the_drunkard

i'm curious if this phenomenon has existed during previous elections. for example, is this a normal event when compared to previous elections or is this type of activity indeed suspicious.

from the article you linked:

> The one thing the time-trend line should never do is drop, which would mean that votes are disappearing from Trump's tally.

> That's exactly what happened. In at least 15 counties, according to the Epoch Times story, Trump lost in-person votes, while he lost absentee votes in three other countries. The total result was staggering:

> At least 432,116 votes — 213,707 election day votes and 218,409 absentee votes — were removed in total.

please don't take my comment out of context. i was referring to the narratives spun by the media as largely being false and filled with fabricated stories, not the Mueller report (something you're clearly still clinging to).

as recent as June of 2020 the NYT ran a piece about "Russian bounties in Afghanistan" that was effectively walked back shortly thereafter after it was deemed "less than conclusive".

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/26/us/politics/russia-afghan...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/u-s-offic...

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1282646230779285504

i hope you find this more... becoming :)

>You present an opinion piece from Matt Taibbi on substack (where anyone can publish anything) as evidence of what mainstream news was writing?

> You might as well cite any fringe blogger. Your proof is like some idiot writing Trump is an Alien Unicorn on a personal wordpress site then claiming mainstream news was calling Trump an Alien Unicorn.

> No wonder you're convinced of wild things.

> I'm done with this level of dishonesty.

woah.

setting Taibbi aside, can you not see how news cycles were dominated by a "Russian collusion" narrative the first 3 years of Trump's presidency? a narrative that largely proved to be exaggerated, false, and self-serving (it was great for business).

as recent as July of this year, the NYT published a story filled with anonymous sources and accusations of Russian bounties on US soldiers in Afghanistan. within days, the media went into their typical "blitz" with this story and Joe Biden even had an ad ready to air in response to it. this story, like many others not only could not be corroborated by any mentioned parties, but proved to be "less than conclusive" and was later significantly walked back.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/26/us/politics/russia-afghan...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/u-s-offic...

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1282646230779285504

> But I also have many criticisms the US election system. When am I allowed to discuss them without "inciting violence"?

that's exactly my point. we should never allow a mob to influence our democracy; whether it is confirming a new president or a supreme court justice.

and objecting to the election procedures within a certain state is very much part of our democracy.

> Telling 150 million people to sit down and shut up because their party happened to lose an election is a really, really bad idea that has no possible good ending for those doing it.

i do think you mean 74M? anyways i agree with you, it's a recipe for disaster. (and i'm not sure why you're being down-voted here.)

it'd be much more healthy to actively engage this cohort of people; allow them to present "facts" as they see fit and offer evidence to either support or refute their views.

wrong thought will not be tolerated and is to be actively censored.

boy, we've taken quite a turn from where we were just a few years ago with conspiracy theories spreading like wild fire regarding Trump and Russia.

it would probably be better to actively engage believers of "Stop the Steal" with facts about the election vs. removing content that they are creating.

> It was never rigorously examined, because Republicans blocked it.

in my opinion, the objective person would likely agree that Trump and his campaign have been rigorously examined both formally (by Mueller and his team) and informally (by the media).

i don't intend to change topics here, but in context of your usage of "never rigorously examined" one could point to Hunter Biden's international dealings as lacking rigorous examination, as stories on this topic have even been actively suppressed.

> but they most certainly were not fabrications or lies.

i'd strongly beg to differ. fake news was at its peak during the first two years of "Russia-gate" with networks reporting on hearsay and drawing wild conclusions irrespective of hard evidence. journalistic integrity was thrown to the wind.

it seemed as if every week a "we got him" story broke only to fizzle as it turned out to be false.

the linked article below offers some examples of these fake news stories about Trump. and I do recognize that the second quote is written by Barr, not Mueller.

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-mill...

> during an active insurrection it is. or did you miss the planned attacks on the 17th

sorry, but participating in the democratic process is not sedition.

and i would hope we never allow mobs to dictate our participation in the democratic process. whether it involves tallying (or objecting to) electoral votes or confirming a supreme court justice.

> lies about our elections

for the past 4 years the media spun a narrative of Russian collusion, one that largely proved to be false and filled with fabricated stories.

Nanci Pelosi tweet May 2017: Our election was hijacked. There is no question. Congress has a duty to #ProtectOurDemocracy & #FollowTheFacts.

https://twitter.com/speakerpelosi/status/864522009048494080?...

> Sedition

objecting to a state's election process and /or electoral votes is not sedition. in fact, it's been done by Democratic senators after the 2000, 2004, and 2016 elections. this is part of the democratic process.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/opinion/democrat-republic...

>Who is praising the CCP's economic rise?

Did you miss the last 40 years in which US economic policy was underpinned by the thesis that shipping manufacturing jobs to China would give rise to a middle class that supports democracy?

Well, here's a reminder if you needed it.

it's clear that selective enforcement occurs, especially on Twitter. while i'm sure there are examples of violence being incited on Parler, I can find just as many examples (if not more) on Twitter.

> receives any power from a free online publishing tool

i respectfully disagree. imagine FDR without his radio fireside chats, JFK without his television appearances, or even Trump without Twitter.

the usage of media platforms and ability to communicate directly with constituents is a source of power.

>he broke it

how did he break the contract with Twitter? the tweets twitter references hardly seem to encourage mob violence.

twitter subjectively interprets their own set of rules and it's clear there's a double standard.

when politicians on the left encourage protests and riots that result in the destruction and burning of private property, there are no repercussions.

and i'm not attempting to say that two wrongs make a right; encouraging violence or mobs is wrong, but Twitter's enforcement of their own rules is clearly influenced by political ideology.

This action doesn't hold up to historical treatment of other apps /platforms.

Was Facebook banned from app stores when shooters live streamed on their platform?

Was Twitter banned from app stores when calls for violence against Nick Sandmann were spreading?

Was Youtube banned from app stores when it was discovered that child predators were lurking in the comments and exploiting underage children?

> If you run a social network and can’t keep up with moderation for calls for violence you shouldn’t be allowed to be in business. This goes for the big tech companies as well.

This is such a narrow minded view and doesn't hold up to historical precedent.

Was Facebook banned from app stores when shooters live streamed on their platform?

Was Twitter banned from app stores when calls for violence against Nick Sandmann were spreading?

Was Youtube banned from app stores when it was discovered that child predators were lurking in the comments and exploiting underage children?

Remind me if Google ever threatened to suspend Twitter over the fake stories, threats, and "mob" incited violence against a teenager named Nick Sandmann?