#US_Election | Logs for 2020-12-08
« return
[00:02:47] <FatPhil> heresy!
[00:02:58] <FatPhil> hearsay is proof! of fraud!
[00:04:11] <carny> it is when the hearsay is in a sworn affidavit and the testimony is 'this election official made me leave my station as a poll watcher despite my protest'
[00:04:31] <carny> this is a felony in most states btw
[00:05:31] <carny> i would not be surprised if the next election in georgia is attended by a large number of republican poll watchers carrying guns in a very visible way
[00:05:57] <carny> i can hardly imagine what antifa will make out of that mess
[00:06:21] <FatPhil> I'm sure after your trumpist coup, you won't need guns, once you've run all the wrongthinkers out of town, or shot them.
[00:08:36] <carny> i hope you realize that a civil war in the usa will spread to most of the globe within weeks if not days
[00:09:35] <carny> and even if by some miracle it is contained in north america there's no way the global economy will survive without incredible damage
[00:11:42] <carny> i'm sure there are people who expect to profit from and even want to see a civil war happen over here
[00:11:59] <c0lo> 'this election official made me leave my station' - you have to provide evidence that the fact happened, otherwise it's "he said/she said". Then you have to provide evidence that, in the meantime, something nefairious happened.
[00:12:09] <carny> but i can't think of a single person i've warned about the possibility ever responding with 'good'
[00:16:35] <c0lo> E.g. if the worker slides into a state making her unreliable for the job (exaustion or irrational), the supervisor can make here leave and either find a replacement or close the station, neither of which is an indication of wrongdoing.
[00:17:45] <c0lo> The person providing the affidavit may well be sincere in the recollection of the events, without making the affidavit reliable.
[00:25:23] -!- lld [lld!~lld@2001:f40:kjm::n:xuzk] has parted #US_Election
[00:28:19] <c0lo> As for the rules governing the use of a sworn affidavit in US jurisprudence, see https://en.wikipedia.org
[00:28:20] <systemd> ^ 03Affidavit - Wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org )
[00:29:34] <c0lo> "In American jurisprudence, under the rules for hearsay, admission of an unsupported affidavit as evidence is unusual" and...
[00:30:19] <c0lo> ... "When a person signs an affidavit, that person is eligible to take the stand at a trial or evidentiary hearing." Nothing more.
[00:42:09] -!- aristarchus_ [aristarchus_!~bca6be68@188.166.pxo.uyx] has joined #US_Election
[00:46:02] -!- carny [carny!~irc@107.189.ky.qsr] has parted #US_Election
[01:09:53] <c0lo> Obvious answer is obvious https://thehill.com
[01:09:54] <systemd> ^ 03Maryland's Larry Hogan releases video calling for change within GOP
[01:10:38] <c0lo> "Are we going to be a party that can’t win national elections..."
[01:21:07] <c0lo> This one is more likely to emerge in the next elections. Question is if he'll be enough for GOP https://thehill.com
[01:21:08] <systemd> ^ 03Trump critic: I am not afraid of Trump
[01:28:33] <chromas> Why would he be afraid?
[01:35:26] <c0lo> I wonder what alloys they're gonna stop next https://twitter.com
[01:35:28] <systemd> ^ 03Search Twitter - #StopTheSteel2020 ( https://mobile.twitter.com )
[01:36:51] * chromas checks c0lo for blue checkmark prints
[01:38:13] * c0lo c0lo is unfamiliar with what blue checkmark prints may mean
[03:31:17] <c0lo> Convinced them alright https://www.salon.com
[03:31:18] <systemd> ^ 03Arizona legislature closes after Giuliani possibly exposed lawmakers
[04:18:23] <c0lo> I'm tired of so much winning https://www.bbc.com
[04:18:24] <systemd> ^ 03Georgia declares Biden winner for a third time
[04:29:44] <Bytram> c0lo: s/win/whi/
[04:29:44] <SedBot> <Bytram> <c0lo> I'm tired of so much whining https://www.bbc.com
[04:30:21] <Bytram> j/k
[04:31:36] <c0lo> Bytram: s/j\/k/joy\/kill/
[04:31:37] <SedBot> <c0lo> <Bytram> joy/kill
[04:33:40] <Bytram> sry, first thing that came to mind when I saw that
[04:35:18] <c0lo> Jokingly, I was tempted too. But I decided to cite, rather than paraphrase (grin)
[04:35:29] <c0lo> https://www.theguardian.com
[04:35:30] <systemd> ^ 03Armed pro-Trump protesters gather outside Michigan elections chief's home
[04:36:11] <chromas> it's okay; it's totally public property
[04:37:07] <Bytram> the unarmed protesters already had a run-in with a monty python character?
[04:38:04] <chromas> 🐍
[07:20:27] <c0lo> 🦡🦡🦡🦡
[08:08:04] -!- halibut has quit [Quit: Looking for neaby cruise ships ...]
[08:24:39] -!- halibut [halibut!~halibut@qlfbzslzri.uoregon.edu] has joined #US_Election
[10:19:55] -!- aristarchus_ has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
[13:00:57] <c0lo> https://www.independent.co.uk
[13:00:59] <systemd> ^ 03Joe Biden is already more popular than Trump ever was, according to new poll
[13:16:35] <c0lo> The replies are brutal https://twitter.com
[13:16:36] <systemd> ^ 03Twitter ( https://mobile.twitter.com )
[13:33:36] <c0lo> https://www.forbes.com
[13:33:37] <systemd> ^ 03Russell Brand And Matthew McConaughey Called Out "Hollywood Hypocrites" Over Election Results
[16:19:11] <requerdanos> Happy Safe Harbor Day... https://www.news4jax.com
[16:19:11] <systemd> ^ 03Safe harbor law locks Congress into accepting Biden’s win
[16:38:44] <FatPhil> Yeah, but you forget that the US presidential election has 5 layers, and you only need to break one to hack the system. 2 down, 3 to go.
[16:40:49] <FatPhil> As I understand it, the safe harbor law locks congress into accepting each state's declared popular vote result as their popular vote result. And then gives them the right to completely ignore it in any other context, as it's nothing to do with the electoral college vote.
[16:41:34] <requerdanos> I agree that the headline quite oversimplifies things.
[16:41:51] <requerdanos> Nonetheless, at this point, I am calling the election for Biden.
[16:41:51] <FatPhil> If there were to be hacks in the remaining 3 layers, the popular vote might become relevant again, but not in a typical smooth running of the system.
[16:42:12] <FatPhil> I like popcorn, so I want the attempted hacks to continue!
[16:43:09] <FatPhil> I morally owe my sister-in-law-ish 100 bucks if Biden gets in, so I'm still cheering for Trump purely for selfish reasons!
[16:45:02] <FatPhil> But if I look at all the possible selfish reasons I could have, in reality I'll cheer for anyone who hyperinflates the dollar.
[16:45:13] <requerdanos> What was your predicted path for trump to win it? curious
[16:45:20] <FatPhil> Have I got shares in wheelbarrow manufacturing companies? Who knows ;-)
[16:46:35] <requerdanos> so the step you are counting on is "and then, a dark miracle occurs..."
[16:46:54] <FatPhil> My predicted path was ~48% popular vote to Biden's 51%, which through gerrymandering and focus on the right states (as per Bannon's 2016 strategy) is enough for >270 nominal EC votes. Same route as 2016, basically.
[16:47:24] <FatPhil> To not pay out $100 now - yup!
[16:47:35] <requerdanos> oh. well, yes, that makes sense, but divisiveness led to higher turnout on both sides, and ultimately to a biden win
[16:48:53] <FatPhil> Yeah, I was just following the polls, and adding the "no answer" component to the Trump side, and coming to 48%, which should have been enough.
[16:50:06] <FatPhil> But it was always going to be very close, I was happy with evens odds on my bet.
[16:51:43] <FatPhil> I don't feel embarassed by the approach I used, or the conclusion I reach using my approach. I'm disinterested in the politics, only the numerics.
[16:52:42] <requerdanos> numeropolitiphile is not likely to be the name of a popular video channel, however
[16:52:53] <FatPhil> It would be interesting to know how many people voted (or at least own up to voting) anti-Other, rather than pro-Ours.
[16:53:15] <requerdanos> I voted for Jorgensen. It wasn't an either-or.
[16:54:50] <requerdanos> But Biden seems to have little appeal, so I bet the anti-other vote was darned high.
[16:55:38] <FatPhil> You're fighting Duverger's Law, alas.
[16:56:19] <FatPhil> I am genuinely surprised how popular Biden is. He's - on paper - an utterly terrible candidate in almost every possible way.
[16:57:34] <requerdanos> Not really; my hoped-for outcome was >=5% libertarian votes, opening up federal election funds to the libertarians the next go round.
[16:57:36] <FatPhil> The big badge he wears in Parkinsons-afflicted handwriting that says "I am not George, erm, Trump" is about the most appealing thing.
[16:57:54] <requerdanos> At which point "which two parties" become favored might be in question
[16:58:54] <requerdanos> we fell pathetically short as usual. no matter how bad the major two candidates are, people love to pretend it's an either-or
[16:59:11] <FatPhil> There definitely seems to be an easy exit path from the old-school republican to Libertarian.
[17:00:42] <FatPhil> Duvergers law is like all-you-can-eat buffet in a ribs and pizza restaurant. You ain't gonna leave it for something healthy.
[17:01:56] <FatPhil> It is by design (preserved as) an either-or system, alas.
[17:02:45] <requerdanos> Of course, throughout US history, "which two parties" has not remained constant.
[17:03:10] <FatPhil> I think Duvergers kicked in irreversibly in ~1880-ish, IIRC
[17:04:30] <requerdanos> I certainly hope that at some point of decay, one of those two favored parties falls out of favor.
[17:04:41] <FatPhil> You can see in the space of a few elections a mass exodus from third party voting.
[17:06:07] <FatPhil> Occasionally a major party can fuck itself good and proper. UKIP was a break-away from the Conservatives, for example, and even if they never became influencial in parliament themselves, their split of that vote was enough to flip the face of british politics.
[17:06:15] <requerdanos> I thought when it was between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, surely out of any point in history, people would choose "none of the above"
[17:06:17] <requerdanos> but alas
[17:09:49] <FatPhil> One reason I like living in a small country is that no politician is that far from the people who vote for them. Last week, the minister for the environment was in the same lunch restaurant as me, but he knows noone wants to run up to him and call him a twat, as he's not an obviously corrupt plant. Unlike almost everyone in power in the US (e.g. the post office dude). Even the ones you don't like the
[17:09:55] <FatPhil> policies of are not *that* bad.
[17:10:23] <FatPhil> But "none of the above" looks like such an obvious sensible view in the US and England, say.
[17:10:52] <FatPhil> (I'll let the Scots keep their SNP, and yes, a route to independence, I don't begrudge them that if they want it)
[17:11:13] <requerdanos> I thought so. I understand people wanting to be independent, pull for the underdog, etc. Blindly supporting whoever's at the top, I don't so much understand
[17:12:29] <FatPhil> The problem is that when people started saying "Stop using 1984 as a blueprint!!!" the response was to use Idiocracy as a blueprint instead!
[17:14:42] <requerdanos> as stupid as that statement is, it's true
[17:16:44] <FatPhil> The dovetailing with professional wrestling was a particularly sweet move.
[17:18:23] <requerdanos> that single aspect was probably responsible for a million biden votes.
[20:23:51] <requerdanos> Maybe there will be evidence presented with this one: https://www.srnnews.com
[20:23:52] <systemd> ^ 03Texas asks U.S. Supreme Court to help Trump upend election (AUDIO) - SRN News
[22:12:28] <FatPhil> I'm sure there will be evidence of incompetence uncovered.
[23:39:39] <c0lo> That elite strike force of Trump? Slackers taking sickies. Now Jenna Ellis too.
[23:41:46] <c0lo> https://thehill.com
[23:41:47] <systemd> ^ 03Black Michigan lawmaker who criticized Giuliani receives lynching threats
[23:47:15] <c0lo> https://wamu.org
[23:47:17] <systemd> ^ 03Nearly A Week After Giuliani Hearing, Michigan House Is Accused Of COVID-19 Violations