The BIG LIE

[Joe Ferguson forever]

On 12/29/2022 at 11:48 AM, BillsFanNC said:

 

Did you actually read the article and not just the title?  I think the central point was made in this passage:

"The handshake between business and labor was just one component of a vast, cross-partisan campaign to protect the election–an extraordinary shadow effort dedicated not to winning the vote but to ensuring it would be free and fair, credible and uncorrupted. For more than a year, a loosely organized coalition of operatives scrambled to shore up America’s institutions as they came under simultaneous attack from a remorseless pandemic and an autocratically inclined President. Though much of this activity took place on the left, it was separate from the Biden campaign and crossed ideological lines, with crucial contributions by nonpartisan and conservative actors. The scenario the shadow campaigners were desperate to stop was not a Trump victory. It was an election so calamitous that no result could be discerned at all, a failure of the central act of democratic self-governance that has been a hallmark of America since its founding."  and this one:  "Both sides would come to see it as a sort of implicit bargain–inspired by the summer’s massive, sometimes destructive racial-justice protests–in which the forces of labor came together with the forces of capital to keep the peace and oppose Trump’s assault on democracy."

Edited January 10, 2023 by redtail hawk

[Joe Ferguson forever]

9 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

The Washington Post Makes a Big Admission About 'Russian Interference' in the 2016 Election

 

Now, The Washington Post is finally admitting it was all nonsense. Citing a new study, the Post reports that there was no appreciable impact made by Russian “trolls” operating on Twitter during the 2016 election.

 

Russian influence operations on Twitter in the 2016 presidential election reached relatively few users, most of whom were highly partisan Republicans, and the Russian accounts had no measurable impact in changing minds or influencing voter behavior, according to a study out this morning.

 

The study, which the New York University Center for Social Media and Politics helmed, explores the limits of what Russian disinformation and misinformation was able to achieve on one major social media platform in the 2016 elections.

 

“My personal sense coming out of this is that this got way overhyped,” Josh Tucker, one of the report’s authors who is also the co-director of the New York University center, told me about the meaningfulness of the Russian tweets.

 

“Now we’re looking back at data and we can see how concentrated this was in one small portion of the population, and how the fact that people who were being exposed to these were really, really likely to vote for Trump,” Tucker said. “And then we have this data to show we can’t find any relationship between being exposed to these tweets and people’s change in attitudes.”

 

This was common sense at the time, but apparently, our betters in the national press possess none of that. People tend to follow and interact with like-minded people on social media platforms. The exception is in dealing with large accounts with a public profile. So a person on Twitter almost certainly won’t follow or give the time of day to a random, low-follower troll account (i.e. one run by Russia), but they will follow Joe Biden, not to accept influence from him, but to counter his opinions.

 

Besides, even if you assume widespread distribution of Russian propaganda (the study finds that wasn’t the case), essentially no users, and surely not enough people to swing an election, are influenced by social media to the point that they’d change their vote from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump. That was always a ridiculous assertion. 

 

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2023/01/09/the-washington-post-makes-a-big-admission-about-russian-interference-in-the-2016-election-n685773

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/01/09/russian-trolls-twitter-had-little-influence-2016-voters/

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-35576-9

This is a single study done by a single group of researchers.  It is retrospective and requires significant conjecture to make a conclusion.  Sounds a lot like the early hydroxchloroquine studies.  As I frequently hear from respected colleagues:  "lets wait for more studies".  The bigger question in my mind is, why did the Russians want trump to win so badly and devote significant resources to him winning?  The fact that they may have done a sh!!!y job of it on twitter is fortunate but not nearly as important as their motives.

Edited January 10, 2023 by redtail hawk

[BillsFanNC]

54 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

Did you actually read the article and not just the title?  

 

 

Oh I've read it. Did you?

 

Curious that you stopped quoting where you did. The very next section is this...

 

Their work touched every aspect of the election. They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding. They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time. They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears. They executed national public-awareness campaigns that helped Americans understand how the vote count would unfold over days or weeks, 

 

 

Changing voting laws in many instances were not done through state legislatures.  Clearly unconstitutional.  What were you saying earlier about only following the constitution when convenient? Time to look in the mirror.

 

Millions in private funding = zuck bucks.

 

Millions of Americans voting by mail for the first time? BOTH parties told us for decades that more mail in voting is more opportunity for fraud. 

 

They were not rigging, but instead "fortifying" the election. Uh huh.

 

Influence perceptions, change laws (often unconstitutionally), steering the media and controlling the flow of information...

 

Fascists say what?

 

That’s why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it. And they believe the public needs to understand the system’s fragility in order to ensure that democracy in America endures

 

Now this part is my favorite. Nothing, absolutely nothing I tell you says "saving democracy" quite like working in concert behind the scenes to make sure that "the proper outcome" is achieved.

 

 “Every attempt to interfere with the proper outcome of the election was defeated,” says Ian Bassin, co-founder of Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan rule-of-law advocacy group. “But it’s massively important for the country to understand that it didn’t happen accidentally. The system didn’t work magically. Democracy is not self-executing.”

 

Trump absolutely broke so many of you. You're forever lost to reality.

[BillStime]

50 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

Trump absolutely broke so many of you. You're forever lost to reality.

Really?

 

You're on day 798 still seeking a scapegoat for Trumps landslide loss to Biden.

 

Edited January 10, 2023 by BillStime

[Joe Ferguson forever]

1 hour ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

 

Oh I've read it. Did you?

 

Curious that you stopped quoting where you did. The very next section is this...

 

Their work touched every aspect of the election. They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding. They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time. They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears. They executed national public-awareness campaigns that helped Americans understand how the vote count would unfold over days or weeks, 

 

 

Changing voting laws in many instances were not done through state legislatures.  Clearly unconstitutional.  What were you saying earlier about only following the constitution when convenient? Time to look in the mirror.

 

Millions in private funding = zuck bucks.

 

Millions of Americans voting by mail for the first time? BOTH parties told us for decades that more mail in voting is more opportunity for fraud. 

 

They were not rigging, but instead "fortifying" the election. Uh huh.

 

Influence perceptions, change laws (often unconstitutionally), steering the media and controlling the flow of information...

 

Fascists say what?

 

That’s why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it. And they believe the public needs to understand the system’s fragility in order to ensure that democracy in America endures

 

Now this part is my favorite. Nothing, absolutely nothing I tell you says "saving democracy" quite like working in concert behind the scenes to make sure that "the proper outcome" is achieved.

 

 “Every attempt to interfere with the proper outcome of the election was defeated,” says Ian Bassin, co-founder of Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan rule-of-law advocacy group. “But it’s massively important for the country to understand that it didn’t happen accidentally. The system didn’t work magically. Democracy is not self-executing.”

 

Trump absolutely broke so many of you. You're forever lost to reality.

you completely missed the point of the article.  disparate interests sought to preserve the foundation of democracy:  elections.  without trust in elections, democracy ceases to exist.  This is exactly what the far right is trying to achieve.  Here and in Brazil and likely some other country next.  Then presumably they give autocrats like trump the power through violence and mob rule.  Sound familiar?

Edited January 10, 2023 by redtail hawk

[Joe Ferguson forever]

Beautifully summarized and written by someone with a grasp on grammar and far right ideology 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trumpian-election-rejection-goes-global/ar-AA168v3y

[BillsFanNC]

8 hours ago, redtail hawk said:

you completely missed the point of the article.  disparate interests sought to preserve the foundation of democracy:  elections.  without trust in elections, democracy ceases to exist.  This is exactly what the far right is trying to achieve.  Here and in Brazil and likely some other country next.  Then presumably they give autocrats like trump the power through violence and mob rule.  Sound familiar?

 

Right. 

 

Working behind the scenes to get "the proper election outcome" by unconstitutionally changing laws, supporting massive mail in balloting based on covid fear mongering and having a leftist billionaire contribute millions to 'fortifying" election infrastructure  only add up to "saving democracy" if you're a TDS addled fascist.

 

I understand what the article was attempting to argue. I also understand it makes perfect sense to all who suffer from TDS, but since Trump actually broke you and divorced you from reality going forward it is of no surprise that you completely missed what the article admits to. 

 

Saving democracy with commie tactics. Brilliant!

[Joe Ferguson forever]

3 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

Right. 

 

Working behind the scenes to get "the proper election outcome" by unconstitutionally changing laws, supporting massive mail in balloting based on covid fear mongering and having a leftist billionaire contribute millions to 'fortifying" election infrastructure  only add up to "saving democracy" if you're a TDS addled fascist.

 

I understand what the article was attempting to argue. I also understand it makes perfect sense to all who suffer from TDS, but since Trump actually broke you and divorced you from reality going forward it is of no surprise that you completely missed what the article admits to. 

 

Saving democracy with commie tactics. Brilliant!

Yet you used the article to claim that “when Newsweek sees the truth” or some such nonsense 

[BillsFanNC]

15 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

Yet you used the article to claim that “when Newsweek sees the truth” or some such nonsense 

 

Time magazine and yes the truth is in there. The left, like with everything else Trump, is just fine ignoring the truth as long as the latest get Trump effort works 

 

Edit: and by works I mean it gets the rest of the left to continue nodding along in unison. In practice we know these efforts continue to bat .000.

Edited January 10, 2023 by BillsFanNC

[Tommy Callahan]

13 hours ago, redtail hawk said:

Did you actually read the article and not just the title?  I think the central point was made in this passage:

"The handshake between business and labor was just one component of a vast, cross-partisan campaign to protect the election–an extraordinary shadow effort dedicated not to winning the vote but to ensuring it would be free and fair, credible and uncorrupted. For more than a year, a loosely organized coalition of operatives scrambled to shore up America’s institutions as they came under simultaneous attack from a remorseless pandemic and an autocratically inclined President. Though much of this activity took place on the left, it was separate from the Biden campaign and crossed ideological lines, with crucial contributions by nonpartisan and conservative actors. The scenario the shadow campaigners were desperate to stop was not a Trump victory. It was an election so calamitous that no result could be discerned at all, a failure of the central act of democratic self-governance that has been a hallmark of America since its founding."  and this one:  "Both sides would come to see it as a sort of implicit bargain–inspired by the summer’s massive, sometimes destructive racial-justice protests–in which the forces of labor came together with the forces of capital to keep the peace and oppose Trump’s assault on democracy."

Aw  The very PACS and Corporations that fund them.

 

More Citizens united consequences.

 

Remember when the left used to warn about it. 

 

Now its kosher as long ias its long winded and includes the correct trigger words.

2 hours ago, redtail hawk said:

Beautifully summarized and written by someone with a grasp on grammar and far right ideology 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trumpian-election-rejection-goes-global/ar-AA168v3y

IF the headline has made up slurs like "Trumpian",  it's not even close to journalism. 

 

Reads like a Lot of opinions coupled with long winded attempts at insults.  kind of typical, bit generic. 

 

 

 

[Westside]

9 minutes ago, Chris farley said:

Aw  The very PACS and Corporations that fund them.

 

More Citizens united consequences.

 

Remember when the left used to warn about it. 

 

Now its kosher as long ias its long winded and includes the correct trigger words.

IF the headline has made up slurs like "Trumpian",  it's not even close to journalism. 

 

Reads like a Lot of opinions coupled with long winded attempts at insults.  kind of typical, bit generic. 

 

 

 

No surprise the idiots on the left loved it. It was full of lies and misinformation. 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

48 minutes ago, Chris farley said:

Aw  The very PACS and Corporations that fund them.

 

More Citizens united consequences.

 

Remember when the left used to warn about it. 

 

Now its kosher as long ias its long winded and includes the correct trigger words.

IF the headline has made up slurs like "Trumpian",  it's not even close to journalism. 

 

Reads like a Lot of opinions coupled with long winded attempts at insults.  kind of typical, bit generic. 

 

 

 

I was and I'm still against the Citizens united decision.  It has made corporatocray stronger and weakened the peoples power.

[Demongyz]

1 hour ago, redtail hawk said:

I was and I'm still against the Citizens united decision.  It has made corporatocray stronger and weakened the peoples power.

You can be against it all you like but that is the law.  Congress can change it but doesn't.  

I wonder why.

[Joe Ferguson forever]

4 minutes ago, Demongyz said:

You can be against it all you like but that is the law.  Congress can change it but doesn't.  

I wonder why.

SCOTUS ruled on it.  Maybe we should change it.

Edited January 10, 2023 by redtail hawk

[Joe Ferguson forever]

8 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

SCOTUS ruled that the law, as written, was unconstitutional.

 

Congress can still write an amended law.

 

 

 

SCOTUS left almost no wiggle room on campaign contributions

[Demongyz]

5 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

SCOTUS left almost no wiggle room on campaign contributions

Perhaps we should have a convention of States.

 

We can fix this and a whole lot of other crap.  Of course red states outnumber blue, so they won't want that to happen.

[Orlando Buffalo]

16 hours ago, redtail hawk said:

you completely missed the point of the article.  disparate interests sought to preserve the foundation of democracy:  elections.  without trust in elections, democracy ceases to exist.  This is exactly what the far right is trying to achieve.  Here and in Brazil and likely some other country next.  Then presumably they give autocrats like trump the power through violence and mob rule.  Sound familiar?

I have to ask how old are you? I am middle aged but I am assuming you are young?

[All_Pro_Bills]

3 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said:

I have to ask how old are you? I am middle aged but I am assuming you are young?

Young idealists trained by the intellectual class at universities and colleges that believe the side they support is playing fair and the other side is cheating.  But when you get a little older you realize reality is both sides are cheating. 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

29 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said:

I have to ask how old are you? I am middle aged but I am assuming you are young?

I'm older than middle aged.  Churchill was exactly wrong about political beliefs and age.

Edited January 10, 2023 by redtail hawk

[Orlando Buffalo]

23 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

I'm older than middle aged.  Churchill was exactly wrong about political beliefs and age.

If you are older than me but you seem to forget 2000 and 2016 and "trust" in our elections. You also don't seem to be aware of all the shenanigans that went on with Tammany Hall and those types. We have many times in our past questioned elections and tried to improve them. The 2020 election was a crap show, mainly due to circumstances, and improvements should be made. To disregard the problems means that the result is all that matters