Drunkard's Walk Forums

There's a lot of conspiracies and nightmares floating around - what if some states refuse to certify election results, (Based on postal vote fraud, or Deh Russians, or what have you) to collapse the Electoral college and force a president to be elected using a method the other side can control to disrupt

And, of course, said originator may also be a Russian troll.

But it's telling how utterly corrosive this is to democracy and faith in the system to produce a representative vote.

It's telling that everyone believes the system is rigged if they lose. And that the system has so many opportunities for an unfaithful actor to rig it in their favour.

The US Electoral system has so much technical debt built up in it, it's not funny.

(08-01-2020, 04:01 AM)hazard Wrote: [ -> ]Well, that's pretty damn illegal.

If the government is doing it.

Not so sure about citizens, but I think there's laws about that too.

That's the thing.  Trump is hoping to ride on someone else's shoulders, because he knows that there's plenty of people out there that would willingly fall on their own swords to keep him in office.

As for the legalities....  Pretty dang sure that any attempt to bar access to a polling station by force of arms is illegal as fuck in just about every corner of the USA.

Just attempting to bar access is illegal as fuck in any sensible arrangement. Bringing weapons in just escalates it from 'have fun in prison' to 'you're not getting out'.

I mean, in a democratic nation the vote is the most fundamental requirement to permit the functioning of the government. Anything screwing around with that should get some hefty scrutiny.

I'm not worried that much about people trying to bar access to polling stations.

I am worried about a lunatic with armed followers who feel that law should protect but not bind them yealling about "fraud" and "stolen election" when he loses (touch wood).

If you want Elections Canada to monitor your election to ensure it's free and democratic (yes, we do that; we did it in Haiti in 2005), better ask now. It takes time to organize this sort of thing even when there isn't a pandemic going on.

No media allowed at Trump renomination

They're saying it's because of the coronavirus.

Funny, that. They've been saying for months that the coronavirus is no big deal, but now that it lets them be secretive, it's suddenly an issue.


EDIT: No, I don't buy the "health issues" excuse. Reporters put their lives in danger in war zones every day. This looks to me like the GOP not wanting to admit they're not going to have all of the delegates show up.

Wanna bet pictures and videos still get leaked?

(08-03-2020, 10:36 AM)hazard Wrote: [ -> ]Wanna bet pictures and videos still get leaked?

There are two things in information handling that are very hard. The first is keeping anyone you don't want from knowing something. Here we have spies and secrets and all those familiar things. The second is making sure that a large target group all know something. Here we have advertisements, education and propaganda.

They have different solutions, but they both have a basic core truth.

People are bad at following directions.

I'm just glad we get the dark, smoke-filled rooms back. It's an American political tradition!

But really, half of the point of a convention is to drum up media coverage. It's not a grand strategy to exclude the MSM, it's an admission of defeat. It's entirely possible that three weeks before the convention, no one in the GOP is quite sure what will happen, and cutting back the media access is likely to keep things from getting worse.

Meanwhile, we in the Democratic Party have been planning on a "virtual" convention for months. Bernie and Biden's folks have been negotiating the party platform for months, too, because they knew they wouldn't get to do it in person at the convention. This is this election in a nutshell -- do you want to vote for the people who plan for things far in advance? Or do you want to choose the people who always assume the best, and then scramble to fix things when they don't go to plan?

That's a pretty charitable estimate of the Republican Party Labster.

(08-03-2020, 02:19 PM)Labster Wrote: [ -> ]Meanwhile, we in the Democratic Party have been planning on a "virtual" convention for months.  Bernie and Biden's folks have been negotiating the party platform for months, too, because they knew they wouldn't get to do it in person at the convention.  This is this election in a nutshell -- do you want to vote for the people who plan for things far in advance?  Or do you want to choose the people who always assume the best, and then scramble to fix things when they don't go to plan?

as an add on to that last line: "or who simply ignore things that don't go to plan, hoping they'll disappear on their own."

As a founder of my university's Students for an Orwellian Society, we ended up participating with the whole milleu of political clubs - Democrats, Republiicans, Greens, and of course, our self-declared arch-rivals, the Students for Objectivism.  Since we satirized all sides, no one really hated us, except the Objectivists, who were so lost in Ayn Rand they never managed to realize that we were satire (even when we dropped kayfabe and told them directly!).  One of the things you realize is that the people in other parties are trying to achieve a lot of the same goals that you are, and use a lot of the same methods that you do.

Like, most Democrats are loath to chastize Ilhan Omar, just as Republicans won't go against Louie Gohmert, because of our teams.  But on the inside, they're cringing.  Politics is hard, because you can't win without getting the votes of a few crazies.  So we tacitly tolerate the activity of crazies on our own team.

But none of this means that we need to treat each other as having bad aims.  If you can prove your point while being charitable, do it.  Going negative doesn't convince people, though it does motivate your own people to vote.

The point is easy to make here without assigning blame: Republicans have let wishful thinking lead to a last minute scramble on their convention, Democrats planned in advance.  Saying a few weeks before the convention that media will not be allowed in is a symptom of disarray rather than planning, which is obvious because it runs against the purpose of the convention.  Assuming a darker purpose also assumes they're not interested in winning the election, against all indications to the contrary.

Isn't it kinda funny how the die-hard Ayn Rand Objectivists will bristle the very moment you drop a name like Orwell?

Another funny thought, somewhat aside: once upon a time, the Hammering Man sculpture in Seattle had a ball and chain attached to it by art-warfare guerillas as a statement about the oppression of the American Worker.

Methinks it's about time for that to happen again, only now I'd wager that the ball and chain will stay there a lot longer than just a few days.

Given the well-known attitude that Neil Young has about people using his music at campaign rallies, just which idiot thought it was a good idea to use his music at rallies for the Nicknamer-in-Chief?

Neil Young is suing Donald Trump over copyright infringement

Well... at least Trump didn't use the song "America" as backdrop to an anti-immigration speech? Not that I'd be surprised if he did miss the point (or intentionally invert it) by that far.

His campaign did play "Live and Let Die" before Trump's arrival at a thinly disguised campaign event in Ohio that the state's governor cannot attend, because he just came down with Covid-19

If you're thinking about this happening a while ago, it's when someone at the mask factory Trump was touring decided to play the song in protest.  This time, his own staff played it.  At a rally.  In a pandemic.  This is a thing that happened.

Kind of a pointed contrast to when Obama decided to own the "Obamacare" tag that - I think the opponent for his reelection campaign? maybe just some congresscritter(s) - was slinging around, "because I do care. And if (whoever it was) would prefer to be known as the (position) that doesn't care, well..." Of course, that's Trump all over, reversing every Obama policy and position he can.

One of the surprises this election I haven't brought up is the unlikely candidacy of Kanye West for President.  You may remember him from such hits as saying that George W. Bush doesn't care about black people on live television.  Now he's launched a campaign.  His first rally he managed to break out into tears about abortion, a few minutes after criticizing Underground Railroad conductor Harriet Tubman for not being antislavery enough.

But having yet another celebrity with a mental disorder, specifically bipolar disorder this time, in the race isn't all that interesting.  The more interesting part is that a lawyer representing Donald J. Trump filed a case to stop negative ads against him, but she is also known to have helped Kanye qualify for the ballot.  What a strange conflict of interest that is -- or is it not a conflict at all?

All the lawsuits to get him on the ballot will delay the postal voting - or invalidate already cast votes, or so on and so forth.

Either that, or to split the vote and give people their choice of gobshite.

Now we know: It's Biden/Harris on the Dem ticket.

And knowing is half the battle.

Looks like Trump is going to face Presidential Harrisment the likes of which has never been seen before.

Hot take is that she's been an excellent senator for our state. I think she may have been better as an attorney general than veep, but that's not really a complaint. She comes out of San Francisco politics, which is means she has the skills to handle somewhere easier like the White House. She has a reputation of being law and order, being a prosecutor and acting like one in congressional hearings. It makes Trump's current campaign theme, that the streets will be swamped with protesters when Biden wins, sound even more racist than before. Choosing my #2 pick for President was basically a best case scenario for me, given Warren didn't offer any benefits when we really don't need to hold the left flank against this President.

Lab, you always need to hold the left flank against any president. History has shown that quite well in the USA.

CBC Analysis: By Canadian standards, Kamala Harris could run for the Conservatives

Quote:For the Trump team trying to expand on the president's favourite anti-woman epithet "nasty" and his tired-sounding "phony" that he has rolled out so far, its challenge will be whether to castigate the potential VP to his more extreme supporters as a member of the establishment or as an usurping outsider. Watch for creative attempts to combine the two.

Mind you, I don't expect the GOPs to push the "usurping outsider" angle - since that's how the Nicknamer-in-Chief defined himself in 2016.

I want to live in the universe where "This is administration is destroying the postal service and doing almost nothing to deal with a pandemic mostly to keep people from voting" is conspiracy mongering, not an actual real thing backed by quotes and data.

Trump says he’s blocking Postal Service funding because Democrats want to expand mail-in voting during pandemic

That's...

Wow. That's partisan politics right there. 'There's a disaster happening and the other party wants to facilitate the functioning of the state so I'm opposed'.