2020 General Election

[JohnStOnge]

You may have seen the stories on this:

https://www.newsweek.com/ex-state-rep-a ... it-1588010

It's about a guy who is a former Arizona State Republican legislator who signed on to a resolution to invalidate the election results. He was also a Trump elector had Trump won the State. He was at the January 6 capital riot. And he has a bad history:



A summary of the situation:



The party of stupid. Used not to be that way. But it's certainly that way now.

Yeah. In REAL analytics, that’s what we call “anecdotal evidence”, but you do you, John.

It's one person. But would you care to bet on what would happen if we were to take a random sample of people participating in this?

Allowing someone like that to participate is either a pretty big error or it's an indication of non-concern with respect to bias.

[JohnStOnge]

You may have seen the stories on this:

https://www.newsweek.com/ex-state-rep-a ... it-1588010

It's about a guy who is a former Arizona State Republican legislator who signed on to a resolution to invalidate the election results. He was also a Trump elector had Trump won the State. He was at the January 6 capital riot. And he has a bad history:



A summary of the situation:



The party of stupid. Used not to be that way. But it's certainly that way now.

Yeah. In REAL analytics, that’s what we call “anecdotal evidence”, but you do you, John.

You know, I actually went with what you are saying at first because of the way I thought of 'anecdotal evidence." But then I looked up the definition of "anecdotal" and got this:

not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.

That the guy was participating is a fact. The report is true and reliable. It does't fit the definition of "anecdotal."

[JohnStOnge]

Please point me in the direction of a reliable source. I’ll take your answer off the air thanks.

My initial advice would be to not use one that got it's ass handed to it by a 15 year old Catholic boy and also doesn't use unnamed sources to push bullshit, or one that launders fake news for our intelligence services.

I would say you might want to look more local, like the AZ Republic, even though it leans Liberal. I've found local papers tend to do a whole lot less spin.

You're welcome!

Good place to remind all of a study that was conducted in 2012. Long time ago. But I don't know of one like it that has been conducted since;

https://www.businessinsider.com/study-w ... all-2012-5

CNN didn't do great. But it did better than Fox News.

BTW, I pretty much listen to NPR anytime I'm in my truck driving around. The experience makes me pretty much understand the fact that NPR listeners are at the top in terms of being able to correctly answer questions about what is going on in the world.

[AZGrizFan]

Yeah. In REAL analytics, that’s what we call “anecdotal evidence”, but you do you, John.

You know, I actually went with what you are saying at first because of the way I thought of 'anecdotal evidence." But then I looked up the definition of "anecdotal" and got this:

not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.

That the guy was participating is a fact. The report is true and reliable. It does't fit the definition of "anecdotal."

Call it whatever you want. ONE GUY doesn’t make an entire party “the party of stupid”.

I was attempting to give you the benefit of the doubt. My mistake.

[JohnStOnge]

You know, I actually went with what you are saying at first because of the way I thought of 'anecdotal evidence." But then I looked up the definition of "anecdotal" and got this:



That the guy was participating is a fact. The report is true and reliable. It does't fit the definition of "anecdotal."

Call it whatever you want. ONE GUY doesn’t make an entire party “the party of stupid”.

I was attempting to give you the benefit of the doubt. My mistake.

That one guy is a pretty damning incidence. The guy was apparently well known to Arizona media. He was a Trump elector. If they don't have a process to prevent people like that from being involved in ballot processing they should. And if they do have such a process it failed pretty miserably.

Besides, it's not just that. They decided to do this (from https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-w ... story.html):

They’ve handed the materials over to Cyber Ninjas, a Florida-based consultancy with no election experience run by a man who has shared unfounded conspiracy theories claiming the official 2020 presidential election results are illegitimate.

That is stupid. I don't see how you can think otherwise.

Other stuff too. This whole thing has been a complete clown show. If they had tried to systematically PLAN to discredit their own effort they couldn't have done better.

[JohnStOnge]

It doesn't. When they were talking about 20% of signatures not being verified they were talking about not having gotten to them yet.

Wrong again, dumbass. About 400k of the 2.02M signatures verified were invalidated. 2.16M signatures were received. I thought you were good at math?

https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/recall ... eatlie.pdf

When I am wrong I am wrong. And I am wrong on that particular point. Doesn't change the fact that we are talking about two completely different things when we are talking about signatures on mail ballots and signatures on a petition.

There was no massive fraud. There was no significant problem with mail ballots.There is not a single credible source suggesting that there was a problem.

[JohnStOnge]

More stupid: You allow observers then make the observers sign non disclosure agreements. Oh yeah. THAT'S going to inspire confidence! The observers can observe but they have to agree not to say anything if they think they see something fishy.

You severely restrain media access. When a reporter photographs the Trump elector counting ballots you banish him. You get caught using black and blue ink pens when the Secretary of State's Office had told you not to do that. On an on.

At some point one has to admit that this thing has NOT been handled well.

Of course the fact that the Arizona Republicans in the State legislature even decide to do something like this when a Republican election board is in charge of the county is pretty bad.

Republicans are digging their grave. They are clearly trumpeting that they are a party of nut jobs that cannot accept reality. Meanwhile they are trying to suppress the non White vote and it's obvious that they're doing it. Instead of trying to overcome the systemic problems that are virtually certain to eventually consign them to permanent irrelevance they are doubling down with the nut job stuff.

[SeattleGriz]

My initial advice would be to not use one that got it's ass handed to it by a 15 year old Catholic boy and also doesn't use unnamed sources to push bullshit, or one that launders fake news for our intelligence services.

I would say you might want to look more local, like the AZ Republic, even though it leans Liberal. I've found local papers tend to do a whole lot less spin.

You're welcome!

Good place to remind all of a study that was conducted in 2012. Long time ago. But I don't know of one like it that has been conducted since;

https://www.businessinsider.com/study-w ... all-2012-5

CNN didn't do great. But it did better than Fox News.

BTW, I pretty much listen to NPR anytime I'm in my truck driving around. The experience makes me pretty much understand the fact that NPR listeners are at the top in terms of being able to correctly answer questions about what is going on in the world.

Doesn't surprise me. The Fox News division has leaned Left for quite some time. Now if you told me that the political opinion shows caused the same issue, I would be surprised.

[kalm]

You know, I actually went with what you are saying at first because of the way I thought of 'anecdotal evidence." But then I looked up the definition of "anecdotal" and got this:



That the guy was participating is a fact. The report is true and reliable. It does't fit the definition of "anecdotal."

Call it whatever you want. ONE GUY doesn’t make an entire party “the party of stupid”.

[SeattleGriz]

More stupid: You allow observers then make the observers sign non disclosure agreements. Oh yeah. THAT'S going to inspire confidence! The observers can observe but they have to agree not to say anything if they think they see something fishy.

You severely restrain media access. When a reporter photographs the Trump elector counting ballots you banish him. You get caught using black and blue ink pens when the Secretary of State's Office had told you not to do that. On an on.

At some point one has to admit that this thing has NOT been handled well.

Of course the fact that the Arizona Republicans in the State legislature even decide to do something like this when a Republican election board is in charge of the county is pretty bad.

Republicans are digging their grave. They are clearly trumpeting that they are a party of nut jobs that cannot accept reality. Meanwhile they are trying to suppress the non White vote and it's obvious that they're doing it. Instead of trying to overcome the systemic problems that are virtually certain to eventually consign them to permanent irrelevance they are doubling down with the nut job stuff.

That jackass that got removed was removed because he tweeted out a pic of a counter's face (doxxing) and a ballot. He knew the rules about blurring faces and ballots, but did it anyway.

If I didn't know better, I say you were hiding something. Seem very afraid of a recount.

[AZGrizFan]

Call it whatever you want. ONE GUY doesn’t make an entire party “the party of stupid”.

I was attempting to give you the benefit of the doubt. My mistake.

That one guy is a pretty damning incidence. The guy was apparently well known to Arizona media. He was a Trump elector. If they don't have a process to prevent people like that from being involved in ballot processing they should. And if they do have such a process it failed pretty miserably.

Besides, it's not just that. They decided to do this (from https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-w ... story.html):

They’ve handed the materials over to Cyber Ninjas, a Florida-based consultancy with no election experience run by a man who has shared unfounded conspiracy theories claiming the official 2020 presidential election results are illegitimate.

That is stupid. I don't see how you can think otherwise.

Other stuff too. This whole thing has been a complete clown show. If they had tried to systematically PLAN to discredit their own effort they couldn't have done better.

You should do a background check on some of the people counting ballots in Detroit, Philly and Atlanta.

[SeattleGriz]

That one guy is a pretty damning incidence. The guy was apparently well known to Arizona media. He was a Trump elector. If they don't have a process to prevent people like that from being involved in ballot processing they should. And if they do have such a process it failed pretty miserably.

Besides, it's not just that. They decided to do this (from https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-w ... story.html):



That is stupid. I don't see how you can think otherwise.

Other stuff too. This whole thing has been a complete clown show. If they had tried to systematically PLAN to discredit their own effort they couldn't have done better.

You should do a background check on some of the people counting ballots in Detroit, Philly and Atlanta.

Exactly. If he's so worried, why isn't he watching all the live feed video. I think there are none camera views and it's all free to watch.

[JohnStOnge]

Good place to remind all of a study that was conducted in 2012. Long time ago. But I don't know of one like it that has been conducted since;

https://www.businessinsider.com/study-w ... all-2012-5

CNN didn't do great. But it did better than Fox News.

BTW, I pretty much listen to NPR anytime I'm in my truck driving around. The experience makes me pretty much understand the fact that NPR listeners are at the top in terms of being able to correctly answer questions about what is going on in the world.

Doesn't surprise me. The Fox News division has leaned Left for quite some time. Now if you told me that the political opinion shows caused the same issue, I would be surprised.

The political opinion shows cause the issue. Surprise.

[JohnStOnge]

More on the Arizona clown show: https://www.newsweek.com/arizona-gop-st ... ts-1590254

A Republican Arizona state senator has expressed embarrassment over the ongoing Maricopa County presidential election audit, saying the effort makes the state GOP "look like idiots."

"It makes us look like idiots," Boyer told the paper on Friday. "Looking back, I didn't think it would be this ridiculous. It's embarrassing to be a state senator at this point."

[JohnStOnge]

Call it whatever you want. ONE GUY doesn’t make an entire party “the party of stupid”.

Thank you. Cut to the chase: If someone supported Trump at any point, they did a very stupid thing. If they continue to support Trump now, they are doing a stupid thing. And, right now, somewhere around 80% of Republicans have a favorable opinion of him. It's the party of stupid. The Republican base has serious, serious issues.

[UNI88]

Thank you. Cut to the chase: If someone supported Trump at any point, they did a very stupid thing. If they continue to support Trump now, they are doing a stupid thing. And, right now, somewhere around 80% of Republicans have a favorable opinion of him. It's the party of stupid. The Republican base has serious, serious issues.

I don't and have never supported Trump but I still think he was a better choice than the other major party candidate in 2016. The party that ran that candidate was the party of stupid in 2016 and will be again in the future. It's cyclical and maybe too nuanced for you to understand.

[JohnStOnge]

Thank you. Cut to the chase: If someone supported Trump at any point, they did a very stupid thing. If they continue to support Trump now, they are doing a stupid thing. And, right now, somewhere around 80% of Republicans have a favorable opinion of him. It's the party of stupid. The Republican base has serious, serious issues.

I don't and have never supported Trump but I still think he was a better choice than the other major party candidate in 2016.

I honestly cannot believe you said that after what we have seen transpire. We are in an actual crisis with respect to our representative republic right now. And it's a crisis that would not exist if Clinton had won in 2016. We would, without any reasonable doubt, be much better off as a country right now if Clinton had won the Electoral College in 2016.

[UNI88]

I don't and have never supported Trump but I still think he was a better choice than the other major party candidate in 2016.

I honestly cannot believe you said that after what we have seen transpire. We are in an actual crisis with respect to our representative republic right now. And it's a crisis that would not exist if Clinton had won in 2016. We would, without any reasonable doubt, be much better off as a country right now if Clinton had won the Electoral College in 2016.

I disagree. Her dishonesty, corruption and lust for power were much more insidious and dangerous. Trump is a naive, incompetent buffoon when it comes to manipulating and looting the government in comparison.

[CID1990]

I don't and have never supported Trump but I still think he was a better choice than the other major party candidate in 2016.

I honestly cannot believe you said that after what we have seen transpire. We are in an actual crisis with respect to our representative republic right now. And it's a crisis that would not exist if Clinton had won in 2016. We would, without any reasonable doubt, be much better off as a country right now if Clinton had won the Electoral College in 2016.

Clinton would have been no less of a disaster


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

I don't and have never supported Trump but I still think he was a better choice than the other major party candidate in 2016.

I honestly cannot believe you said that after what we have seen transpire. We are in an actual crisis with respect to our representative republic right now. And it's a crisis that would not exist if Clinton had won in 2016. We would, without any reasonable doubt, be much better off as a country right now if Clinton had won the Electoral College in 2016.

Clinton would've been as much as a disaster and embarrassment as Trump. And while we have rumors and speculations of Trumps corruptness ( the guy was a Real Estate developer in NYC during a time when the mob ran the city PLUS his attorney was a mob attorney) we KNOW and have proof that the Clintons are, at least, equally corrupt.

2016 was a decision between two piles of dung and there's no way you can honestly and intellectually say we'd be better off.

[kalm]

I honestly cannot believe you said that after what we have seen transpire. We are in an actual crisis with respect to our representative republic right now. And it's a crisis that would not exist if Clinton had won in 2016. We would, without any reasonable doubt, be much better off as a country right now if Clinton had won the Electoral College in 2016.

Clinton would've been as much as a disaster and embarrassment as Trump. And while we have rumors and speculations of Trumps corruptness ( the guy was a Real Estate developer in NYC during a time when the mob ran the city PLUS his attorney was a mob attorney) we KNOW and have proof that the Clintons are, at least, equally corrupt.

2016 was a decision between two piles of dung and there's no way you can honestly and intellectually say we'd be better off.

Disagree and I don’t think it’s really even close. Corruption is one thing but Trump enabled stupidity to a level we haven’t seen. Not to mention his inept and tin foil hat wearing appointees and advisors. I’m not even saying this is all a bad thing or avoidable long term as we’re going through an unraveling. I’m glad I have a greater appreciation for how truly stupid, emotionally immature, gullible, and selfish 90% of this country is.

I would vote for the corruption we know (already did with Biden) that at least fosters some stability rather than the lack of leadership, increased chaos, and threats to democracy.

[GannonFan]

Clinton would've been as much as a disaster and embarrassment as Trump. And while we have rumors and speculations of Trumps corruptness ( the guy was a Real Estate developer in NYC during a time when the mob ran the city PLUS his attorney was a mob attorney) we KNOW and have proof that the Clintons are, at least, equally corrupt.

2016 was a decision between two piles of dung and there's no way you can honestly and intellectually say we'd be better off.

Disagree and I don’t think it’s really even close. Corruption is one thing but Trump enabled stupidity to a level we haven’t seen. Not to mention his inept and tin foil hat wearing appointees and advisors. I’m not even saying this is all a bad thing or avoidable long term as we’re going through an unraveling. I’m glad I have a greater appreciation for how truly stupid, emotionally immature, gullible, and selfish 90% of this country is.

I would vote for the corruption we know (already did with Biden) that at least fosters some stability rather than the lack of leadership, increased chaos, and threats to democracy.

So entrenched, connected, and hidden corruption is better than out in the open corruption because, to paraphrase, at least we can plausibly close our eyes and ignore the former, but we just can't do that with the latter? Oh, and the trains run on time with the former then too? Dude, we poke fun at each other a lot on these boards, but this is truly a shaking of the head post on your part.

[UNI88]

Disagree and I don’t think it’s really even close. Corruption is one thing but Trump enabled stupidity to a level we haven’t seen. Not to mention his inept and tin foil hat wearing appointees and advisors. I’m not even saying this is all a bad thing or avoidable long term as we’re going through an unraveling. I’m glad I have a greater appreciation for how truly stupid, emotionally immature, gullible, and selfish 90% of this country is.

I would vote for the corruption we know (already did with Biden) that at least fosters some stability rather than the lack of leadership, increased chaos, and threats to democracy.

So entrenched, connected, and hidden corruption is better than out in the open corruption because, to paraphrase, at least we can plausibly close our eyes and ignore the former, but we just can't do that with the latter? Oh, and the trains run on time with the former then too? Dude, we poke fun at each other a lot on these boards, but this is truly a shaking of the head post on your part.

Another thing that gets lost in this are the benefits of Trump breaking from political tradition. If Clinton had won, would the government look at China as a long-term rival or would they have continued the policy of appeasement? My guess is that they would have done whatever made the Clintons and their friends' money and the short-term money is in appeasement.

[kalm]

Disagree and I don’t think it’s really even close. Corruption is one thing but Trump enabled stupidity to a level we haven’t seen. Not to mention his inept and tin foil hat wearing appointees and advisors. I’m not even saying this is all a bad thing or avoidable long term as we’re going through an unraveling. I’m glad I have a greater appreciation for how truly stupid, emotionally immature, gullible, and selfish 90% of this country is.

I would vote for the corruption we know (already did with Biden) that at least fosters some stability rather than the lack of leadership, increased chaos, and threats to democracy.

So entrenched, connected, and hidden corruption is better than out in the open corruption because, to paraphrase, at least we can plausibly close our eyes and ignore the former, but we just can't do that with the latter? Oh, and the trains run on time with the former then too? Dude, we poke fun at each other a lot on these boards, but this is truly a shaking of the head post on your part.

Yeah...because clintonism turned as all into mini fascists...especially the economists.

All of our shit stinks my man. All of us. I guarantee you’ve willfully ignored corruption in some instances as well. If you’re truly going to be a crusader then money in politics and corporatism, and high finance are your enemies. You and have reversed roles in some respects.

[kalm]

So entrenched, connected, and hidden corruption is better than out in the open corruption because, to paraphrase, at least we can plausibly close our eyes and ignore the former, but we just can't do that with the latter? Oh, and the trains run on time with the former then too? Dude, we poke fun at each other a lot on these boards, but this is truly a shaking of the head post on your part.

Another thing that gets lost in this are the benefits of Trump breaking from political tradition. If Clinton had won, would the government look at China as a long-term rival or would they have continued the policy of appeasement? My guess is that they would have done whatever made the Clintons and their friends' money and the short-term money is in appeasement.

Fair point but it’s not as if Trump wasn’t working angles too.