Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[Draco-Onis]

I do not believe in the concept of the moral high ground, it is to mercurial.

There's nothing mercurial about being against evil ideologies, actions and biases for example ripping a new born from their mother or spreading a deadly disease for your ego.

[Machismo]

I do not believe in the concept of the moral high ground, it is to mercurial.

Is that why you got caught defending racism?

[Breccia]

Not sure what this is referencing.

Trump and DeVos made it much harder to report and act on reports of sexual violence at schools in May.

Trump's New Rule Governing College Sex Assault Is Nearly Impossible for Survivors to Use. That's the Point

Not only do survivors have to go through a public hearing now, the burden for schools (which are not courts of law) is moved to that of criminal trials rather than civil trials.

You probably didn't have to sit through the meetings I did, where my New York School basically said "Fuck these standards, we'll wait them out and take our chances in November".

Biden, of course, reverted to the original rules.

Now @D3thray is calling this "Suspension of directive for due process protections in title 9 arbitration" which means one of two things:
a) He's talking about something else but refused to provide any evidence, which I don't believe but I'll give him a chance, or
b) He's using hyperbole to the point of being intentionally insulting to rape survivors to make a point. Incidentally, he'd also be required to admit that Trump, for some reason, waited 40 months to act to add "due process protections" to Title IX, which is a failure. I mean, there's no other way to phrase it, is there? This was an EO, meaning Trump could have done it whenever he wanted, and he proved he just didn't feel like it until balls-deep into an election he was losing at the time and then lost. Therefore, if Biden is being accused of "suspenstion of due process protection" and that's bad, Trump must be bad for refusing to move on it for over three years.

So which is it, @D3thray ? Was Trump a failure at Law and Order by waiting so long? Or are you referencing something else but chose not to say anything at all, and instead made a vague "off the top of my head" call?

Failure to answer, as always, means I get to pick for you. And you know what happens to people who trivialize rape on these forums.

[Masark]

Fuck, change the rules. The GOP wouldn't even blink twice about doing that.

Can't just change the rules. A constitutional amendment would be needed, which means a referendum, which can't happen until the next election.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I do not believe in the concept of the moral high ground, it is to mercurial.

Your posts are often so cryptic that it makes it very difficult to discern your actual position on matters, though ultimately, knowing the history of this forum, I seem to recall you were one of those religious conservatives who would carry a lot of water for all of the "old guard" morals. You quickly learned that the forum rules aren't all that friendly to such positions of course, and tend to speak around those forum rules, maintaining your position without outright saying it. You can tell me if I'm ENTIRELY wrong on this, but that's the impression I get.

In modern society, the counter culture, the groups of people once shunned by the religious right wing (something that even Democrats mirrored up until the last decade) have banded together and formed a new main stream culture, which is basically what this whole culture war is about. Old religious conservative views that include bigotry, racism, sexism, transphobia, xenophobia, etc. vs the new culture that now openly embraces people of all creeds.

Your posts that are full of "everything is relative" just reek of trying to talk around the fact that you still strongly stan for the old culture but realize openly stating your beliefs are the fastest way to a ban. You carry a lot of water and openly defend people with these bigoted views, or even just crazy preppers, who are basically 99%+ right wing nut jobs. And yet you continue to support the ostracization of "outsiders" and those who don't fit into the narrow minded views or demographics of the evangelical right wing.

But ultimately, that's why this culture war exists in the first place. The morals once enshrined in our laws by bigots, racists, xenophobes, etc. are being torn down. What was once the counter culture consisting of racial minorities and those of alternative gender and sexual orientations, now forms the main stream. They've gained the majority support of society, and with every passing year, returning America to "the old ways" becomes more and more impossible as those who do not support freedom for all are more and more finding themselves to suddenly be the outcasts of society. MAGA was the first of their dying screams. It won't be the last, as domestic terrorism committed by right wing extremists is picking up, but they're making more enemies with their actions the more people they kill meaning they're losing support faster than ever.

Your stance that "everything is relative" while technically true, doesn't really seem to get the point. We live in a society of people. The rules and morals for that society are set by the majority more or less. And the majority is against the ultra right wing positions. I don't know about you, but I for sure am going to be on the side that doesn't make people outcasts simply because of their nation of origin, their sexual orientation, their gender identity, or any other factor. I accept people for who they are regardless of the circumstance of their birth. The right wing does not support that. They support oppression of people who are considered "outsiders". That you carry a lot of water for those people but are always ready to criticize other groups without carrying any water for them speaks a lot on your position in this. You might claim you're not one of them, but you certainly do spend a lot of time going up to bat for them, and seem to understand a lot about them while you seem to not only not understand these "out" groups, but also have no desire to understand them. And yet you preach that the left should do better to understand the right. Perhaps you should take your own advice?

[echowisp]

Sure,

Preferential treatment based on race for COVID vaccinations.

I'm not really sure about this. I work for a hospital and I'm not a medical professional by any means, but we were told that it's based on patient age plus health condition. Week 1-2: Patients 85+, Week 3-4: 75+, etc. Preferential treatment just seems like it would cause enormous problems. I don't know you could be right and it might happen in some places. Am I wrong about this?

[Felya]

I'm not really sure about this. I work for a hospital and I'm not a medical professional by any means, but we were told that it's based on patient age plus health condition. Week 1-2: Patients 85+, Week 3-4: 75+, etc. Preferential treatment just seems like it would cause enormous problems. I don't know you could be right and it might happen in some places. Am I wrong about this?

No, I am sure you are not wrong for your state... you just don’t consume the same fear mongering...

[Breccia]

The first of the murderous insurrectionists are heading to trial.

Let's talk about Bruno Cua, 18.

He's fucked.

His lawyers are playing the defense "he's too immature to know what he was doing".

"But...he's old enough to vote."

Yes.

"And serve in the military."

Yes.

"So...he's old enough to be involved in politics, and to fight for his country, but didn't know what he was doing when...he fought for his country in politics."

Yes.

"There's a word we're not allowed to say, that has just become a symbolic issue for powerful groups that feel like they're doing the right thing, that applies here."

In a defense motion filed on Friday, Bruno Cua's lawyers said their client "is an impressionable 18-year-old kid who was in the middle of finishing his online coursework to graduate from high school when he was arrested."

They paint a portrait of a young man swept up by events. "In many ways, he is less of an 'adult' than many teenagers," the motion said. "He has never lived away from his parents. He has lived his entire life in the area immediately surrounding Atlanta."

"Wait, part of the defense is 'he never left Atlanta'?"

Yes.

"But...he went to DC."

Yes.

"President Trump is calling us to FIGHT!" Cua allegedly wrote on Parler days before the siege. "It's time to take our freedom back the old fashioned way."

"He's naive and secluded and knows nothing about the outside world, but found Parler and got a following?"

Yes.

"If he's such a naive little momma's boy, how did he get to DC without his parents knowing?"

They took him.

"Oh, so they're on trial, too?"

No, they let him wander off, and he started sending videos of himself inside the Capitol.

In a criminal complaint, federal prosecutors cite a Jan. 6 Instagram post in which Cua allegedly wrote, "Yes, we physically fought our way in." Another post read: "Yes, for everyone asking I stormed the [Capitol] with hundreds of thousands of patriots. I'll do a whole video explaining what happened, this is history. What happened was unbelievable."

The FBI allegedly received two tips identifying Cua as the young man who stood in the Senate chamber on Jan. 6. His clothing helped authorities identify his movements and actions throughout the Capitol that day, they said.

Another tipster, according to court documents, told authorities that Cua had been talking about going to Washington on his Parler account for days and "actively encouraged the events on the sixth for 11 days leading up to the domestic terrorist attack," the complaint said.

"What, um, what's his schoolastic activities like?"

He's taken and passed College Algebra, at least.

"So, he has a high-school-graduation-plus level of understanding of basic A->B style logic?"

Yes.

"And he still is claiming, in court, that he's a poor naive momma's boy who got swept up in social media against his will, left his parents' side for the first time in his life against his will, entered the Capitol without his parents against his will, posted text, pictures and video of himself doing it against his will, despite a list of evidence that he knew what he was doing, including posts before the incident and college-level math?"

Yes.

"...if he's claiming he is a naive poor victim, but was brought to the rally by his Trump cultist parents, under whose roof he's never left...are they being charged?"

Uh...(checks news)...no. They didn't enter, and also, he's 18 so they're not liable for his behavior.

"His defense is that he's not liable either. Is this Schrödinger's Chewbacca Defense? Whoever is charged isn't liable for Bruno's actions? It's someone else?"

Near as I can tell, yes.

Bruno is not the only one to raise 'mob mentality' as a defense. Near as I can tell, it's some kind of "reverse RICO" where you blame everyone else, claim you get to go free, but also don't specifically testify against who, specifically, told you to commit the crimes of which you are somehow innocent. It's a handwaving attempt, "Parler made him do it" a glorified "society is to blame".

But I don't know if it legally works. @cubby can you weigh in? Apparently Harvard wrote about it but I can't read the journal.

- - - Updated - - -

WAIT WAIT I forgot to add something:

"Party of personal responsibility"

And we're good.

[s_bushido]

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...-passes-471628

I especially like this bit:

But some Republicans worry that this week's controversial antics from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who harassed Rep. Marie Newman (D-Ill.) over her transgender daughter, have stomped on their attempts to sensitively communicate why they are opposed to the LGBTQ rights bill. Most Republicans say they oppose the measure due to its perceived infringement on religious freedom, not out of discriminatory sentiment toward LGBTQ people — a fine line that Greene has effectively erased.

"She's saying the quiet part out loud! We really do despise LGBT people for legitimate reasons, honest!"

[Kallisto]

Fuck, change the rules. The GOP wouldn't even blink twice about doing that.

At some point, it's time to realize there isn't going to be any negotiating or reasoning with the party of conspiracies, fascism and terrorism. Hopefully before someone slightly smarter than Trump takes over.

Can't change the rules if they don't turn up unfortunately.

[Machismo]

I especially like this bit:



"She's saying the quiet part out loud! We really do despise LGBT people for legitimate reasons, honest!"

Yeah, anyone who thinks the GOP has budged much on LGBT issues is deluded.

[UnifiedDivide]

I especially like this bit:

"She's saying the quiet part out loud! We really do despise LGBT people for legitimate reasons, honest!"

I thought religion and politics were meant to be separate anyway?

Or is religion just the oft-touted excuse to oppose certain things?

[cubby]

The first of the murderous insurrectionists are heading to trial.

Let's talk about Bruno Cua, 18.

He's fucked.

His lawyers are playing the defense "he's too immature to know what he was doing".

"But...he's old enough to vote."

Yes.

"And serve in the military."

Yes.

"So...he's old enough to be involved in politics, and to fight for his country, but didn't know what he was doing when...he fought for his country in politics."

Yes.

"There's a word we're not allowed to say, that has just become a symbolic issue for powerful groups that feel like they're doing the right thing, that applies here."



"Wait, part of the defense is 'he never left Atlanta'?"

Yes.

"But...he went to DC."

Yes.



"He's naive and secluded and knows nothing about the outside world, but found Parler and got a following?"

Yes.

"If he's such a naive little momma's boy, how did he get to DC without his parents knowing?"

They took him.

"Oh, so they're on trial, too?"

No, they let him wander off, and he started sending videos of himself inside the Capitol.



"What, um, what's his schoolastic activities like?"

He's taken and passed College Algebra, at least.

"So, he has a high-school-graduation-plus level of understanding of basic A->B style logic?"

Yes.

"And he still is claiming, in court, that he's a poor naive momma's boy who got swept up in social media against his will, left his parents' side for the first time in his life against his will, entered the Capitol without his parents against his will, posted text, pictures and video of himself doing it against his will, despite a list of evidence that he knew what he was doing, including posts before the incident and college-level math?"

Yes.

"...if he's claiming he is a naive poor victim, but was brought to the rally by his Trump cultist parents, under whose roof he's never left...are they being charged?"

Uh...(checks news)...no. They didn't enter, and also, he's 18 so they're not liable for his behavior.

"His defense is that he's not liable either. Is this Schrödinger's Chewbacca Defense? Whoever is charged isn't liable for Bruno's actions? It's someone else?"

Near as I can tell, yes.

Bruno is not the only one to raise 'mob mentality' as a defense. Near as I can tell, it's some kind of "reverse RICO" where you blame everyone else, claim you get to go free, but also don't specifically testify against who, specifically, told you to commit the crimes of which you are somehow innocent. It's a handwaving attempt, "Parler made him do it" a glorified "society is to blame".

But I don't know if it legally works. @cubby can you weigh in? Apparently Harvard wrote about it but I can't read the journal.

- - - Updated - - -

WAIT WAIT I forgot to add something:

"Party of personal responsibility"

And we're good.

The law review article points out the attempt to justify mob mentality as no-responsibility behavior because of being "caught up in the moment". And the defense attorneys for Bruno Cua are attempting a bullshit hail mary pass to try to get their client out of decades of jail.

It won't work.

Mob or group behavior is typically an "aggravator" to a crime, meaning it's adds additional culpability to the original crime itself. The defense attorneys attempt to reverse that historical trend is almost laughable - especially when you consider that Bruno Cua spent days/weeks preparing for the Insurrection, even bragging about his acts before, during, and afterwards.

It will be interesting to see how these court cases play out. No doubt the early felony convictions will help the later trials in their defense - to see what works and what doesn't. But even Hitler would get representation.

[Breccia]

even bragging about his acts before, during, and afterwards.

That's probably the thing about this I actually hate the most. Bruno was part of a murderous insurrection, that's bad, really bad. His lawyers are trying to use a defense that they know for a fact is false. That's worse. His lawyers are trying to spring who they know for a fact is a guilty adult, responsible for his own actions.

It also feeds into the greater "Trump supporters are proven hypocrites and proven avoiders of facts and evidence" because, as you pointed out, this is an attempt to reverse a legal trend despite the evidence that exists solidifying that trend.

Man, I'm glad everyone gets a defense, even the guilty. That way I can look at htis and still say "Well, glad that's not all lawyers being represented!" And if those lawyers are court-appointed, I get that they need a defense that they probably don't believe because their client is fucking guilty. I don't think they are, though, I think these guys took the case on purpose, singling them out as complete douchebag fuckwits and not the lawyer profession as a whole. Or even 1% of it.

[Benggaul]

Welp, it's been a wild ride and we'll still be seeing shit coming out of this election for a long time yet. I'd wager this election has probably permanently changed the face of elections from here on out as fact battles conspiracy theory bullshit and armed insurrectionists storm government buildings because of their inability to differentiate between the two.

Happy thread closing day, guys. *sad party favor sound* *Zoidberg voice* Hooray! We're all doomed!

[Breccia]

I'd wager this election has probably permanently changed the face of elections from here on out

It already has.

Throughout the CPAC conference that began Thursday night, delegates, speakers and video presentations alleged a number of problems with the 2020 election, most dealing with mail-in ballots – and all without proof.

The conference program featured a seven-part series on "Protecting Elections," including a session on how "The Left Pulled The Strings" and "Covered It Up."

The country's largest annual gathering of conservative activists, CPAC participants talk about lots of issues they hope to use in future elections.

A parade of speakers and panels on Saturday dealt with items like immigration, abortion, the nuclear family, energy policy, and fighting China, all featuring attacks on the new Biden administration. One panel asked "Who's Really Running The Biden Administration?"

In between speeches, an oft-repeated video asked delegates: "Are Your Votes Being Distorted?"

In the weeks after Election Day on Nov. 3, judges and state election officials, including many Republicans, rejected the protests of Trump and his allies about the election results. Undeterred, Trump-ites at CPAC still complained about things like mass-mailed ballots, signature comparisons, and drop boxes.

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., drew a standing ovation on Friday when he mentioned his objection to the counting of the electoral votes that elected Biden.

"I stood up," Hawley told CPAC delegates. "I said, ‘we ought to have a debate about election integrity.'"

Daniel Wessel, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, said CPAC proves that Republicans would rather complain about 2020 than work on the nation's real problems, like the COVID-19 pandemic. "Republicans are focused on spreading the same dangerous lies that led to a deadly insurrection on our Capitol," Wessel said.]

All of us, including Republicans, know that the Republicans have done everything in their power to stay in power, with fewer votes. That's why they suppress turnout. That's why they demand ID. That's why they close polling stations where (cough) "certain people" live. And the big one until recently, that's why they gerrymander, which I'm willing to bet is done by both sides but by Republicans more. And now, they have another tactic: just get fewer votes and still claim they've won, resorting to violence and murder.

Expect to see it in 2022. Expect to see it in 2024.

"But Breccia, it didn't work!"

Didn't it? Already we have people like McConnell saying in public he'd back Trump in 2024. Yes, the same Trump who incited a murderous insurrection. Because the other options are

a) getting his party with the times, and having it focus on things Americans actually want, or

b) just admitting you lost.

[masterhorus8]

"But Breccia, it didn't work!"

Didn't it? Already we have people like McConnell saying in public he'd back Trump in 2024. Yes, the same Trump who incited a murderous insurrection. Because the other options are

a) getting his party with the times, and having it focus on things Americans actually want, or

b) just admitting you lost.

This whole thing of the turtle saying he'd back the shitstain again just shows that McConnell approves of the insurrection. The Democrats need to grow some balls and actually hold these congress-people accountable. They're just as responsible for it all as Trump is because they let it happen, they approved of it and let it fester.

[Rozz]

As stated, this thread is now closed.