Posts
Comments
Probably because of a terrorist who used the alias David Mayer.
I don't usually comment about politics (or much of anything else) here so I don't really know how what I should write in these comments, but I think this is more about people wanting to know what Trump supporters are thinking than about determining what they are and aren't right about. If I was trying to prove whether or not my interpretation is correct I supposed I would do this differently.
Sorry for badgering you so much, I've appreciated the discussion. Some of the other Trump supporters here seemed to have very weird beliefs and values, but your values don't seem that far away from mine. I think I got a better understanding of why you think what you do (though of course I disagree on things). Thanks for answering a bunch of questions :)
He was saying the election did not actually get held properly and that changes things.
No, it does not. Laws, regulations and the constitution exists in a society in order to coordinate behavior among it's citizens. Laws, regulations and the constitution does not assume that everyone follows the law. In fact, it does the opposite, it assumes that people will break laws, that people will break regulations and that people will go against the constitution. That's why there are mechanisms to punish people who go against them. You cannot terminate the constitution just because you think people broke the law.
Edit: Also, if there is some court case you think shouldn't have been thrown out, then you are free to link it.
Edit2: I don't understand why this comment got so downvoted
I don't know what Trump actually thinks, and neither do you, but we seem to disagree strongly on it anyway. I don't want to try to read your mind, but that part is at least very obvious.
I don't care that much about what's in his mind. I care what he has done, what he has said and what he will do. The precise motivations don't matter that much to me.
What if Trump said "God showed himself to me and he said the vote was rigged"? As an agnostic who trusts Trump, maybe you would think it was true. But should that matter? No, because godly revelations is not how we run our country. And neither is revelations from Trump. It doesn't matter if the election was stolen if it can't be shown to be true through our justice system (courts, FBI, DOJ, etc.). And it couldn't be shown through the justice system, so unless we want to ignore all laws, rules and the constitution, then Trump just has to take the loss.
Trump and company brought many court cases after the election but before inauguration that were thrown out due to things that had nothing to do with the merits of the evidence (things like standing, or timeliness)
Yes, and they were able to say "Look, we have a bunch of active cases, there's something fishy here" and then "They are throwing out our cases for no reason, look how rigged the system is". If they bring a bunch of cases which gets thrown out, then you should trust them less.
I don't really care about Giuliani, but the Giuliani article is extremely bad form since the bbc's summary of his 'concession' is not a good summary. It says only that he will not fight specific points in court 'nolo contendre', it is not an admission to lying.
I don't care what the BBC said. Giuliani said false statements. For the court he agreed they were false. If he had evidence that they were true, he would not have conceded in court that they were false. That he didn't have evidence for his claims means that you should trust his allegations of voter fraud less. It should also make you trust Trump's allegations of voter fraud less, as they were the same allegations.
Also, the cnbc article is largely bare assertions, by a known hyper partisan outfit (according to me, which is the only authority I have to go on). Why should I believe them? (Yes, this can make it difficult to know what happened, which was my claim.) The other side has just as many bare assertions in the opposite direction.
I linked cnbc to support the statement "Trump asked the DOJ to lie, say that the election was rigged, without evidence. And when they didn't he threatened to fire them.", and the article contains statements from "Jeffrey Rosen", "Richard Donoghue" and "Steven Engel" to support that. I don't care what cnbc said, I care what the DOJ said.
I think [Trump] values law (with moderate confidence).
But not when he believes there's been fraud right? Remember, he said:
A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution
So he doesn't care that much about rules, regulations or the constitution. He thinks the government should be allowed to terminate "all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution". This is not consistent with someone who values law. Maybe someone dislikes some laws, but all laws? All regulations? The whole constitution? That's pretty extreme.
They certainly looked suspicious enough in some cases that they should have been investigated.
Yes, I also think it's important to investigate those things. And the US government agrees, which is why they investigated them. But they didn't find much, because the election wasn't stolen.
I think that many of the actions by the Democrats were done in the way they were because they didn't know whether or not there was rampant cheating causing these anomalies and didn't want to know, and that Republicans were far too sure about what they think happened based off weird and unclear evidence.
I don't really agree with this framing, it's not about Democrats vs Republicans. The ones who were claiming the election was stolen were Trump and his associates, not general Republicans. Mike Pence is a republican, and he didn't say that the election was stolen. William Barr, the trump appointed republican attorney general, said the FBI and Justice Department investigations found no evidence of large scale voter fraud. It was investigated, but nothing was found, because the election wasn't stolen. Just because some people lied about voter fraud, like Rudy Giuliani, doesn't mean it's okay to overturn the election.
But what did Trump do when the FBI and Justice Department didn't find any evidence? He asked the DOJ to lie, say that the election was rigged, without evidence. And when they didn't he threatened to fire them.
I think you're getting a little lost in the weeds trying to interpret the legal schemes. If he managed to overturn the election in a way that is technically legal, would that be good? And if he attempted to overturn the election in an illegal way, would that be bad? It seems like you value the law, and that's good to do. But Trump doesn't value the law, and thinks it would be good if he overturned the election even if was done in an illegal way. He doesn't care about the law. Does this not worry you?
You say "send it back to the states" but what would that mean? Every state held their own election. No state found any proof of fraud (at least not enough to impact the outcome). So they all verified the results. Then they sent their electors to Washington. For Trump to then say "the states should decide" doesn't make much sense, because they already did decide. They decided he lost. Now maybe he meant that every state should have a reelection, but that would go against a bunch of (federal and state) laws, rules and the constitution, so that would be bad. The states control their election, not Trump. It's bad to change the process just because Trump doesn't like that he lost.
But luckily, I don't think Trump meant to have a reelection. I think he meant to follow the established procedure in the constitution for contingent elections. That's what you're supposed to do, if it's confusing who won the election. And if Trump would want to follow laws, rules and the constitution, he would want Pence + Congress + House to do that. What basically happens then is that each state gets one vote to decide the president. So in a way, that would "send it back to the states". Each state's vote would be decided by the people in the House of Representatives, and if everyone voted according to their party affiliation then Trump would have won. Good for Trump!
But would it have been good for us, the people? Well, the problem is that the election wasn't really a contingent election. Every state verified the results, every state sent their electors. To actually use the procedure, then one would have to follow the plan in the Eastmann memos. It says that Pence, while counting the elector votes, should pretend to be confused. He should act as if he has no idea which are the correct electors. And then it would be a contingent election. But Pence didn't want to do that, so Trump didn't win.
That's what the plan to steal the election was, and that's how Pence stopped it, and that's why Trump and MAGA people dislike Pence now.
For those who prefer text form, Richard Hanania wrote a blog post about why he would vote for Trump: Hating Modern Conservatism While Voting Republican.
Basically, he believes that Trump is a threat to democracy (because he tried to steal the 2020 election) while Kamala is a threat to capitalism. And as a libertarian, he cares more about capitalism than democracy.
Redoing elections that aren't held would be required despite that not being in the constitution (because the electors must be selected), and you could make the argument that one where the result cannot be known would be the same. I assume (obviously mindreading is often faulty) that is what Trump would have been talking about if he was more of an analytical speaker rather than an emotive one.
Yes, redoing the election would probably be a good thing to do, if there was evidence of widespread fraud. But Trump doesn't see that as the only option. The full "Truth" was:
So, with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closely with Big Tech Companies, the DNC, & the Democrat Party, do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great “Founders” did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!
So he says we should either "have a NEW ELECTION" or "throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER [Trump]". He tried to do the second option: tried to get states to change the result, and when that didn't work he tried to get Pence + Congress to change the result. He doesn't care about laws or rules or the constitution. He just believes there's fraud, so he should be chosen as the winner.
I completely disagree about the idea that Trump supported any sort of coup, and that the riot was anything more than a riot.
What do you think Trump's goal was on Jan 6? Take for example part of Trump's speech:
Now, it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. And after this, we're going to walk down, and I'll be there with you, we're going to walk down, we're going to walk down.
Anyone you want, but I think right here, we're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.
Because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.
Which electors were Trump referring to here? He is not saying they should do the process as normal, because then there would be no point of protesting. He is saying they should either throw some electors out or include some "contingent electors", so that they have a "contingent election", so that the house (voting by state) would declare Trump as the winner. And if they did that, then Trump would have succeeded in stealing the election.
And you're completely correct that each state legislature has total control of their electors. And only electors from state legislatures should be counted. In the past, there have been situations where state legislatures sent multiple "alternative electors", because of weird circumstances. But the reason Trump's "contingent electors" are called "fake electors" is that they were not sent by a state legislature. They were by Trump associates and random Republicans. This is wrong, and in some states even illegal. Multiple people have already pleaded guilty to crimes related to this.
I think you are missing something. The lawsuits were fine, though maybe a little silly as most of them were thrown out because of lack of standing. I'm thinking more of the "fake elector plot", where Trump pressured Mike Pence to certify fake electors on Jan 6 (as Pence said: "choose between [Trump] and the constitution"). I think trying to execute that plan was wrong, because if they would have succeeded then Trump would have stolen the election.
And Trump may not have supported everything the J6 rioters did, but he was the reason that they were there. He said that the election was stolen. He said that it "allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution". On Jan 6 he called on them to pressure Mike Pence and other lawmakers to go through with his plan: to steal the election.
I (and many other people) think a person who tried to steal an election shouldn't be elected.
People often say one of the reasons they won't vote for Trump is his attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. What is your view on that?
Trump has certainly contributed to the amount of distrust the latter are now feeling, of course. Though I'm personally struggling to say whether this was due to his positioning alone, or (at least in part) thanks to an increasingly larger portions of the "machine" actively weaponizing more and more of its metaphorical antibodies against the threat of his highly unwarranted "invasion".
I think one thing you're missing is the huge right-wing media ecosystem, the part of the "machine" that supports Trump, even spreading lies to support him. Take for example the court case Dominion v. Fox which showed pretty clearly that Fox News is willing to broadcast statements they know are false, as long as it's what their audience wants to hear (i.e. they're audience captured). Fox News is one of the largest media networks in the US and when Trump and his attorneys said the election was stolen, and Fox News knew it wasn't stolen, they still said it was stolen.
The "Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986" was passed by Ronald Reagan, a Republican, so probably not an attempt by democrats to get votes.
I believe the most likely interpretation of the events is that Trump was not actually trying to steal the elections but to make most Republicans believe that the victory was stolen from him so that he could have another chance in 2024.
Where are you getting this interpretation? He is not saying this, no one around him is saying this. He says that the 2020 election was rigged. He says that it was so rigged that he should be able to suspend the constitution. He tried to execute a plan which, if successful, would have made him president. How was he not trying? Was Rudy Giuliani not trying? Were the fake electors not trying when they signed all those fake documents? Was Trump not trying on January 6, when he told the protestors to pressure Mike Pence to go through with his plan? Were the Proud Boys not trying when they broke into the capitol? Were whoever placed pipe bombs around DC on Jan 5 not trying?
It feels like for someone not trying, he sure made a large impact and made a lot of people believe that he was trying and that they should try to help him win (because it was so rigged).
Thanks for answering but I don't get it. I think trying to steal an election is really bad. Is it just that Trump didn't succeed that makes the difference?
And I don't really know what you refer to when you say "Democrat's use of illegal immigration to boost their vote". I know illegal (and legal) immigrants tend to lean democrat, but illegal immigrants can't vote. Is there some study looking at demographic patterns or so? What are the immigration policies of democrats that you think is wrong, and do you have a problem with legal immigration, as that helps democrats too?
Also, immigrants are more than just votes. America has historically had a high level of immigration, who bring a lot of good to the US. Just because a policy is good for democrats doesn't make it into a bad policy. If you don't like immigration or naturalization, then that's fine, but I don't think democrats should avoid a policy just because it will help them.
The bill was a bipartisan bill though. As described by republican James Lankford:
It is interesting: Republicans, four months ago, would not give funding for Ukraine, for Israel and for our southern border because we demanded changes in policy, [..] And now, it’s interesting, a few months later, when we’re finally getting to the end, they’re like, 'Oh, just kidding, I actually don’t want a change in law because it’s a presidential election year.'
It's effect would have been to improve the border. That's why there were republicans who wanted it passed, because they wanted to improve the border. Some democrats probably also want to improve the border, while some democrats just want to pass the bill to improve the chances that the democrats would be elected again. But the republicans probably don't want the democrats to win, and probably just wanted to pass the bipartisan border bill to improve the border.
So the problem is just that it wouldn't help him win? So if threatening Pence with a gun would have made him president, and the supreme court said that he was immune from criminal prosecution, it wouldn't affect if you'd vote for him again? (Ignoring that it would be his third term.)
This comment is just confusing me even more. If you found out that Trump threatened Mike Pence with a gun to try to force him to count Trump's electors, would that be bad? You would prefer if Trump won, so that sounds like a good thing for him to do, right? But maybe you think it's bad for presidents to threaten people with guns, so you think it's bad. Can you answer what you think about this hypothetical?
So someone who doesn't agree with democrats hasn't thought through what they think? That doesn't sound right. I already said I disagree with the policy and how it's implemented. I just think there are other things which are a lot more important.
And I don't think choosing (2) is that weird, I just think it matters a lot what the process is to "filter out" people. Trump has said that he wants to make every executive branch employee fireable by the president. That gives a lot of power to the president, which I think is bad. I think it's good if the government has a system of checks and balances which limits the presidents power so that the government has a more "slow" and consistent policy, so that the employees don't feel like they are micromanaged by the President.
I don't know why you are bringing up the 1876 election, when that was before the Electoral Count Act, which sets the procedure for electoral votes that was used in 2020.
I'm still a little confused.
- Do you think it would be fine if 2016 electors changed their votes so that Trump lost?
- Does it depend on if it was legal?
- Do you think it would be fine if Trump would have succeeded with his plans in 2020?
- Does it depend on if it was legal?
The problem is that these questions depend a lot on the details. I don't know much about the impact of DEI statements or how they are used. I mean, the Biden/Harris administration doesn't have a policy which is "anti-DEI scientists should be fired" or even "NSF grants should require DEI statements". The NSF just has the mission "to promote the progress of science, to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare, and to secure the national defense". That's really vague, and now the Biden/Harris administration has passed some vague executive orders. But even without executive orders, the NSF could just believe that promoting DEI efforts is important to achieve their mission more effectively. They may be mistaken, but I don't think I can have that much to say about it if I'm not well read about it. That's why I talk so much about process and why I dislike the use of executive orders as it's kind of a sidestep of the normal process (I think).
Basically my answer is (2), but it depends on the details and I just haven't seen that much of an impact of these DEI statements. I just think there are differences between the candidates that are a lot more important than their impact on DEI in academia.
Just one question, when he tried to steal the election using fake electors in 2020, do you think that was bad?
It would probably be more constructive if we focus on one issue at a time, so I suggest we finish this topic before discussing others.
Okay.
I see all of these decision of deciding what to fund and how to fund them as political. I mean, during the last century a lot of marine research was done through the military, and that shaped what kind of research was done, and which people could do it (probably not anti-war people). I see all of these things as changing government priorities and not restrictions on freedom of speech or conscience.
On the topic of DEI statements themselves, I don't really think it's that productive to require them on a large scale. Many universities and research agencies motivate them by saying that it's important for them to have a diverse base of researches to be more effective/have more perspectives or that it's the moral thing to do, after excluding them historically. And sure, that might make sense, but I think what that means depends a lot on the scientific field and where in America it's done. So such policies are probably better done on a more local level.
I also see that the way the Biden/Harris admin has influenced the NSF is through two executive orders (1, 2) which I don't think is that good. If NSF changed their priority or if laws are passed to change their mandate then that's one thing, but executive orders are pretty blunt. They also make it hard to say who to blame for things like DEI statements as the executive orders are pretty vague. As the NSF is still an independent agency, it feels like DEI statements are more something the NSF made up to promote DEI and which Biden/Harris is allowing, then something they made them do.
But if someone just dislikes DEI statements then it doesn't matter that much why exactly they were implemented, as the important part is that Trump would probably get rid of them.
So basically, I think it's kind of a bad policy, but not that big of a deal.
Sorry for writing two comments, but I'm really curious of some ground beliefs, because it feels a little silly to talk about specific policy proposals without mentioning the - in my mind - biggest reason not to vote for Trump: he tried to steal the last election.
More specifically, he said after the election that the election was rigged against him. He had a bunch of court cases which sought to prove that the election was rigged against him, and pretty much every case was proven false. Then when his vice president were to certify electors from the state, Trump wanted him to use fake electors, which were not sent from the states, to say that Trump won the election. If his plan would have worked, then Trump would have stolen the election. But Pence did not do that, because Pence didn't want to steal the election. He later said Trump "demanded that I choose between him and the constitution, [..] I chose the constitution". That's why the crowd was yelling "hang Mike Pence" during Jan 6.
Do you care about that?
Well the reason I didn't think of DEI statements and such is because that's not really something Trump talks about much, right? He mostly talks about immigration (cats and dogs!), Ukraine, inflation, etc. So I don't know much about it.
Also, I don't really see DEI statements as a restriction on "freedom of speech" or "freedom of conscience". If I understand correctly, it's that grants by NSF to institutions have to have a section explaining their DEI initiatives. And sure you can disagree if that should be a factor, and maybe you think it's stupid to have as a requirement, but just because they have different priorities/beliefs than you doesn't mean they're stifling freedom of speech.
Imagine if the government started caring a lot about AI and NSF required people to talk about their AI work/impact in every funding request. Would that be stupid? Yes, because a lot of important work isn't that relevant to AI. But this doesn't really impact freedom of speech, it just means they prioritize research differently than you would. The government thinks DEI should affect research grants. You don't. Someone will always feel left out when funding is allocated, and feel "forced" to act in some ways to receive funding. But I don't see that as a restriction on "freedom of speech".
When it comes to burning the flag, maybe it's a bad example. In my mind, burning the flag just means hating on America and I don't think that should be illegal. But some people see burning the flag like destroying something holy, so they treat that restriction differently than other restrictions. But it's still a more clear restriction than DEI statements. It's an actual law that restricts how you are allowed to express yourself in America.
But when it comes to infiltration of institutions, I find it worrying when Vance says:
Fire every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people.
What does he mean with "our people"? Would it be a restriction on freedom of speech to fire every civil servant and replace them with "our people"? I think it would. Surely he doesn't mean people who are critical of Trump as "our people".
Also, I think removing the right to abortion from millions of people is a much clearer restriction of liberty than DEI statements or banning flag-burning.
I agree empirical observations are generally more reliable than theoretical argument.
- But higher tariffs does in general increase inflation right? And he didn't influence the Fed that much during his administration, but if he did then it would make the economy worse, right? And it wasn't higher during the Biden/Kamala administration because of price-controls, right?
- Yes, I agree that it was lower. But when voting you don't vote for outcomes, you vote for people who have policies which affect outcomes. When politicians tried to improve the border, Trump told them not to do it. He sabotaged legislation that you would like, to increase the chances that he would win. It feels like you're rewarding Trump for making the border situation worse. I think that is bad.
- If I look up the NSF on Wikipedia, then it says that it's an "independent agency". This means that it is not controlled by the president. It's ok to dislike that policy, but you shouldn't blame Biden for it, because he doesn't control the agency. If Trump was the president, he wouldn't control the agency either. But sure, he could cooperate with other branches of government to influence the NSF. He could also use other branches of government to make it illegal to burn flags. Is that good? Is that not a limit on freedom of speech?
To me it feels like you're bringing up small disagreements you have in some policies with the Biden/Kamala administration, but turning a blind eye to the huge problems with a Trump/Vance administration.
Technical feedback on the website:
- Scrolling changes the URL. This is bad because then the browser history gets filled with the website multiple times, and trying to return to the previous page is very cumbersome.
- If someone's image doesn't load, then it's blank and you can't see that there's someone there. There should be some default picture. You're not hosting the image, so it could be unable to load if the host moves or removes the image, or if the user uses some kind of tracking protection (e.g. Firefox blocks many Twitter images).
I can argue some:
- Economy Well that obviously depends on what you mean with "price controls". None of the candidates give that much details on their economic policies, but Harris has mostly focused on anti-price gouging legislation. Now maybe you disagree with this legislation, but you have to compare it to Trumps economic policies: he wants to increase tariffs drastically, which would increase inflation. He also wants the Fed to be less independent, which could cause them to prioritize short term politics, which would be bad for the long term economy.
- Immigration The president doesn't control immigration alone. Any changes to the immigration process in the US would need bipartisan support. Now luckily, there is bipartisan support for improving the immigration process. That's why there was a bipartisan bill drafted earlier this year to improve the immigration process in various ways. Passing the bill would be good for the US, but bad for Trump as it would make it harder to say that the democrats don't care about immigration. So he told the republicans to vote NO, and they killed the bill because of it. That shows that Trump cares more about winning the election, than improving the border.
- Individual liberties The examples you give are a little vague. I don't know any restrictions that the Biden administration has done to freedom of speech or freedom of conscience. I do know that some people consider the right to abortion a Individual liberty, which is now banned in multiple states because of Trump. Trump has also said he wants to put people in jail for expressing their freedom of speech through burning flags. That's a pretty severe restriction.
Yeah maybe. I tried to write what I think is true, but from the perspective of someone with different values. If I included things I didn't think were true then that feels like I'm mocking Trump supporters and I don't want to do that. For example: "The democrats are letting in immigrants who are eating cats and dogs, people's pets. Trump would stop this". Obviously it's a belief held by MAGAs, and if it was true then it's a good argument to vote for Trump. But I don't think it's true, and therefore it's a very bad argument.
Here's a steelman:
- Abortion If you believe abortion is immoral, then Trump's greatest accomplishment during his last term was to appoint conservative supreme court judges which gave the ability to ban abortion to the states. This lead to several states placing heavy restrictions on abortions. If Trump wins again, abortion might even be restricted nationally, as Trump has declined to say whether he'll veto such a bill.
- Immigration The US has seen an increase in illegal immigration during Biden's presidential term. There are many factors that influenced this, but if Trump was President then it would probably be lower. For example, he wants to use the military to deport people, something I don't believe a democratic candidate would do.
- Israel/Palestine A war is happening in the middle east, and though the US is supporting Israel, their support is partial, and they express support for Palestinians too. They are sanctioning settlers and being affected by democratic voters who don't support Israel. Trump would be more pro-Israel and would not cave in to pressure; he would even jail protesters who burn flags.
- Winning The democratic party cares about laws and democratic norms. Trump cares about winning. Sometimes you have to have a guy that tries to win, no matter what. If cartels are affecting the US, bomb Mexico. If there's a war in Europe, force a peace deal. If bad people win the election, use fake electors. If you break the law, become immune. Elect a leader who does whatever it takes to win, and then the US will win too.
Well, all of the questions are binary so they either happen or don't happen. They may not be sampled from some "objective" distribution, but you can still assign subjective probabilities to them. Just write how likely you think they are to happen.
The Discord link seems to have expired.
Swedish perspective: It's pretty funny seeing these biscuits praised as some kind of perfect recipe/secret treasure when it's one of the most common biscuits here. And when I say common I don't mean that they can be found in stores or cafés (though they sometimes can) but that it's something many people make at home. I think the reason that they aren't more common in stores is that they taste much better when they are warm; from the oven. The stores can't compete with that.
The recipe I'm used to is pretty similar to yours (from the famous Our Cookbook) but without the ginger or salt.
So instead of a disclaimer saying that a tweet is false, we'll now have a market saying that it probably will be declared false in the future. Then later the tweet will be declared 100% false and the market would close. But I don't see why you would trust the final result any more than the disclaimer. If you don't trust the social media companies then the prediction market just becomes "what people think social media companies will think" which doesn't solve the problem.
Edit: I missed that future users would vote to decide what the true outcome was but my point still stands. The prediction market would become "what people think people on social media will think". I know there has been work on solving this (Augur?) but I haven't read any of it.