Author Topic: Trump outrage of the day  (Read 590647 times)

Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2673
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7900 on: May 10, 2021, 02:55:49 PM »
Here's a more direct comparison of how Democrats felt after the 2016 election to Republicans after 2020.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/more-republicans-distrust-this-years-election-results-than-democrats-after-2016/

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 18130
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7901 on: May 10, 2021, 03:00:47 PM »
Quote
...snip
Yes that is exactly what im implying. if 66% of a party believes in something, they are likely getting that (miss) information from a major news network.

Here is an article quoting a retired Senate Majority leader in the washington post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/25/harry-reids-latest-dubious-claim-about-elections/

“I think one reason the elections weren’t what they should have been was because the Russians manipulated the votes,” Reid said. “It’s that simple.”

Here is another from CBS

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/harry-reid-asks-fbi-do-more-prevent-russian-hack-election-day/

I would say CBS and Washington post are fairly mainstream. Others may disagree.

Easy enough if you want to look. The seed was planted.

Your argument is that the misinformation media machine posted an article trying to misguide their readers into thinking that Russia manipulated votes by using the headline Harry Reid’s latest dubious claim about elections?

Your second link is dated before the election, so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove there.

Tyler, do you still believe the WaPo and CBS articles you cited are good examples of misinformation?

The WaPo probably not. But it is showing that a prominent demorcrat is out their pushing insane conspiracy theories. As stated it is hard for me to find articles from 5 years ago not behind paywalls. Do you think any other papers / TV covered Harry Reid at the time saying that ? I am sure they did.

for the CBS one sure... the first 2 paragraph say enough.

"With fewer than 70 days to go until Election Day, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid is asking the FBI to look more closely into the possibility that Russia may try to manipulate the presidential election.


In a letter to FBI Director James Comey, Sen. Reid (D-Nev.) wrote that the threat “is more extensive than is widely known and may include the intent to falsify official election results."

Hold up.

Reread what you just posted, and pay attention to all of the words.

Yes. I think articles like these are perhaps the reason the average democrat voter believes in a fantasy. I don't yet and have not yet been offered a better rationale.

Don't misinterpret data to draw erroneous conclusions.  I just posted the data you're using for your claims.

The average democratic party voter doesn't believe in a fantasy.  According to the poll you were using, 30% do.  An additional 36% thought that it was likely, but weren't sure.

This also assumes that the poll questions were worded in a neutral manner - given the stark difference between poll results and my own life experience, I am skeptical.

Polls are also a snapshot of data, so the other thing that would be interesting would be to get a second poll that shows if things changed over time or if it was a weird blip.

If this poll happened right after all the Russia related indictments, many people probably hadn't had the time to learn about everything that had gone on and had only heard some headlines.  The same poll given a year later would likely have different results as people educate themselves better.

Tyler durden

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 252
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7902 on: May 10, 2021, 03:39:04 PM »
Via NPR

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/17/647420970/npr-marist-poll-1-in-3-americans-think-foreign-country-will-change-midterm-votes

dig into the poll date on page 27 - The question "Do you think it is very likely, likely, not very likely, or not likely at all a foreign country will tamper with the votes cast to change the results during this year´s midterm elections?

43% of democrats are likely or very likely to believe that. Compared to 13% of republicans.

You all are some bright left leaning folks on this board. That doesn't make it so for the rest of the country who share your same pollical beliefs. Same can be said for the other side.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6602
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7903 on: May 10, 2021, 03:53:12 PM »
Via NPR

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/17/647420970/npr-marist-poll-1-in-3-americans-think-foreign-country-will-change-midterm-votes

dig into the poll date on page 27 - The question "Do you think it is very likely, likely, not very likely, or not likely at all a foreign country will tamper with the votes cast to change the results during this year´s midterm elections?

43% of democrats are likely or very likely to believe that. Compared to 13% of republicans.

You all are some bright left leaning folks on this board. That doesn't make it so for the rest of the country who share your same pollical beliefs. Same can be said for the other side.

It's very different to anticipate something happening in the future than it is to believe something has happened after the fact when information is available.

Regardless, I am still not seeing evidence of misinformation in media.

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2439
  • Location: Germany
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7904 on: May 11, 2021, 03:42:04 AM »
for the CBS one sure... the first 2 paragraph say enough.

"With fewer than 70 days to go until Election Day, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid is asking the FBI to look more closely into the possibility that Russia may try to manipulate the presidential election.


In a letter to FBI Director James Comey, Sen. Reid (D-Nev.) wrote that the threat “is more extensive than is widely known and may include the intent to falsify official election results.”
Let me put it like this: If you don't think that Putin tries to change election results, you are stupid. The question is only how much effort he puts in and how big the result.
So looking into possible tries from Russia is just prudent behavior, and definitely does not contain propaganda telling Dems that there is manipulation.


Other example: The US also tried to influence elections in Germany even in the last years, not only during cold war. Afaik only with a few ads, but looking on the history of toppling democratically elected governments just because they were left, I wouldn't be surprised by anything. Does that make me a "conpiracy theory believer"?

--------

The most important point is still that without knowing the question (and preferably other things like was it done with phone or another method, where was it done etc.) the result is basically useless.

My favorite example is from the 2009 German elections were you got 91% for and 92% against exactly the same thing just by formulating the question in a slightly different way (changing the emphasis from A to B, while still including A).

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15526
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7905 on: May 11, 2021, 06:03:04 AM »

My favorite example is from the 2009 German elections were you got 91% for and 92% against exactly the same thing just by formulating the question in a slightly different way (changing the emphasis from A to B, while still including A).

Wording of the question always matters.  It mattered in the Quebec separation referendum.  It mattered about gay marriage legislation in Canada - Canadians make a lot of decisions based on "fairness" so people who didn't like gay marriage as gay marriage were totally for legislation allowing gay couples to be treated legally the same as heterosexual couples because of fairness things like pensions, able to speak for spouse re health matters in hospital, etc.

Tyler durden

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 252
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7906 on: May 11, 2021, 06:39:38 AM »

My favorite example is from the 2009 German elections were you got 91% for and 92% against exactly the same thing just by formulating the question in a slightly different way (changing the emphasis from A to B, while still including A).

Wording of the question always matters.  It mattered in the Quebec separation referendum.  It mattered about gay marriage legislation in Canada - Canadians make a lot of decisions based on "fairness" so people who didn't like gay marriage as gay marriage were totally for legislation allowing gay couples to be treated legally the same as heterosexual couples because of fairness things like pensions, able to speak for spouse re health matters in hospital, etc.

The question doesn't seem misleading in anyway, but obviously open for interpretation. What do you think?

Do you think the following statements are true or not true?
"Russia tampered with vote tallies in order to get Donald Trump elected President"

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 18130
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7907 on: May 11, 2021, 07:43:41 AM »

My favorite example is from the 2009 German elections were you got 91% for and 92% against exactly the same thing just by formulating the question in a slightly different way (changing the emphasis from A to B, while still including A).

Wording of the question always matters.  It mattered in the Quebec separation referendum.  It mattered about gay marriage legislation in Canada - Canadians make a lot of decisions based on "fairness" so people who didn't like gay marriage as gay marriage were totally for legislation allowing gay couples to be treated legally the same as heterosexual couples because of fairness things like pensions, able to speak for spouse re health matters in hospital, etc.

The question doesn't seem misleading in anyway, but obviously open for interpretation. What do you think?

Do you think the following statements are true or not true?
"Russia tampered with vote tallies in order to get Donald Trump elected President"

Well . . . if we look at the definition of the words used in the question, a quick Google search shows:

tamper
 - interfere with (something) in order to cause damage or make unauthorized alterations
 - exert a secret or corrupt influence upon

tally
 - a current score or amount
 - calculate the total number of

Depending on how you read the question:
1. Russia was proven to have exerted a secret and corrupting influence upon the total number of votes cast in the 2016 election.
2. Russia was not proven to interfere with the ballots or ballot count directly. 

Both are true - even though they lead to different answers to the same question.

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1743
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Ohio
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7908 on: May 11, 2021, 08:18:39 AM »
for the CBS one sure... the first 2 paragraph say enough.

"With fewer than 70 days to go until Election Day, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid is asking the FBI to look more closely into the possibility that Russia may try to manipulate the presidential election.


In a letter to FBI Director James Comey, Sen. Reid (D-Nev.) wrote that the threat “is more extensive than is widely known and may include the intent to falsify official election results.”
Let me put it like this: If you don't think that Putin tries to change election results, you are stupid. The question is only how much effort he puts in and how big the result.
So looking into possible tries from Russia is just prudent behavior, and definitely does not contain propaganda telling Dems that there is manipulation.


Other example: The US also tried to influence elections in Germany even in the last years, not only during cold war. Afaik only with a few ads, but looking on the history of toppling democratically elected governments just because they were left, I wouldn't be surprised by anything. Does that make me a "conpiracy theory believer"?

--------

The most important point is still that without knowing the question (and preferably other things like was it done with phone or another method, where was it done etc.) the result is basically useless.

My favorite example is from the 2009 German elections were you got 91% for and 92% against exactly the same thing just by formulating the question in a slightly different way (changing the emphasis from A to B, while still including A).

Best book ever to explain this.  https://smile.amazon.com/Rigged-America-Hundred-Electoral-Interference-ebook/dp/B084FKXXSN/ref=sr_1_5?dchild=1&keywords=rigged&qid=1620742700&sr=8-5

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4400
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7909 on: May 11, 2021, 08:28:39 AM »
for the CBS one sure... the first 2 paragraph say enough.

"With fewer than 70 days to go until Election Day, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid is asking the FBI to look more closely into the possibility that Russia may try to manipulate the presidential election.


In a letter to FBI Director James Comey, Sen. Reid (D-Nev.) wrote that the threat “is more extensive than is widely known and may include the intent to falsify official election results.”
Let me put it like this: If you don't think that Putin tries to change election results, you are stupid. The question is only how much effort he puts in and how big the result.
So looking into possible tries from Russia is just prudent behavior, and definitely does not contain propaganda telling Dems that there is manipulation.


Other example: The US also tried to influence elections in Germany even in the last years, not only during cold war. Afaik only with a few ads, but looking on the history of toppling democratically elected governments just because they were left, I wouldn't be surprised by anything. Does that make me a "conpiracy theory believer"?

--------

The most important point is still that without knowing the question (and preferably other things like was it done with phone or another method, where was it done etc.) the result is basically useless.

My favorite example is from the 2009 German elections were you got 91% for and 92% against exactly the same thing just by formulating the question in a slightly different way (changing the emphasis from A to B, while still including A).

Best book ever to explain this.  https://smile.amazon.com/Rigged-America-Hundred-Electoral-Interference-ebook/dp/B084FKXXSN/ref=sr_1_5?dchild=1&keywords=rigged&qid=1620742700&sr=8-5

I was a registered republican who voted for John Kasich in the 2016 primary. What baffles me is why so many people have focused on the Russian disinformation during the general election in 2016, but there hasn't been much attention paid to active Russian measures during the primary, particularly targeting the campaign of Marco Rubio. Senator Rubio himself was on the Senate Intelligence committee in 2020 who released a very troubling report about Russian measures during the campaign--including coordination with the Trump campaign--but perhaps he thought it would make him look petty if he included this material.

Of course, certain other politicians are clearly not worried about appearing petty.

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2439
  • Location: Germany
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7910 on: May 12, 2021, 04:13:03 AM »

My favorite example is from the 2009 German elections were you got 91% for and 92% against exactly the same thing just by formulating the question in a slightly different way (changing the emphasis from A to B, while still including A).

Wording of the question always matters.  It mattered in the Quebec separation referendum.  It mattered about gay marriage legislation in Canada - Canadians make a lot of decisions based on "fairness" so people who didn't like gay marriage as gay marriage were totally for legislation allowing gay couples to be treated legally the same as heterosexual couples because of fairness things like pensions, able to speak for spouse re health matters in hospital, etc.
Excuse me, but marriage is not the same as legal treatment in this context. Marriage is the religious service. Tax etc. is a state recognition of that, but you can have the same treatment without doing the religious marriage.

"Registered partnership" was the wording in Germany for the state treatment of homosexual partners. (before - only hetero -  people simply said church/state marriage, which is where the confusion stems from imho and of course from history where it was basically the same) You had a registered partnership, but you were not married (because that is church business).
Gay Marriage refers to the church service including gays. You can have a gay marriage without the state stuff about taxes.

And if the Australiens are so hard on fairness, why isn't there a 3/4/5 partner "marriage"? ;)


nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14751
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7911 on: May 12, 2021, 04:49:56 AM »

My favorite example is from the 2009 German elections were you got 91% for and 92% against exactly the same thing just by formulating the question in a slightly different way (changing the emphasis from A to B, while still including A).

Wording of the question always matters.  It mattered in the Quebec separation referendum.  It mattered about gay marriage legislation in Canada - Canadians make a lot of decisions based on "fairness" so people who didn't like gay marriage as gay marriage were totally for legislation allowing gay couples to be treated legally the same as heterosexual couples because of fairness things like pensions, able to speak for spouse re health matters in hospital, etc.
Excuse me, but marriage is not the same as legal treatment in this context. Marriage is the religious service. Tax etc. is a state recognition of that, but you can have the same treatment without doing the religious marriage.

"Registered partnership" was the wording in Germany for the state treatment of homosexual partners. (before - only hetero -  people simply said church/state marriage, which is where the confusion stems from imho and of course from history where it was basically the same) You had a registered partnership, but you were not married (because that is church business).
Gay Marriage refers to the church service including gays. You can have a gay marriage without the state stuff about taxes.

And if the Australiens are so hard on fairness, why isn't there a 3/4/5 partner "marriage"? ;)

Marriage only has the context of a religious sacrament to those who are religious. To everyone else marriage is the legal or public union of two people. For centuries agnostics and atheists have gotten married, either to other agnostics/atheists or to other religious people. People got married for all sorts of reason, ‘love’ often not being one of them.


former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6512
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7912 on: May 12, 2021, 05:02:29 AM »

My favorite example is from the 2009 German elections were you got 91% for and 92% against exactly the same thing just by formulating the question in a slightly different way (changing the emphasis from A to B, while still including A).

Wording of the question always matters.  It mattered in the Quebec separation referendum.  It mattered about gay marriage legislation in Canada - Canadians make a lot of decisions based on "fairness" so people who didn't like gay marriage as gay marriage were totally for legislation allowing gay couples to be treated legally the same as heterosexual couples because of fairness things like pensions, able to speak for spouse re health matters in hospital, etc.
Excuse me, but marriage is not the same as legal treatment in this context. Marriage is the religious service. Tax etc. is a state recognition of that, but you can have the same treatment without doing the religious marriage.

"Registered partnership" was the wording in Germany for the state treatment of homosexual partners. (before - only hetero -  people simply said church/state marriage, which is where the confusion stems from imho and of course from history where it was basically the same) You had a registered partnership, but you were not married (because that is church business).
Gay Marriage refers to the church service including gays. You can have a gay marriage without the state stuff about taxes.

And if the Australiens are so hard on fairness, why isn't there a 3/4/5 partner "marriage"? ;)

Marriage only has the context of a religious sacrament to those who are religious. To everyone else marriage is the legal or public union of two people. For centuries agnostics and atheists have gotten married, either to other agnostics/atheists or to other religious people. People got married for all sorts of reason, ‘love’ often not being one of them.
Yes, marriage started in a religious context but in many (most?) parts of the world it also became a secular legal matter.  The two are imperfectly separated in many respects - either civil or religious officers can perform the marriage ceremony, for instance.

Enabling same-sex civil partnerships as a legal matter rather than enabling same-sex marriage is seen as a remaining level of discrimination which is why the fight for same-sex marriage has been won even after the creation of civil partnerships - and in the UK the fight for civil partnerships between opposite sexes has since also been won, as a matter of complete equality.

OtherJen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4498
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7913 on: May 12, 2021, 05:12:23 AM »

My favorite example is from the 2009 German elections were you got 91% for and 92% against exactly the same thing just by formulating the question in a slightly different way (changing the emphasis from A to B, while still including A).

Wording of the question always matters.  It mattered in the Quebec separation referendum.  It mattered about gay marriage legislation in Canada - Canadians make a lot of decisions based on "fairness" so people who didn't like gay marriage as gay marriage were totally for legislation allowing gay couples to be treated legally the same as heterosexual couples because of fairness things like pensions, able to speak for spouse re health matters in hospital, etc.
Excuse me, but marriage is not the same as legal treatment in this context. Marriage is the religious service. Tax etc. is a state recognition of that, but you can have the same treatment without doing the religious marriage.

"Registered partnership" was the wording in Germany for the state treatment of homosexual partners. (before - only hetero -  people simply said church/state marriage, which is where the confusion stems from imho and of course from history where it was basically the same) You had a registered partnership, but you were not married (because that is church business).
Gay Marriage refers to the church service including gays. You can have a gay marriage without the state stuff about taxes.

And if the Australiens are so hard on fairness, why isn't there a 3/4/5 partner "marriage"? ;)

Here in the US, it's perfectly common to have a nonreligious wedding ceremony. The church/synagogue/mosque/temple isn't required for legal marriage.

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15526
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7914 on: May 12, 2021, 06:07:17 AM »

My favorite example is from the 2009 German elections were you got 91% for and 92% against exactly the same thing just by formulating the question in a slightly different way (changing the emphasis from A to B, while still including A).

Wording of the question always matters.  It mattered in the Quebec separation referendum.  It mattered about gay marriage legislation in Canada - Canadians make a lot of decisions based on "fairness" so people who didn't like gay marriage as gay marriage were totally for legislation allowing gay couples to be treated legally the same as heterosexual couples because of fairness things like pensions, able to speak for spouse re health matters in hospital, etc.
Excuse me, but marriage is not the same as legal treatment in this context. Marriage is the religious service. Tax etc. is a state recognition of that, but you can have the same treatment without doing the religious marriage.

"Registered partnership" was the wording in Germany for the state treatment of homosexual partners. (before - only hetero -  people simply said church/state marriage, which is where the confusion stems from imho and of course from history where it was basically the same) You had a registered partnership, but you were not married (because that is church business).
Gay Marriage refers to the church service including gays. You can have a gay marriage without the state stuff about taxes.

And if the Australiens are so hard on fairness, why isn't there a 3/4/5 partner "marriage"? ;)

Others answered the marriage part.  I have no idea what Australians think about multiple partners.  I did say above "in Canada".  Socially conservative Canadians are not thrilled about gay marriage, and poly relationships are even worse.  But the legal benefits of marriage are based on one partner - pensions, etc.  There are religious groups here that are polygamous (branches of American polygamous religions that thought it would be easier here) and the 2 things about them that get people really upset (not just social conservatives, social liberals as much or more) are 1. most of the wives are married off very young, and 2. they game the welfare system.  Socially liberal Canadians are pretty variable, but a 3/4/5 grouping would be polyamory, about which I know almost nothing, but I gather that mutual consent is very important.  So that means every one is an adult and knows what is going on (i.e. affairs don't count, because one partner is lying to the other partner about the 3rd person). 

jrhampt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1409
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7915 on: May 12, 2021, 07:36:57 AM »
Back on trump-related outrage of the day, looks like they're tossing out Liz Cheney because she objects to the lie that the election was stolen.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14751
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7916 on: May 12, 2021, 07:41:36 AM »
Back on trump-related outrage of the day, looks like they're tossing out Liz Cheney because she objects to the lie that the election was stolen.

I've listened to several interviews among GOP governors, and it's painful to hear how tangled up in knots they get over trying to explain why Cheney has to go.  Their fallbacks are generally 1) she no longer represents the party and 2) "I'm focused on my state and can't really comment/notice what's happening at the federal level".  The former is a tacit admission that the GOP remains at war with truth and the second is just and absurd duck-and-cover.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6602
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7917 on: May 12, 2021, 07:42:03 AM »
Back on trump-related outrage of the day, looks like they're tossing out Liz Cheney because she objects to the lie that the election was stolen.

More than 100 Republican former officials to seek reforms, threaten new party

Interesting times ahead...

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 18130
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7918 on: May 12, 2021, 07:50:47 AM »
Back on trump-related outrage of the day, looks like they're tossing out Liz Cheney because she objects to the lie that the election was stolen.

The Republican party is a political organization built upon lies, racism, and anti-democratic policy.  I find their openness about this in the past few years rather refreshing - for a long time they were pretending otherwise.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14751
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7919 on: May 12, 2021, 08:01:34 AM »
I'm left wondering where the GOP will be when Trump inevitably dies.  He'll be 75 next month, and is far from a paradigm of health.  For those currently in the upper-echelon of the GOP (i.e. those pushing Cheney out, and stomping around saying this is "The Party of Trump!") the best-case scenario seems to be that Trump will be re-elected in 3.5 years (when he's 77) **and** that he'll live another decade+. 

If Trump isn't re-elected, and/or if he dies before he's 80 I'm not sure where the GOP goes from here. They've crafted a party that's based on an individual, rather than on a set of ideas (i.e. a 'platform').

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 18130
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7920 on: May 12, 2021, 08:03:12 AM »
I'm left wondering where the GOP will be when Trump inevitably dies.  He'll be 75 next month, and is far from a paradigm of health.  For those currently in the upper-echelon of the GOP (i.e. those pushing Cheney out, and stomping around saying this is "The Party of Trump!") the best-case scenario seems to be that Trump will be re-elected in 3.5 years (when he's 77) **and** that he'll live another decade+. 

If Trump isn't re-elected, and/or if he dies before he's 80 I'm not sure where the GOP goes from here. They've crafted a party that's based on an individual, rather than on a set of ideas (i.e. a 'platform').

They follow a set of ideas.  They just refuse to write them down because most people find them reprehensible.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6602
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7921 on: May 12, 2021, 08:07:09 AM »
I'm left wondering where the GOP will be when Trump inevitably dies.  He'll be 75 next month, and is far from a paradigm of health.  For those currently in the upper-echelon of the GOP (i.e. those pushing Cheney out, and stomping around saying this is "The Party of Trump!") the best-case scenario seems to be that Trump will be re-elected in 3.5 years (when he's 77) **and** that he'll live another decade+. 

If Trump isn't re-elected, and/or if he dies before he's 80 I'm not sure where the GOP goes from here. They've crafted a party that's based on an individual, rather than on a set of ideas (i.e. a 'platform').

They follow a set of ideas.  They just refuse to write them down because most people find them reprehensible.

And they'll just pass the Trump role onto someone else - maybe a Trump kid, maybe Tucker Carlson..who knows.

OtherJen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4498
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7922 on: May 12, 2021, 08:14:31 AM »
Here's the next wave of GQP cancel culture and thinkpol legislation to undermine the First Amendment: Michigan GOP lawmaker floats bill to register, fine 'fact checkers' (Detroit News)

Quote
A Michigan lawmaker who's been at the center of efforts to question the 2020 election introduced a bill Tuesday that would require "fact checkers" to register with the state.

Rep. Matt Maddock, R-Milford, wrote the legislation, which was co-sponsored by eight other Republican House members, about five months after Maddock floated the idea of licensing fact checkers on Twitter.

---

"Many believe this enormous economic and social power is being abused," Maddock wrote. "...My legislation will put fact checkers on notice: Don't be wrong, don't be sloppy, and you better be right."

The nation’s founders established protections for the press so it can operate without government intrusion, said Sen. Jeremy Moss, D-Southfield, who studied journalism at Michigan State University.

“This is an affront to the First Amendment,” Moss said of the proposal.

---

Rep. Maddock is married to Meshawn Maddock, co-chairwoman of the Michigan Republican Party.

On Dec. 14, Matt and Meshawn were among a group of Republicans who tried to enter the Michigan Capitol to cast their own electoral votes for Donald Trump. They were turned away by security.

However, according to a document filed in a court case, Meshawn was one of 16 Michigan Trump "electors" who signed a certificate of votes for the president, who lost the state's election. The document said the GOP electors had "convened" in the Capitol, but they weren't actually allowed inside the building.

Clearly the Maddocks are acting in good faith. They also sent dozens of people to the Capitol insurrection on Jan. 6. https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2021/01/07/capitol-riot-meshawn-maddock-michigan-republican-cochair/6577739002/

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14751
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7923 on: May 12, 2021, 08:24:45 AM »
I'm left wondering where the GOP will be when Trump inevitably dies.  He'll be 75 next month, and is far from a paradigm of health.  For those currently in the upper-echelon of the GOP (i.e. those pushing Cheney out, and stomping around saying this is "The Party of Trump!") the best-case scenario seems to be that Trump will be re-elected in 3.5 years (when he's 77) **and** that he'll live another decade+. 

If Trump isn't re-elected, and/or if he dies before he's 80 I'm not sure where the GOP goes from here. They've crafted a party that's based on an individual, rather than on a set of ideas (i.e. a 'platform').

They follow a set of ideas.  They just refuse to write them down because most people find them reprehensible.

And they'll just pass the Trump role onto someone else - maybe a Trump kid, maybe Tucker Carlson..who knows.

This get's at my question though.  When you base your party on a specific platform (as the Dems do, and as the GOP did prior to 2016) you can easily shift from one standard-bearer to another.  In a way that's by design. Your candidate can get wiped out and by the next election cycle you have someone else to champion the party's ideals.

But as today's GOP keeps reminding us, this is the "Party of Donald Trump!!". He's been remarkable in changing whatever long-held policy the GOP has whenever it doesn't suit him specifically.  And perhaps most notably, he's got throngs of voters who are loyal to him but don't care much for the party in general.   Remove those voters (and by most indications they are fair-weather voters when DJT is not on the ballot) and they have a drastically smaller party than they had just a few election cycles ago.

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4400
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7924 on: May 12, 2021, 12:29:46 PM »
Here's David Frum's attempt at summarizing the Republican Party Platform as of the Fall of 2020:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/08/new-gop-platform-authoritarianism/615640/

I would update it by adding something about ending the excessive unemployment benefits that the federal disaster relief bills have tried to impose on freedom-loving residents of states that elected Republican governors, as well as trying to give the forty-fifth President credit for Operation Warp Speed in a way that makes COVID sound like it was never going to be a major problem because of that ability to make the vaccine quickly.

Yes, it does sound like the platform of a personality cult.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14751
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7925 on: May 12, 2021, 12:36:59 PM »
Here's David Frum's attempt at summarizing the Republican Party Platform as of the Fall of 2020:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/08/new-gop-platform-authoritarianism/615640/

I believe my Trump-loving in-laws would agree with each of these planks, if only to quibble with the language.
Which to me is scary.

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4779
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7926 on: May 12, 2021, 01:18:06 PM »
I know quite a few republicans that disagree with point #12, specifically "Police misconduct, such as that in the George Floyd case, should be punished." A lot of them don't think Chauven should have been convicted, and the only reason he was is because of societal pressure, because they feared backlash and violence if they didn't convict him.

OtherJen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4498
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7927 on: May 12, 2021, 01:22:54 PM »
I know quite a few republicans that disagree with point #12, specifically "Police misconduct, such as that in the George Floyd case, should be punished." A lot of them don't think Chauven should have been convicted, and the only reason he was is because of societal pressure, because they feared backlash and violence if they didn't convict him.

Yeah, I’ve heard that more than once.

Point #2 doesn’t go far enough. I’ve heard and seen many right-wing claims to the effect that masking is more dangerous to health than COVID.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14751
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7928 on: May 12, 2021, 01:27:49 PM »
I know quite a few republicans that disagree with point #12, specifically "Police misconduct, such as that in the George Floyd case, should be punished." A lot of them don't think Chauven should have been convicted, and the only reason he was is because of societal pressure, because they feared backlash and violence if they didn't convict him.

Perhaps, but I think the real emphasis is on the latter half of plank #12:
But the priority now should be to stop crime by empowering police.

I hear this constantly in my red district.  Empowering the police is the only way to stop all crime, including where I live - despite it being a very low-crime area.  The overwhelming majority of serious crime in our area is domestic abuse and drug abuse. They are largely silent on how "more police" will bring down these problems, but are very against supporting social workers, domestic shelters and drug abuse clinics.

It's as if they learned nothing from the 1980s/90s :"war on drugs".

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4779
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7929 on: May 12, 2021, 01:31:41 PM »
I mean the war on drugs worked though.  Look how many black people are in prison.  That was the point, right?

the_fixer

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1153
  • Location: Colorado
  • mind on my money money on my mind
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7930 on: May 12, 2021, 01:34:39 PM »
This is your brain, this is your brain on drugs...

Signed Gen X


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OtherJen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4498
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7931 on: May 12, 2021, 02:10:05 PM »
This is your brain, this is your brain on drugs...

Signed Gen X


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Any questions?

(For younger millennials and GenZers, we're talking about this gem from our GenX childhoods: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOnENVylxPI.)
« Last Edit: May 12, 2021, 02:12:35 PM by OtherJen »

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 938
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7932 on: May 12, 2021, 03:39:46 PM »
You guys are hilarious. Wrong, ignorant, full of hate for those with different values than yourself, but none the less hilarious.

If I had nothing better to do I could write a similar piece about the democrats by mixing positions about which reasonable people might disagree with inflammatory tangentially related positions only a few fringy fucks actually hold, to try and discredit the whole thing... and make the democrats sound like feckless statists and closet communists. 

"COVID-19 is the biggest threat humanity ever faced. States should shut down as much as possible for as long as possible, as long as there is a non-zero chance of someone dying.  We must follow the science, except we must keep schools shut down because unions want it despite evidence that it can be done safely. We don't think any unintended consequences of untargeted aid, eviction moratoriums, etc will be significant."

So I agree with a most of those planks, with significant  quibbling. But, that quibbling can change 95% of the character of the platform as presented. If you find that scary, that's on you .

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14751
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7933 on: May 12, 2021, 03:48:05 PM »
It’s unclear who you are quoting @ncornilsen

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6014
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7934 on: May 12, 2021, 04:12:04 PM »
It’s unclear who you are quoting @ncornilsen

Yeah, and you sound... a little too angry to be coherent.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 18130
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7935 on: May 12, 2021, 04:17:09 PM »
But before you answer any of those questions . . . are you one of the 70% of Republicans who currently believe that the election was not held in a free and fair manner?

MDM

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10622
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7936 on: May 12, 2021, 04:37:05 PM »
It’s unclear who you are quoting @ncornilsen
Not quoting, but rewording a point in the David Frum article.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14751
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7937 on: May 12, 2021, 04:42:38 PM »
It’s unclear who you are quoting @ncornilsen
Not quoting, but rewording a point in the David Frum article.

Ah, thanks MDM, though “rewording” seems a bit disingenuous - the actual wording (below) didn’t make such extreme claims. Also with noting that Frum is a lifelong Republican, and former speech writer for W.

The coronavirus is a much-overhyped problem. It’s not that dangerous and will soon burn itself out. States should reopen their economies as rapidly as possible, and accept the ensuing casualties as a cost worth paying—and certainly a better trade-off than saving every last life by shutting down state economies. Masking is useless and theatrical, if not outright counterproductive.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 938
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7938 on: May 13, 2021, 08:46:29 AM »
It’s unclear who you are quoting @ncornilsen
Yeah, and you sound... a little too angry to be coherent.

I'm not particularly angry, really just amused at the caricature you all seem to think is remotely representative of republicans. Is it Because I said "fringy fucks?" How else would you describe those guys?  Besides, tone policing is a lame tactic. 

I thought you all were quick enough to catch on to what I was doing.

Quote
But before you answer any of those questions . . . are you one of the 70% of Republicans who currently believe that the election was not held in a free and fair manner?

I reject this 70% notion until I know more about how that figure was determined.

For me,
Trump lost the election. This is a fact, and one I never disputed. Many jurisdictions & SoS's violated their state constitutions/laws by rushing in half-baked vote by mail/extended voting/absentee voting without the action of their legislatures, and should be held accountable. Also a fact.  I said, perhaps in this thread, well before the election, that doing so would give trump cover to do exactly what he did when he lost. Many courts threw out any attempt to investigate some of the irregularities on procedural grounds, giving trump and those predisposed to conspiracy theories more material to spin. 

I will also admit some cognitive dissonance that a basement dwelling, incoherent fool, who championed a racist crime bill could win in the aftermath of George Floyd's murder... but then I looked at the guy I voted for and got over it. I still think we would be much better off if Trump were president right now. Seems like every decision Biden has made as made things worse... from the middle east, to our border, to the looming stagflation... ugg. To quote a meme: I could go for $4 2x4's with a side of mean tweets right now.


Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6014
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7939 on: May 13, 2021, 08:50:41 AM »
It’s unclear who you are quoting @ncornilsen
Yeah, and you sound... a little too angry to be coherent.

I'm not particularly angry, really just amused at the caricature you all seem to think is remotely representative of republicans. Is it Because I said "fringy fucks?" How else would you describe those guys?  Besides, tone policing is a lame tactic. 


I mean... again, though, a Republican wrote that article.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 18130
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7940 on: May 13, 2021, 08:58:48 AM »
I reject this 70% notion until I know more about how that figure was determined.

- https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-republicans-still-wont-accept-that-biden-won/

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/09/republicans-free-fair-elections-435488
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/17/politics/cnn-poll-republican-party-favorability-trump/index.html


Trump lost the election. This is a fact, and one I never disputed.

Oh good, you're not one of those crazy fucks.


Many jurisdictions & SoS's violated their state constitutions/laws by rushing in half-baked vote by mail/extended voting/absentee voting without the action of their legislatures, and should be held accountable. Also a fact.

Whoop.  Not sure I understand what you're saying here.  Are you claiming that the election is illegitimate?  Or are you just upset that some states allowed greater than normal mail in voting during a pandemic?


I will also admit some cognitive dissonance that a basement dwelling, incoherent fool, who championed a racist crime bill could win in the aftermath of George Floyd's murder... but then I looked at the guy I voted for and got over it. I still think we would be much better off if Trump were president right now. Seems like every decision Biden has made as made things worse... from the middle east, to our border, to the looming stagflation... ugg. To quote a meme: I could go for $4 2x4's with a side of mean tweets right now.

Interesting.  You believe that Trump's lack of leadership and constant lies helped the US handle the covid pandemic?

I'm not a huge fan of Biden.  He's another old white very conservative man in power.  He has a history of supporting racist policy.  I'll concede that it's likely he'll have mental failings due to his age (of the sort that Trump regularly displayed).  But Biden appears to be rebuilding the US government to a functional level again, which is nice to see.

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4779
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7941 on: May 13, 2021, 09:01:27 AM »
That son of a bitch Biden is so out of control and devious he was making lumber prices increase and hit record highs all throughout Trump's presidency.

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4400
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7942 on: May 13, 2021, 09:22:51 AM »
@ncornilsen Frum's wording may be cartoonish, among the points that he lists, which ones do you not think describe major views held by the "New Right"?

As far as setting a priority of re-opening the economy versus continuing to reduce the capacity of food/beverage establishments and gyms and hair care places that serve primarily young, vulnerable or unvaccinated customers, can you produce statements from Gov. Greg Abbott, Gov. Ron DeSantis or Gov. Kristi Noehm that sound more measured than Frum's caricature?

I realize there are other Republican governors, but none of those three needed to attract centrist voters to win their offices.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2929
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7943 on: May 13, 2021, 09:31:23 AM »
There are plenty of legitimate discussions to be had about tax policy, immigration policy, social safety nets, trade policy (tariffs, regulation, etc), and a whole bevy of other issues. Where things go off the rails is when people use perceived correlation with causation and simplistically blame the POTUS for everything. Clinton dealt with messes (and benefits) left by Bush Sr, as Bush Jr did from Clinton, as Obama did from Bush, as Trump did from Obama, and as Biden now does from Trump. And many of those benefits and messes are unintended consequences, the actions of congress, what insurance companies would call acts of god, and results of actions between foreign nations that we simply do not control.

Lumber is high because sawmills had reduced production for a slew of covid reasons coupled with high demand. Let the free market do its thing, right? This is a microcosm of many supply chain issues across the economy, not the least of which is computer chips.

Why is the border an issue now? Well the GOP strategy of inhumane treatment at the border was effective. This was not just Trump (it was a plank of Romney in his run for prez, for example). That and a lot of the surges have to do with domestic issues in central america, and there are lots of sources of instability there as well. There is a problem with large numbers of people fleeing deadly conditions in their home country. I personally don't think that intentionally treating people purposefully inhumanely is  the solution. I also don't think that blaming the hose for the spigot being stuck open is useful.

I disagree with many of Trump's (or really, McConnell's) policies, but my problem with Trump is the degradation of our institutions of democracy. And that extends to people who are attempting to continue his methods of maintaining power and are too craven to say "No" to Trump and what he represents for our democratic traditions.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 18130
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7944 on: May 13, 2021, 09:37:07 AM »
I can confirm that lumber is more expensive here in Canada . . . and to the best of my knowledge neither Biden nor Trump were our president.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6602
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7945 on: May 13, 2021, 09:47:58 AM »
I can confirm that lumber is more expensive here in Canada . . . and to the best of my knowledge neither Biden nor Trump were our president.

Thanks Obama!

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 938
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7946 on: May 13, 2021, 09:49:26 AM »
It’s unclear who you are quoting @ncornilsen
Yeah, and you sound... a little too angry to be coherent.

I'm not particularly angry, really just amused at the caricature you all seem to think is remotely representative of republicans. Is it Because I said "fringy fucks?" How else would you describe those guys?  Besides, tone policing is a lame tactic. 


I mean... again, though, a Republican wrote that article.

I spent a bit of time reading on Frum. He's coming from a place of disillusionment with the populist pivot the party has made, and I actually share alot of his sentiments about that. I'm far more moderate than the snippets of opinion I post here would make me seem... I'm a natural contrarian and the leftist perspective is quite over-represented here.

Perhaps he's right. No republican I know of supports these platform ideals to the extremes presented nor for the bad intent ascribed by his article, but, perhaps, some of the politicians in Washington do; and they hide that part to get votes from your every-day republicans.  I still think what I know republican values to be are the ones that support real liberty, opportunity, and justice for all Americans.   I still cannot go as far as to vote for those on the left who promote policies that have proven over and over again to impoverish and harm society and extinguish liberty no matter how well intentioned the politicians who push those policies are (and I do not think Pelosi, Schumer, Waters, Harris, or even Biden have such great intentions anyway.)



nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14751
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7947 on: May 13, 2021, 10:09:27 AM »

I spent a bit of time reading on Frum. He's coming from a place of disillusionment with the populist pivot the party has made, and I actually share alot of his sentiments about that. I'm far more moderate than the snippets of opinion I post here would make me seem... I'm a natural contrarian and the leftist perspective is quite over-represented here.

Perhaps he's right. No republican I know of supports these platform ideals to the extremes presented nor for the bad intent ascribed by his article, but, perhaps, some of the politicians in Washington do; and they hide that part to get votes from your every-day republicans.

Which of Frum's 13 planks do you disagree with and why?

from my observations these all seem to be very much the positions of today's GOP.  They are echoed by party leadership (e.g. House Freedom Caucus), are championed by conservative talk show hosts like Tucker Carlson and the late Limbaugh, and - based on polling - are broadly shared by self-identified GOP voters.

Running down the list, among the GOP the following are popular opinions:
1) The 2017 tax cut (TCJA) remains popular, as is support for further reducing tax rates
2) The coronavirus is not a big problem, but our responses to it (e.g. mask wearing) are, and trust in the CDC among the GOP is abysmally low
3) Climate change is not a big problem, and the GOP is opposed to large spending deals to address climate change (e.g. "Green New Deal" or Biden's plan to support renewable energy)
4) China is a eminent threat which must be addressed via military spending
5) trade and alliance structures built after World War II are outdated. The days of NATO and the World Trade Organization are over. The EU should be treated like a rival
6) Health care is a purchase like any other. Individuals should make their own best deals in the insurance market with minimal government supervision. Those who pay more should get more. Those who cannot pay must rely on Medicaid, accept charity, or go without.
7) Voting is a privilege. States should have wide latitude to regulate that privilege
8) Anti-Black racism has ceased to be an important problem in American life.
9) The courts should move gradually and carefully toward eliminating the mistake made in 1965, when women’s sexual privacy was elevated into a constitutional righ
10) The post-Watergate ethics reforms overreached. ... the Trump administration has met all reasonable ethical standards.
11) Trump’s border wall is the right policy to slow illegal immigration; the task of enforcing immigration rules should not fall on business operators.
12) The country is gripped by a surge of crime and lawlessness as a result of the Black Lives Matter movement and its criticism of police. PThe priority now should be to stop crime by empowering police.
13) In the face of the overwhelming and unfair onslaught against President Donald Trump by the media and the “deep state,” his occasional excesses on Twitter and at his rallies should be understood as pardonable reactions to much more severe misconduct by others.

which of these do you disagree with?

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4400
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7948 on: May 13, 2021, 11:08:51 AM »
It’s unclear who you are quoting @ncornilsen
Yeah, and you sound... a little too angry to be coherent.

I'm not particularly angry, really just amused at the caricature you all seem to think is remotely representative of republicans. Is it Because I said "fringy fucks?" How else would you describe those guys?  Besides, tone policing is a lame tactic. 


I mean... again, though, a Republican wrote that article.

 I'm a natural contrarian and the leftist perspective is quite over-represented here.


It may be that you mean this thread rather than the MMM community. I was a registered Republican at the moment I started this discussion thread.

I will quote myself from that first post:
It's possible you're reading this and think I've sized him up too incharitably; you're welcome here, too.

« Last Edit: May 13, 2021, 11:33:01 AM by talltexan »

Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2673
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #7949 on: May 13, 2021, 11:46:22 AM »
I reject this 70% notion until I know more about how that figure was determined.

- https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-republicans-still-wont-accept-that-biden-won/

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/09/republicans-free-fair-elections-435488
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/17/politics/cnn-poll-republican-party-favorability-trump/index.html

I'm curious ncornilsen; do you know enough about how the 70% figure was determined to accept it now?

If not, maybe you'll find these polls more convincing:


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/republicans-president-trump-robbed-poll
Quote
Among Trump voters, 77 percent think he actually won.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/60-of-voters-view-bidens-2020-presidential-victory-as-legitimate-poll-finds
Quote
Just 23% of Republicans felt the win was authentic, while 70% said it was illegitimate.