The 2024 Election Thread - Because It's Never Too Early to Feel Disappointed

[Red]

The Big Lie is metastasizing….

‘It’s spreading’: Phony election fraud conspiracies infect midterms

Former President Donald Trump’s unfounded claims about a rigged election have metastasized.

www.politico.com

Trump may have started the election-truther movement. But what was once the province of an aggrieved former president has spread far beyond him, infecting elections at every level with vague, unspecified claims that future races are already rigged. It’s a fiction that’s poised to factor heavily in the midterm elections and in 2024 — providing Republican candidates with a rallying cry for the rank-and-file, and priming the electorate for future challenges to races the GOP may lose.

“The fever has not broken,” said Benjamin Ginsberg, an elections lawyer who has represented past Republican presidential nominees. “If anything, it’s spreading. People I knew as rational and principled feel they have to say our elections are not reliable because polls show that is the ante for contested Republican primaries and motivating the base in general elections. California recall results aside, it comes at the expense of the principle that our leaders should not make allegations that corrode American democracy without any credible evidence.”

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Trump may have started the election-truther movement.

You give Trump too much credit. He is great at marketing and his can't-trust-the-results did garner a large public adoption, but he is far from the first and I'm not sure his was even the biggest. There is a good argument that those screaming about voter suppression have the bigger movement. In reality, black citizens outvote their share of the population. If voter suppression were real, that wouldn't happen and yet it does in every election. The anecdotal examples of voter suppression are no different than the anecdotal examples of voter fraud. It is different sides of the same coin.

Stacy Abrams lost her election before Trump lost his and there are still a number of people who think she should be the rightful governor of Georgia. You can do a mental count of posts here to see if you think more people have championed the anti-voter-suppression HR1 or the Big Lie. I don't think Big Lie supporters outnumber HR1 supporters.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Marjorie, Marjorie, Marjorie, tsk..tsk…

Maybe I'm dense, but what is it about the video clip that you are moral policing? Please explain it to me.

 

[Red]

You can do a mental count of posts here to see if you think more people have championed the anti-voter-suppression HR1 or the Big Lie. I don't think Big Lie supporters outnumber HR1 supporters.

I don’t think so, either. But the GOP can stop HR1 in the Senate, and I don’t personally think the Democrats will pass it before the 2022 midterms.

As far as Trump, I give him all the credit in the world for greatly assisting the polarization in our country.

 

[fishonjazz]

And abortion.

Sent from my moto z3 using JazzFanz mobile app

I thought about this alot. So pro life people (anti abortion really if we are being honest) are generally religious people and think abortion shouldn't be allowed because it's killing one of Gods innocent children.
But when you read the Bible you realize that God is pro abortion.
He set about a huge flood (Noah's ark story) to kill everyone and everything. Are you telling me none of the people killed by the flood were pregnant?
God also kills all of Sodom and Gomorrah because they were wicked sinners. Well I imagine a bunch of wicked sinners were probably doing hella fornicating and with lots of fornicating there is bound to be some pregnancies. So I'm quite certain that when God killed all of Sodom and Gomorrah there were some pregnant sinners in the bunch with innocent babies in their bellies who were also killed (aborted) by God.

 

[Red]

Maybe I'm dense, but what is it about the video clip that you are moral policing? Please explain it to me.

This is a tough one. At least tough to be brief. I grew up in the 50’s, and we enjoyed playing cowboys and Indians in the neighborhood. I enjoyed making believe I was killing people with my cap pistol. (And enjoyed being killed. Nobody flopped better than me, haha). On TV, everyone enjoyed the Westerns of that era, and extending into the 60’s. Many Westerns were morality plays, well most were, and the good guys killed the bad guys using guns. I still enjoy watching Gunsmoke now and then, but because it was well written, good stories.

Anyway, it just occurred to me one day how popular guns and shooting people using guns was in our forms of entertainment in our culture. Television, one of our most popular entertainment diversions in American culture, really elevated stories involving the use of guns, to kill people. It just strikes me as strange that this particular weapon, guns, of the weapons humankind has invented, became so central to so much of the programming in movies and TV.

Can you understand why I might find that odd? Maybe you can’t. Which is fine. But I see that image of Greene, and now it’s high powered guns, Matt Dillon couldn’t holster that baby, lol, and I just find it sad that guns, guns, guns are so damn important to so many Americans as to be such a ubiquitous image in our culture. So, I was tsk, tsking Greene from that perspective. I did not really see myself as moral policing, but I guess my intro wording to that tweet was exactly that. Or could be interpreted that way.

But, don’t mind me, or take too much offense. I just find it odd that Americans have been so enamored of gun IMAGERY for my entire life. It’s the imagery. It’s making guns the great equalizer in the Western, and other genres, and good endings are good guys with guns shooting bad guys with guns.

The opening scene from Gunsmoke encapsulates what I’m saying perfectly. Camera focuses right on that gun in Matt Dillon’s holster. It’s the central opening IMAGE of that program for all the many years it ran. One reason I get a kick out of the alternative opening of Gunsmoke, lolol….



And no, I’m not saying this in the same sense that some claim violent game imagery conditions people to accept violence. Not saying TV guns since the 50’s conditioned us to accept guns as a form of justice. It just bothers me, in a way that obviously is not real easy for me to verbalize.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Anyway, it just occurred to me one day how popular guns and shooting people using guns was in our forms of entertainment in our culture. Television, one of our most popular entertainment diversions in American culture, really elevated stories involving the use of guns, to kill people. It just strikes me as strange that this particular weapon, guns, of the weapons humankind has invented, became so central to so much of the programming in movies and TV.

Okay, but all of your examples are of people shooting people. If the words on the car had read “Nancy Pelosi” or even “Socialists” I would agree. That isn’t the case. The car represents socialism which is an idea. MTG is fighting an idea. She wants to destroy an idea. That isn’t violence. Doing damage to an idea isn’t violence.

If you take this video literally, it is a gun shooting a Toyota Prius; No violence depicted. If you take the video figuratively, as it is supposed to be taken, it is MTG combating an idea; Again, no violence depicted. The only way to get violence out of this is to do a half literal (the gun) and half figurative with an additional imaginary leap from socialism to supporters of socialism. It seems like work to go that far to find offence.

 

[LogGrad98]

I thought about this alot. So pro life people (anti abortion really if we are being honest) are generally religious people and think abortion shouldn't be allowed because it's killing one of Gods innocent children.
But when you read the Bible you realize that God is pro abortion.
He set about a huge flood (Noah's ark story) to kill everyone and everything. Are you telling me none of the people killed by the flood were pregnant?
God also kills all of Sodom and Gomorrah because they were wicked sinners. Well I imagine a bunch of wicked sinners were probably doing hella fornicating and with lots of fornicating there is bound to be some pregnancies. So I'm quite certain that when God killed all of Sodom and Gomorrah there were some pregnant sinners in the bunch with innocent babies in their bellies who were also killed (aborted) by God.

Eh, it's different. Religious people see it as biblically God was "resetting" the world to start with a new, more righteous society, because everyone else was so wicked, so any children or pregnant people were collateral damage. But it isn't the same as some women not wanting to take the pill, having a night of debauchery, and choosing to slaughter the child, which act is, in and of itself, wicked (again, hyperbolically the religious thought process)

 

[One Brow]

In reality, black citizens outvote their share of the population.

Outside of when Obama was elected, the Census disagrees.

Record High Turnout in 2020 General Election

Despite concerns that voter turnout would be lower during the pandemic, the 2020 election had the century’s highest turnout.

www.census.gov

Other sources:

Large Racial Turnout Gap Persisted in 2020 Election

70.9 percent of white voters cast ballots compared with only 58.4 percent of nonwhite voters — a disparity that will worsen with new restrictive voting laws.

www.brennancenter.org

Turnout in 2020 election spiked among both Democratic and Republican voting groups, new census data shows

Turnout in the 2020 election was exceptionally high, resulting in a victory for Joe Biden. In response, some Republican-controlled state legislatures have enacted measures that would restrict voting in future elections among groups that often vote Democratic.

www.brookings.edu

 

[One Brow]

Maybe I'm dense, but what is it about the video clip that you are moral policing? Please explain it to me.

Obviously nothing, since Greene is not being arrested.

Of course, if you can't see violent rhetoric as an issue, I suppose hyperbole is not, either.

 

[fishonjazz]

Okay, but all of your examples are of people shooting people. If the words on the car had read “Nancy Pelosi” or even “Socialists” I would agree. That isn’t the case. The car represents socialism which is an idea. MTG is fighting an idea. She wants to destroy an idea. That isn’t violence. Doing damage to an idea isn’t violence.

If you take this video literally, it is a gun shooting a Toyota Prius; No violence depicted. If you take the video figuratively, as it is supposed to be taken, it is MTG combating an idea; Again, no violence depicted. The only way to get violence out of this is to do a half literal (the gun) and half figurative with an additional imaginary leap from socialism to supporters of socialism. It seems like work to go that far to find offence.

I simply find it strange how much our society loves guns.

 

[fishonjazz]

Eh, it's different. Religious people see it as biblically God was "resetting" the world to start with a new, more righteous society, because everyone else was so wicked, so any children or pregnant people were collateral damage. But it isn't the same as some women not wanting to take the pill, having a night of debauchery, and choosing to slaughter the child, which act is, in and of itself, wicked (again, hyperbolically the religious thought process)

I guess when someone gets an abortion it's just collateral damage from the sinning that created the pregnancy.

 

[TheGoldStandard]

I thought about this alot. So pro life people (anti abortion really if we are being honest) are generally religious people and think abortion shouldn't be allowed because it's killing one of Gods innocent children.
But when you read the Bible you realize that God is pro abortion.
He set about a huge flood (Noah's ark story) to kill everyone and everything. Are you telling me none of the people killed by the flood were pregnant?
God also kills all of Sodom and Gomorrah because they were wicked sinners. Well I imagine a bunch of wicked sinners were probably doing hella fornicating and with lots of fornicating there is bound to be some pregnancies. So I'm quite certain that when God killed all of Sodom and Gomorrah there were some pregnant sinners in the bunch with innocent babies in their bellies who were also killed (aborted) by God.

Really going old testament with this one, which most think of parables if anything. For me, with abortion, or anything, it is about being consistent in viewpoints, which I see fallacies on both sides.

I am not religious at all, but I personally think all life has value, and when we start putting limits, or definitions on life, then we are devaluing human life generally and it is a slippery slope.

Roe and subsequently PP v Casey under the Sup. Ct. has set the current law is based on viability to determine life, which is somewhat arbitrary, as children have lived being born prior to being viable under the current legal standard. I'm all for protecting someone's rights and burdens, but it is hard to offset any burden with taking a life, and we have chosen to do this legally based on an arbitrary definition for convenience.

Here is a sad fact pattern, which has happened a number of times: A pregnant mother with a young fetus (less than viable) is beaten, shot, drugged etc., which results in the death of the fetus (and sometimes the mother dies as well). The perpetrator, which charged, is generally charged with the death of the fetus as well as the mother (if the mother dies). Which seems odd since we have case law from Roe/Casey stating that a "non-viable" fetus is not a life. So then to clarify, the law is really stating that it only becomes legal not murder if a mother chooses convenience over the life of the fetus.

If we all want to agree that we can set an arbitrary value to life, which in turns show we can limit the value of a human, I'm on board, but let's be honest about it and utilize it in other facets of society as well. We could just as easily say a life is not a life if it can't be viable on it's own, without intervening from others. So invalids, or babies may not be life. But we don't need to call it legal killing, just legalized post-birth abortion). In some ways this sounds absurd, but it is really all about our willingness to define the value and existence of a human life.

On the flip side, the same people that are pro-life are pro death penalty (generally), and vice versa with pro-choice and death penalty, which, again makes zero sense. Either a life has value, and we should preserve it, or it doesn't. We often let our political views overtake our ability to take a consistent position on a subject.

 

[TheGoldStandard]

I simply find it strange how much our society loves guns.

Over the last two years, I find so many things odd about how people react to things, that love of guns really don't surprise me at all.

 

[fishonjazz]

Okay, but all of your examples are of people shooting people. If the words on the car had read “Nancy Pelosi” or even “Socialists” I would agree. That isn’t the case. The car represents socialism which is an idea. MTG is fighting an idea. She wants to destroy an idea. That isn’t violence. Doing damage to an idea isn’t violence.

If you take this video literally, it is a gun shooting a Toyota Prius; No violence depicted. If you take the video figuratively, as it is supposed to be taken, it is MTG combating an idea; Again, no violence depicted. The only way to get violence out of this is to do a half literal (the gun) and half figurative with an additional imaginary leap from socialism to supporters of socialism. It seems like work to go that far to find offence.

I also find it strange that she is shooting a Toyota Prius. Like using an efficient vehicle that doesn't put out as much pollution = socialism.

 

[LogGrad98]

I guess when someone gets an abortion it's just collateral damage from the sinning that created the pregnancy.

You could argue that. They will argue that it's the sin of murder on top of the sin of fornication or whatever.

 

[LogGrad98]

I also find it strange that she is shooting a Toyota Prius. Like using an efficient vehicle that doesn't put out as much pollution = socialism.

Psh, yeah, it's more like FASCISM! Amirite?

 

[LogGrad98]

Really going old testament with this one, which most think of parables if anything. For me, with abortion, or anything, it is about being consistent in viewpoints, which I see fallacies on both sides.

I am not religious at all, but I personally think all life has value, and when we start putting limits, or definitions on life, then we are devaluing human life generally and it is a slippery slope.

Roe and subsequently PP v Casey under the Sup. Ct. has set the current law is based on viability to determine life, which is somewhat arbitrary, as children have lived being born prior to being viable under the current legal standard. I'm all for protecting someone's rights and burdens, but it is hard to offset any burden with taking a life, and we have chosen to do this legally based on an arbitrary definition for convenience.

Here is a sad fact pattern, which has happened a number of times: A pregnant mother with a young fetus (less than viable) is beaten, shot, drugged etc., which results in the death of the fetus (and sometimes the mother dies as well). The perpetrator, which charged, is generally charged with the death of the fetus as well as the mother (if the mother dies). Which seems odd since we have case law from Roe/Casey stating that a "non-viable" fetus is not a life. So then to clarify, the law is really stating that it only becomes legal not murder if a mother chooses convenience over the life of the fetus.

If we all want to agree that we can set an arbitrary value to life, which in turns show we can limit the value of a human, I'm on board, but let's be honest about it and utilize it in other facets of society as well. We could just as easily say a life is not a life if it can't be viable on it's own, without intervening from others. So invalids, or babies may not be life. But we don't need to call it legal killing, just legalized post-birth abortion). In some ways this sounds absurd, but it is really all about our willingness to define the value and existence of a human life.

On the flip side, the same people that are pro-life are pro death penalty (generally), and vice versa with pro-choice and death penalty, which, again makes zero sense. Either a life has value, and we should preserve it, or it doesn't. We often let our political views overtake our ability to take a consistent position on a subject.

The crux of the abortion debate hinges on when you believe a fetus is a true human life. Generally anti-abortion often believe it is a life at conception, and pro-abortion believe it is a life only if it is viable outside the womb. And really, unless we have some huge scientific breakthrough that "proves" one or the other, we'll literally never bridge that divide.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

I simply find it strange how much our society loves guns.

That doesn’t seem strange to me at all, both as a nation and doubly for Utah as a state.

The United States was founded on the idea of empowering the individual. The Social Contract Theory influencing the founders is almost entirely John Locke, and specifically his Second Treatise of Government. Very few things empower an individual as much as a gun does.

As far as Utah goes, Mormons were the best gun designers in the history of the world. The Colt 1911 45ACP that served as the go-to for the US Military is a Mormon design. The machine guns in the wings of every American WWII fighter plane I can think of was a Mormon design. The Ma Deuce machine gun still in use to this day by our military is an evolved Mormon design. The Barrett 82A1 .50 caliber Greene fired in that video is not a Mormon design but the cartridge it fires is.

Switzerland made nice watches. The Dutch made good wooden shoes. Japan made compelling anime. The Mormons made guns. Seeing as Missouri had issued the Mormon Extermination Order and began to carry it out, I can see why the Mormons didn’t turn to making watches, wooden shoes, or anime.

The gun culture of today is history’s legacy.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

The crux of the abortion debate hinges on when you believe a fetus is a true human life. Generally anti-abortion often believe it is a life at conception, and pro-abortion believe it is a life only if it is viable outside the womb. And really, unless we have some huge scientific breakthrough that "proves" one or the other, we'll literally never bridge that divide.

That is outside the scope of science. We can already definitively prove a fetus is life by every scientific definition of life we have. We can also analyse the DNA to conclusively prove that life is human in origin. That is where science ends. Should assisted suicide be legal? Should capital punishment be part of our society? Should women have a privilege of being allowed to end human life if that life hasn't passed a certain development threshold? Those questions are up to us as a society.