Patterico's Pontifications

10/19/2021

Panic in MAGAland: Marjorie Taylor Greene Implores GOP Voters To Show Up At the Polls

Filed under: General — Dana @ 12:23 pm



[guest post by Dana]

Just doing a little damage control:

A poll of Greene’s constituents found 4 percent of voters didn’t plan on casting a ballot in the 2022 midterms, according to the Georgia representative. While Greene’s been a vocal critic of the handling of the 2020 election and is pushing for a full audit of Georgia’s results, she told constituents that if 4 percent of them had stayed home in 2018, Georgia would currently have a Democratic governor.

“Voices online that are telling you not to vote are doing the Democrats’ dirty work. Stop listening to grifters telling you not to vote,” Greene posted on Twitter. “We must root out the fraud, but we also have to VOTE.”

While Greene shared in Trump’s frustration about the ruling, she said on Monday that Republicans needed to “flood the polls” in 2022 to keep Democrats from winning “by default.” She also continued to advocate for auditing the 2020 election, prosecuting “the fraud” and ending widespread mail-in ballots.

So who is the grifter doing the “Democrats’ dirty work” and basically working to sabotage the midterms by telling Republicans they should stay home rather than vote? Well…

Days earlier, former President Donald Trump said Republicans wouldn’t vote in the midterms or the 2024 presidential election if the “election fraud isn’t solved.” He called it the “single most important thing for Republicans to do” and denied that he’s failed to provide evidence that he’s the rightful winner of the election.

Trump’s statement came hours after a Georgia judge dismissed a lawsuit alleging fraud in the 2020 election. Plaintiffs sought a review of more than 100,000 votes, but the judge denied they properly alleged a particularized injury and thereby ruled they lacked standing to claim their constitutional rights were violated.

The former president called the case’s dismissal a “disgrace” to America and claimed “nobody” wanted to do anything about the country’s “corrupt” elections.

Untitled

Meanwhile, the Trump camp continues the grift:

Members of Donald Trump’s mailing list have been asked to contribute $45 each to “solve the election fraud of 2020,” despite no evidence of mass voter fraud.

Team Trump’s pleas for funds on Sunday evening came only days after the former president insisted Republicans “will not be voting” in the 2022 midterm and 2024 general elections until the supposed voter fraud is “solved.”

A message sent on behalf of Trump told supporters “we need at least $45 from EACH Patriot reading this email” in order to “defend our elections from the lying Left and WIN BIG in 2022 and then again in 2024.”

It would be nice if this guy no longer mattered, and that there was no longer the possibility that he could legitimately win (how ironic) a presidential election and get his hands back on the levers of power, but it can’t be ruled out:

Two-thirds of Republican voters say they want former President Donald Trump to run for president in 2024, according to a new Morning Consult/Politico poll.

…Overall, the survey found that Trump remains the GOP front-runner by a wide margin, with support from 47 percent of the party’s electorate — roughly in line with the 50 percent support he secured in an average of four other 2024 presidential primary polls conducted since he lost to Biden in November.

The survey also tested the strength of Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton, Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Florida Sen. Rick Scott and South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, all of whom received backing from at most 1 percent of Republican voters.

P.S. Good news, not every Republican will fall in line if Trump runs in 2024:

–Dana

107 Responses to “Panic in MAGAland: Marjorie Taylor Greene Implores GOP Voters To Show Up At the Polls”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (174549)

  2. LMAO.

    “I can’t believe this face eating leopard ate my face.”

    Whoever would have predicted that continually telling people lies about how the election was stolen would make people think there’s no point in voting.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  3. This is like airlines showing gruesome pictures of their competitor’s air crashes to drum up business.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  4. Trump controls the now populist republican party. It isn’t megas who won’t vote that is why they don’t break down who the republicans who won’t vote are.

    asset (0376ad)

  5. Quinnipiac: 78% Of Republicans Want To See Trump Run For President In 2024, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Americans Now Split On Border Wall As Opposition Softens
    Nearly one year after the 2020 presidential election, a majority of Americans (58 – 35 percent) say they do not want to see Donald Trump run for president in 2024, according to a Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pea-ack) University national poll of adults released today. Democrats say 94 – 4 percent and independents say 58 – 35 percent that they do not want to see Trump run.

    Republicans, however, say 78 – 16 percent that they do want to see Trump run for president in 2024, compared to 66 – 30 percent in May.
    ………
    When it comes to his impact on the Republican party, nearly half of Americans (49 percent) say Trump has had a mainly negative impact, while 43 percent say he has had a mainly positive impact.

    About half of Americans (51 percent) think Donald Trump has been undermining democracy since the 2020 presidential election, while 39 percent think he has been protecting democracy.
    …….
    About 6 in 10 Americans (59 – 35 percent) say they consider what happened at the U.S. Capitol on January 6th an attack on the government.

    Roughly 4 in 10 Americans (42 percent) think former President Trump bears a lot of responsibility for the storming of the U.S. Capitol on January 6th, while 15 percent think he bears some responsibility, 13 percent think he bears not much responsibility, and 27 percent think he bears none at all.
    …….

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  6. This

    by telling Republicans they should stay home rather than vote

    isn’t an accurate description of

    said Republicans wouldn’t vote in the midterms or the 2024 presidential election if

    Is there a quote somewhere in there that I didn’t notice that supports the idea that Trump is saying people shouldn’t vote?

    frosty (f27e97)

  7. Frosty,

    Pretty sure that everyone took it that way, as Trump intended. He’s getting around to Sampson-in-the-temple.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  8. frosty (f27e97) — 10/19/2021 @ 2:02 pm

    Is there a quote somewhere in there that I didn’t notice that supports the idea that Trump is saying people shouldn’t vote?

    The words if and do

    IF

    we don’t “solve” the 2020 election fraud – which means prove that it happened and who did it

    THEN Republicans will not be voting.

    Since the question of who committed the fraud is not going to be answered, that reduces to (many) Republicans will not vote in the 2022 and 2024 general election.

    That Trump wants that to happen (or wants to threaten that) is that he says that (not voting) “is the single most important thing for Republicans to do”

    So long as he is not vindicated.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  9. They are not asking good questions, Rip, and it amounts to a push-poll.

    Questions to ask:

    Do you want a Republican candidate to win in 2024?
    — If it is Trump?
    — If it is someone else?
    (yes/no/it depends)

    Do you think the Republican Party has gone too far to an extreme?

    Do you think the Democratic Party has gone too far to an extreme?

    If a clearly qualified moderate ran as a centrist independent, would you consider voting for them?

    Of Republicans:

    Would you want Trump to run in 2024, even if it looked like he would lose?

    Should there be an open primary process in 2024, or should other candidates stand down if Trump runs?

    If Trump does not run in 2024, would you consider voting for any of the following candidates?
    (list)

    If any of the following are the GOP nominee, would you vote for them, or for the Democrat?
    (same list)

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  10. Sammy Finkelman (c49738) — 10/19/2021 @ 2:42 pm

    The problem words are would and should. Only if you mix those up do you get to that if/then analysis.

    Kevin M (ab1c11) — 10/19/2021 @ 2:23 pm

    You’re pretty sure everyone read it that way? I’d say it was easy enough to read the original quote for the obvious meaning. Why switch between would and should other than to change the meaning? How is “I read a quote and decided it meant something else” not just making something up?

    I don’t understand the value in making a claim and attaching a quote that doesn’t support the claim or contradicts it

    frosty (c6fc32)

  11. I think Kevin is correct as to what Trump meant.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  12. If a clearly qualified moderate ran as a centrist independent, would you consider voting for them?

    Define.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  13. @11 – I think you and Kevin are channeling Humpty and I don’t mean Gregory Jacobs.

    When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

    frosty (f27e97)

  14. re #5/Quinnipiac: Do you think all of Sinema’s posturing is being done with a Wall (at least one covering the breadth if AZ) in mind, and she’ll buckle on other social(ist) spending once she gets her brag?

    urbanleftbehind (c073c9)

  15. It would be kind of hilarious if there were enough GOP voters in MTG’s district who don’t show up to vote in the 2022 midterms and end up handing her a defeat. Granted, it most likely won’t happen given that her congressional district has a +28 GOP partisan lean, and that 2022 looks to be a tough year for Democrats. She does have primary challengers, and at least one of them have pointed out her lack of a committee assignment. It would be interesting if there would be enough MAGA base voters to sit home during a primary, and potentially cost her re-nomination. Those voters tend to have lower participation rates in non-presidential elections as compared to right leaning suburban voters. It’s a long shot, but MTG probably doesn’t care about the governor’s race as compared to her own reelection prospects.

    HCI (ed8ecd)

  16. Is there a quote somewhere in there that I didn’t notice that supports the idea that Trump is saying people shouldn’t vote?

    Where is the data set he’s relying on to support his assertion that “Republicans will not be voting in ’22 or ’24” if the alleged fraud isn’t “solved”?
    What is the basis for believing that he is merely stating a fact?

    It’s more logical, and consistent with Trump’s pattern of behavior, to believe he is signaling that he wants his voters to boycott the upcoming elections and punish the GOP for failing to keep him in power. He wants his voters to help maintain the illusion that Republicans can’t win without him.

    Radegunda (803a6e)

  17. 1) Trump is not that complicated.
    2) Trump thinks he’s clever, not stupid like the say he is.

    So, when he says one of these “secret message” lines, it’s not that hard to decode. In fact, everyone whop is arguing it means something else, knows it doesn’t.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  18. Not only do they know what he is saying, but they are planning on being his foot soldiers in carrying out the threat. But first they have to lie a bit, thinking everyone else is stupid.

    Just like the folks who invaded the Capitol knew what he wanted and knew his saying they shouldn’t was just a Trumpie thing to fool all those stupid RINOs.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  19. 2022 Congressional race ad.

    Narrator: “To be a Republican today is to be Donald Trump’s alter ego. On November 8, voters will have a clear choice between John D. Democrat and Donald Trump. Choose John D. Democrat!”

    Candidate: “I am John D. Democrat and I approve this message.”

    nk (1d9030)

  20. Radegunda (803a6e) — 10/19/2021 @ 11:01 pm

    What is the basis for believing that he is merely stating a fact?

    I’d call it a prediction. It being about the future and all. But like Humpty said, you can make words mean whatever you chose.

    It’s more logical … to believe he is signaling

    Keep the faith.

    frosty (f27e97)

  21. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 10/19/2021 @ 11:14 pm

    Your mind reading powers are amazing. You should be one of those psychics that help police solve crimes. A true modern day Cotton Mather.

    frosty (f27e97)

  22. Sure Frosty, As everyone knows we live in a world were context doesn’t exist and never changes the meaning. All communication happens in black and white with no way to discern what might be intended in an ambiguous statement. Thus when Big Tony says that you have a really nice place and he hopes nothing bad happens to it everyone can be confident it’s 100% sincere also my Kids were genuinely lookin forward to yard work when they told me “That will be fun.”.

    /snark

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  23. From Roy Cohn To The Long Con, Or, An Orange Grows In Manhattan.

    nk (1d9030)

  24. Time123 (9f42ee) — 10/20/2021 @ 5:52 am

    You can snark it all you want. I asked a simple question in @6. We’ve spent several comments trying to find a better answer than No with the leading contender being “We all know what he really meant” and a close follow up being “you’re just trying to cover for Trump”.

    If Trump is so obviously terrible why do we have to spend so much time in Trump Whisperer mode? Like I mentioned in the original question; there is enough there to criticize without turning a would into a should to make an argument not supported by the quote.

    You guys really don’t get tired of the hyperbole? OMG! Trump likes his steak well done with ketchup! What does this say about his essential nature, why does he hate chicken, and did you know that Putin also eats steak!?!

    frosty (f27e97)

  25. I’m answering your question in 6 in a way that pokes fun at your confusion over how someone could possibly come to this conclusion about his meaning.

    If you insist that he couldn’t mean that you’re probably not going to get the joke of think it’s funny.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  26. Wishcasting is what Trump does best. Then he files for bankruptcy.

    And I’m trying to figure out what’s so bad about Trumpcakes boycotting elections? As far as America is concerned, I mean. I can see why it would be bad for the Trumpmuffins who stand to lose their phony baloney jobs.

    nk (1d9030)

  27. Time123 (9f42ee) — 10/20/2021 @ 6:39 am

    There’s no confusion over how someone could exchange would and should. Dana wanted to make a comment, a quote was included to support it, and the idea is that everyone will fill in whatever gaps are needed to make the quote and comment consistent.

    I’m also not insisting anything. I asked a simple question; is there a quote that backs up the statement? Instead of answering that question we’ve spent a number of comments making pretzels.

    Why is it so hard to answer a simple question? Why does it require all sorts of contortions and projections? How many comments did it take to get to “you don’t get the joke” and “you’re confused” just to avoid the question? I think 2 or maybe 3? At least it was quick.

    frosty (f27e97)

  28. Frosty, I think the quote provided does support Dana’s statement. YMMV.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  29. I’d call it a prediction. It being about the future and all. But like Humpty said, you can make words mean whatever you chose.

    He didn’t say “I predict that Republicans will not be voting.” He said “Republicans will not be voting,” as a matter of fact. But like Humpty said, you can make words mean whatever you chose.

    And he didn’t say “some Republicans.” He said “Republicans,” undivided and unqualified.

    He is also telling people that “solving” the last election is much more important than voting in the next one — and he’s doing so after the GOP lost the Senate majority because so many Trump fanatics chose to boycott the runoff election. He is certainly not encouraging his devotees to avoid the same mistake next time.

    Applying a logical analysis to someone’s words in light of that person’s public history and present circumstances isn’t “faith.” It’s reason.

    “Faith” is reflexively trying to find the nicest possible way to parse his words.

    Radegunda (96c736)

  30. It is a maxim in law that a person intends the natural consequences of his actions. It applies both to this instance and to the anti-vaccine conspiracy.

    nk (1d9030)

  31. nk —

    I think I will save your #30 for anything frosty says in the future. It’s pithy and applies to just about every semantical dance he puts out there.

    Appalled (1a17de)

  32. a person intends the natural consequences of his actions

    and the likely consequences of his words.

    After several years of people insisting that we should not take Trump literally, it’s funny to see extreme literalism deployed in an effort to sanitize his pronouncement.

    Radegunda (96c736)

  33. frosty (@10

    The problem words are would and should. Only if you mix those up do you get to that if/then analysis.

    It’s Trump who’s mixing up the two concepts.

    But he ends with [not voting] (if the crime is not solved) “is the single most important thing for Republicans to do”

    That’s definitely a “should” not a “will”

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  34. If Trump is so obviously terrible why do we have to spend so much time in Trump Whisperer mode?

    Because people believe his lies. I mean, I can’t believe you meant this as a serious question.

    You guys really don’t get tired of the hyperbole? OMG! Trump likes his steak well done with ketchup! What does this say about his essential nature, why does he hate chicken, and did you know that Putin also eats steak!?!

    frosty (f27e97) — 10/20/2021 @ 6:27 am

    Well, first, anyone who would eat a good steak well-done with ketchup should be immediately stripped of their citizenship and deported to a place full of similarly benighted people, like North Korea or Quebec.

    But, joking hyperbole aside, these are the primary things that concern me about Trump:

    1) He is a liar, a thug, and a bully.
    1a) He is a CHARISMATIC liar, thug, and bully.
    1b) So people believe his lies, cheer his thuggery, and enable his bullying.
    1c) This makes him more powerful…and more self-centered.
    2) Because of 1) and its subpoints, he has an ego that is both overly large and easily damaged.
    2a) This means that he is all too ready to take credit, but is incapable of accepting blame.
    2b) So, he must not lose…in fact, he cannot lose. It’s just not possible.
    2c) Therefore, if he does appear to lose, there must be some other explanation — e.g., he was cheated.
    3) Because of 2b) and 2c), he started saying during the summer that his loss in 2020 could only be due to a rigged election.
    3a) In the aftermath of actually losing in 2020, he turned that conditional claim into a (false) claim of fact.
    3b) He has doubled down on this lie over and over again, repeating and augmenting it.
    3c) In order to “stop the steal,” he leaned on his officials (including his VP) to help him ACTUALLY steal the election.
    3d) There is no reason to suspect he won’t try to steal the election again in 2024…and many reasons to think he will.
    3e) A substantial chunk of the American people believe him re: 3a) and 3b), and would be just fine with 3d).
    4) At this point, I am not sure whether he is just an incredibly brazen liar, or whether he now actually believes he won.
    4a) Perhaps more unsettlingly, I am not sure which of those would be worse.

    So, based on the above, here is my claim: Donald Trump is currently the greatest domestic threat to the security of the United States. By which I mean, he is the single person most likely to effectively subvert our government, or at least cause it to be subverted. You may think I’m wrong about that…and maybe I am. But I promise you, it’s not hyperbolic to say so.

    Demosthenes (b4a130)

  35. This

    by telling Republicans they should stay home rather than vote

    isn’t an accurate description of

    said Republicans wouldn’t vote in the midterms or the 2024 presidential election if

    Is there a quote somewhere in there that I didn’t notice that supports the idea that Trump is saying people shouldn’t vote?

    Desperate attempts to protect Trump speak volumes and such attempts are easily seen through. Why on earth would I waste my time on entertaining such trollish efforts. When there is a non-manipulative, good-faith effort to actually discuss the real subject, then I’m happy to participate.

    Dana (174549)

  36. Speaking of MAGA-Land…

    “All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. Just understand this. All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. It’s gonna be moving. It’s gonna be quick.”
    “So many people said, ‘Man, if I was in revolution, I would be in Washington.’ Well, this is your time in history.”
    “It’s all converging, and now we’re on the point of attack tomorrow. … And all I can say is: Strap in. You have made this happen, and tomorrow it’s game day.”
    –Steve Bannon, 1/5/2021

    I’d say it’s more than fair to ask Bannon how he had this advance knowledge.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  37. I’d say it’s more than fair to ask Bannon how he had this advance knowledge.

    Paul Montagu (5de684) — 10/20/2021 @ 10:33 am

    I’m sure frosty would say that by using terms like “point of attack” and “all hell is going to break loose,” Bannon was just employing a little…oh, what’s the word? Synecdoche? Cacophony? Apostrophe?

    Antigone?

    Well, whatever the word is, it’s probably fine for Bannon to do it. Just not for us.

    Demosthenes (b4a130)

  38. Hey! When did Bannon get the pardon and how broad was it? Because if it was after 1/6 and for “any and all crimes under the laws of the United States”, he can’t plead the Fifth.

    nk (1d9030)

  39. 37. The word is Hyperbole.

    I don’t know if that’s enough to say Bannon had advance knowledge – and if he dd what was its nature.

    He could be asked what did he mean by that. Did somebody tell him something? Hint?

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  40. https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/19/politics/steve-bannon-pardoned-by-trump/index.html

    Bannon had been indicted, so it might have been just on the indictment.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  41. 37. The word is Hyperbole.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738) — 10/20/2021 @ 11:33 am

    I thought the sarcasm was obvious…

    Demosthenes (b4a130)

  42. Dana (174549) — 10/20/2021 @ 10:31 am

    Desperate attempts to protect Trump speak volumes and such attempts are easily seen through. Why on earth would I waste my time on entertaining such trollish efforts. When there is a non-manipulative, good-faith effort to actually discuss the real subject, then I’m happy to participate.

    Presumably because credibility is important to you. If you say a thing and then attach a quote to support your statement the quote should actually support the statement. It isn’t bad faith to point out when it doesn’t and ask for better support. Especially since I’m doing the same thing in the other thread. You want to call it bad faith because it’s coming from me and there’s a history of me criticizing your posts. That and the road between would and should in this context is harder to travel than just claiming bad-faith in the question. But I didn’t manipulate your comments in either case. I asked you if you could support the statement you made based either on the quote you provided or another quote.

    Presumably you also want people to engage with your points. If someone reads your posts and notices something as simple as you changing would to should to make a point why should they waste time reading further or expect to be able to actually discuss the real subject? And, yes, I can speculate on why someone would continue past that point but that’s a different issue.

    Presumably you also value consistency. If I quoted you but changed the words to open up your comment to interpretations to support my point there’s a good chance you would push back on that. Whether you should is a different question. I don’t think you would accept any of the various things that have been thrown out by other commenters here in your defense if I tried to used them in mine. Whether you should is yet again a different question still.

    This is the danger of ad hominem. It’s a crutch that erodes your ability to respond to any criticism. It’s more destructive to any good-faith effort to discuss a subject than whatever bad-faith you think is going on.

    And, yes, I’m having a little fun with the would/should comments. It seemed like this thread could use some more sarcasm. Talk about desperate attempts to protect something.

    frosty (f27e97)

  43. I am reminded of Rosemary Woods explanation of the 18 1/2 minute gap in the Nixon tape.

    “Her explanation was that she was listening to the tape and … the telephone rang,” said Wine-Banks. “So she kept her foot on a pedal, pushed the wrong button. She pushed record instead of off and reached for the phone.”

    Woods testified that when she accidentally pushed record on the dictaphone, it recorded over part of the original conversation. There’s a famous photo of Woods re-creating the moment, in which Woods attempted to keep her foot on the dictaphone pedal and reach for the phone on the other side of her desk at the same time. Some have jokingly referred to it as the “Rose Mary Stretch.”

    Lots of this kind of stretch to explain away Trump’s obvious meaning.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  44. 33. That wasn;t what happened. The truth was, the ixon White House had o idea how the tape was erased.

    There was one glaring fact that was disregarded by the expert panel.

    The tape recorder was broken

    A buzz could not have been produced by normal operation of the tape recorder.

    Probably the erase head pf pnw of the tape recorders they used was in contact when it should not have been. Rosemary Woods, who made transcriptsd by playing the same bits back over and over, at one point heard nothing and frantically turned the tape back and forth fast forward and rewind, looking for a recording. Each time, the malfunctioning tape recorder erased more.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  45. Dana (174549) — 10/20/2021 @ 10:31 am

    good-faith effort to actually discuss the real subject, then I’m happy to participate.

    Let’s try this then.

    Should D voters continue to vote for candidates who say the current voting rules are fine?

    Should R voters continue to vote for candidates who say the current voting rules are fine?

    Should voters who value a stable political system continue to vote for candidates who say the current voting system is fine?

    I’d say yes, no, and no.

    But those questions are in the old style and probably won’t generate much interest. Let’s try it with some framing.

    Should D voters continue to vote for candidates who are fine with the system that denied Stacy Abrams her rightful win?

    Should R voters continue to vote for candidates who are fine with the system that denied Trump his rightful win?

    Should voters who value a stable political system continue to vote for candidates who are fine with a system that lets people like Trump and Abrams undermine it?

    Personally I think the framed questions are garbage. They’re here for illustration only.

    My prediction is that most of the responses to this comment, if there are any, will be directed at the framed questions or other framed versions will be imagined and comments will be made against those. I’d be surprised if 3 people engage with the first set of questions at all. My guess is the vast majority of responses in either case will be directed at me instead of the question. I’m expecting a lot of “you’re defending Trump”, “you’re trolling”, “bad-faith”, “you’re disingenuous”, and maybe an “I expect a trick so I’ll pretend the questions don’t make sense”.

    frosty (f27e97)

  46. * Probably the erase head of one of the tape recorders they used was in contact when it should not have been.

    And there is no other good explanation of the buzz. This was not a normal erasure.

    What this does prove is that it woold have been a very bad idea for Nixon to burn the tapes – anybody could say anything was said.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  47. D’s claim thar R’s are put to stop D’s from voting, which is less true than they say. The claim is made to get out the vote. In truth the biggest thing stopping people from voting is not being registered, or not knowing where their polling place is.

    R’s claim that false additional votes are being cast – that the ballot box, so to speak, is being stuffed, but the most they can point to is making it easier for people to vote (and maybe making it easier for people to cast votes for other people. D’s are looking for rules changes that in totality may make it easier to do these things.

    Nobody’s complaining about attempts to get people to lock in their vote, or even lose them, (banking votes is a big D aim) and even losing their vote although if someone gets an absentee ballot they would still be able to vote provisionally in person and it would be counted if the absentee ballot never gets accepted.

    I can think of a way that someone might try to make a decision after Election Day: Send in an absentee ballot with a mistake that can be cured cast one way, and vote provisionally the other way, and later, after Election Day, decide whether or not to cure the absentee ballot.

    Neither D;s r R;s talk about the possible loss of secrecy within families with mail-in ballots.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  48. @45, Frosty, your questions are clear and easy to understand. But I’m not motivated to try and answer. They’re just not very interesting questions. Your framed questions are more interesting, but sort of beg the question “what would be a better choice for them to make?”

    For your socratic approach to work your question needs to be interesting or thought provoking. If also helps if the person you asks views you as an authority of some kind. When Socrates did it he wasn’t just some guy on the street. He was a respected philosopher.

    You might get more engagement if you framed your POV as an affirmative position instead. But you might not. I’ve posted things I thought were interesting (with links) and sometimes no one response or no wants to talk about it beyond a “good link”.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  49. Time123 (9f42ee) — 10/21/2021 @ 10:03 am

    So, I should count this as +1 for the framed questions? Or at least not a +1 for “actually discuss the real subject”?

    For your socratic approach to work your question needs to be interesting or thought provoking. If also helps if the person you asks views you as an authority of some kind. When Socrates did it he wasn’t just some guy on the street. He was a respected philosopher.

    The Socratic method, and I’m not sure I’m doing that, does not depend on authority. What you are describing as a valid method is an argument from authority, i.e. the argument is valid by virtue of the authority of the person making it. Argument from authority is generally considered a logical fallacy.

    The framing you think makes it more interesting erodes any potential of a real discussion. It’s basically a form of begging the question. All of the time engaging those questions is spent trying to avoid the baked in bad-faith.

    frosty (f27e97)

  50. you can score it how you liked.

    My main point was that people don’t seem to think your questions as you present them, are very interesting and don’t engage with them as you want. (This is my feeling about question in the comment I responded to) You might want to adjust your approach from questions to an affirmative statement of position. People may be more inclined to discuss that.

    Sorry if this isn’t the response you’re looking for.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  51. frosty:

    Speaking as a Georgia resident, I will take a stab at the questions you ask. But first, I will point you here:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2021/10/06/trump-stacey-abrams-brad-raffensperger/5951185001/

    Contra Raffesperger, Abrams and Trump made different arguments. Abrams insisted that her voters were prevented from registering to vote. Trump claimed that there was active ballot stuffing or destruction of his ballots in Fulton County and other places. Both arguments are pretty toxic — and I think Abrams set the bar low enough that even Trump had difficulty sinking beneath it. (He managed, though)

    As for voting for a system that allows candidates to spout venom like this…I think it would be healthier if the media environment that spawned both of these people confronted their spawn or ignored them permanently. But, since we have free elections and free speech, the SYSTEM has no mechanism for shutting these folks down, nor do I want them to have this mechanism.

    Appalled (1a17de)

  52. Time123 (9f42ee) — 10/21/2021 @ 11:05 am

    My main point was that people don’t seem to think your questions as you present them

    In fairness @45 wasn’t very old before you decided that “people” thought they weren’t interesting. Not being interesting was sort of the point.

    Sorry if this isn’t the response you’re looking for.

    It’s exactly the response I was expecting. Do you think the interesting versions are fundamentally different as it relates to Dana’s “the real subject”? What do you think the real subject of this post is? Is it something that isn’t adjacent to:

    Should R voters continue to vote for candidates who say the current voting rules are fine?

    That was my attempt at the least loaded/framed version of that question. Would it have been more interesting to talk about that or is the real interest in more discussions about how bad Trump is?

    to an affirmative statement of position

    Also, in fairness, I started out with an affirmative statement and that didn’t end well.

    frosty (f27e97)

  53. “If we don’t solve the Presidential Election Fraud of 2020 (which we have thoroughly and conclusively documented), Republicans will not be voting in ’22 or ’24.”

    Certainly it is possible that Trump is simply concerned that rampant voter fraud will cause Republican voters…en masse…to lose complete trust in elections and voluntarily boycott. The problem is that Trump already lost me in the first half of that sentence…for me to overly care about the second half. Either way you slice the second half, it’s Trump who is driving the Election Fraud narrative…and who is pushing the nonsense that thorough evidence has been documented. It simply hasn’t….he’s lying. He is creating the environment where low-information GOP voters will feel compelled to not vote because fraud will ultimately invalidate it…..or not vote to wage a protest against inaction. Either way…Trump is insinuating that lack of GOP efforts will lead to GOP politicians losing. It’s horrible leadership….burn with fraud….or burn at the polls. My suggestion…..mass defection now….the GOP can and must do better.

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  54. Appalled (1a17de) — 10/21/2021 @ 11:30 am

    But, since we have free elections and free speech, the SYSTEM has no mechanism for shutting these folks down, nor do I want them to have this mechanism.

    I agree with that sentiment. But I think there’s room to talk about changes that make it harder to make bogus fraud claims. And by harder I don’t mean the statements weren’t permitted airtime. I mean harder in the sense that it’s harder to pass fake money or harder to make a fake weather forecast.

    frosty (f27e97)

  55. AJ_Liberty (ec7f74) — 10/21/2021 @ 12:46 pm

    The problem is that it isn’t just Trump doing that. That genie was let out prior to Trump, Trump rode it like a rented mule, and so have other candidates. Pretending you don’t need to worry about that particular issue because you think it’s solely and distinctly fabricated by Trump is wishful thinking.

    the GOP can and must do better

    Yes, and what exactly does that mean? Does it means boot Trump and pretend you can will voter confidence back into place?

    frosty (f27e97)

  56. What AJ says:

    Either way you slice the second half, it’s Trump who is driving the Election Fraud narrative…and who is pushing the nonsense that thorough evidence has been documented. It simply hasn’t….he’s lying. He is creating the environment where low-information GOP voters will feel compelled to not vote because fraud will ultimately invalidate it…..or not vote to wage a protest against inaction. Either way…Trump is insinuating that lack of GOP efforts will lead to GOP politicians losing.

    How frosty characterizes it (note part in bold):

    The problem is that it isn’t just Trump doing that. That genie was let out prior to Trump, Trump rode it like a rented mule, and so have other candidates. Pretending you don’t need to worry about that particular issue because you think it’s solely and distinctly fabricated by Trump is wishful thinking.

    frosty (f27e97) — 10/21/2021 @ 1:23 pm

    Nowhere does AJ say “Only Trump is doing this.” He just says Trump is doing this. Then frosty implicitly concedes AJ’s actual point, before mischaracterizing what AJ said, and acts like he’s scored a blow.

    You know what we call that, Mr. Throws Around Names of Logical Fallacies? We call that…a straw-man. I find this deliciously ironic, by the way. You spend all this time complaining about how no one is engaging with your original question in the proper way. Then AJ gives you what you said you wanted…and this is how you respond?

    Yeah, “bad-faith troll” seems about right for you.

    Demosthenes (3fd56e)

  57. Demosthenes (3fd56e) — 10/21/2021 @ 7:15 pm

    That’s an interesting idea. The problem is you picked up the quote right after:

    The problem is that Trump already lost me in the first half of that sentence…for me to overly care about the second half.

    It would seem to me like this is AJ saying he doesn’t care about the issue at all because of Trump. It sure looks like AJ is limiting the scope of his comment to Trump. That wasn’t part of the comment he’s replying to. The entire thing you’re referencing is the “second half” that AJ has said he doesn’t care about. He restates that again with

    Either way you slice the second half, it’s Trump who is driving the Election Fraud narrative

    But you’re thinking AJ didn’t limit this to Trump? Do you think he really meant to say he cared about the underlying issue and how it’s being abused by a variety of politicians? You’re saying I should understand “Trump is driving” this to really mean “a lot of politicians are driving this”? And you’re saying I mischaracterized that?

    Also, I’d say I explicitly agreed with his point. “Trump rode it like a rented mule” doesn’t really seem very implicit. In a normal conversation this might look like “sure, that’s true, but …”. So, sure, you’ve got me there, but that seems like a perfectly normal thing to do.

    The really odd thing is why you think @55 is me trying to troll him. He responded to me and I responded to him. I thought it was civil. That comment you’re thinking you’ve turned into such a sick burn is me trying to point out that he should “overly care” about that second half. I didn’t think I scored a blow on him at all. I thought instead I had agreed with his point but tried to say that he might want to reconsider not caring about the issue. So, sure, you really burned me. I’m so sorry for being a bad faith troll. You scored a blow there.

    The really good part is you think I’m complaining about people not engaging my questions in the proper way. No, @45 is about people not wanting to engage at all, as Dana described, in good-faith on the real issue and instead doing exactly what Dana has accused me of. Instead they want to signal and “score blows” and do all sort of emotional things other than discuss a real issue in good faith while proclaiming loudly that it’s everyone else doing that.

    Doing what Dana describes is hard. It requires that you actually listen and try to understand POV’s you don’t agree with. It involves using words correctly, asking people to clarify when they don’t, etc. It doesn’t involve dismissing things as being in bad-faith or switching to personal attacks to avoid a discussion you say you want to have. It involves engaging with people you know you’ll disagree with.

    But it seems like you’ve seen, and given, a lot of reasons why all of that is nonsense. It’s so much easier to do all of these other things that just look like a discussion right?

    Thank you. Hopefully you enjoyed the irony. Both times.

    frosty (f27e97)

  58. Okay, so this is what we’re doing. We’re parsing language. Very well.

    It would seem to me like this is AJ saying he doesn’t care about the issue at all because of Trump.

    Well, if we’re being literal, AJ doesn’t say he doesn’t care about the issue. He says Trump is making it hard for him to “overly care.”

    It sure looks like AJ is limiting the scope of his comment to Trump.

    Trump is the only person he’s talking about, sure. That doesn’t mean he is saying only Trump does this. He sure isn’t saying “solely and distinctly fabricated by Trump.” Which brings us to your fun paragraph, which I think I have to take sentence by sentence.

    But you’re thinking AJ didn’t limit this to Trump?

    As a literal matter, no, AJ did not “limit this to Trump.” He said Trump is driving this narrative…pushing this nonsense…lying…creating a certain environment…etc. All of that is true. None of it implies that these things are ONLY true of Trump. From reading what you write, I know you are smart enough to grasp that distinction.

    Do you think he really meant to say he cared about the underlying issue and how it’s being abused by a variety of politicians?

    No, I think he meant what he said. Which is not what you said he said. Which I think you understand.

    You’re saying I should understand “Trump is driving” this to really mean “a lot of politicians are driving this”?

    No. I’m saying you shouldn’t turn “Trump is driving, etc.” to “ONLY Trump is driving, etc.” Which, again, I think you understand.

    And you’re saying I mischaracterized that?

    I was saying you straw-manned AJ. I am still saying that.

    In addition, I am now also saying that you have moved on to an attempt to mischaracterize my position. “So, you think this? You’re saying this now?” And please, don’t come back with the “But I was just asking questions” garbage. You know what you’re doing.

    The really odd thing is why you think @55 is me trying to troll him.

    Hmm. Another mischaracterization. I didn’t say you were trying to troll AJ. Instead, I basically all but said that you were a troll who discusses in bad faith. Which is a statement that, admittedly, would require much more evidence than a single comment. But, y’know what, I think I’ve got some — hang on a sec here —

    The really good part is you think I’m complaining about people not engaging my questions in the proper way. No, @45 is about people not wanting to engage at all…

    Uh-oh. Because I didn’t say “questions.” I said “question.” And I wasn’t talking about #45. I was talking about #6…in which, if my memory serves, you asked a question. Most of the rest of your comments have followed on from that, including (but certainly not limited to) #45. These include such classic hits as “Only if you mix [would and should] up,” “I think you and Kevin are channeling Humpty,” “Your mind reading powers are amazing,” and “I asked a simple question” (which is a record you played more than once).

    If you want to rebut that some of those were actually objections to the way in which people were characterizing Trump’s remarks, then you are right. They are. But of course, that is just another way to restate your original question, the one I was referring to: “Is there a quote somewhere in there that I didn’t notice that supports the idea that Trump is saying people shouldn’t vote?” So yes, I think my characterization of your comments on this thread is supported.

    Then along comes AJ, who started his comment by citing the original quote and giving some ground to you…more, frankly, than I think was warranted…by saying that he thinks it might be possible that Trump genuinely meant to express concern. And how do you respond? You straw-man the guy. And you do so after calling other people out on logical fallacies. I mean, it’s just too beautiful for words.

    Hopefully you enjoyed the irony. Both times.

    Oh, believe me, I did. You made my whole night. And I am genuinely appreciative.

    Demosthenes (3fd56e)

  59. Demosthenes, your comment @34 was a thing of beauty. Thank you.

    And, I respect your willingness to engage with the carping contingent. (They know who they are; it’s not just the person in this thread.) I’ve read enough of them to know that they love to cherry-pick, take potshots, and split hairs. Rarely do they take off the argument hat, say anything positive, or concede a point. Showing any warmth is seemingly beyond their capability.

    I don’t have animosity towards them, because they may not be aware of themselves. However, that doesn’t mean I’m going to waste my time arguing over semantics with them. I suspect they are either Trump apologists or love to argue just for the sake of argument.

    norcal (b9a35f)

  60. Demosthenes, bravo, way to bring out the whipping stick. It may not encourage more productive dialogue, but it does carefully diagnose the games people play to avoid actual good-faith discussions. Frosty’s “just asking questions” schtick is just tedious….especially since I think he could actually do better…but I think he loves the performance art more……and won’t break kayfabe.

    AJ_Liberty (3cb02f)

  61. Thank you, norcal, AJ. I appreciate the kind words.

    By the way, AJ, while I’ve got you here: was I wrong? Did you in fact mean to say or imply that the 2020 election fraud narrative, and/or related matters, were being “solely and distinctly fabricated” by Trump? Because if so, I’d like to know now. In that case, I might well owe our resident snowman an apology for the roasting…and if I do, I would rather just get it over with.

    Demosthenes (832a17)

  62. Demosthenes (3fd56e) — 10/21/2021 @ 10:24 pm

    Well done. I can’t help but think of the scene in Dances with Wolves. The brave warrior chases down and kills the wagon driver. Arrow after arrow and then he scalps him before he dies and the other brave warriors cheer. Slowly drawn out and set against the backdrop of the open plain. They’ve saved their land and struck a blow against evil.

    Reading through the other comments, how many of them do you think are discussing the real subject? More than 5? More than 10? I counted more than 5 but less than 10 out of 59. If there is so much willingness and desire for real discussion why isn’t there more of it? Ask yourself self that in other threads too. Once you remove the comments where everyone is agreeing with the post, agreeing with the agreements, and attacking the few people who don’t agree enough what’s left? If you got rid of the trolls, and it’s been a slow and meticulous process, you wouldn’t even have that last part. Agreement and agreeing with the agreements. Is that really what you’re looking for?

    frosty (f27e97)

  63. @61 if you’re going to ask at least get the full quote right

    Pretending you don’t need to worry about that particular issue because you think it’s solely and distinctly fabricated by Trump

    That way he can so, no, he wasn’t pretending. Then you also don’t run the risk of someone thinking you’re pulling that out of context and mischaracterizing it after making such a point about me doing that.

    frosty (f27e97)

  64. I’m jumping in way too late, but what the heck. It’s a comment thread in a blog.
    Trump hasn’t explained his little blurb, which is typical because he hasn’t explained his tweets either, so we’re left with examining what he said and divining his meaning. I’m breaking his breaking his message into four parts. The first:

    If we don’t solve the Presidential Election Fraud of 2020…

    I don’t know exactly who “we” is, but my best guess is We Republicans.
    A related question is this: Who is he actually talking to. I don’t believe he’s speaking to all Americans, because he never did as president. He always railed against the Swamp, the Establishment, the MSM (they’re the Enemy of the People), NeverTrumpers, liberal Democrats in particular and Democrats in general, socialists, communists, etc.
    Trump mainly spoke to his base, and he’s doing this here. More specifically, I think he’s speaking to his GOP tribe, the two-thirds majority of Republicans who regard him as their leader.
    Of course his comment is a big fat lie. There’s no fraud of any import to “solve”. It’s borderline psycho.
    There was some talk upthread about whether only Trump is driving this, and my answer is yes, he is. He refused to concede, he brought up “massive fraud” and “stolen election” countless times since Election Night, he tried to overturn the electoral results through skullduggery and manipulation and amateurish court cases, he invited his MAGA zealots to the Capitol on 1/6 and lit a match that brought us an insurrection and a non-peaceful transfer of power.
    There is no one else driving this. It’s him and him alone refusing to accept the outcome, and his loyalists are following suit, because he’s the leader of the GOP and you best not cross him. Had Trump conceded the Saturday after the election, no one else would’ve picked up his torch. It would also mean that Trump’s quiet exit ended his political career, and he and his ego couldn’t have that.

    …(which we have thoroughly and completely documented)…

    This, to me, is a different “we”, IMO, and I believe he’s talking about his Elite Strike Force (Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, etc.), CyberNinjas, Pillow Guy, Kraken, Trump-loving pundits, and anyone else who carried his water and provided “proof” that the election was “stolen”.
    Of course his comment is a big fat lie. There has been no such proof. Anything put forward by his people has been as solid as the TP sitting in my toilet. It’s borderline psycho.

    …Republicans will not be voting in ’22 or ’24.

    This can be taken two ways, a prediction or a directive. If it’s a prediction, then it’s a false premise and unserious. If it’s a directive, then he’d rather lose than get his way on his Election Fraud Hoax. Did I say this is borderline psycho?
    If I were to pick, I’d say it’s a directive. He’s saying “get on my crazy bus, because if you don’t, you’re going to lose.” This is quintessentially about Trump, its about him putting himself above party and country, as he has always done. To me, this is why his message is so disturbing and so wrong.

    It is the single most important thing Republicans can do.

    The “it” has to be the Presidential Election Fraud of 2020. This just doubles down on the crazy. Out of all the issues Americans have to face, the economy, our culture, China, the pandemic, national security, immigration, the southern border and so forth, none of them in Trump’s withered mind are more important for Republicans than digging in and joining him in his nutjob quest to prove to the world that he really won after all.
    His final sentence is like a big exclamation point. Join Trump and his Big Lie, or lose. The confounding thing is that, instead of condemning and fleeing this insanity, he remains the putative leader of this once good and great party. The majority are either defending this, embracing it, or keep their heads down to avoid getting bullied by his zealots. I’ll say it again, it’s borderline psycho.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  65. Paul, remember that many of Trump’s statements make a lot more sense if you put “It would be better me if people believed that…” at the front of them. Works for this statement. He’s not telling us what’s true or what he believes. He’s stating what he wants other people to believe.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  66. @ frosty, 62 and 63:

    So, you think passive-aggressive sarcastic mockery is okay when you do it to others, but not when they do it to you? You believe that the subject at hand should be thoroughly addressed, unless you want to switch topics because you feel you’re at a disadvantage? You feel that it’s no problem when you change the words of others before responding, but your comments must only be addressed in their full context and exactly as you now say that you originally meant them? You are merely concerned about the absence of real discussion, which is why you have taken it upon yourself to turn this thread into a meta-discussion about how to properly discuss, where you are both active participant and referee?

    I mean, I’m not saying that’s what you’re saying. But it sure sounds like that’s what you’re saying.

    Demosthenes (832a17)

  67. I think there’s truth to that, Time.
    I also think Scott Adams was onto something when he called Trump a “Master Persuader”. He is persuasive, not with me because I’ve seen through his salesman bullsh-t for decades, but he’s good at it. He was persuasive enough to get 44.9% of Republicans to nominate him, persuasive enough turn people away from Hillary and toward him, persuasive enough to strong-arm and bend fellow Republicans to his will, persuasive enough to remain the party’s leader after an embarrassing loss to a 78-year old gaffe-prone basement dweller.
    But his Election Fraud Hoax is a persuasion too far, IMO, and he just made it a political cornerstone. It’s nucking futs.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  68. Can Melania’s shoes be written off as a campaign expense? Those quarter of a square inch heels can’t possibly last very long as I don’t see her as someone who resoles.

    nk (1d9030)

  69. I think Trump is saying whatever will make stupid people send him their beer money.

    nk (1d9030)

  70. The same people who self-treat with ivermectin and SSRIs from online pill prescribers. H/t Obudman.

    nk (1d9030)

  71. as and

    nk (1d9030)

  72. Maybe Trump is right and there is voter fraud…..

    Oh, wait.

    Rip Murdock (141030)

  73. Demosthenes (832a17) — 10/22/2021 @ 7:38 am

    So, you think passive-aggressive sarcastic mockery is okay when you do it to others, but not when they do it to you?

    If you follow my comments you might notice that, with few exceptions, I don’t start with sarcastic mockery and I usually don’t use passive-aggressive comments at all. I usually try to ask a straight question or make a straight point. Whether I succeed is a valid question but my original intent is, again with a few notable exceptions that I think I’ve apologized for, sincere and in good faith. So, yes, I think it’s fair to engage sarcasm and mockery (we’ve got both kinds here) in kind with someone who has opened that door. When that happens I don’t think I choose a passive-aggressive route. I think I’ve been accurately criticized for taking an active-aggresive route. And I think it’s fine for them to respond in kind. I’d prefer neither but we don’t live in that world.

    What I object to is people responding to good-faith with bad-faith and pretending they aren’t. The whole routine of accusing a person of trolling because you’d rather not engage on the issue is objectionable. I think the other routine of deciding someone offends you and carry that around waiting for a chance to “get them” isn’t much better. Some of the feuds here make that understandable but the bar has gotten really low.

    You feel that it’s no problem when you change the words of others before responding, but your comments must only be addressed in their full context and exactly as you now say that you originally meant them?

    I think you should hold yourself to the same standard you hold other people. If I’ve done what you say point it out. But if you are going to accuse someone of something at least don’t do the same thing as part of the accusation.

    You are merely concerned about the absence of real discussion, which is why you have taken it upon yourself to turn this thread into a meta-discussion about how to properly discuss, where you are both active participant and referee?

    Well, I asked what I thought was a reasonable question and that got out of hand. I didn’t start out meta and I didn’t introduce this “real discussion” thread. If someone accuses you of bad-faith what would you do? I consider my options limited. I could ignore the accusation or I can try to engage it at face value. I don’t see the route you chose with me as an option I can take with Dana and it isn’t one I would choose if I could.

    To your point, yes, I’m concerned about the absence of real discussion. I’m concerned about all of things I’ve pointed out or I wouldn’t have pointed them out. I think we should all take it upon ourselves to improve the situation and that means calling it out. Yes, we’ve got to do that when we are both participant and referee. How can it be any other way?

    frosty (f27e97)

  74. frosty (f27e97) — 10/22/2021 @ 8:58 am

    So you’re saying that irony is dead?

    Demosthenes (832a17)

  75. Demosthenes (832a17) — 10/22/2021 @ 12:05 pm

    If it is there’s a lot of zombie irony walking around. Or is it ironic zombies? That doesn’t sound right. Zombic irony? Has English failed me or have I failed it?

    frosty (585ce0)

  76. 68. nk (1d9030) — 10/22/2021 @ 8:18 am

    Can Melania’s shoes be written off as a campaign expense?

    Only if, like Sarah Palin’s clothes in 2008, after the election, she doesn’t get to keep them, and the clothes get auctioned off for the benefit of the RNC or whoever bought them

    People in those circumstances can buy what they wore. That’s what Levi Johnston (the father of Bristol Palin’s child whom she broke off with because of his infidelity) did with the socks he was given. The same buy if you want to keep it rule applies to U.S. diplomats who get foreign gifts.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  77. 53. AJ_Liberty (ec7f74) — 10/21/2021 @ 12:46 pm

    … it’s Trump who is …pushing the nonsense that thorough evidence has been documented. It simply hasn’t….he’s lying.

    I think Trump is mainly claiming statistical proof.

    There’s no way he hasn’t heard what’s wrong with his proof.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  78. Paul Montagu (5de684) — 10/22/2021 @ 7:29 am
    Trump:

    If we don’t solve the Presidential Election Fraud of 2020…

    PM> I don’t know exactly who “we” is, but my best guess is We Republicans.

    No he means the government or the country. He wants Democrats to concede that the election was stolen. He wants it solved as to who did it, and how (because all he has is false rumors and misleading statistics)

    PM> A related question is this: Who is he actually talking to.

    It would seem like his believers. He wants to push people who are close to them to endorse his claims. (and evetually get it universally accepted. Or at least he’s trying to convey the impression that that’s what he after.

    I think he’s speaking to Republicans officeholders and friendly media who haven’t joined in. He wants his lies to be fleshed out so they’d be credible to more people.

    But all they can do is say that Mark Zuckerberg bought not stole, the election.

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2021/10/17/wh_not_stolen_but_bought_with_zuckerbergs_money_554274.html

    https://nypost.com/2021/10/16/white-house-not-stolen-but-bought-with-zuckerbergs-money-goodwin

    In “Rigged,” author Mollie Hemingway lays out what amounts to a fascinating alternative to the “stolen” charge. She presents a strong case that the $419 million that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg ostensibly spent to get out the vote was actually used by Democrat activists to infiltrate local election operations and take over jobs government workers were supposed to do.

    Hemingway, a senior editor at The Federalist and a Fox commentator, shows how two Zuckerberg nonprofits used their unprecedented deep pockets to line up left-wing groups in key cities that in turn hired poll workers, collected absentee ballots and cured those with errors.

    SEE ALSO
    In her new book, “Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections,” Mollie Hemingway reveals how social-media companies like Twitter and Facebook responded to the 2016 election of Donald Trump to go from free-speech advocates to censors — including blocking The Post’s reporting on Hunter Biden. Here, an exclusive excerpt:
    Exclusive book excerpt: How Facebook and Twitter rigged the game in 2020
    In Green Bay, Wis., the Democratic mayor outsourced the planning and managing of the election to these activists. Hemingway cites an e-mail from the mayor’s chief of staff saying, “I am taking all of my cues” from one of the Zuckerberg groups.

    The city clerk, nominally in charge of the election, was reportedly unhappy with the changes, went on leave shortly before election day and soon resigned.

    As Hemingway puts it in excerpts published by The Post, “It was a genius plan. And because no one ever imagined that a coordinated operation could pull off the privatization of the election system, no laws were built to combat it.”

    Texas researcher William Doyle crunched the numbers showing how the nonprofits concentrated in areas Biden won, often spending three or four times as much money per voter as they spent in districts Trump won.

    “The 2020 election wasn’t stolen,” Doyle concluded. “It was likely bought by one of the world’s wealthiest and most powerful men pouring his money through legal loopholes.

    It is not a real loophole. Anyone can form an independent PAC. Although it is something for all that election spending to be tax deductible.

    As I said, Facebook helped Trump in 2016 because Hillary refused the offer to help them target their Facebook ads while Trump agreed. Hillary did not trust that the people Zuckerberg would assign to her would all be pro-Hillary and keep the contents of the ads confidential.

    Trump mainly used the ads to drum up crowds and the responses as a means of polling.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  79. Truump: (which we have thoroughly and completely documented)…

    PM> This, to me, is a different “we”, IMO, and I believe he’s talking about his Elite Strike Force (Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, etc.), CyberNinjas, Pillow Guy, Kraken, Trump-loving pundits, and anyone else who carried his water and provided “proof” that the election was “stolen”.

    Agree except that CyberNinjas faked its Arizona audit and had Biden win the state because they didn’t want themselves to be audited and lose all that money. But Trump means the people who carried his water. (now he’s calling on others to please help him establish who committed the supposed fraud.

    He thinks maybe he can distort reality. Unlike Steve Jobs, he cannot do it alone.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  80. Trump is threatening to sink the Republican Party if he doesn;t get help in making his claims look more credible, or if they won’t do it.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  81. Trump: …Republicans will not be voting in ’22 or ’24.

    PM> This can be taken two ways, a prediction or a directive. If it’s a prediction, then it’s a false premise and unserious.

    It is a prediction, but not one he can believe.

    HE is threatening to sink the Republican Party if he doesn’t get help

    it is the single most important thing Republicans can do.

    PM> The “it” has to be the Presidential Election Fraud of 2020.

    The “it” is not voting. This is a directive, not a pseudo-prediction

    PM> His final sentence is like a big exclamation point. Join Trump and his Big Lie, or lose.

    And that is a LIE.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  82. The “it” is not voting. Trump said Republicans in general.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  83. If it is there’s a lot of zombie irony walking around.

    frosty (585ce0) — 10/22/2021 @ 12:37 pm

    So you’re telling me you’re actually a zombie?

    Demosthenes (3fd56e)

  84. Demosthenes (3fd56e) — 10/22/2021 @ 1:21 pm

    If it is there’s a lot of zombie irony walking around.

    So you’re telling me you’re actually a zombie?

    Would you believe me if I did? Either way you and I are in that boat together at this point.

    frosty (f27e97)

  85. Either way you and I are in that boat together at this point.

    frosty (f27e97) — 10/22/2021 @ 1:57 pm

    Not me. I’m just asking questions. Why do you have a problem with me asking questions?

    Demosthenes (3fd56e)

  86. No he means the government or the country. He wants Democrats to concede that the election was stolen. He wants it solved as to who did it, and how (because all he has is false rumors and misleading statistics)

    How can you say that with any certainty, Sammy? Does this not speak to the problem here, that Trump never explains his statements? Why would any Democrat be interested in relitigating the 2020 election? Their guy won. Why would any election official go back and try to find fraud? They already certified the results.
    If Trump wants it “solved”, it’s going to have to come the GOP and if they don’t deliver, he’s directing them to stay home on Election Day and kill the GOP’s electoral chances for the next two cycles. This isn’t a strategy, it’s selfish petulance.

    But all they can do is say that Mark Zuckerberg bought not stole, the election.

    Trump can say a lot of things, but he never said that. Trump is stuck on “rigged” or “stolen”, and he can’t even name the person in charge of this alleged operation.

    The “it” is not voting. This is a directive, not a pseudo-prediction.

    Again, how can say that with certainty? There were two choices for “it”, (1) solving election fraud or (2) directing Republicans sit out the next two cycles. Why would the latter be the most important thing for his tribe to do? It would guarantee Democrat majorities in the two branches of government for the four years, putting the GOP in a political wilderness. And he didn’t limit his “not voting” language to the president or US Senate or US House, it could also mean all state and local races.

    And that is a LIE.

    No, it’s an opinion, Sammy.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  87. Demosthenes (3fd56e) — 10/22/2021 @ 2:22 pm

    I’m just asking questions. Why do you have a problem with me asking questions?

    I don’t have any problem with that. What made you think I did?

    Haven’t I answered them? I’m sure I missed some but I think I covered the high points at least. That’s more than I can say for you right? Is that what you mean by just asking questions? Maybe we aren’t in the same boat after all.

    Did I say anything trollish in @73? I treated your questions like they were asked in good faith and I answered them. For that matter @57 was a fair response to you.

    frosty (f27e97)

  88. 1) He is a liar, a thug, and a bully.
    1a) He is a CHARISMATIC liar, thug, and bully.
    1b) So people believe his lies, cheer his thuggery, and enable his bullying.
    1c) This makes him more powerful…and more self-centered.

    I think this describes multiple Presidents. I do think you’ve overstated by using the word “thug” and its variations. Thuggery connotes physical violence like Kristalnacht or the Maoists beatings.
    Noriega was a thug who had people roaming the streets beating people with rebar and pipes.

    2) Because of 1) and its subpoints, he has an ego that is both overly large and easily damaged.
    2a) This means that he is all too ready to take credit, but is incapable of accepting blame.
    2b) So, he must not lose…in fact, he cannot lose. It’s just not possible.
    2c) Therefore, if he does appear to lose, there must be some other explanation — e.g., he was cheated.

    This also should include Al Gore, Hillary Clinton. In other words, he’s acting like an American politician. Trump is not that exceptional when compared to the standard.

    3) Because of 2b) and 2c), he started saying during the summer that his loss in 2020 could only be due to a rigged election.
    3a) In the aftermath of actually losing in 2020, he turned that conditional claim into a (false) claim of fact.
    3b) He has doubled down on this lie over and over again, repeating and augmenting it.
    3c) In order to “stop the steal,” he leaned on his officials (including his VP) to help him ACTUALLY steal the election.
    3d) There is no reason to suspect he won’t try to steal the election again in 2024…and many reasons to think he will.
    3e) A substantial chunk of the American people believe him re: 3a) and 3b), and would be just fine with 3d).

    Again, see past losers. By the standard, Trump isn’t that exceptional. Hillary still drinks herself to sleep every night thinking she really won.

    4) At this point, I am not sure whether he is just an incredibly brazen liar, or whether he now actually believes he won.
    4a) Perhaps more unsettlingly, I am not sure which of those would be worse.

    At this point he’s a noise machine, not President. I don’t think he is likely to be President again (Americans like winners, he lost) and the only way I’d find him unsettling would be if I spent my days worrying about him like some evidently still do.

    So, based on the above, here is my claim: Donald Trump is currently the greatest domestic threat to the security of the United States.

    Thats quite a claim given that the above describes about 535 people in the legislative branch, most of the 2024 roster on both sides, and thousands upon thousands of front and back benchers around the USA who actually hold offices.

    The greatest domestic threat in the USA isn’t Trump. Its the people who have sold out to the Chinese and want to try their model here. Its the people who are crippling us over the New Green Deal. Maybe the people, who through open borders and welfare entitlements, will bankrupt us.

    Trump won’t run again. He’s trying to be kingmaker of an Apprentice, and even IF Trump gets his nominee elected, the new President will start cutting ties by January 21 because once elected, no politician (see your own list above) is going to want to be someone elses mini me

    steveg (e81d76)

  89. Trump is an ego bag, Obama is an ego bag.
    Two biggest ego bags in recent history to run for President and VP were the Kerry Edwards ticket.
    Two giant bags of gas.

    It is really unhealthy to be this obsessed with a deposed (by the voters) windbag.
    Of course Trump is thrashing around. He got beaten by an incoherent, borderline mental incompetent.
    He hates losers and that is one hell of a loss. He’s probably battling extreme self loathing because by his own standards, his most recent result was a beating done by a ventriloquist dummy

    steveg (e81d76)

  90. He is a CHARISMATIC liar, thug, and bully.

    You keep using that word ….

    Trump charismatic? The word you should be looking for is “repellent.” He’s a man of average intelligence, dubious experience, subaverage knowledge, extreme laziness and severe emotional problems. To me that is anything but charismatic. I guess if his audience is credulous enough…

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  91. What made you think I did?

    So, you’re still saying you know what I think better than I do?

    Haven’t I answered them?…That’s more than I can say for you right?

    What makes you think I haven’t been answering your questions?

    Did I say anything trollish in @73? I treated your questions like they were asked in good faith and I answered them. For that matter @57 was a fair response to you.

    frosty (f27e97) — 10/22/2021 @ 3:00 pm

    Did I say you said anything trollish? Why do you keep assuming I’m not trying to have a reasonable discussion with you? What did I do to make you so angry?

    steveg (e81d76) — 10/22/2021 @ 3:20 pm

    Why, it’s my old friend, steveg! I would love to give your response to my thoughts a thorough read and reply, though it’ll have to be another time. My back-and-forth with frosty has really gotten my goat. It’s left me in a bit of a ba-a-a-a-ad mood, you might say. I just hate feeling like I’ve been the butt of someone else’s jokes.

    Am I milking these puns for more than they’re worth? I hope not. That would be an udder catastrophe.

    Demosthenes (3fd56e)

  92. Demosthenes (3fd56e) — 10/22/2021 @ 3:52 pm

    So, you’re still saying you know what I think better than I do?

    You quoted a question. It’s me asking you something. It would twisting my words to claim I’ve said I know better than you what you think.

    What makes you think I haven’t been answering your questions?

    Because you haven’t. After your unleashed your epic smack-down you’ve been just asking questions. And after all of that criticism of people playing the just ask questions game.

    Did I say you said anything trollish?

    In order to seem like a bad-faith troll someone would, by definition, have to say something trollish. You’ve said “bad-faith troll seems about right for you” so one thing follows from the other.

    Why do you keep assuming I’m not trying to have a reasonable discussion with you?

    I’m not assuming anything. I said I treated your questions like they were asked in good faith. This is me assuming you are trying to have a discussion.

    What did I do to make you so angry?

    I’m not angry.

    After doing things you’ve criticized me for I don’t think you are the butt of someone else’s joke.

    frosty (f27e97)

  93. Yes, steveg, many politicians have big egos and tell lies, but Trump takes it to another stratosphere.

    Because Trump is such a good con artist, many people are unable to see it. That’s what makes him so dangerous.

    norcal (b9a35f)

  94. It would twisting my words to claim I’ve said I know better than you what you think.

    Then why did you tell people what they were thinking earlier?

    After your unleashed your epic smack-down you’ve been just asking questions.

    So you’re saying it’s impossible to answer a question with a question?

    And after all of that criticism of people playing the just ask questions game.

    Are you sure you’re not on the verge of a tu quoque fallacy?

    In order to seem like a bad-faith troll someone would, by definition, have to say something trollish.

    So you admit I never said you said anything trollish? (Or do words just mean whatever you want them to mean?)

    I’m not angry.

    Just disappointed, eh?

    After doing things you’ve criticized me for I don’t think you are the butt of someone else’s joke.

    I don’t either.

    Demosthenes (3fd56e)

  95. #93

    I disagree.
    Trump and Hillary are indistinguishable… my goodness, the woman had her lawyers subcontractors destroy evidence, she thought she should win all 50 states, she is still crying in her Chardonnay claiming she wuz robbed nearly 5 years later, she left people to die in Libya… by the way, Biden left American citizens to be tortured and hopefully for their sake died quickly, in Afghanistan.
    Trump isn’t even the worst person to be President of the last 60 years. That belongs to LBJ and would have belonged to Hillary if she’d been elected.

    Bully
    “President Lyndon B. Johnson had a notoriously caustic personality. He famously bullied senators into falling in line on votes by using a mixture of intimidation, threats, and promises of rewards. But much of LBJ’s personality can be gleaned from stories of those who saw him at his most up close and personal: his Secret Service detail.”

    Thuggery
    “Johnson did not know the names of any of his agents except for three or four of the most senior members of the detail. He would usually simply shout, “Secret Service!” followed by some type of demand. Johnson sometimes got violent with the agents, pushing them and, according to former agent Tony Sherman, on one occasion even knocking an agent off a motorcycle.”

    steveg (e81d76)

  96. @95 Those things you mentioned were indeed stains on the records of LBJ, Hillary, and Biden. However, none of them threatened our republic like January 6th did. Trump fomented a mob to violently invade the Capitol building, and pressured Pence to deny the reality of the election.

    I’ll agree to disagree with you.

    norcal (b9a35f)

  97. Paul,

    Your comment number 64 was epic. I’m not used to seeing such lengthy writing from you, but it was justified, passionate, logical, and spot-on.

    norcal (b9a35f)

  98. Then why did you tell people what they were thinking earlier?

    I don’t think I did but you’re also taking a comment out of context.

    So you’re saying it’s impossible to answer a question with a question?

    No, it’s not impossible. I’m saying you didn’t. That was in the part you didn’t quote.

    Are you sure you’re not on the verge of a tu quoque fallacy?

    No. I’m not sure of that. I’m not worried about it though. There’s a difference between asking a lot of questions and playing the just asking questions game. Make the case if you can.

    So you admit I never said you said anything trollish? (Or do words just mean whatever you want them to mean?)

    You took credit for your troll hunting. Genuinely appreciative. Don’t give that back now.

    Just disappointed, eh?

    No. Not disappointed either. You’ve fulfilled my prediction better than I had hoped.

    frosty (f27e97)

  99. norcal (b9a35f) — 10/22/2021 @ 7:01 pm

    However, none of them threatened our republic like January 6th did.

    Biden is on track to make that look like a match next to an inferno.

    frosty (f27e97)

  100. you’re also taking a comment out of context.

    Am I? Hmm. I don’t think I am taking your comments out of context any more than you did the comments of others…

    No, it’s not impossible. I’m saying you didn’t.

    Are you sure? I think I have been answering your questions quite thoroughly. Though perhaps not in a manner you like.

    No. I’m not sure of that. I’m not worried about it though.

    I can tell. You don’t seem to have been worried about it yet. Why start now?

    You took credit for your troll hunting. Genuinely appreciative. Don’t give that back now.

    Well, the fact is, I wasn’t. I just wanted to make very sure it was established that I never said you said anything trollish. I know how important precision is to you.

    You’ve fulfilled my prediction better than I had hoped.

    frosty (f27e97) — 10/22/2021 @ 8:08 pm

    Glad to hear it! You have likewise lived down to my expectations.

    Demosthenes (3fd56e)

  101. Biden is on track to make that look like a match next to an inferno.

    frosty (f27e97) — 10/22/2021 @ 8:26 pm

    Really? How many elections do you think Biden is out to steal?

    Demosthenes (3fd56e)

  102. Biden is on track to make that look like a match next to an inferno.

    frosty (f27e97) — 10/22/2021 @ 8:26 pm

    Biden is horrible, and has wrong policies, but he’s not a megalomaniacal gaslight specialist like Trump.

    norcal (b9a35f)

  103. Appreciated, norcal.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  104. Demosthenes (3fd56e) — 10/22/2021 @ 8:32 pm

    Am I?

    Yes.

    Are you sure?

    I’d give it better than even odds.

    Why start now?

    Exactly. There’s still no reason for concern.

    You have likewise lived down to my expectations.

    Hopefully you at least learned something.

    Smart people learn from everything and everyone, average people from their experiences, stupid people already have all the answers.
    – Socrates

    frosty (f27e97)

  105. norcal (b9a35f) — 10/22/2021 @ 8:45 pm

    Trump is harmful to others but in a way that benefits him. That makes him predictable and subject to incentives.

    Biden is harmful both to others and himself in a way that is unpredictable and not subject to incentives. He doesn’t need to be megalomaniacal or a gaslight specialist. He’s got the media for both and they are far superior at that than Trump.

    That second one is more dangerous than the first.

    frosty (f27e97)

  106. Frosty, you are right, but maybe there is someone else in this nation of 300 million people who would be better than Trump, even if Trump is better than Biden?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  107. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 10/23/2021 @ 9:18 am

    Certainly there should be. I said the same thing when the names were Trump/HRC and for BO, McCain, and Romney. We should have been able to do better than W and Gore and Clinton.

    At some point experience erodes hope. I’ll vote for better choices if we have them.

    frosty (f27e97)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4787 secs.