· May 16, 2017
Our election was hijacked. There is no question. Congress has a duty to #ProtectOurDemocracy & #FollowTheFacts.
Out of context?
What is the point to this kind of thing. To me it is kind of like saying yeah, well Hitler was bad but Churchill did bad things too. This is passive enabling. So unless Nancy Pelosi is perfect, it is OK that Trump is continuing to use lies to incite an insurrection? So if Bill Clinton was a womanizer, it is OK for Trump to grab women by the puzzy? So because Obama misspoke about one clause in the ACA, it is OK for Trump to lie about everything?
Anyone who puts in the effort to identify and highlight every single case of double standard or what-aboutism, instead of facing the fact that what Trump is doing is truly dangerous to our democracy is enabling. And I can hear it already, yeah but liberals enable too.
I know it is hard. I have posted this story before but I used to live in the DC area when Marion Barry was the mayor. He got caught by the FBI on film, smoking crack with a hot young woman (who he had appointed to a high paying city position by the way). Totally corrupt. I discussed this with a good friend (Ken) and co-worker who was African American and a long time Barry supporter. Even in the face of this, he couldn't let go. His rationalization was that the FBI had spent millions to catch him so of course they finally got something on him.
I don't know if TriBoy is a Trump supporter or what, this is not specific to him, but this is what is going on with Trump supporters in general. It is the same thing that my friend Ken experienced. Ken was a great guy, survived a poor Philly youth, worked hard every day, kept his kids out of trouble, but there was some emotional entanglement that would not allow him to accept that Mayor Barry was corrupt (Barry served jail time and after release was elected to City Council so Ken was not alone).
How do we get there? How do we get people to accept that Trump has been lying all along? That he is corrupt? That he is simply bad?
Neutral. A good president/politician is closer to a hybrid imo. At least understanding
I'm no fan of Trump nor Pelosi types
I dont think they care about the people as much as they do for themselves/party
This tweet doesnt bode well for Pelosi and yes it is a double standard(she is trying to impeach him due to this as one of the issue). Because she was not willing to accept the election decision. Twitter didnt ban nor restrict the post either.
The russian intel ... hard to tell since fbi or cia = pro democrat?
End of the day its not like Russia mailed in a few million of the votes. There was mis information on facebook etc. But that can only go so far. Most people I assume ended up making their own decision. Not let ads etc take adv of their voting decision
There is factual evidence that there was attempted interference to the 2016 election by foreign powers. Pelosi called that out.
There is factual evidence there this did not happen in 2020. Trump has spewed lies to call that out.
How is this a double standard? It’s not even close. One is telling a fact. One is spewing lies because he’s a sore loser and is now putting the country in danger.
Trump is a sore loser
But can you expand about factual election interference?
Russia did not rig the election machine. If anything there was mis information on FB/Twitter
So people fell for that?
Whats the difference between falling for that or a sleazy politician trying to obtain votes?
You cant change or protect this portion of the public who get swayed by domestic or international influence
IF Trump specificially told Russia ... he wants their help. He wants interference... but there was never any hard proof of this
So again, if the intelligence community states there was hardcore interference. Where is the proof/recording?
Even the 1st impeachment = more guilty
What would you like me to expand on? The research studies from Central Intelligence? The articles written about the attempted influence? Or the books from Oxford written on it?
It has nothing to do with FB.
Those are a matter of opinions
Where is the recording/conversation between Trump and Putin? Or between high ranking officials type evidence
If Russia influenced independently (via facebook/twitter) and Trump was a benefactor. How is that Trumps fault?
So Pelosi twitter post is loaded without actual proof
IF pelosi and intelligence community had hard evidence that Trump requested for interference. Not only would he had been disqualified. But would have gone to jail.
Our biggest problem is that people can't concede that their own opinions and inclinations are just that. They are so sure that they are facts.
Ironically, they see this flaw clearly in others and want to hold them to certain standards based on their limited perspectives.
This is natural but controllable. It does requires effort though. Concession is a scary thing.
Our biggest problem currently, is something much more sinister than that. If there were millions of armed Pearl Jammers with openly violent intentions to defend Nancy Pelosi against further criticism, and then everyone else with any strong opinion also had the same number of militant followers, then his and the other's "facts" would be a problem. But this is not the case, so instead of discussing with Pearl Jammer why you think he is wrong, you've decided to throw him into the fact-attached laundry bin and told him to clean himself up. I find this arrogant, but thanks I guess for the constant reminders that we all need to be better.
Another point is that, there are some facts that are worth holding as facts. If there is no such thing as a fact, then we have already entered anarchy as a system of living.
The election of Joe Biden is no more or less certain than any other election in the entire history of the United States. Thus, for the common good, after proper inspection, as was executed, his victory becomes a fact of life. IMHO, the issue of Russian interference, whichever side you end up believing, is a much grayer area on the continuum of factuality than Biden's win. And if there is grayness isn't it better to argue your views than moralize? There was nothing militant in PJ's post, yet you still basically likened him to the these black and white Trumpist who are plotting evil.
Bolded is another opinion and it is crucial to your point. Why do we need to do better? Because it is apparently so difficult to escape the same traps we are trying to explain away.
Then you are an anarchist, as you have disallowed all assertion.
Is is certainly a blissful state when we live in the light of total and complete uncertainty about existence.
Have I disallowed all assertion or does it just feel that way
In an earlier comment I specifically mentioned how Pelosi's comment was not a fact. Yet people are glossing over that due to their inclination.
Don't read into me moralizing anything. I am trying to improve utility. If that's a moral stance, well I guess I'm a prophet.
Edit: Here, specifically what about your bolded comment makes it worth describing as an opinion? You seemingly tie the Russian interference to Trump's win. And since the fact of Russian activity is a fact, you sort of mentally skip a step and are more willing to accept a legitimate Trump win as less of a fact. Therefore, when someone says that election was hijacked, you are less likely to identify that as an opinion, hyperbole, subversive, lie or what have you.
When looking at Trump's claims about the 2020 election, there's less evidence for that than for Russian activity (or less conclusions that prove that existing anomalies are evidence of fraud). Therefore you conclude that Biden's legitimacy is greater than Trump's and more likely to view disagreements in opinion as incorrect opinion, hyperbole, subversive, lies or what have you.
This entirely hinges on your opinions that tie facts together. This is why people can disagree so much over "facts". Because our thoughts are made of few facts and many inclinations that are difficult to distinguish.
Not sure exactly where the following comments fit into the conversation... but, don't we have criteria in this country for determining facts when it comes to elections?
We elect/appoint officials: election commissioners. We elect representatives. We elect Secretaries of State. We elect governors. WE have an electoral college. We have an appointment/confirmation process for judges. If after election commissioners certify, Sec of States certify, Governors certify, houses of representatives certify, electoral college certifies, courts dismiss cases for lack of evidence, the US House certifies, the Supreme Court dismisses cases... what more needs to be done to state a FACT? If one doesn't think it's a fact that Trump lost, they are saying that American democracy is a fraud. Yes -- I realize people are
saying this. But my point is that based on the systemic protocols and criteria we use, the election result is fact. And therefore when Trump says it isn't, he's not only throwing our system under the bus, he's lying.