Ministry of Truth?

[StrictlyBiz]

(05-13-2022, 06:55 PM)Dill Wrote: Part II: The Gore/Bush election, I've dealt with on earlier threads, to explain why it is not a good example of "both sides" doing it. The republic survived that, but not all citizens, really, as the wrong choice sent 4,500+ Americans to die in an unnecessary war and killed many more thousands of innocent Iraqis, and sowed global distrust of U.S. judgment and bullying. 

I wouldn't assume that those 4500 Americans wouldn't have died. There was large bipartisan support for invading Iraq. And yes, this was largely due to misinformation coming from the Government. Which reinforces my point...why does a government that has peddled misinformation get to decide what is and possibly censor disinformation? It shouldn't. 

Quote:There was no Dem equivalent to Fox and Limbaugh, still isn't, even though we have social media now. "Both sides" do not create symmetrical news environments.

Please tell me that you don't truly believe this? CNN, MSNBC, Rachel Maddow? You're not going to pretend that they aren't the equivalent of FOX on the left, are you? 

Personal story: In February 2016, well before Trump even had the GOP nomination, my wife and I were in DC for a conference that she needed to attend. One of the speakers on one of the days was Chuck Todd. Later over dinner, I asked her how the day went and about Todd. She said that he spent most of the time speaking about how bad Donald Trump was and how he absolutely couldn't become President. She found it strange that he should've been talking about medicine, but spent most of his time talking about Trump.

Quote:In 2000, a greater than 2/3rds majority on each side—71%+ --agreed that accepting the opponent’s president was preferable to leaving the legitimacy of the presidency in doubt.

he questioned the result based upon judicable evidence, and when the courts spoke, he conceded and went into private life without spinning his supporters into insurrection. They went home too, rather than spending the next year working up election “integrity” laws to secure superminority control in the next election, a continuing danger.

I agree. And I was glad that Gore did the right thing. It was disgusting to see Trump not do what was in the best interest of the country and concede. However, Im not sure what this has to do with disinformation. His refusal to do what he should've has more to do with him being an asshole ego maniac narcissist than disinformation.
Me bringing up the 2000 election was to show that a large percentage of the losing party questioning the legitimacy of an election isn't unique to 2020. Granted it was worse and mis/dis info fostered it, but questioning the results is not new unfortunately.

Quote:hollodero



Sure. I will say though that these were quite extraordinary circumstances, and quite different ones. The outcome was outright bizarre. And it was clear that whoever ends up losing (I seem to remember most people blamed the SC and not so much Bush, we in Europe blamed stupid voting machines) will have a hard time to accept that. I can't really blame Democrats for that too much, as a whole. I'm sure many overdid it though. The complaints of democrats were at least based on something real and observable that actually took place. Trump's complaints are solely based on lies.
Regarding that, I'd count among the most significant differences that Al Gore was not running around beforehand to declare he either wins or the election is rigged, or talked about millions of illegal votes, or called governors so they find him some votes, he conceded in time, and he also did not incite a Capitol storming; and that both candidates were not demagogues and authoritarians like Trump imho is.

We've kinda gone off track here a bit. There are definitely outright lies that were spread about the 2020 election, but there were also some legitimate concerns from the Republicans. For example, the completely relaxed rules regarding mail in voting among other things. It isn't fair to just lump these concerns in with the more outlandish lies.  But again, were getting off topic. 

Quote:Hollo’s points cannot be cancelled with a link to Hilary questioning the 2016 election in an interview, months after she conceded (or even a Fox blockbuster revelation that she groused about it the night she lost!).

Again, we're venturing off topic, but I cannot let this go unchallenged.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/09/30/hillary-clinton-calls-trump-illegitimate-president-sot-ip-vpx.cnn
https://abcnews.go.com/video/embed?id=66010832

Quote:1. The issue before us is not whether "crackpots and conspiracy theorists" have "always been there." It is whether they get control the machinery of government. Again.  With the likelihood it will be much worse the next time around. To repeat--no one is arguing they haven't always been there or won't always be; no one is arguing the left (or even "the left") never villifies right. 

Point taken. Majorie Taylor Greene is whack job. The right would probably point to the squad as a counter to her, but they're not off of their rockers. They're just politically extreme. And in the case of AOC, a mind numbing idiot. MTG is a loose cannon. 

Quote: A reminder of the points made in Part II: the issue is not whether one side "vilifies" the other. It is not about matching quotes. It about is what happens once the "crack-pots" control government. IT IS NOT ABOUT COMPARING VILLIFICATION--WHO DOES IT MORE? Yet your arguments seem directed only that way. Why? 

Please don't think that Im playing 'whataboutism' or that Im excusing one action by pointing to another. Im trying to illustrate that a lot of what you are concerned about has always been going on to some degree for decades (probably generations, but I can't go back that far).