luka
Well-known member
read the article. stop fighting. read it then say something interesting.
Election 2020
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Oh you'll love this - I can't read the article because I got temporarily locked out of Twitter for "spreading misinformation about the pandemic", after I used the phrase "5G causes covid" - exactly like that, in quotes - in a post about conspiracy theories.
Hoist by my own petard, so to speak.
luka
Well-known member
The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election
For more than a year, a loosely organized coalition of operatives scrambled to shore up America’s institutions
web.archive.org
luka
Well-known member
it definitely fits in with this essay i wrote.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election
For more than a year, a loosely organized coalition of operatives scrambled to shore up America’s institutions
OK, I'm reading it now. It's interesting. The reason my instinctive reaction was to take the piss was twofold: first, because one of the Trump campaign's more openly risible claims was a conspiracy theory involving, amongst others, the usual Gates/Soros bogeymen and the government of Venezuela, and because it was posted by Mr 5 Squillion IQ, who is still taking this line:
When in fact the article is saying precisely the opposite: that various governmental and non-government organizations, from across the political spectrum, came together to prevent Trump's stealing the election. That they "rigged" it by preventing it from being rigged, or from having no clear outcome at all.
Last edited:
IdleRich
IdleRich
I believe it's british slang for the female parent.
IdleRich
IdleRich
Does it mention Marc E Elias?
IdleRich
IdleRich
A lot of this stuff was played out in the courts before-hand in public to those who were paying attention I think.
Broadly speaking the Dems believed that more voters meant more votes for them so they tried to increase access (cos it was right or cos it was good for them?) and the Reps believed the same so they did the opposite. Although it didn't always work out this way.
IdleRich
IdleRich
Within certain paramaters.
It's kinda like a football match. There are the rules of the game which you are supposed to abide by. But everyone plays right up to the edge and beyond, pull people back, fall over etc etc and these are kinda the parameters (around the rules) which everyone knows everyone is playing by, it's a kind of game against the opposition and the ref. And this is accepted.
And then every now and again someone bites someone or headbutts them or whatever and they all go "Oh THAT is totally unacceptable" .
So here you have kinda accepted manipulation and then - beyond the pale - would be ballot stuffing or blocking the voting booths with soldiers or... well, getting the machines to flip the vote. Get caught doing any of the latter and you're in trouble - but right up to that the opposition is most likely to shake their head with recognition that they've been outsmarted.
Leo
Well-known member
voting is the only thing that can be rigged, and there is no evidence of that happening. the "changes" in voting have been challenged in 60 court cases and all those suits have been dismissed.
everything else leading up to the voting -- campaigning, protests, media spin, groups working together for a common cause, etc. -- could be considered fair game that, to use trump's words, "both sides" participate in. where some people see a coalition of interests, others see a "shadowy cabal". each side sees what they want to see.
IdleRich
IdleRich
A very interesting article. If it's to be believed, then that guy was pretty much the only person who foresaw the number of points where Trump would try and cheat. Like everyone saw him trying to stop the count but the count was done correctly and he lost and then people thought "oh thank God it's over" and then Trump tried to attack certification and failed, and then everyone said "Well, now it's really done" but it wasn't... but this guy seems to have seen all that in advance and planned for it.
Also, another thing that jumps out is how important the Arizona call by Fox was, it comes up in everything you read as a crucial moment. I do wonder why they chose to go with that before everyone else.
Also, another thing that jumps out is how important the Arizona call by Fox was, it comes up in everything you read as a crucial moment. I do wonder why they chose to go with that before everyone else.
Leo
Well-known member
cuz they had the math to make the official call, and Rupert was ready to move on from trump.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
"I think the decision to finish Trump had been made between the big boys and this was how they were going to do it."
Is that really a better explanation than that a historically unpopular president, who was terrible at everything and let 400,000 Americans die on his watch, failed to get re-elected because most people didn't want him?
Not interested in a 'boring answer/wrong answer' stock response.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
That's because you're so clever.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
I mean, you seem to have read a totally different article from the one you've posted here. It doesn't say that some shadowy "big boys" conspired to prevent Trump from winning. It literally says:
"The scenario the shadow campaigners were desperate to stop was not a Trump victory. It was an election so calamitous that no result could be discerned at all[...]"
It says what they prevented was Trump corrupting the election. Trump then did lose the election, but that was because Biden got far more votes and far more EC seats, not because some shadowy cabal was pulling the strings.
You and Mr IQ have both got your pet fixation - that democracy is a sham and the results determined by shadowy men in a smoky room, and that Biden "stole" the election by unspecified means, respectively - and you're both repping an article that says the opposite of both those things.
"The scenario the shadow campaigners were desperate to stop was not a Trump victory. It was an election so calamitous that no result could be discerned at all[...]"
It says what they prevented was Trump corrupting the election. Trump then did lose the election, but that was because Biden got far more votes and far more EC seats, not because some shadowy cabal was pulling the strings.
You and Mr IQ have both got your pet fixation - that democracy is a sham and the results determined by shadowy men in a smoky room, and that Biden "stole" the election by unspecified means, respectively - and you're both repping an article that says the opposite of both those things.