International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=91)
-   -   2020 United States presidential election - Conspiracy theories, alleged fraud, etc (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=347781)

Trebuchet 17th December 2020 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hans (Post 13329663)
Hey wait a minute that's near MY state I don't want a bunch of ignominious looneys running around the border...hey not in my back yard

And Idaho has pretty scenery. Let them have North Dakota. South, too, except shift Mt Rushmore into Wyoming.

Craig4 17th December 2020 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eerok (Post 13329535)
deleted - tasteless

But that's my favorite flavor.

Norman Alexander 17th December 2020 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trebuchet (Post 13329686)
And Idaho has pretty scenery. Let them have North Dakota. South, too, except shift Mt Rushmore into Wyoming.

OK, how about the ten miles around Walla Walla?

Minoosh 17th December 2020 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans (Post 13329491)
Seriously, Ivanka who? Who will actually remember her a little while from now? Who would recognize her if they met her on the bus, even now?

Hans

She's wouldn't be on a bus to begin with, but I think most people would recognize her. Melania is probably more recognizable but I think Ivanka definitely makes an impression.

smartcooky 18th December 2020 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minoosh (Post 13330048)
She's wouldn't be on a bus to begin with, but I think most people would recognize her. Melania is probably more recognizable but I think Ivanka definitely make an impression.


They just look like cheap, regular trailer trash to me.

Minoosh 18th December 2020 01:41 AM

I for one would like to see reporters explore the problems alleged in the affidavits. I'm happy courts ruled as they did, because they followed the law and made the correct decisions. But it's true IMO that most reporting didn't get down to the nuts and bolts of the fraud allegations. Most of these incidents were petty, but then there's a guy in Texas talking about 750,000 votes. What led him to that conclusion? Does he have any evidence? Can he name more names? What else can we find out about a guy who plopped $250,000 into this effort? (And WTF was it supposed to accomplish?) Nail down the alleged discrepancies between number of registered voters in a district vs. how many ballots were cast. Delve deep into the financing for candidates to tease out the relationships amongst candidates, parties and PACs. Get to the bottom of this, as much as possible. While you're at it, check to see if any of this was happen in Republican precincts/districts/counties!

Spot check votes cast, track down a sampling of these folks to see if they really voted. If "harvesting" or something similar was done wouldn't that having to intercept and corral ballots so they can be signed by Mexican children who aren't in fingerprint databases? This is an actual allegation in the Texas case. (Not sure how fingerprints fit into this.)

I know some of this has been done piecemeal but I'd love to see a more comprehensive look. I think readers would be interested and some pockets are deep enough to fund a top-notch investigative effort. (WaPo, WSJ etc.) The conservative concern trollers like Sen. Ron Johnson are not completely wrong; it's important to have confidence in free elections examined in a free press. Play it completely straight. No attitude, just solid reporting.

Minoosh 18th December 2020 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13330066)
They just look like cheap, regular trailer trash to me.

Not in any trailer parks that I've seen.

Also I think the term "trailer trash" has outlived its usefulness, if it had any to begin with.

Firestone 18th December 2020 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minoosh (Post 13330094)
I for one would like to see reporters explore the problems alleged in the affidavits. I'm happy courts ruled as they did, because they followed the law and made the correct decisions. But it's true IMO that most reporting didn't get down to the nuts and bolts of the fraud allegations. Most of these incidents were petty, but then there's a guy in Texas talking about 750,000 votes. What led him to that conclusion? Does he have any evidence? Can he name more names? What else can we find out about a guy who plopped down a quarter million dollars into this effort? (And WTF was it supposed to accomplish?) Nail down the alleged discrepancies between number of registered voters in a district vs. how many ballots were cast. Delve deep into the financing for candidates to tease out the relationships amongst candidates, parties and PACs. Get to the bottom of this, as much as possible. While you're at it, check to see if any of this was happen in Republican precincts/districts/counties!

Spot check votes cast, track down a sampling of these folks to see if they really voted. If "harvesting" or something similar was done wouldn't that having to intercept and corral ballots so they can be signed by Mexican children who aren't in fingerprint databases? This is an actual allegation in the Texas case. (Not sure how fingerprints fit into this.)

I know some of this has been done piecemeal but I'd love to see a more comprehensive look. I think readers would be interested and some pockets are deep enough to fund a top-notch investigative effort. (WaPo, WSJ etc.) The conservative concern trollers like Sen. Ron Johnson are not completely wrong; it's important to have confidence in free elections examined in a free press. Play it completely straight. No attitude, just solid reporting.

A lot of that has been done. By the courts (some very detailed smack downs to be found), by the press, by the fact-check websites.

The problem is that some people don't have confidence in the electoral process because "concern trollers like Sen. Ron Johnson", and many others up to Trump, have been lying for weeks about some issues, and now use the uncertainty they have created to claim that there is a lot to investigate.

One example (I could give a lot): remember the "death voters" in Georgia?
The Trump campaign gave a few names of "death people" who allegedly voted. The press looked it up, and actually talked on screen with some of these "death people". That was a month ago.
This Monday, on Fox, Stephen Miller simply repeated the lie, as if it hasn't been debunked.

Another example: how many times have we seen the story of Antrim county, Michigan, where a (Republican) employee made a mistake, that was quickly corrected?
We know since Nov 4th what happened there (nothing actually), yet that story keeps coming up, from Trump downward.

At a certain moment you have to accept, as JoeMorgue regularly writes, that part of your country lives in a fact-free environment, and there is not much that solid reporting can do about that.

It's not a new phenomenon, Richard Hofstadter wrote about "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" in 1964, and it's still worth a read.
What's new is that now the (soon to be ex-) president, Senators, House members, State AG's, State legislators, powerful "News" channels, are feeding that paranoia like never before.

Minoosh 18th December 2020 03:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firestone (Post 13330105)
A lot of that has been done. By the courts (some very detailed smack downs to be found), by the press, by the fact-check websites.

The problem is that some people don't have confidence in the electoral process because "concern trollers like Sen. Ron Johnson", and many others up to Trump, have been lying for weeks about some issues, and now use the uncertainty they have created to claim that there is a lot to investigate.

Then MSM creates a little box of factoids that is printed or displayed online whenever the next fraud story runs. "Examples of alleged fraud" and examples of the reality. This sounds like a lot, but it can be done pretty economically, both in terms of display and resources required. Wouldn't work for TV.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firestone (Post 13330105)
One example (I could give a lot): remember the "death voters" in Georgia?
The Trump campaign gave a few names of "death people" who allegedly voted. The press looked it up, and actually talked on screen with some of these "death people". That was a month ago.

I remember the dead lady who went by "Mrs. (dead husband's first and last name)." Can't remember the state.

Newspapers for a while were big on little boxes called "points of entry" into a new story. We wanted to entice readers with an "At a glance" or "In a nutshell" box. Much of the work has been done; now boil it down to the essence.

Dead voters, clerical errors, wayward ballots ... you don't try to do it within the body of a story. It gets lost there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firestone (Post 13330105)
This Monday, on Fox, Stephen Miller simply repeated the lie, as if it hasn't been debunked.

Which is why I think the debunking should also be repeated, and doing it in a comprehensive way can have a lot of impact; it could become the go-to synopsis for future fact checks. If we're very lucky, Miller can be interviewed by someone like Chris Wallace. Even Lou Dobbs rip Miller a new one recently.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firestone (Post 13330105)
At a certain moment you have to accept, as JoeMorgue regularly writes, that part of your country lives in a fact-free environment, and there is not much that solid reporting can do about that.

As you point out, a lot of the reporting has been done. We have to find ways to amplify the message that "this has been looked into." I'd like to see the common word "baseless" expanded into a slightly longer disclaimer. I wouldn't use the word "debunked," either.

Sorry, I've been at this screen too long, I might think of better language when I'm fresh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firestone (Post 13330105)
It's not a new phenomenon, Richard Hofstadter wrote about "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" in 1964, and it's still worth a read.
What's new is that now the (soon to be ex-) president, Senators, House members, State AG's, State legislators, powerful "News" channels, are feeding that paranoia like never before

So there needs to be a wedge of some sort, to put some daylight between OANN and Fox, for example. McConnell vs. the deniers. The wedge is between reality and fantasy in the conservative universe.

Captain_Swoop 18th December 2020 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minoosh (Post 13330128)
Then MSM creates a little box of factoids that is printed or displayed online whenever the next fraud story runs. "Examples of alleged fraud" and examples of the reality. This sounds like a lot, but it can be done pretty economically, both in terms of display and resources required. Wouldn't work for TV.

I remember the dead lady who went by "Mrs. (dead husband's first and last name)." Can't remember the state.

Newspapers for a while were big on little boxes called "points of entry" into a new story. We wanted to entice readers with an "At a glance" or "In a nutshell" box. Much of the work has been done; now boil it down to the essence.

Dead voters, clerical errors, wayward ballots ... you don't try to do it within the body of a story. It gets lost there.

Which is why I think the debunking should also be repeated, and doing it in a comprehensive way can have a lot of impact; it could become the go-to synopsis for future fact checks. If we're very lucky, Miller can be interviewed by someone like Chris Wallace. Even Lou Dobbs rip Miller a new one recently.

As you point out, a lot of the reporting has been done. We have to find ways to amplify the message that "this has been looked into." I'd like to see the common word "baseless" expanded into a slightly longer disclaimer. I wouldn't use the word "debunked," either.

Sorry, I've been at this screen too long, I might think of better language when I'm fresh.

So there needs to be a wedge of some sort, to put some daylight between OANN and Fox, for example. McConnell vs. the deniers. The wedge is between reality and fantasy in the conservative universe.

There are people (some here on this board) still repeating long debunked lies about 9/11.
Why do you think going through the debunking of the election lies again will make any difference to the true believers?

SuburbanTurkey 18th December 2020 06:39 AM

Quote:

Last night, lawyers for Dominion — the company that made voting systems at the heart of one of Sidney Powell et al.'s voter fraud conspiracy theories — sent a 15-page letter demanding she retract her "wild, knowingly baseless, and false accusations" https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...ney-powell.pdf
https://twitter.com/ZoeTillman/statu...98782091018245

hard to imagine, even when this is all finished, that these voting machine companies aren't going to suffer some longterm business damage as a result of these wild and baseless allegations.

Between the slander and the sanctionable filings, Powell seems determined to die on this hill.

eerok 18th December 2020 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13330066)
They just look like cheap, regular trailer trash to me.

I'm pretty sure they've both had a lot of work done, so more like expensive, entitled trailer trash.

jadebox 18th December 2020 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 13330226)
There are people (some here on this board) still repeating long debunked lies about 9/11.
Why do you think going through the debunking of the election lies again will make any difference to the true believers?

I think it important so that more people don't become true believers.

Meadmaker 18th December 2020 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minoosh (Post 13330094)
I for one would like to see reporters explore the problems alleged in the affidavits. I'm happy courts ruled as they did, because they followed the law and made the correct decisions. But it's true IMO that most reporting didn't get down to the nuts and bolts of the fraud allegations.

.....

Play it completely straight. No attitude, just solid reporting.

I think you've hit the nail on the head of what is wrong with the way these things are being covered. It's the "attitude" part.

When it comes to these allegations of fraud, most of them have been checked out, and found wanting, but the way they are reported doesn't really convey that to a lot of readers. When a story begins with "Donald Trump's baseless allegations of fraud are being widely ridiculed tonight...." a huge number of readers have tuned the article out before it ever gets to the substance of the claims. Moreover, a lot of the articles never get to the substance. They are likely to say, "The Trump campaign claims fraud, but there's no evidence." Meanwhile, over on Newsmax they are hearing that there are 127 affidavits signed by poll observers.

It's tedious, but someone has to go through enough of those affidavits and actually give the story behind them to convince people that the charges were taken seriously before dismissing them. "Taking them seriously" doesn't mean accepting them or saying that they might be true. It just means checking them out before waving them away.

In a lot of cases, this has been done. When specific allegations were made about dead people voting in Georgia, the dead people were interviewed and it was determined that they were not, in fact, dead. When people claimed they were not allowed into the TCF Center in Detroit, people on our local news interviewed people to explain exactly who was and wasn't allowed in, and why, but I don't know how much of that made headlines. What has happened this year is that the claims are being dismissed, but the investigation part isn't sufficiently prominent in the news stories. However, the "attitude" part comes through loud and clear.

As I typed, I wondered. In this day and age when a video on youtube is the media, I wondered if I could find a 60 minute long video, or maybe longer, that examined the most prominent voter fraud claims, and told people what were the results of an investigation into those claims, without editorializing that Donald Trump was a weenie and his lawyers are lunatics. I already know that Donald Trump is a weenie and his lawyers are lunatics, but that can be part of the summary at the end, not part of the introduction.

SuburbanTurkey 18th December 2020 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meadmaker (Post 13330284)
I think you've hit the nail on the head of what is wrong with the way these things are being covered. It's the "attitude" part.

When it comes to these allegations of fraud, most of them have been checked out, and found wanting, but the way they are reported doesn't really convey that to a lot of readers. When a story begins with "Donald Trump's baseless allegations of fraud are being widely ridiculed tonight...." a huge number of readers have tuned the article out before it ever gets to the substance of the claims. Moreover, a lot of the articles never get to the substance. They are likely to say, "The Trump campaign claims fraud, but there's no evidence." Meanwhile, over on Newsmax they are hearing that there are 127 affidavits signed by poll observers.

It's tedious, but someone has to go through enough of those affidavits and actually give the story behind them to convince people that the charges were taken seriously before dismissing them. "Taking them seriously" doesn't mean accepting them or saying that they might be true. It just means checking them out before waving them away.

In a lot of cases, this has been done. When specific allegations were made about dead people voting in Georgia, the dead people were interviewed and it was determined that they were not, in fact, dead. When people claimed they were not allowed into the TCF Center in Detroit, people on our local news interviewed people to explain exactly who was and wasn't allowed in, and why, but I don't know how much of that made headlines. What has happened this year is that the claims are being dismissed, but the investigation part isn't sufficiently prominent in the news stories. However, the "attitude" part comes through loud and clear.

As I typed, I wondered. In this day and age when a video on youtube is the media, I wondered if I could find a 60 minute long video, or maybe longer, that examined the most prominent voter fraud claims, and told people what were the results of an investigation into those claims, without editorializing that Donald Trump was a weenie and his lawyers are lunatics. I already know that Donald Trump is a weenie and his lawyers are lunatics, but that can be part of the summary at the end, not part of the introduction.

Is that really reasonable though?

The fraud claims from Trump and his cronies is basically just a Gish Gallop on the national stage.

How much time should the press spend debunking every affidavit from some crank that heard a guy say he saw a thing happen in some other county?

Powell's lawsuits has references to counties that don't exist, to experts who have no expertise, to people with no first hand knowledge of anything improper happening. It has complete fabrications of events that are plainly never occurred.

Republicans can whip up claims of voter fraud in a fraction of the time it takes journalists to chase down the story and debunk them. Even when their own voter fraud investigatory panels come back emptyhanded, they insist on the story.

Running stories of "Republicans allege voter fraud without evidence...again" is the reasonable way to approach these.

Meadmaker 18th December 2020 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 13330291)
Is that really reasonable though?

The fraud claims from Trump and his cronies is basically just a Gish Gallop on the national stage.

How much time should the press spend debunking every affidavit from some crank that heard a guy say he saw a thing happen in some other county?

Powell's lawsuits has references to counties that don't exist, to experts who have no expertise, to people with no first hand knowledge of anything improper happening. It has complete fabrications of events that are plainly never occurred.

Republicans can whip up claims of voter fraud in a fraction of the time it takes journalists to chase down the story and debunk them. Even when their own voter fraud investigatory panels come back emptyhanded, they insist on the story.

Running stories of "Republicans allege voter fraud without evidence...again" is the reasonable way to approach these.

It's reasonable, and it's accurate. but is it effective? Poll results say it isn't.


It might be too much to ask. Maybe it's just impossible to reach people with anything remotely resembling reason.

SuburbanTurkey 18th December 2020 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meadmaker (Post 13330298)
It's reasonable, and it's accurate. but is it effective? Poll results say it isn't.


It might be too much to ask. Maybe it's just impossible to reach people with anything remotely resembling reason.

We live in a very polarized media environment. The people that believe these stories wouldn't read a debunking story, no matter how well written. If by some way the story did enter their media diet, they would dismiss it out of hand.

RolandRat 18th December 2020 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eerok (Post 13329535)
deleted - tasteless

Ah c'mon, say it again. It's impossible to be tasteless when you're talking about a guy who says his favourite thing he has in common with his daughter is sex.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

Bubba 18th December 2020 10:32 AM

Quote:

by Minoosh View Post
I for one would like to see reporters explore the problems alleged in the affidavits. I'm happy courts ruled as they did, because they followed the law and made the correct decisions. But it's true IMO that most reporting didn't get down to the nuts and bolts of the fraud allegations.

.....

Play it completely straight. No attitude, just solid reporting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meadmaker (Post 13330284)
I think you've hit the nail on the head of what is wrong with the way these things are being covered. It's the "attitude" part.

When it comes to these allegations of fraud, most of them have been checked out, and found wanting, but the way they are reported doesn't really convey that to a lot of readers. When a story begins with "Donald Trump's baseless allegations of fraud are being widely ridiculed tonight...." a huge number of readers have tuned the article out before it ever gets to the substance of the claims. Moreover, a lot of the articles never get to the substance. They are likely to say, "The Trump campaign claims fraud, but there's no evidence." Meanwhile, over on Newsmax they are hearing that there are 127 affidavits signed by poll observers.

It's tedious, but someone has to go through enough of those affidavits and actually give the story behind them to convince people that the charges were taken seriously before dismissing them. "Taking them seriously" doesn't mean accepting them or saying that they might be true. It just means checking them out before waving them away.

In a lot of cases, this has been done. When specific allegations were made about dead people voting in Georgia, the dead people were interviewed and it was determined that they were not, in fact, dead. When people claimed they were not allowed into the TCF Center in Detroit, people on our local news interviewed people to explain exactly who was and wasn't allowed in, and why, but I don't know how much of that made headlines. What has happened this year is that the claims are being dismissed, but the investigation part isn't sufficiently prominent in the news stories. However, the "attitude" part comes through loud and clear.

As I typed, I wondered. In this day and age when a video on youtube is the media, I wondered if I could find a 60 minute long video, or maybe longer, that examined the most prominent voter fraud claims, and told people what were the results of an investigation into those claims, without editorializing that Donald Trump was a weenie and his lawyers are lunatics. I already know that Donald Trump is a weenie and his lawyers are lunatics, but that can be part of the summary at the end, not part of the introduction.



Do you two realize that you could be tarred and feathered if you dont quit this treasonous crazy talk??

You have been warned.

Resume 18th December 2020 10:40 AM

Hey Bubba, where are those Chinese troops your people have been buzzing about? Still stuck in Maine?

How about the Kraken? Did Morimoto fry it up?

The Storm, where is it?

Military Tribunals?

Bueller?

gnome 18th December 2020 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minoosh (Post 13330094)
I for one would like to see reporters explore the problems alleged in the affidavits. I'm happy courts ruled as they did, because they followed the law and made the correct decisions. But it's true IMO that most reporting didn't get down to the nuts and bolts of the fraud allegations. Most of these incidents were petty, but then there's a guy in Texas talking about 750,000 votes. What led him to that conclusion? Does he have any evidence? Can he name more names? What else can we find out about a guy who plopped $250,000 into this effort? (And WTF was it supposed to accomplish?) Nail down the alleged discrepancies between number of registered voters in a district vs. how many ballots were cast. Delve deep into the financing for candidates to tease out the relationships amongst candidates, parties and PACs. Get to the bottom of this, as much as possible. While you're at it, check to see if any of this was happen in Republican precincts/districts/counties!

Spot check votes cast, track down a sampling of these folks to see if they really voted. If "harvesting" or something similar was done wouldn't that having to intercept and corral ballots so they can be signed by Mexican children who aren't in fingerprint databases? This is an actual allegation in the Texas case. (Not sure how fingerprints fit into this.)

I know some of this has been done piecemeal but I'd love to see a more comprehensive look. I think readers would be interested and some pockets are deep enough to fund a top-notch investigative effort. (WaPo, WSJ etc.) The conservative concern trollers like Sen. Ron Johnson are not completely wrong; it's important to have confidence in free elections examined in a free press. Play it completely straight. No attitude, just solid reporting.

I like the idea to some extent. Though I must say I fully expect lots of Trump voters to say they didn't vote even if they did, just so that it's "proof" the election was stolen. Unfortunately this sort of thing can't rely on an informal survey. It almost needs to be in a courtroom so that there is a consequence for dishonesty.

Roger Ramjets 18th December 2020 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubba (Post 13330478)
Do you two realize that you could be tarred and feathered

By who?

OK Bubba, time we came clean. You were right, there has been massive fraud in this election, and Biden only won because of it. All the election officials are in on it, as are all democrats and some republicans. Well alright not just some - all of them - even the ones purportedly trying to expose the fraud (that's why they are doing such a bad job). Yes, Bubba, everybody is in on it except you! And we are all laughing at your reaction.

Nobody is going to tar and feather anyone because we are all in on the steal, even Trump! And you are the only one who doesn't know it.

Resume 18th December 2020 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 13330413)
We live in a very polarized media environment. The people that believe these stories wouldn't read a debunking story, no matter how well written. If by some way the story did enter their media diet, they would dismiss it out of hand.

Whether gulled by the troll pretending to be Q, or some other grifter (Trump), the people falling for this crap have no interest in seeing their CT fever dreams debunked.

Dr. Keith 18th December 2020 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubba (Post 13330478)
Do you two realize that you could be tarred and feathered if you dont quit this treasonous crazy talk??

You have been warned.

Guys, time to give more money to the Trump folks so they can finally get to the bottom of this fraud. I mean what sort of an investigation do you get for just $200M. The poor "billionaire" needs our help.

Resume 18th December 2020 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets (Post 13330504)
By who?

OK Bubba, time we came clean. You were right, there has been massive fraud in this election, and Biden only won because of it. All the election officials are in on it, as are all democrats and some republicans. Well alright not just some - all of them - even the ones purportedly trying to expose the fraud (that's why they are doing such a bad job). Yes, Bubba, everybody is in on it except you! And we are all laughing at your reaction.

Nobody is going to tar and feather anyone because we are all in on the steal, even Trump! And you are the only one who doesn't know it.

Even Q was in on it!!

trustbutverify 18th December 2020 11:07 AM

God too. Lock him up.

smartcooky 18th December 2020 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meadmaker (Post 13330298)
It's reasonable, and it's accurate. but is it effective? Poll results say it isn't.

It might be too much to ask. Maybe it's just impossible to reach people with anything remotely resembling reason.

You just replied to your own statement.

"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he never was reasoned into." (Attributed to Jonathan Swift et al)

Polls are in no way a useful tool for measuring the effectiveness of the media's debunking of falsehoods. This is because the vast majority of the Trump supporters who believe the lies and misinformation being spread by the kraken and her loony tunes entourage, are too stupid to do anything but breathlessly believe. They will uncritically and faithfully believe whatever Dear Leader and his far-right media mouthpieces (OAN, Epoch Times and Gateway Pundit) tells them, and automatically dismiss any contrary view regardless of its merits.

We have a few of them here - they are personally invested in the stupid, they've become 11/3 Election Truthers - fallen too deep into the rabbit hole to find their way out. It may well be that they don't even want to find their way out.

sts60 18th December 2020 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith (Post 13330515)
Guys, time to give more money to the Trump folks so they can finally get to the bottom of this fraud. I mean what sort of an investigation do you get for just $200M. The poor "billionaire" needs our help.

Trump has raised a couple of hundred million dollars from his willfully ignorant cult to “protect the vote”, but has spent very little of it on his crack (as in crackpot, or “on crack”) legal team - generating crappy legal-ish rantings that are quickly laughed out of court is relatively cheap. So he’s keeping the vast majority of that money for his personal slush fund.

He’s also frantically messaging the same devotedly gullible chumps about how he needs their money to “stop the steal” in the Ga. runoff, but has spent zero, zilch, zip on it. Way to go, you sorry excuses for citizens - you’re helping Trump and the rest of his crime gang tear down democracy, and directly lining Trump’s pockets, all while he and his insider-trading cronies are laughing their asses off at you.

Resume 18th December 2020 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13330580)
You just replied to your own statement.

Polls are a useless way to measure the effectiveness of the media's debunking of falsehoods. This is because the vast majority of the Trump supporters who believe the lies and misinformation being spread by the kraken and her loony tunes entourage, are too stupid to do anything but breathlessly believe. They will uncritically and faithfully believe whatever Dear Leader and his far-right media mouthpieces (OAN, Epoch Times and Gateway Pundit) tells them, and automatically dismiss any contrary view regardless of its merits.

We have a few of them here - they are personally invested in the stupid, they've become 11/3 Election Truthers - fallen too deep into the rabbit hole to find their way out. It may well be that they don't even want to find their way out.

Yep. There's a video of a judge dressing down a sov/cit who continually interrupts with their pseudolegal arble-bargle. The judge says flat-out that not only does he not have to convince the sov/cit he is in error, he also knows he isn't interested in being convinced.

Meadmaker 18th December 2020 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13330580)
You just replied to your own statement.

"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he never was reasoned into." (Attributed to Jonathan Swift et al)

Polls are in no way a useful tool for measuring the effectiveness of the media's debunking of falsehoods. This is because the vast majority of the Trump supporters who believe the lies and misinformation being spread by the kraken and her loony tunes entourage, are too stupid to do anything but breathlessly believe. They will uncritically and faithfully believe whatever Dear Leader and his far-right media mouthpieces (OAN, Epoch Times and Gateway Pundit) tells them, and automatically dismiss any contrary view regardless of its merits.

We have a few of them here - they are personally invested in the stupid, they've become 11/3 Election Truthers - fallen too deep into the rabbit hole to find their way out. It may well be that they don't even want to find their way out.

I was using "effective" in the sense of "persuasive". i.e. When I tell people that there is no reason to believe in election fraud, I want them to believe that there is no election fraud. If, after I tell them, there still believe there is election fraud, I have been ineffective.

And you're right, I fear that there is simply no way to persuade these people using logic and reason. I would like to see more effort made in that direction, but I fear it would be just as ineffective.

MRC_Hans 18th December 2020 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubba (Post 13330478)
Do you two realize that you could be tarred and feathered if you dont quit this treasonous crazy talk??

You have been warned.

Threats of violence to people who don't think like you?

Well, par for the course.

Still, I will report the post.

Hans

Armitage72 18th December 2020 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sts60 (Post 13330595)
Trump has raised a couple of hundred million dollars from his willfully ignorant cult to “protect the vote”, but has spent very little of it on his crack (as in crackpot, or “on crack”) legal team - generating crappy legal-ish rantings that are quickly laughed out of court is relatively cheap. So he’s keeping the vast majority of that money for his personal slush fund.


The fundraising documents and website said in fine print that most of the money would go toward paying off his reelection campaign's debt, so they were warned. Technically.

Meadmaker 18th December 2020 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans (Post 13330710)
Threats of violence to people who don't think like you?

Well, par for the course.

Still, I will report the post.

Hans

I think in this case he was saying that I was thinking a little bit like him, and that I might receive threats of violence from the other side, although I don't think he was speaking literally even for that case.

eerok 18th December 2020 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubba (Post 13330478)
Do you two realize that you could be tarred and feathered if you dont quit this treasonous crazy talk??

Not at all. There is no proof of widespread voter fraud, but it's well worth examining the claims, even though they consistently fall short.

The problem is that at this point, after so much lying, madness, and stupidity, most of us are tired of hearing about it.

eerok 18th December 2020 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meadmaker (Post 13330753)
I think in this case he was saying that I was thinking a little bit like him, and that I might receive threats of violence from the other side, although I don't think he was speaking literally even for that case.

Yes, I think he thought you were being too reasonable.

pgwenthold 18th December 2020 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meadmaker (Post 13330298)
It's reasonable, and it's accurate. but is it effective? Poll results say it isn't..

Of course, that's because they are just conspiracy theories. "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into" and all that.

You also can't convince flat earthers or creationists.

The comparison to the Gish Gallop is more appropriate than you can imagine.

Seriously, you are talking about a crowd that won't accept the birth certificate from the State of Hawaii and many of whom think there was a child prostitution ring going on in the basement of a pizza place that doesn't have a basement. They live in an alternate reality where white, Christian men are the most discriminated against group in the US. How do you expect to convert them?

Meadmaker 18th December 2020 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgwenthold (Post 13330950)
Of course, that's because they are just conspiracy theories. "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into" and all that.

You also can't convince flat earthers or creationists.

The comparison to the Gish Gallop is more appropriate than you can imagine.

Seriously, you are talking about a crowd that won't accept the birth certificate from the State of Hawaii and many of whom think there was a child prostitution ring going on in the basement of a pizza place that doesn't have a basement. They live in an alternate reality where white, Christian men are the most discriminated against group in the US. How do you expect to convert them?

I just wouldn't have expected there to be so many of them. Oh sure there are flat Earthers, but darned few of them. There are Kennedy assassination theorists, and in years past there were lots of them, but most of them were casual observers who had never heard anything but conspiracy theories about the Kennedy assassination. When a big budget picture came out, lots more people started to believe, but it also brought attention, and as people viewed the evidence, most people saw they had been duped, and belief waned.

With this conspiracy theory, a huge number of people believe it, even though the evidence is accessible. I thought that the number of believers would drop off as time went on, but it really hasn't. A huge percentage of Republicans tell pollsters they believe the election was stolen.

It's frightening.

dudalb 18th December 2020 10:04 PM

it the numbers who blindly follow Trump that is shocking to me.

The Great Zaganza 18th December 2020 10:14 PM

The one upside to these lies about voting machines might be that many States will switch to pure paper ballots going forward.

Minoosh 18th December 2020 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 13330226)
There are people (some here on this board) still repeating long debunked lies about 9/11.
Why do you think going through the debunking of the election lies again will make any difference to the true believers?

I don't understand the psychology around belief in conspiracy theories, but is it really 40-45 percent of the population? That seems high. I guess I'm not really aiming for the full QAnon believers (who probably each have their own, separate conspiracy theories), but if people haven't kept up, it might be useful to present the information in an easily digestible format. The mainstream press needs to do this because that's their ******* job. You get better results if you're paying someone to get it right, so the deep pockets need to get to the bottom of every lie and present that info as often as it is relevant and practicable.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:03 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.