2020 Election MEGAthread

[Cecily]

I really miss not giving a shit about these elections. I made it up till 2016, completely apolitical besides I was sorta ok with Trump winning because of all the chaos he'd bring. That got old. Now I do care and it sucks.

[magnetaress]

Originally Posted by Cecily [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I really miss not giving a shit about these elections. I made it up till 2016, completely apolitical besides I was sorta ok with Trump winning because of all the chaos he'd bring. That got old. Now I do care and it sucks.

It's OK to care bae, that's what drives us to strive. But you gotta care about more. Not just the tiny picture of who is the figurehead. Until then, no opinions, votes, or feelings will sway.

[Jibartik]

Originally Posted by Cecily [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I really miss not giving a shit about these elections. I made it up till 2016, completely apolitical besides I was sorta ok with Trump winning because of all the chaos he'd bring. That got old. Now I do care and it sucks.

I make a lot of jokes about worse case scenarios, but part of me is actually hopeful that over the next couple years there is a big sigh and things kinda tone down across the board.

Buuuut maybe well have to wait for the rapture lol idk we'll see [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[BlackBellamy]

Originally Posted by cd288 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Except it's being flagged because we're in a highly delicate state as a country where you can't have someone causing tensions to flare based on completely misleading comments that then go viral. I've always generally thought you were a pretty good guy, but gimme a break on this man.

Oh thanks! My concern is that "delicate" and "misleading" and all the reasons being articulated about whether someone's opinion should be allowed to circulate are specious.

Like I'm not seeing anything about Matt Walsh's post that's misleading. He's expressing his opinion about the statistical improbability mentioned below, which is documented. And if he's inflaming passions to an undue degree that he deserves to be censored, that's just a matter of opinion. For example I don't think he's doing that at all.

What I wouldn't mind is Twitter's counterpoint. Because it's THEIR opinion about whether something is inflaming or misleading. So if I can't see Matt's post without two extra clicks that's fine but part of that clicking should involve a reasoned explanation why he's misleading or what is factually incorrect. But I don't get that so it's just twitter telling me this guy is a liar but all they're doing is calling him a liar.

I also understand Twitter can do whatever it wants, so I'm not telling them they can't.

I just find it amusing how weak 'some of the content is disputed and might be misleading' is as an explanation. Who is disputing? Are they better or worse than Matt? I don't know. I don't know anything except when I want to read something sometimes the technocrats let me read it and sometimes they seed my mind that I'm about to be lied to by making me take positive physical action to affirm that I understand I am being subjected to operant conditioning.

[Morton Jr]

Anyone who voted for joe biden should be ashaimed of themselves and will regret it in the coming years.

Very sad guys

[magnetaress]

#you'renotwrong

thats 2020-21's hashtag, take it to fucki'n heart m8s

thats a lot for u blackblellamy

[Jibartik]

Originally Posted by BlackBellamy [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Oh thanks! My concern is that "delicate" and "misleading" and all the reasons being articulated about whether someone's opinion should be allowed to circulate are specious.

Like I'm not seeing anything about Matt Walsh's post that's misleading. He's expressing his opinion about the statistical improbability mentioned below, which is documented. And if he's inflaming passions to an undue degree that he deserves to be censored, that's just a matter of opinion. For example I don' think he's doing that at all.

What I wouldn't mind is Twitter's counterpoint. Because it's THEIR opinion about whether something is inflaming or misleading. So if I can't see Matt's post without two extra clicks that's fine but part of that clicking should involve a reasoned explanation why he's misleading or what is factually incorrect. But I don't get that so it's just twitter telling me this guy is a liar but all they're doing is calling him a liar.

I also understand Twitter can do whatever it wants, so I'm not telling them they can't.

I just find it amusing how weak 'some of the content is disputed and might be misleading' is as an explanation. Who is disputing? Are they better or worse than Matt? I don't know. I don't know anything except when I want to read something sometimes the technocrats let me read it and sometimes they seed my mind that I'm about to be lied to by making me take positive physical action to affirm that I understand I am being subjected to operant conditioning.

Tech companies are pretty transparent why they do things, they try to figure out the best way to do things and screw up sometimes.

Zuck went to congress and said that he shouldn't moderate because he'll screw up and also show bias, and now both sides say he's screwing up and showing bias.

So between the two platforms you had two drastic different idiologies, twitter embraced self moderation, zuck wanted facebook to just let the fake news flow.

Both were hammered by congress and both political parties.

Cant win dont try.

Just say crazy things and shake maracas.

[FatherSioux]

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It’s not fishy at all, Democrats are more likely to vote by mail and live in larger urban counties where votes take longer to tally. Wisconsin and Michigan hadn’t gone republican except that one time in 2016 in generations. This, like covid, is quite obvious to those of us who aren’t committed to a certain outcome before we had even seen results

So you don't think it's fishy that 138,000 votes for a single candidate just showed up with no changes in any other candidates overnight? hmm

[magnetaress]

Jibartik speaking the objective truth. That's pretty powerful for me. I really hated Zuckerberg but now I took a step back and sighed some relief.

Good stuff.

[magnetaress]

I got to go now frenz, can't say when I'll be back, but plz be kind to YOURSELVES and not hurt yourselfs needlessly. I know I've been down that road and because I believed in the truth I thought. And I'm not trying to tell you what to think or do. I'm just asking you to be gentle about this whole crapptastic situation of modly mothballs and rotten rubber.