anewname

@anewname

101 Following

38 Followers

anewname pfp

this seems like a purely vibes-based claim 😁 the vibes-based narrative i’ve seen this election has been predominantly “trump is Teflon, his rise is inevitable”

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

anewname pfp

completely unsurprising. but guess who they’ll break for by a significant margin in november?

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

anewname pfp

have you been on twitter

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

anewname pfp

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

anewname pfp

People hopecasting on here that he’s some kind of demon is the laziest cope of the political season so far.

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

anewname pfp

Yes, I must be dogmatic, because I’m regurgitating talking points, providing unfalsifiable narratives that come directly from anti-democratic actors who want to discourage voting, and I don’t cite any sources or studies pointing to a problem that definitely exists and which we can tangibly prove after years of looking really hard. (slash s if you need it) I’d love for you to see the irony of all this, including the pull quote from the analysis I sent (US’s registration problems are one of the reasons its system is so mid!), crossed against your desire for a more convoluted registration system, or for you to have that “aha” moment when you recognize the accusation is a confession, but I think we’ve reached the end of this particular discourse, and so I send you back like a trout to the sad unfalsifiable mad waters of the internet that continue the proud paranoid style in American politics par excellence. adieu

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

anewname pfp

My guy. Your claim is “It happens elsewhere.” If it happens elsewhere, how do you know? Eg there is some method of determining fraud, right? So either you think there is a valid way to uncover fraud or there isn’t. And either you have one standard or set of standards by which you hold this belief, or you don’t. But sure, here is a good primer that covers 49 indicators across 11 stages of an election cycle of how one might use objective methods to determine fraud: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics/article/measuring-electoral-integrity-around-the-world-a-new-dataset/506F05DEF195C4A73DD1C937591B2071 What i’m trying to get you to see is that you’re claiming two incompatible things: we know it happens elsewhere (because reasons) but we don’t know it doesn’t happen here (because reasons). There is no evidence that widespread voter fraud in the US is or has ever been a problem, given the methods used to objectively uncover it elsewhere. End stop.

2 replies

0 recast

1 reaction

anewname pfp

PA is the tipping point. Doesn’t need the others to win. Way more paths to victory than Trump. Prediction markets are wildly off on this one, maybe still baked in Biden’s inevitable loss or something. But it’s PA, WI, and MI for the ballgame, and I think she’ll lock those up with more certainty after the debate. We’re in a reverse 2016: too much confidence that Trump is going to prevail.

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

anewname pfp

no, he doesn’t 😁

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

anewname pfp

No, we do know for sure. Just think about it like this: First claim: We have evidence it happens elsewhere. Sure! And that includes stuff like statistical analysis and math, not to mention audits, etc. Second claim: Even tho there isn’t evidence it happens here, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen here. Basically these things are irreconcilable. Either you have to discount the ways in which fraud is detected in other parts of world, which then throws claim one into doubt, and therefore we can basically just shrug and say we don’t know whether or not there is fraud anywhere in the world, or you have to admit that it’s extremely rare here, because the ways in which electoral fraud has been sussed out elsewhere reveals nearly nothing here. The third option leads us back to the unfalsifiable: it’s happening but we can’t prove that it’s happening; some nefarious or sophisticated actor(s) are manipulating the vote.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

anewname pfp

I love that you’re implicitly saying markets are violent 😊

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

anewname pfp

so edgy, so funny

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

anewname pfp

You’re asking for something that’s unfalsifiable, eg outside the realm of science. It’s the same for asking for evidence of ghosts or the souls. Which means there also isn’t much someone from this side of reason can say 😁

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

anewname pfp

The core premise is wrong: we know the scope because there’s no problem. How do we know? Math, statistical analysis, rigorous investigations, and so on. It’s really not difficult to see what’s actually happening, which is a minority that wants to be in power is doing everything it can to make self-determination thru voting as hard as possible as possible.

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

anewname pfp

uncontroversial take

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

anewname pfp

fiction > nonfiction sorry, it’s just true

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

anewname pfp

looks like cope to me 🤷‍♂️

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

anewname pfp

can u just be normal for a minute lmao

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

anewname pfp

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

anewname pfp

this is one of the best pieces of political reporting basically ever, and the thesis is: they want you exhaust you. the point is to make an electorate that is so disengaged as to give over any sense of participating in democracy: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/david-foster-wallace-on-john-mccain-the-weasel-twelve-monkeys-and-the-shrub-194272/

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction