US Presidential Election 2020 Thread II - Judgement Day(s)

Gunmonkey wrote: »

"Your honour, these machines can be easily hacked and fake votes added to the tally. You need to dis-avow all the votes for Sleepy Joe Biden as the Democrats faked all his votes!"
"Ok, so these CAN be hacked to produce fake votes but can you prove the Democrats actually DID this?"
"Errrr no!"

It boggles the mind

His approach is to demonise the company that makes the machines and with zero evidence repeatedly call them 'radical left democrats'. He's instinctually aware of the illusory effect in psychology where most people will believe false information to be correct after repeated exposure. He's completely unaware of the fact however that this is not how courts work. This is why the court cases bear no reality to the 'widespread fraud' that he keeps claiming and end up being about process issues or a handful of questioned ballots.

Ironically in his repetition of lies, the person he's actually most convincing is himself. He'll keep repeating it until it's the absolute truth that he believes. To him, of course the Democrats cheated, he's far too smart to have lost to Biden legitimately.

Foxtrol wrote: »

OAN is some crazy station. This is what Trump's base supporters are consuming and warping their brains. They've given NC to Trump but won't give MI to Biden, despite Biden having a 40,000 greater lead there.

https://twitter.com/AndrewFeinberg/status/1328332566089314304?s=20

OANN and Newsmax appear to have taken over the Joseph Goebbels division of Conservative messaging. The folks in Fox are gonna have to compete with them for customers and are now facing a big threat, as viewers switch allegiances as advised by Trump et al. So, either the raging lies and bull**** out of Fox that have characterised their programming for years (with notable exceptions) will be ramped up to compete with the crazy fringe stuff out of OAN/Newsmax, or they're gonna have to go after the more moderate, less cultish parts of Trumpland and distinguish themselves in that space.

Brian? wrote: »

I'm a regular watcher of OAN. It's actually hilarious. I haven't seen Newsmaz though.

By comparison to OAN, Fox is actually fair and balanced.

It's certainly funny in an ironic "I can't believe they are peddling this sh1t" kind of way but it's also deeply worrying. A large section of the American population don't seem to possess the critical thinking skills to realise that this stuff is a pack of lies and will assume that it's just as legit as the regular networks because "it feels right to me".

When objective truth itself becomes debatable then you end up in a world where nothing is really true. You see this in action when Trump supporters are presented with evidence that some point that they just made was not accurate and they just dismiss it as propaganda. To me as a rational person that's frightening.

It also reminds me of these tweets that I saw the other day from an Intensive Care nurse in South Dakota:

https://twitter.com/JodiDoering/status/1327771329555292162

josip wrote: »

Does anyone think if the Pfizer and Moderna announcements had been made 2 weeks ago that it would have influenced the result in the swing states?
Some on here were saying that Covid19 wasn't a decisive issue for the US electorate, but the Dems did campaign a lot based on how badly Trump had handled it.
If Trump had two > 90% vaccines announced in the run up to polling, it could only have improved his percentage, but by how much?

If he had helped keep alive the quarter of a million who have died, they'd be around to benefit from the vaccine.

josip wrote: »

Does anyone think if the Pfizer and Moderna announcements had been made 2 weeks ago that it would have influenced the result in the swing states?
Some on here were saying that Covid19 wasn't a decisive issue for the US electorate, but the Dems did campaign a lot based on how badly Trump had handled it.
If Trump had two > 90% vaccines announced in the run up to polling, it could only have improved his percentage, but by how much?

I don't think it would have made any difference. Trump had lost credibility amongst those that didn't vote for him, they either wouldn't have believed the news (due to all his previous lying) or else wouldn't have trusted Trump to roll it out competently (given how he hasn't been able to get a handle around testing or tracing and we're 9 months in).

josip wrote: »

Does anyone think if the Pfizer and Moderna announcements had been made 2 weeks ago that it would have influenced the result in the swing states?
Some on here were saying that Covid19 wasn't a decisive issue for the US electorate, but the Dems did campaign a lot based on how badly Trump had handled it.
If Trump had two > 90% vaccines announced in the run up to polling, it could only have improved his percentage, but by how much?

I think its hilarious.

pixelburp wrote: »

"But at least he never started a war!" cried the apologists; not for the lack of trying, replied the New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/16/us/politics/trump-iran-nuclear.html

Not content with hi refusal to concede the election like an emotionally stunted individual - or indeed, a tantrum-throwing toddler - looks like Trump has been trying to start a war the next guy would have to fix.

hes probably done a good job of potentially starting one, in america!

It wouldn't have been the vaccine creation that would have swung it for Trump, it would have been the portion of voters for whom COVID was their top concern, and the fact that most people saw Trump as utterly useless at handling it.

With a vaccine on the horizon, people would have had different concerns (even though COVID will still be a massive problem for another 6 months at a bare minimum) and the age old "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?" question would have been foremost.

looksee wrote: »

And that business of selling off large chunks of the Alaskan National Park for oil drilling is just appalling. Rushing through business to get it done before he leaves office, doing as much damage as possible. What benefit is it to him unless he is arranging back-handers? It won't get him (significant) votes next time.

Probably got himself or the family to be named as board members for the companies invovled.

gmisk wrote: »

That is only true for the Moderna one though.
No matter what way Trump and his administration want to spin it they weren't involved at all in the development etc.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/covid-vaccine-funded-by-trump/
They basically just said they would buy it if it was successful.
I honestly don't see that swinging the election his way.
His administrations handling of it has been an absolute disaster.

So what. When was the last time that facts actually mattered? It would have been hailed as a great Trump victory. CNN would have wondered if it would help Trump though they obviously would say that he did not help the development. Fox would say he had essentially been in the lab. OANN would say he was the only scientist involved. Then they would have immediately gone back to bashing science without a hint of the contradictions.

Mentioning facts on boards would not have helped.

Would it have swung it for him and should it have swung it for him are two very different questions.