official 2020 election thread [WHITEHOUSE RAISES ERROR: HTTP 306 - FOR BIDEN]

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
stuff about freedom of speech
freedom of speech in the sense that I think you're understanding it is fundamentally flawed and incorrect, flooding the field with disinformation is a censorship strategy. Platforms including social media and youtube that allow disinformation to spread faster than the truth are a perfect tool for repressive regimes to accomplish their goals. And there is little incentive for these platforms to stop censorship through disinformation because it is profitable for them.

Facebook will ban you for complaining about m*n but just put a tag on your post if you spread conspiracy theories, grappling with these facts should help you to see that a free and open discourse necessitates silencing distractors and bad actors. Unfortunately most regulators lack any real understanding of the problems inherent to their naive and dangerous notion of 'free speech'.
 

faint

licensed poster
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Live Chat Contributor Alumnus
on the US vs. China:

i think it's important to understand that when people say one country is better than the other, they're strictly referring to governments and not much else. i think it is very easy for Amerocentric places to blatantly label china as bad because it's one of the few things BOTH of our political parties shove down our throats. when that article came out that China will surpass the US economy by 2030 or whatever you would think they were talking about nuclear missile testing. the same stuff happens with russia, too. if you are a citizen of an adversary country, most americans are brainwashed into believing you're part of some kind of psy-op to destroy our democracy. recent events have shown we are certainly capable of doing that without outside help. anyway, without going too far into the "both sides" bs, I will say anti-China/Russia rhetoric is right on point with neo-lib values, so if you needed any more reason to hate them, there you go. neo-libs will tell you how bad the chinese government is for killing their own ppl but then go off about how great capitalism is and how poggers elon musk is. shits wild.
 
we were discussing the white supremacist mob that stormed the capitol and then that turned into how that's bad because china would gain influence out of it. and it wasn't even surprising, because that happens like all the time.

so yeah, without understanding that context, it may be confusing that people would come in here and defend china. maybe consider the possibility that it's a little weird how often people shit themselves about china in response to terrible things happening in america.

edit: the post this was kind of a response to has been deleted so it doesn't make much sense but that's ok
 
Last edited:
freedom of speech in the sense that I think you're understanding it is fundamentally flawed and incorrect, flooding the field with disinformation is a censorship strategy. Platforms including social media and youtube that allow disinformation to spread faster than the truth are a perfect tool for repressive regimes to accomplish their goals. And there is little incentive for these platforms to stop censorship through disinformation because it is profitable for them.

Facebook will ban you for complaining about m*n but just put a tag on your post if you spread conspiracy theories, grappling with these facts should help you to see that a free and open discourse necessitates silencing distractors and bad actors. Unfortunately most regulators lack any real understanding of the problems inherent to their naive and dangerous notion of 'free speech'.
Last year Twitter and Facebook censored an article (from ny post) in which they exposed a corruption case involving Joe Biden, his son, Hunter Biden and a Ukrainian gas company, apparently because it was based on untrue facts, but on the other hand, they allow all lies on Russia's so called "influence" in US institutions. I even remember both democrats and republicans representatives saying how bad was (and still is, according to them) the Chinese censorship when they banned platforms such as Facebook and Twitter for not having collaborated with authorities after protests and attacks to its institutions, which were full of violence. So yes, as you just said, unfortunately most regulators lack any real understanding of the problems inherent to their naive and dangerous notion of 'free speech'.

Twitter has censored and suspended accounts from countries, organizations and individuals when the US government and its think tanks ask to, but it didn't suspend representatives for having instigated conflicts in other countries or Trump himself for having threatened nuclear war, they simply waited for his followers to consume a bunch of lies and desinformation to take the congress and consume an alleged coup. Anyway, I guess this is what they needed.
 

Matthew

I love weather; Sun for days
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
I'm glad that Trump and all of the facist groups associated with him are being completely de-platformed universally, but i'll be honest I'm sad that a large population will never be able to go back and search how absolutely visionary some of his shitposting was pre-presidency and it's a shame there's no Trump archive twitter account that can post some of the most ridiculous shit he's posted throughout the years so we can laugh at him.
View attachment 306581
View attachment 306582
View attachment 306583
View attachment 306584

View attachment 306585

View attachment 306586

I can't believe this guy won the presidency tweeting like dril
You're forgetting that his tweets are apart of the national archive and the internet never forgets. I'm sure we're going to be good on memes for a bit.
 

Bughouse

Like ships in the night, you're passing me by
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
Just so we're entirely clear about what happened here:
These 8 petititions were all requests to expedite review (of cases that SCOTUS was most likely not going to review anyway). By declining to expedite review, virtually all of the cases became moot as soon as the electoral college votes were certified, and if not then, then certainly after inauguration. And now that they've done this action today to decline to expedite review, they won't act on any of these again until after inauguration anyway.

Two other related cases may still eventually get heard, both from Pennsylvania, however they are about issues that all parties have already acknowledged would not affect enough votes to change the presidential election. This case has already come up to the US Supreme Court once and Justice Alito, who handles emergency petitions from the circuit court that contains Pennsylvania, ordered Pennsylvania to segregate the ballots in question so they could be counted separately if needed, subject to later litigation. Pennsylvania in turn complied and ordered all of its clerks, etc to do so, so the number of ballots that arrived late is known and is (far) less than the margin by which Biden won the state. A bit under 10,000 votes came in that would be in question per these cases, and Pennsyvlania has determined that aside from the presidential race (where 10,000 is clearly not enough to change anything since Biden won by around 80,000) no other federal races were impacted either. So in terms of 2020 itself the case is moot.

If SCOTUS agrees to hear those it would purely be advisory for future elections, and even though courts don't really like hearing cases about things that are no longer relevant, they also really hate election lawsuits under tight timelines. So they might hear a case about these PA issues, just so they can opine about the issues at hand and clarify things for 2022 and beyond. In my opinion, these cases are pretty bad examples for SCOTUS to use to set any case law so I think it is more likely that they pass, but who knows.

The gist of the PA case is:
The Pennsylvania state supreme court, interpreting Pennsylvania state law and the Pennsylvania state constitution, required the state to count absentee ballots that arrived up to three days late as long as they were not clearly postmarked after election day (based on evidence from the post office that delays would occur in such a way that Pennsylvania's statutory deadlines would result in some people who followed all the rules and deadlines that were intended to help them vote by mail end up with their votes not getting counted due to circumstances that were unforeseen when the state's election law was enacted). Article I of the Constitution places the power for setting the "time, place, and manner" of elections in the hands of state legislatures, subject to laws made by the US Congress, which has enacted a law setting a uniform day for these elections, which we know as Election Day - whichever day between November 2 and November 8 is a Tuesday in a given year.

Pennsylvania republicans are challenging that 1) the state Supreme Court had the authority to do anything with respect to the "time, place, and manner" since they say that's a power of the legislature, and/or 2) whether what the result of what the court did (ie allowing the counting of mail in votes that arrive up to 3 days late) violated the federal statute that sets one election day nationwide.

Both arguments have serious issues with them.

The first argument more or less says "because the US constitution says it is the state legislatures responsibility that means it is 100% the state legislature's responsibility and there is no mechanism for a state court reviewing whatever the legislature says". Obviously that's not the case otherwise there wouldn't be lawsuits in state courts related to elections, which there have been long before 2020... The purpose of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision was to interpret the constitutionality of the voting system that was going to be used, per the Pennsylvania State Constitution. There is ample case law that says that state election law MUST comply with state constitutions, so there really should be no argument here that a state court could review. All state legislation is subject to state constitutional law. There's no special carveout for elections. Ultimately the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the unforeseen postal delays impacted the existing voting law so much that they became unconstitutional because of how it would disenfranchise voters whose ballots would fail to arrive on time, even though they would request a mail in ballot on time and maybe would even put them back in the mail on time, through no fault of their own. So in summary, the Article I provision that gives power to state legislatures very clearly does not give it solely to them - it is still subject to review for constitutionality under the state constitution. So it is pretty much guaranteed that SCOTUS would not agree with the main argument and say that the PA supreme court wasn't allowed to review. If we then assume that the PA supreme court was within their rights to review, what SCOTUS could instead say here to overturn on these grounds would be "yes you could review, but you reviewed incorrectly" ...but that is also not a plausible thing for SCOTUS to do here, since the PA Supreme Court said the election law was an as-applied violation of the Pennsylvania State Constitution, not the US constitution, and SCOTUS is highly unlikely to step in and say no actually we're the experts on your constitution and you interpreted it wrong. As a matter of law and policy, SCOTUS does not review state court judgments in cases that only have to do with state law. The only way SCOTUS could review therefore the PA court's decision as pertains to the state constitution is if the state court ruling violated the US constitution, but the plaintiffs haven't articulated clearly how that could be so. If the state court is authorized under the US constitution to review, then surely no decision they reach is inherently unconstitutional. It could be that this particular decision is unconstitutional if it created an unconstitutional system itself, i.e. the PA Supreme Court couldn't decide that everyone named Steve's votes would count double, since that violates one-person one-vote. But it's hard to say what the violation would be here in allowing mail in votes to arrive late, since it was applied equally to all voters statewide. All in all, this argument doesn't seem very likely to succeed to me.

The second argument that the federal statute designating one day as Election Day somehow forbids counting mail in ballots postmarked before but received after election day has its whole own other set of issues. The general interpretation (and there is no real division among courts on this...) is that votes must be cast on or before election day. This is why early voting is a thing, this is why mail in voting is a thing (no one can have a mail in vote that is both cast and received on election day... the mail doesn't work that fast!). No one has ever won a case to my knowledge that the federal law designating one single day as election day means that votes received by mail after, but postmarked before, Election Day cannot be counted when a state has decided that they would like to do so. Indeed, Pennsylvania is not the only state that accepts such ballots. A number of states have allowed this even before 2020, and some more began doing so for this cycle due to the increased amount of mail in votes and expected postal delays related to COVID. Nor is 3 days in any way unusual or "generous". Some states allow votes that arrive even 2 weeks after election day. If Pennsylvania isn't allowed to do this, then neither are like 20 other states. Even beyond the 20 or so states that accept ballots received by mail after election day, there's all kinds of other votes that are accepted after election day, such as cases where an absentee ballot received on or before election day and is "cured" after election day or cases where military/oversees voters might have deadlines that allow them to have their votes counted late, even if other absentee votes are not, etc. There's just no way that SCOTUS takes the bite here and throws general chaos into the world by requiring that ALL votes must be received by election day, when the current state election law patchwork has been working "fine".
 
Last edited:

Matthew

I love weather; Sun for days
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Just so we're entirely clear about what happened here:
These 8 petititions were all requests to expedite review (of cases that SCOTUS was most likely not going to review anyway). By declining to expedite review, virtually all of the cases became moot as soon as the electoral college votes were certified, and if not then, then certainly after inauguration. And now that they've done this action today to decline to expedite review, they won't act on any of these again until after inauguration anyway.

Two other related cases may still eventually get heard, both from Pennsylvania, however they are about issues that all parties have already acknowledged would not affect enough votes to change the presidential election. This case has already come up to the US Supreme Court once and Justice Alito, who handles emergency petitions from the circuit court that contains Pennsylvania, ordered Pennsylvania to segregate the ballots in question so they could be counted separately if needed, subject to later litigation. Pennsylvania in turn complied and ordered all of its clerks, etc to do so, so the number of ballots that arrived late is known and is (far) less than the margin by which Biden won the state. A bit under 10,000 votes came in that would be in question per these cases, and Pennsyvlania has determined that aside from the presidential race (where 10,000 is clearly not enough to change anything since Biden won by around 80,000) no other federal races were impacted either. So in terms of 2020 itself the case is moot.

If SCOTUS agrees to hear those it would purely be advisory for future elections, and even though courts don't really like hearing cases about things that are no longer relevant, they also really hate election lawsuits under tight timelines. So they might hear a case about these PA issues, just so they can opine about the issues at hand and clarify things for 2022 and beyond. In my opinion, these cases are pretty bad examples for SCOTUS to use to set any case law so I think it is more likely that they pass, but who knows.

The gist of the PA case is:
The Pennsylvania state supreme court, interpreting Pennsylvania state law and the Pennsylvania state constitution, required the state to count absentee ballots that arrived up to three days late as long as they were not clearly postmarked after election day (based on evidence from the post office that delays would occur in such a way that Pennsylvania's statutory deadlines would result in some people who followed all the rules and deadlines that were intended to help them vote by mail end up with their votes not getting counted due to circumstances that were unforeseen when the state's election law was enacted). Article I of the Constitution places the power for setting the "time, place, and manner" of elections in the hands of state legislatures, subject to laws made by the US Congress, which has enacted a law setting a uniform day for these elections, which we know as Election Day - whichever day between November 2 and November 8 is a Tuesday in a given year.

Pennsylvania republicans are challenging that 1) the state Supreme Court had the authority to do anything with respect to the "time, place, and manner" since they say that's a power of the legislature, and/or 2) whether what the result of what the court did (ie allowing the counting of mail in votes that arrive up to 3 days late) violated the federal statute that sets one election day nationwide.

Both arguments have serious issues with them.

The first argument more or less says "because the US constitution says it is the state legislatures responsibility that means it is 100% the state legislature's responsibility and there is no mechanism for a state court reviewing whatever the legislature says". Obviously that's not the case otherwise there wouldn't be lawsuits in state courts related to elections, which there have been long before 2020... The purpose of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision was to interpret the constitutionality of the voting system that was going to be used, per the Pennsylvania State Constitution. There is ample case law that says that state election law MUST comply with state constitutions, so there really should be no argument here that a state court could review. All state legislation is subject to state constitutional law. There's no special carveout for elections. Ultimately the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the unforeseen postal delays impacted the existing voting law so much that they became unconstitutional because of how it would disenfranchise voters whose ballots would fail to arrive on time, even though they would request a mail in ballot on time and maybe would even put them back in the mail on time, through no fault of their own. So in summary, the Article I provision that gives power to state legislatures very clearly does not give it solely to them - it is still subject to review for constitutionality under the state constitution. So it is pretty much guaranteed that SCOTUS would not agree with the main argument and say that the PA supreme court wasn't allowed to review. If we then assume that the PA supreme court was within their rights to review, what SCOTUS could instead say here to overturn on these grounds would be "yes you could review, but you reviewed incorrectly" ...but that is also not a plausible thing for SCOTUS to do here, since the PA Supreme Court said the election law was an as-applied violation of the Pennsylvania State Constitution, not the US constitution, and SCOTUS is highly unlikely to step in and say no actually we're the experts on your constitution and you interpreted it wrong. As a matter of law and policy, SCOTUS does not review state court judgments in cases that only have to do with state law. The only way SCOTUS could review therefore the PA court's decision as pertains to the state constitution is if the state court ruling violated the US constitution, but the plaintiffs haven't articulated clearly how that could be so. If the state court is authorized under the US constitution to review, then surely no decision they reach is inherently unconstitutional. It could be that this particular decision is unconstitutional if it created an unconstitutional system itself, i.e. the PA Supreme Court couldn't decide that everyone named Steve's votes would count double, since that violates one-person one-vote. But it's hard to say what the violation would be here in allowing mail in votes to arrive late, since it was applied equally to all voters statewide. All in all, this argument doesn't seem very likely to succeed to me.

The second argument that the federal statute designating one day as Election Day somehow forbids counting mail in ballots postmarked before but received after election day has its whole own other set of issues. The general interpretation (and there is no real division among courts on this...) is that votes must be cast on or before election day. This is why early voting is a thing, this is why mail in voting is a thing (no one can have a mail in vote that is both cast and received on election day... the mail doesn't work that fast!). No one has ever won a case to my knowledge that the federal law designating one single day as election day means that votes received by mail after, but postmarked before, Election Day cannot be counted when a state has decided that they would like to do so. Indeed, Pennsylvania is not the only state that accepts such ballots. A number of states have allowed this even before 2020, and some more began doing so for this cycle due to the increased amount of mail in votes and expected postal delays related to COVID. Nor is 3 days in any way unusual or "generous". Some states allow votes that arrive even 2 weeks after election day. If Pennsylvania isn't allowed to do this, then neither are like 20 other states. Even beyond the 20 or so states that accept ballots received by mail after election day, there's all kinds of other votes that are accepted after election day, such as cases where an absentee ballot received on or before election day and is "cured" after election day or cases where military/oversees voters might have deadlines that allow them to have their votes counted late, even if other absentee votes are not, etc. There's just no way that SCOTUS takes the bite here and throws general chaos into the world by requiring that ALL votes must be received by election day, when the current state election law patchwork has been working "fine".
Want to give a tl;dr?
 
Here’s a testimonial from a concentration camp survivor in China: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ng-re-education-camp-china-gulbahar-haitiwaji

I’d suggest anyone defending China to get a clue and read this.

On a different note, I read this 1941 essay yesterday by Dorothy Thompson, thought it was very interesting: https://harpers.org/archive/1941/08/who-goes-nazi/

good read for anyone like me who’s been blindsided by just how many people are full on nazis. Really I’m ashamed of my own ignorance that I ignored the people warning about this for years. The only way to defeat nazism is to aggressively fight against it, not tolerate it/just hope the ignorant shame themselves. Letting them “shame themselves” has just allowed them to recruit more members.
 
Here’s a testimonial from a concentration camp survivor in China: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ng-re-education-camp-china-gulbahar-haitiwaji

I’d suggest anyone defending China to get a clue and read this.

On a different note, I read this 1941 essay yesterday by Dorothy Thompson, thought it was very interesting: https://harpers.org/archive/1941/08/who-goes-nazi/

good read for anyone like me who’s been blindsided by just how many people are full on nazis. Really I’m ashamed of my own ignorance that I ignored the people warning about this for years. The only way to defeat nazism is to aggressively fight against it, not tolerate it/just hope the ignorant shame themselves. Letting them “shame themselves” has just allowed them to recruit more members.
damn you got me. i'm sure this month's WUC article will be completely different from the last one and not have any holes in it.
 
Last year Twitter and Facebook censored an article (from ny post) in which they exposed a corruption case involving Joe Biden, his son, Hunter Biden and a Ukrainian gas company, apparently because it was based on untrue facts, but on the other hand, they allow all lies on Russia's so called "influence" in US institutions. I even remember both democrats and republicans representatives saying how bad was (and still is, according to them) the Chinese censorship when they banned platforms such as Facebook and Twitter for not having collaborated with authorities after protests and attacks to its institutions, which were full of violence. So yes, as you just said, unfortunately most regulators lack any real understanding of the problems inherent to their naive and dangerous notion of 'free speech'.

Twitter has censored and suspended accounts from countries, organizations and individuals when the US government and its think tanks ask to, but it didn't suspend representatives for having instigated conflicts in other countries or Trump himself for having threatened nuclear war, they simply waited for his followers to consume a bunch of lies and desinformation to take the congress and consume an alleged coup. Anyway, I guess this is what they needed.

tl;dr: "Apparently Russian disinformation is not allowed, but articles exposing Russian disinformation campaigns are somehow allowed!"

Fun fact: Emma Jo Morris was the Hannity staffer who scheduled Shokin's planned interview with Hannity. So that means Rudy Giuliani couldn't find another hack to carry water for Russian foreign intelligence. Sad!


Not really bro... for anyone familiar w/ left-tube and who still watches left-tube, the show is basically the same kind of content and arguments that you’ll hear if you watch Secular Talk, Humanist Report, Rational National, TMBS, Jimmy Dore etc. I don’t get anything from rising that I don’t also consume from left tube (and so many episodes feature left-tubers or leftist SME’s like Brianna Joy Grey, Richard Wolff, etc. anyway)
If you are a Jacobin reader/watcher or the type of person who follows Glenn Greenwald, than watching Rising is just stroking your world view.

If you’re a leftist who watches left tube, Krystal Ball isn’t converting you to the GOP (lol wtf) or instilling a hate for Democrats that you didn’t already have. After Bernie left, of course Saagar’s politics took more center because Krystal had no real skin in the game (like most Berners), but the Bernie left was pretty much the anchor of the show until Bernie lost, and while the audience has DNC haters of all stripes, the audience is obviously biased left reading through the comments.
She’s just stoking the same existing hate for liberals you’d go to Jimmy Dore or Chapo Trap House to get stoked anyway— using the same facts, making the same arguments; just professionally polished and often making those same left-tube arguments to the face of shallow, obviously corrupt DNC operatives/experts stupid enough to keep going on the show for some reason. The only difference between Rising episodes and a given left tube segment is that one of these I’d send to my Mom.

Also if you’re a leftist who watches the show, you’re not going to be convinced to Saagar’s POV— but you will see where the right may be pursuadable to collaborate on populist goals given certain conditions and framing.

If you actually think this, it means you are just not aware of how much hate the left has for the Democrats and liberal mainstream at large.
Since comprehensive posts explaining why what you're reading is paid trash from the Republican Party is apparently a bannable offense, I'm just going to leave this here:

frost socialists should be republicans.png
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 1)

Top