capital "P" Patriot is removing a word from its original meaning and applying it to a special group, when in fact, most Americans, incl the Dems are, afaik, patriotic.
ii) The Republicans do not want to uphold the rule of law: they are calling prisoners "hostages", they won't condemn the beating up of the Capitol police, and they are turning up outside Trump's trial to critise the judicial system. They want Biden to be impeached although there is no evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors", they want SCOTUS to be a political tool, and they want Trump to be above the law. Also, when in power, they want their own AG (previously Bill Barr) to wield, not impartial justice on behalf of the American people, but vendetta prosecutions at Trump's direction.

So the GOP identity as you describe it is a sham. Better to put, "Are you a Xenophobe, ready to trample on your democratic heritage and the rule of law, in order to establish Trump as God-King and Emperor?"   

[SGR]

Is it worthwhile or possible to differentiate between lies generated/propagated by media and lies generated/propagated by politicians? That's my question concerning your statement in bold. I accept what you say about the Trump "both sides" quote being cut from its complete context and thus misused, but I don't think it beats in egregiousness these lies:

- Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss defamed by Guiliani and others
- Dominion Voting machines ditto
- "Stop the Steal" even though there was no steal

The first two lies have done specific and lasting damage to innocent victims. The last two lies have energized millions of supporters who are ready to deny any election result that doesn't go their way and thus those lies have undermined trust in the democratic process in a big way, that shows little sign of being repaired anytime soon.
so, yeah, I count those lies as more egregious than a mis-used quote attributed to Trump - which, as you suggest, is pretty much business as usual "on both sides" for media coverage.

Sure, it's possible to do so. In the case of the 'fine people' lie though, there wouldn't be much difference, besides the fact that the media generated the lie and Biden (a politician) propagated it.

I honestly don't know how'd you'd equate these examples against accusations of a president being sympathetic with nazis and white nationalists. Not 'you' specifically, but just in general. While accusations against a president have a graver political import, they also carry, almost by default, a faction of defenders and multiple levels of legal safeguards, while accusations against non-elected individuals and companies don't carry the same political import but also carry less legal safeguards. So in terms of egregiousness, it seems up in the air or at least up to debate. But what I will say, since you've brought these examples up, as I've said before: we as Americans can't know for sure the reliability of the results of the election. Since it's not fully auditable, and each state is operating on its own (sometimes under slightly different rules), it's not only difficult, but impossible to be 100% sure that the election results you've got are accurate. We've had, since the end of the election, multiple stories about ballots that should've been counted that weren't, and ballots that were counted that shouldn't have been. And to be clear, I'm not saying there's any evidence that there were enough mistakes to point to the idea that Trump would've been elected without the mistakes, but rather just that it seems that our election system is not as 'secure and safe and reliable' as many of our politicians would like us to believe. And I guarantee this is a non-partisan issue - because neither Democrats or Republicans will push and actually fix this issue, because they were elected with the system as it is. That being the case, why would they want to change the system that saw them succeed?

If you'd like to go deeper on this specific topic, we could, and I could provide you with a myriad of evidence that would suggest or at least raise the possibility of the vulnerability of our current election system. Just let me know.

Yes, "popularity contest" is a better phrase.

I read through your take on what people consider when voting, and I appreciate how, as a polite debater, you put in a lot of "I think"s and "probably"s - because we can´t generalize or say for sure. My feeling is that you overstate how "incapable" people are of analysing policy differences. And although I know it's just a graphic and amusing example, (the idea of Sean Hannity and Joy Read breaking out the statistics and graphs, etc,) even so, I think you could've also mentioned that people can and do turn to other, drier sources of information too. In fact, you and I do it, SGR, and I'm sure we are not alone.

Firstly, I appreciate your appreciation, and I appreciate you as well. If I were to have these debates/discussions on Reddit, for example, I'd be met with a lot of snark, smugness, sarcasm, passive-aggressiveness, and downvotes, so I appreciate that you refrain from all of that in your discussions with me. Neither of us have many absolute answers, and neither of us pretend to, we only bring what we know and what we understand to the table of discussion.

Let me clarify, I don't think people are 'incapable' of analyzing policy differences, and I don't think people don't read or consume drier sources of info (as you and I do). I just think at the end of the day, if we had some way to tally it accurately, we'd find that much more people were ultimately voting based on emotions rather than on a logical analysis of policy differences between the candidates. Or in other words, if there was some kind of gauge, the tilt would largely be in favor of emotion over logical and unemotional analysis of policy.

^ I don't set out to be argumentative, SGR, but rereading this, I'm not entirely happy with the way you mention these "identity messages" from the Dems/GOP  as if they were just two equal alternatives. The Dem one seems accurate enough, but the GOP one seems to me to be based on two false jingoistic concepts:-
i) capital "P" Patriot is removing a word from its original meaning and applying it to a special group, when in fact, most Americans, incl the Dems are, afaik, patriotic.
ii) The Republicans do not want to uphold the rule of law: they are calling prisoners "hostages", they won't condemn the beating up of the Capitol police, and they are turning up outside Trump's trial to critise the judicial system. They want Biden to be impeached although there is no evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors", they want SCOTUS to be a political tool, and they want Trump to be above the law. Also, when in power, they want their own AG (previously Bill Barr) to wield, not impartial justice on behalf of the American people, but vendetta prosecutions at Trump's direction.

So the GOP identity as you describe it is a sham. Better to put, "Are you a Xenophobe, ready to trample on your democratic heritage and the rule of law, in order to establish Trump as God-King and Emperor?" 

Don't feel any shame, you can be argumentative with me! 

Lisna, I wasn't trying to present the identities as 'equal alternatives', what I was attempting to do was to, in good faith, best describe what Democrats might describe as their own identity (or identifying characteristics) and what Republicans might describe as their own identity (or identifying characteristics). The capitalization of the 'P' in 'patriots' was an error on my part, because as an American football fan, I'm used to using it as a proper noun.



While I might disagree with some of the points you made, and I don't know anything about this 'God-King' and 'Emperor' Trump stuff, I think it would be fair to say that most Republicans would not agree with the identity I assigned to the Democrats, as an example, similar to how you disagreed with the identity I assigned to the Republicans. As a result, I'd understand why you would disagree with the 'identity' I assigned to Republicans - but you're also using 'they' monolithically, as if it describes all Republicans. I'm guessing you'd take issue if I used 'they' in a similarly monolithic manner (though I could be wrong) against the Democrats: "They want to open up the border, they want higher taxes, they want more aid sent to Israel and Ukraine, etc".

[SGR]

A little more levity and humor (I don't remember if I've posted this or not):

[Lisnaholic]

^ That would certainly make November a more exciting month on cable tv than just watching for scuffles outside polling stations!

I honestly don't know how'd you'd equate these examples against accusations of a president being sympathetic with nazis and white nationalists. Not 'you' specifically, but just in general. While accusations against a president have a graver political import, they also carry, almost by default, a faction of defenders and multiple levels of legal safeguards, while accusations against non-elected individuals and companies don't carry the same political import but also carry less legal safeguards. So in terms of egregiousness, it seems up in the air or at least up to debate.

Aren't you taking a very thin-skinned approach to an accusation made against Trump? Any President is a public figure and has a whole department of PR people and lawyers to defend them (probably paid for by the US tax-payer). Fending off accusations is just part of the job, as Obama had to do with numerous slurs about his citizenship, etc. Also a bunch of stuff I'm not sure about: Pizzagate, paedofilia, etc, etc. To me your suggestion that a lie about a President is worse than a lie about an innocent nobody (sorry, R Freeman) has an unpleasant tinge of "protect the powerful, more than the weak".
My own take is the reverse: that the lie is worse when the rich and powerful take aim at the poor and defenseless, thus destroying their lives. Luckily the US system of justice seems to take a similar view, which is why millions of $ of damages have been levied against Trump (defaming E Jean Carroll),Guiliani (attacking Freeman), Fox news (settled out of court for lies against Dominion), etc. If that Charlottesville misquote or any other Dem misinformation was as egregious as you say, where are the settlements, the damages, the court cases, and the CNN versions of Tucker Carlson, chucked out of his job for parroting lies? My own answer: it is the MAGA lies that are more egregious, more frequent than the Dem lies.

 

But what I will say, since you've brought these examples up, as I've said before: we as Americans can't know for sure the reliability of the results of the election. Since it's not fully auditable, and each state is operating on its own (sometimes under slightly different rules), it's not only difficult, but impossible to be 100% sure that the election results you've got are accurate. We've had, since the end of the election, multiple stories about ballots that should've been counted that weren't, and ballots that were counted that shouldn't have been. And to be clear, I'm not saying there's any evidence that there were enough mistakes to point to the idea that Trump would've been elected without the mistakes, but rather just that it seems that our election system is not as 'secure and safe and reliable' as many of our politicians would like us to believe. And I guarantee this is a non-partisan issue - because neither Democrats or Republicans will push and actually fix this issue, because they were elected with the system as it is. That being the case, why would they want to change the system that saw them succeed?

If you'd like to go deeper on this specific topic, we could, and I could provide you with a myriad of evidence that would suggest or at least raise the possibility of the vulnerability of our current election system. Just let me know.

^ I am still completely not buying into this notion at all. What do expect of a nationwide system applied to millions of voters?! Of course there'll be discrepancies, but nothing has been deemed outcome determinative. In fact, every GOP guy in the House or Senate is perfectly comfortable with the integrity of the vote that put them there. To me that, on its face, shows how false the cries about "the Steal" are.

Firstly, I appreciate your appreciation, and I appreciate you as well. If I were to have these debates/discussions on Reddit, for example, I'd be met with a lot of snark, smugness, sarcasm, passive-aggressiveness, and downvotes, so I appreciate that you refrain from all of that in your discussions with me. Neither of us have many absolute answers, and neither of us pretend to, we only bring what we know and what we understand to the table of discussion.

^ Yeah, thanks, SGR! Pat on the back all round, that we remain forum buddies despite our endless disagreements

Let me clarify, I don't think people are 'incapable' of analyzing policy differences, and I don't think people don't read or consume drier sources of info (as you and I do). I just think at the end of the day, if we had some way to tally it accurately, we'd find that much more people were ultimately voting based on emotions rather than on a logical analysis of policy differences between the candidates. Or in other words, if there was some kind of gauge, the tilt would largely be in favor of emotion over logical and unemotional analysis of policy.

Don't feel any shame, you can be argumentative with me! 

On this point, I'm more than happy to honour your perception of voter thought processes. We have a kind of glass-half-full/glass-half-empty difference of viewpoint, I think. 

Lisna, I wasn't trying to present the identities as 'equal alternatives', what I was attempting to do was to, in good faith, best describe what Democrats might describe as their own identity (or identifying characteristics) and what Republicans might describe as their own identity (or identifying characteristics). The capitalization of the 'P' in 'patriots' was an error on my part, because as an American football fan, I'm used to using it as a proper noun.

^  Yep, that's fair enough: I realize now that you were describing Republicans as they see themselves.

While I might disagree with some of the points you made, and I don't know anything about this 'God-King' and 'Emperor' Trump stuff, I think it would be fair to say that most Republicans would not agree with the identity I assigned to the Democrats, as an example, similar to how you disagreed with the identity I assigned to the Republicans. As a result, I'd understand why you would disagree with the 'identity' I assigned to Republicans - but you're also using 'they' monolithically, as if it describes all Republicans. I'm guessing you'd take issue if I used 'they' in a similarly monolithic manner (though I could be wrong) against the Democrats: "They want to open up the border, they want higher taxes, they want more aid sent to Israel and Ukraine, etc".

Actually, I don't have any problem with using a monolithic "they": it's a useful shorthand to talk about the political parties, and both of us are well-aware that there is a whole range of shades of grey and dissenting opinions within each "they".
"They want to open up the border," I would, though, take issue with this because the Dems don't want to open the border, they want to make border controls both more efficient and more humane.

"I don't know anything about this 'God-King' and 'Emperor' Trump stuff"

^ You are clearly not up-to-date with MAGA hopes, iconography and merch :-

[SGR]

Aren't you taking a very thin-skinned approach to an accusation made against Trump? Any President is a public figure and has a whole department of PR people and lawyers to defend them (probably paid for by the US tax-payer). Fending off accusations is just part of the job, as Obama had to do with numerous slurs about his citizenship, etc. Also a bunch of stuff I'm not sure about: Pizzagate, paedofilia, etc, etc. To me your suggestion that a lie about a President is worse than a lie about an innocent nobody (sorry, R Freeman) has an unpleasant tinge of "protect the powerful, more than the weak".
My own take is the reverse: that the lie is worse when the rich and powerful take aim at the poor and defenseless, thus destroying their lives. Luckily the US system of justice seems to take a similar view, which is why millions of $ of damages have been levied against Trump (defaming E Jean Carroll),Guiliani (attacking Freeman), Fox news (settled out of court for lies against Dominion), etc. If that Charlottesville misquote or any other Dem misinformation was as egregious as you say, where are the settlements, the damages, the court cases, and the CNN versions of Tucker Carlson, chucked out of his job for parroting lies? My own answer: it is the MAGA lies that are more egregious, more frequent than the Dem lies.

This specific lie about Trump we're discussing is just one example - it just so happens to be an interesting and unique example (that I tied in because we were discussing MSNBC). The broader point I was trying to make was not that Democrat lies are worse than Republican lies, or more voluminous in number, or more egregious or anything like that (if you believe that to be the case, that's fine, that's not my point of argument). This entire argument we're having stemmed from you saying my clips were partisan in nature and me noting the irony that you provided a rebuttal with a partisan news outlet video. The broader point that I was using this example for was that many of these news networks/outlets simply aren't credible to me and they are not signs of a 'healthy media environment'. I think this may be simply a philosophical difference you and I might have, but when I find out I've been lied to, I don't put any credibility in the person or entity that's lied to me. You yourself have conceded that they all lie:

Yes, I don't think there's a media outlet that doesn't lie and mis-represent, but some are worse at that than others.

It seems to be your point of contention that the left-leaning news outlets are better in this regard. But if the argument is that "My side's liars don't lie nearly as much or as egregiously as the other side's liars", it's not the hill I'd die on, but I'll accept that you believe that to be true, and I'll accept that it very well could be true.

There is of course a difference between a newspaper (for example) simply getting some facts wrong and making corrections later - that's understandable and will inevitably happen. But as your examples of Republican/Fox News lies illustrate, sometimes, it's just straight up lying. For the record, I don't put any more credibility in Fox News than I do in CNN or MSNBC (as I pointed out originally, I view MSNBC as the left-wing version of Fox News). If I'm looking for links to back up viewpoints or opinions I have, those would be the last ones I'd pull from. One thing that might be useful that I've considered in the past as a not completely accurate barometer for the truth: if you're interested in a specific news story, and you can find a left wing outlet (e.g. MSNBC) and a right wing outlet (e.g. Fox News) reporting essentially the same thing, with the same underlying facts, there are to me two possibilities:

• It's probably true
• It's not true, it's a very big coordinated lie, and you should be worried (e.g. reports of foreign wars the US is engaged in)

To this point, I'll add one more thing. Our (US) news media is too close, and has too many ties to our intelligence agencies for my liking or comfort level. Let us not forget that it was FBI agent Mark Felt (Deep Throat) who provided information about Watergate to 'investigative journalists' Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. This is not to say that I don't think investigative journalism exists - because I do. To give an example of one I appreciate; Seymour Hersh who exposed parts of Watergate, the massacre of My Lai, the secret bombing campaign of Cambodia, the torture blacksite of Abu Ghraib, US domestic spying, and recently on his substack, exposed how Zelensky and his generals are enriching themselves off the foreign aid we're providing them. With this in mind, do we think it's a coincedence that the US fast-tracked a bill to ban TikTok, a social media platform that they couldn't control, after it started propagating pro-Palestine/anti-Israel content?

You have, and I don't mean this at all as a criticism necessarily, framed the lie about Trump as I would expect a Democrat might see the world (rich/powerful vs. poor/defenseless). I would note the lie came from the media companies (rich/powerful) against Trump (rich/powerful) largely in an effort to influence the (poor/defenselss) politically, and multiple of your examples (we can exclude R. Freeman) are the (rich/powerful) vs. (more rich/more powerful), but beyond that, I'll present you with a different frame as I might be more apt to see it with this Trump example.

The executive branch of the USA has outsized power and influence, would you agree? I think maybe you and I could even agree that the power of the executive branch should be drastically reduced. I for one would like to see more required Congressional approval for things (like involvement, direct or otherwise, in foreign wars), and less executive orders from the President. But if we could agree on that, as the power and influence of the executive branch currently exists, I see the Presidency and the Executive Branch more as a 'house'. Now let me expand a bit. Let's say I buy a house, and the home inspector tells me everything in the house is in tip-top shape. After moving in, I decide I want to replace the sink; the salesman at the store tells me this sink is great, it has no flaws whatsoever (even though there are widely known issues with this particular sink). I install my new sink, but things aren't working as expected. My water pressure is extremely low and I even find leaks. As it turns out, not only is my sink completely defective, but the plumbing infrastructure in my home is completely shot, rusted to hell, leaky, and needs to be replaced! And come to find out, my roof and furnace need to be replaced too! Would I be more mad at the guy who knowingly sold me a defective sink, or more mad at the home inspector who knowingly greenlit a home with glaringly obvious infrastructure issues?

This is not a perfect analogy, and I recognize that. And I also realize that analogies are not a replacement for thinking. But it's a slightly different frame to look at things - and again, I'm not saying your frame is either wrong or invalid either. Comparing the house as a whole, which has massive influence over the dependability and efficiency of your appliances based on its core infrastructure, to the president and executive branch, and the appliance (kitchen sink) to something like Giuliani and his claims against Ruby Freeman. Both are important, but one has a more outsized influence over the other. And I don't mean this at all to downplay or minimize the personal trauma and distress that someone like Ruby Freeman may have experienced, but rather just comparing which one would have a greater impact and effect on our personal (also poor [relatively]/defenseless) lives. And again, as I noted, I wish it wasn't this way and that executive power could be reduced, regardless of the party of the president.

^ I am still completely not buying into this notion at all. What do expect of a nationwide system applied to millions of voters?! Of course there'll be discrepancies, but nothing has been deemed outcome determinative.

A nationwide system applied to millions of voters - but elections are run on a state-by-state basis and tied together in a nationwide manner. I will agree that nothing has been deemed outcome determinative as you stated. I don't think Trump won the election in 2020. I also think that if he decides to keep bitching about it (recently, he seems to have cooled on that), that he will lose out on independent voters. Independent voters don't want to hear Trump's whining, moaning, bitching and complaining about 2020, they want to hear his vision for the future. This particular election, 2020, and all of the claims, substantiated or not, had me digging more deeply into the election, our system, how it works, etc. As we have also discussed before, claims of election vulnerability/cheating are nothing new - it's been going on for basically forever, accusations have been levied by both parties.

If highly secure infrastructure like an Iranian nuclear facility can be hacked and manipulated, I do not think it's beyond the realm of consideration that our election systems can as well - and that's not even considering vulnerabilities that don't require computer hacking. Until our election system is 100% auditable, end-to-end, we can either live with the assumption that 'we got the right outcome', or we can question it and push our representatives/leaders to improve our systems - even if only incrementally. I don't think the fact that there's been little to no calls for election/voting reform and increased security measures from either political aisle is some kind of mistake. When's the last time you heard Trump say that reforming the election/voting system is one of his top priorities? We've had decades and decades of this, with the same questions every single presidential election. At some point, I think many people will recognize that this 'design' is not a flaw, but a feature.

174,384 ballots counted by AVCBs do not link back to a voter registration number

New Judicial Watch Study Finds 353 U.S. Counties in 29 States with Voter Registration Rates Exceeding 100%

Dead people can cast ballots in Michigan, data reasearcher alleges

Pair Charged With Voter Fraud Allegedly Submitted Thousands of Fraudulent Applications on Behalf of Homeless People

18,000 mail-in ballots didn't have a "Mailed Date" only a return date after Nov 3rd

Rejected absentee ballots: 3.5% in 2018 to 0.3% in 2020 despite 500% more votes

Jill Stein contested the results in 3 states 2016 for similar irregularities

(definitely read the Stein article)

95% registered voter turnout in Philadelphia

Data Expert: Up To 300,000 Fake People Voted In Arizona Election, "Biggest Fraud" In History

95% of Bellwether counties break voting pattern, creating statistical anomaly

NYT FLASHBACK: Error and fraud at issue as absentee voting rises (2012)

1,127 ballots wrongly labeled through technical glitch

Electronic voting systems rely on abandoned operating systems in PA counties

CIA expert explains how most electronic voting isn't secure

Elections supervisor can change votes on Dominion systems

Some of these links are paywalled (bastards) - but for those that are that you'd like to read, follow this link and plug the URL in and you should be able to read the article.

https://archive.is/

I'll be honest with you, I don't expect you to read through all of these links (though you're welcome to if you want), I just wanted to attempt to demonstrate why someone might not have full faith in our election systems and their reliability/integrity (on the other hand, if you want more links, just let me know, I have many more to share). And again, I don't think it's a partisan issue - I fully expect that every single election, both parties cut corners where they can and hope they can get away with it. In essence, every four years, which party can 'cheat better'? The margin of victory for many presidential elections are razor thin, so even small amounts of voting chicanery can make the difference. If you are willing to simply accept these irregularities and indications of vulnerabilities and problems with elections as 'par for the course', and that despite them, we'll still always get the right answer, then that's where we will disagree.

In fact, every GOP guy in the House or Senate is perfectly comfortable with the integrity of the vote that put them there. To me that, on its face, shows how false the cries about "the Steal" are.

A GOP guy who is in the House or Senate, voted into office through our election system, and also perfectly comfortable with the "integrity" of the system that got him to where he is? Well....I must say I'm convinced! (okay @Lisnaholic, excuse my sarcasm, just this once). My point here is that of course someone who gets elected via the system is happy and comfortable with the system, even if it is corrupt/vulnerable and they know it...because they benefit (or benefitted) from it.

^ Yeah, thanks, SGR! Pat on the back all round, that we remain forum buddies despite our endless disagreements

Absolutely my friend. Never take our disagreements as any kind of ill will. I know, as I hope you do as well, that when we both tire or bore of this, we can happily engage in discussion on a thread about music. I completely enjoy chatting and debating with you on these subjects, as it challenges my perceptions and biases (which we all have) and offers me a different perspective. Sometimes, I don't understand, or I disagree, but I try to be as honest as I can about that. Part of me almost feels like, and don't take this the wrong way, but that the reason that you can so often engage me in these discussions and debates without snark, name-calling, sarcasm etc. is because you're a little bit older and wiser than the usual age demographic (i.e. my age, late 20s, early-to-mid 30s) that I might discuss these things with on other sites. And that's not a bad thing! In addition, I think our discussions might even be useful, interesting, or informative to whichever sad souls (I jest) who read through all of it (*cough* @Trollheart *cough*) - one thing is for sure, I'd never be able to have these kinds of, what I'd call productive, discussions with you on MB without the noise outweighing the signal, if you know what I mean.

On this point, I'm more than happy to honour your perception of voter thought processes. We have a kind of glass-half-full/glass-half-empty difference of viewpoint, I think. 

I think that's a completely fair assessment. Though I will add, if you had to live with and interact with Americans every day, you might tip towards my side of the 'glass half empty' argument. 

^  Yep, that's fair enough: I realize now that you were describing Republicans as they see themselves.

Actually, I don't have any problem with using a monolithic "they": it's a useful shorthand to talk about the political parties, and both of us are well-aware that there is a whole range of shades of grey and dissenting opinions within each "they".
"They want to open up the border," I would, though, take issue with this because the Dems don't want to open the border, they want to make border controls both more efficient and more humane.

Right - but let me ask, since I haven't often engaged you with questions. Do you think my perception of how much identity affects voting patterns/behavior is accurate? In other words, does it make sense to you that people would attach themselves, or find comfort in an identity, and based on that identity, lean a certain way in voting?

I agree that it's a useful shorthand when not used egregiously, but rather fairly (in a statistical sense). And yes, I know Dems by and large don't want a literal 'open' border, but that's certainly how Republicans would (and do) frame it when they're using the shorthand.

^ You are clearly not up-to-date with MAGA hopes, iconography and merch :-

Oh jeez, okay, nevermind. I know what you mean now. The kooky Q-Anon/Evangelical types. Yeah, those people are crazy. 

[SGR]

@Lisnaholic, I'd formally like to apologize for my novel of a reply, as this is the first post I've made where I've run into the apparent 20,000 character limit. ["The message exceeds the maximum allowed length (20000 characters)."]   

I was trying to include a quote from the Jill Stein Politico article and SCD said: "Nuh-uh buddy, don't ya think you've posted enough characters here?"

[Mindy]

Click the discord link and vote on the new poll! I'm starting it now and it'll be active for a week!

Here is the last poll results, only 4 votes. (I did the same poll in many discord servers but MB only had 4 votes)
(Biden won!)

https://discord.gg/7kda3KKR

[Lisnaholic]

@Lisnaholic, I'd formally like to apologize for my novel of a reply, as this is the first post I've made where I've run into the apparent 20,000 character limit. ["The message exceeds the maximum allowed length (20000 characters)."]   

I was trying to include a quote from the Jill Stein Politico article and SCD said: "Nuh-uh buddy, don't ya think you've posted enough characters here?"

Yes, it is dauntingly long, SGR, but I'll try to address some of what you say later.

Sounds like you hit the block that I asked Guybrush to put in place: a character limit on anyone who isn't agreeing with me 100%

[SGR]

Yes, it is dauntingly long, SGR, but I'll try to address some of what you say later.

Sounds like you hit the block that I asked Guybrush to put in place: a character limit on anyone who isn't agreeing with me 100%

  

[Psy-Fi]

RFK Jr. files FEC complaint over June 27 presidential debate criteria