ChrisWeigant.com

A Media Double Standard Returns

[ Posted Monday, January 25th, 2021 – 16:35 UTC ]

The Washington political press corps have returned to some semblance of normalcy. One of the things this means is that President Joe Biden is getting scrutiny and criticism for the actual reality on the ground versus what he had promised. This follows a four-year period of being so cowed by Trump's firehose of lies and bluster that the press corps mostly didn't even bother, other than a few half-hearted attempts here and there.

Proving this bias is pretty easy. Let's look at how the coverage of the vaccine rollout has gone. At the end of December, there were indeed many stories about how incredibly far behind their projections the Trump team had fallen -- but these rarely, if ever, told the full story of this disappointment. Team Trump had initially promised to vaccinate 100 million people by the end of the calendar year. They said this only a few months ago, mind you. Then, out of the blue, this target was cut to 40 million, and then cut again to 20 million. No explanation was given, and the media largely just yawned.

By the time the end of the year rolled around, fewer than three million people were actually vaccinated. Which was why there were stories about it back then (even if almost all of them forgot to mention the initial 100 million and 40 million promises). By the time Trump left office on January 20, we were still well below 15 million vaccinated. And even now, we still haven't hit the 20 million mark, with less than a week to go in January.

But now, intrepid reporters have zeroed in on a new complaint. Joe Biden promised to vaccinate 100 million people in his first 100 days in office. But, the journalists now whine, we're almost at that now (900,000 per day), so why was Biden low-balling the numbers? Never mentioned (except by Biden himself, in an exasperated answer to this very question) is the fact that when Biden made that promise, very few people believed he'd be able to achieve this goal. It was mocked for being unrealistic.

Once again: we have still not reached the 20 million vaccinations we were promised were going to happen back in December. And yet this fact is strangely never mentioned in all this breathless coverage of Biden somehow selling us all short by not vaccinating, say, 150 million people in the first 100 days.

That's the double standard of which I speak. Trump's promises were so obviously not to be taken seriously that they weren't, for the most part. But Biden not only must be held to the incredibly high standard he set for himself, but must be castigated for not doing even more than was deemed impossible just a few short weeks ago.

Covering Joe Biden's presidency is going to be a return to normalcy -- one that I for one will certainly welcome. No longer will presidential tweets stir up various hornets' nests in the wee hours of the morning. No longer will people like Anthony Fauci have to fear for their jobs just because they told the public the truth. No longer will everything be about the president's ego. All of those are indeed a relief. But throughout it all, let's keep something important in mind, shall we?

The intrepid fact-checkers at the Washington Post have now finished their final tally: Donald Trump told a mind-boggling 30,573 lies in just a single term as president. Before I end this with all the excerpts from their final tally article which show the staggering numbers of lies Trump racked up, I would ask each and every political journalist everywhere to keep this list handy. Or you can go directly to the database they created and search it for yourself to see. But please, keep this in mind -- don't just let it fade away. Because, for the entirety of Joe Biden's first term (at the very least) this will all be relevant whenever the subject becomes something Biden said versus the actual reality.

Lest any of us forget:

Over time, Trump unleashed his falsehoods with increasing frequency and ferocity, often by the scores in a single campaign speech or tweetstorm. What began as a relative trickle of misrepresentations, including 10 on his first day and five on the second, built into a torrent through Trump's final days as he frenetically spread wild theories that the coronavirus pandemic would disappear "like a miracle" and that the presidential election had been stolen -- the claim that inspired Trump supporters to attack Congress on Jan. 6 and prompted his second impeachment.

The final tally of Trump's presidency: 30,573 false or misleading claims -- with nearly half coming in his final year.

. . .

An assessment of the Fact Checker database shows the dramatic escalation in the rate of Trump's dishonesty over time. Trump averaged about six claims a day in his first year as president, 16 claims day in his second year, 22 claims day in his third year -- and 39 claims a day in his final year. Put another way, it took him 27 months to reach 10,000 claims and another 14 months to reach 20,000. He then exceeded the 30,000 mark less than five months later.

. . .

False and misleading claims about the coronavirus pandemic emerged in 2020, so that by year's end he had made more than 2,500 coronavirus-related claims -- more than all of his trade claims over four years, even though trade has been one of the animating features of his presidency. Trump touted phony metrics to claim he successfully defeated the virus, pitched ineffective "cures" and constantly attacked former president Barack Obama for alleged failures, such as leaving a "bare cupboard" of ventilators (there were almost 17,000) and bungling the response to the swine flu pandemic in 2009-2010 (the response was considered a success).

In October, Trump was largely quiet for six days as he recovered from his own bout with COVID-19. But even so, he made nearly 4,000 false or misleading claims that month, an average of 150 a day on the days he was not ill.

. . .

After his election defeat, Trump spoke or tweeted about little except to offer lies about a stolen election, even as he or his supporters lost more than 60 court cases as judges repeatedly rejected his claims as bogus. After Nov. 3, he made more than 800 false or misleading claims about election fraud, including 76 times offering some variation of "rigged election."

At his Jan. 6 speech at the Ellipse, in which he incited the attack on the Capitol, Trump made 107 false or misleading claims, almost all about the election.

. . .

Trump's penchant for repeating false claims is demonstrated by the fact that the Fact Checker database has recorded about 750 instances in which he has repeated a variation of the same claim at least three times.

The Fact Checker also tracked Three- or Four-Pinocchio claims that Trump has said at least 20 times, earning him a Bottomless Pinocchio. Trump completed his term with 56 of those entries, including three -- about the "rigged election," allegations that Dominion voting machines changed votes and the falsehood that GOP poll watchers were denied access to vote-counting -- that only emerged in the final months of his presidency.

. . .

The Fact Checker team recorded 492 suspect claims in Trump's first 100 days. Just on Nov. 2, the day before the 2020 election, Trump made 503 false or misleading claims as he barnstormed across the country in a desperate effort to save his presidency.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

41 Comments on “A Media Double Standard Returns”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I expect President Biden to be honest. I also expect the media to miss the point on any number of is issues

    Having said that, I watched President Biden’s EO signing and presser today and was disappointed with his last answer to journalists.

    He got an excellent question from a reporter (I have to find out who he is – Josh?)at the very end of the presser, thanks to the president taking an extra one …

    He was asked about his assertion the other day that there is nothing that can be done to stop the inevitable rise in deaths due to COVID-19. I was hoping somebody would ask him about that because there is definitely QUITE A LOT THAT CAN BE DONE to reduce the number of deaths, hospitalizations and, of course, infections.

    There is nothing inevitable about current horrific projections in increasing numbers of infections and deaths in the US, in Canada, or anywhere else. Why? Because we have the tools at hand to reduce transmission before we even start talking about vaccines and vaccines only. Vaccines are a very critical part of the set of tools we now have at our disposal but they are by no means the only tool or enough, in and of themselves.

    I was thoroughly disappointed in Biden’s answer to this question. He basically said, yes, there is nothing that can be done to avoid the projections of 600,000 deaths or more. He said that he would shut down the virus but that it would take time and not happen overnight and then he went on to talk more about vaccines. He said it was difficult when people don’t follow the public health measures that are proven tools to stop the spread and then went on to talk about the timeline of vaccination.

    It sounded to me like he has given up on trying to persuade people across the country who are not taking this virus seriously to finally start doing their part and make the simple changes in their behavior that will save lives. He didn’t say one word about what state governments should be doing to get that message out, loud and clear. He didn't even meniton the CDC. Is this agency still sidelined??

    Now, I and all regular readers here, know that Democrats, generally speaking, are not very good at getting their message out. That better change and fast – if lives are to be saved instead of counting body bags and if midterm elections are to be won.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua,

    What did you think about Biden's remarks today Re. teachers and re-opening schools?

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:
  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You know, the double standard doesn't bother me as much as the failure to report accurately on an important subject matter.

    Case in point - there is little to no accurate media coverage of variants of the SARS-COV-2 virus and what they are, where they are, who is testing for them and who is not, why we must all double down on breaking the chains of transmission of SARS-COV-2 and all of its variants and why the US probably has the highest number of these coronavirus variants in the world and just doesn't know it!

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What's really scary is that we may not be learning the lessons we need to learn in order to be better prepared for when the real 'disease X' emerges which will be far more deadly and far less discriminating than COVID-19.

    The media could and should be doing a better job of educating the public.

  6. [6] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Liz M

    Speaking of scary, you realize it's only a (very short) matter of time before the covid family tree begins to sprout grandviruses, great grandviruses, great great grandviruses, and so on ad infinitum.

    What's the sense of fighting them? The end is nigh upon us!!

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You give up too easily. :)

  8. [8] 
    andygaus wrote:

    After four years of cowering before Trump and his backers, you can imagine how anxious the media are to look fearless again.

  9. [9] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Hmmm.

    So when Biden promised 100 million vaccinations in his first 100 days everyone thought it was unrealistic and now it seems possible.

    It may now be unrealistic to think that the perception that it can happen now is realistic. There was just a story here in NJ that they were now doing less vaccinations then they were doing a week ago.

    It was also unrealistic to think that Trump would win the nomination much less become president when he first announced in 2015.

    It was unrealistic to think that Bernie could raise enough money with his small contribution campaign in 2015-2016.

    Apparently it is unrealistic to think that just because someone that would benefit from something being unrealistic to believe that the person claiming that something is unrealistic is being realistic.

    Yet everyone here keeps insisting that One Demand is unrealistic.

    What separates these allegedly unrealistic things?

    The media covered the other unrealistic things and then they became real.

    Of course you could make the case that Trump got a lot more coverage then Bernie. But that just shows that even with the minimal amount of coverage that Bernie got that he was still able to flip the unrealistic to realistic.

    It is obvious that CW feels he benefits from One Demand being unrealistic because then he can spew his party line nonsense that you have no other choice.

    It certainly appears that CW has concluded that the best way to keep One Deamnd unrealistic is to use the determination of unrealistic to ignore One Demand because if people found out about One Demand it might become realistic just like all those other unrealistic things.

    I'm not afraid to find out if I am wrong about how citizens using the basic tools of democracy to influence politicians using our votes is realistic or not.

    What about you, CW?

    Or do you just think that democracy is unrealistic?

  10. [10] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz (1)-
    Get used to being disappointed.

    That was the real Joe Biden doing his job for the big money interests to lower expectations.

    That's standard operating procedure for the Deathocrats.

    Run center and call it left in the primaries. Run center right in the general. Move farther right after being elected.

    Thank goodness we have the Republikillers to offer us an alternative to that wild-eyed Socialist Joe Biden.

  11. [11] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    it's ambitious, and i understand why biden wants to push schools to reopen. my advice would be to start fresh in september. even if we're able to safely open by april or may, it would be another sudden change in a school year full of sudden changes. kids have had enough sudden changes in the past year, let's finally give them a little consistency, finish the school year remotely and start fresh in september.

    JL

  12. [12] 
    TheStig wrote:

    EM-1

    "He was asked about his assertion the other day that there is nothing that can be done to stop the inevitable rise in deaths due to COVID-19. I was hoping somebody would ask him about that because there is definitely QUITE A LOT THAT CAN BE DONE to reduce the number of deaths, hospitalizations and, of course, infections."

    Fighting an epidemic is a lot like steering a supertanker. There is a substantial lag between issuing commands and seeing the results of those commands. We need to have realistic expectations. Epidemiologists forecast total US COVID deaths will exceed 500,000 about thirty days from now. Vaccine stocks are too low, the medical system is maxed out, and social distancing is inconsistent.

    Biden's statement is fundamentally correct, which is about all you can expect in a press conference.

  13. [13] 
    TheStig wrote:

    EM-4

    "Case in point - there is little to no accurate media coverage of variants of the SARS-COV-2 virus and what they are, where they are, who is testing for them and who is not, why we must all double down on breaking the chains of transmission of SARS-COV-2 and all of its variants and why the US probably has the highest number of these coronavirus variants in the world and just doesn't know it!"

    The information is out there, you just have to look for (Google) it. Right down to the level of gene sequences. Some governments are suppressing information they don't like, but overall we are living in a golden age of information. Also a golden age of disinformation....but with a little effort you can sort most of this out and make reasonable projections.

  14. [14] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Harris- 9 "What separates these allegedly unrealistic things?"

    Having a working product as opposed to selling a product that doesn't actually exist.

    The Girl's sell actual, physical cookies. Learn from their example.

  15. [15] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    TS-
    Girl scouts sell cookies.

    Activists sell ideas.

    One Demand is an idea.

    It is an opposing idea to voting for big money candidates that do not deliver a working product.

    It may work in getting them elected but it does not work in providing a working government.

    The only way the product of an activist can work is if people find out about that product and decide to use it.

    As One Demand is basic democracy in action to call One Demand unrealistic is saying that democracy is unrealistic.

    Explain why using our votes to influence politicians is not basic democracy in action.

    Then explain how using our votes to influence politicians cannot work.

    Then explain why we should vote if those things you explained are true.

    Or maybe just come up with another irrelevant tidbit like the girl scouts and their cookies.

    Anything except acknowledging reality.

  16. [16] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    maybe girl scouts could be more successful politically if they sold pie!

  17. [17] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Don,

    Yet everyone here keeps insisting that One Demand is unrealistic.

    What separates these allegedly unrealistic things?

    Ambition and hard work. You lack both...

    That was the real Joe Biden doing his job for the big money interests to lower expectations.

    Ah, yes. Your game of accusations without backing them up. Which big money interests? What do they get out of it? These are the kind of questions you have to answer instantly on the fly if you want people to take you seriously. Well that and ditch the silly dehumanization of of your perceived opposition.

    Anything except acknowledging reality.

    But hey, at least you have found the Trumpian tactic of projection...

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    TS,

    Fighting an epidemic is a lot like steering a supertanker. There is a substantial lag between issuing commands and seeing the results of those commands. We need to have realistic expectations. Epidemiologists forecast total US COVID deaths will exceed 500,000 about thirty days from now. Vaccine stocks are too low, the medical system is maxed out, and social distancing is inconsistent.

    Biden's statement is fundamentally correct, which is about all you can expect in a press conference.

    I couldn't disagree more, wholeheartedly. Ahem.

    The problem is that the right commands aren't being issued - by Biden or anyone else in your country.

    Physical distancing (a better term- we are physically distanced but socially connected!) isn't the only thing that is inconsistent and that is a major part of the overall problem, too.

    Everything about the pandemic response in the US has been inconsistent and that is why you have thousands of people dying every day. Perhaps Biden should begin expanding upon his definition of unity - solidarity, science, solutions.

    Yes, Biden's statement was issued in a psuedo-presser but, what has that to do with expecting him to lead?

    Now that he is president, my expectations of what Biden can and should do in response to this pandemic are sky high. And, that won't change. Which is also part of the problem. Heh.

  19. [19] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    TS,

    The information is out there, you just have to look for (Google) it. Right down to the level of gene sequences. Some governments are suppressing information they don't like, but overall we are living in a golden age of information. Also a golden age of disinformation....but with a little effort you can sort most of this out and make reasonable projections.

    That's not what I'm talking about, though. My comment was about targeted sequencing which the US is simply not doing, at least not to the extent that you would expect from a global leader. Consequently, variants are not being found.

    As Dr Ryan explained yesterday at the WHO presser ... the more testing you do the better and that is good for control and understanding the epidemiology of the virus. But, a portion of those positive test samples need to be sequenced in a systematic way.

    Not every single virus needs to be sequenced. With targeted variant surveillance, you watch what is happening with Covid and try to pick out any unusual signal and target testing and sequencing in those areas.

    I'm just saying that the hyped media coverage in the US around variants is missing the point. Which is to say that the UK and South Africa are finding variants because they are doing good work around targeted sequencing and so these countries are finding variants, some of which are of concern.

    The US is NOT doing this work - not even doing testing systematically, more than a year on! - and so there are probably many more variants of interest floating around in the US than is known, especially in areas where there are high levels of transmission as the more transmission, the more likely the virus is mutating into variants of interest or concern.

    And, the most important point about variants is that the control measures we have work to break the chains of transmission. We just have to step up our control measures to shut down the variants that appear to be more transmissable.

    My point was to say that all of this is being largely unreported.

    To your point, I would guess that there is very little suppression of sequencing results going on but, nothing surprises me anymore. :(

    The WHO is working with countries with a systematic framework for targeted variant surveillance. And, by the way, just to let everyone know ... there was a very good discussion on variants at the WHO presser from yesterday and it is definitely worth a look!
    https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019

  20. [20] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua,

    it's ambitious, and i understand why biden wants to push schools to reopen.

    He wants to reopen schools safely, right?

    I like your idea about keeping online learning until September but what about kids who don't have access to the internet?

  21. [21] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Bashi-
    Ambition and hard work.

    That's all you got?

    It seems that trying to make something that seems unrealistic to some others is pretty ambitious.

    Taking on the big money interests seems ambitious.

    You have no idea what I have or haven't done.

    Why does it require hard work to get an idea entered into the public discourse?

    One aspect of doing work as an activist is to try to get the media to inform citizens about an issue/idea.

    Whether or not you think I am working hard enough is not important.

    Why shouldn't I keep trying to do work on getting CW to address One Demand as it is part of what I do to try to get the idea into the public discourse?

    Why shouldn't I keep after CW to address it when CW has said it is okay for others not getting an answer to do the same to others that are not providing answers?

    Isn't that what comments sections which are part of social media supposed to be used for?

    Do you want me to work or not?

    Again with the big money smoking gun demands which is not how big money corrupting our political process works.

    There has been enough evidence in the last forty years to convince 80% of citizens that big money is a problem that corrupts our political process or they would not want the big money out.

    So I do not need to convince you that is it is problem that we need to do something about.

    I only need to convince some of the 80% that One Demand can be a possible solution that is worth trying.

    But they cannot make that decision until they are informed about the idea.

    So why shouldn't I keep trying to get the media which CW is part of to inform citizens about the idea or at least explain why they won't?

  22. [22] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Don, I'll bite:

    One Demand is an idea.

    It is an opposing idea to voting for big money candidates that do not deliver a working product.

    It may work in getting them elected but it does not work in providing a working government.

    But they do deliver a working product. America is one of the most powerful economies in the world. Has the most powerful military to have ever existed by man and is the cultural powerhouse of the world. America works very well. It just doesn't work how you would like.

    The only way the product of an activist can work is if people find out about that product and decide to use it.

    That's on you. Instead of getting off your ass and working on your idea to make it worth using, you harass bloggers to do the work for you. After six years, how is that working out for you? CW has not written about you and has indicated he likely never will. Have you gotten anyone else to do so?

    As One Demand is basic democracy in action to call One Demand unrealistic is saying that democracy is unrealistic.

    That is a false equivalency. Democracy works because it has verification, something One Demand lacks by design.

    Explain why using our votes to influence politicians is not basic democracy in action.

    Then explain how using our votes to influence politicians cannot work.

    It is but there is no reporting mechanism. A vote for the greens or a write in vote does not come back to the candidate with a reason. It could be "big money influence" or they could just prefer a more environmental platform or they could just be a crank who does not like anyone. The candidate is likely to never know and there is likely to be so many reasons that your reason just gets lost in the noise.

    Or maybe just come up with another irrelevant tidbit like the girl scouts and their cookies.

    At least girl scout cookies are delicious...

  23. [23] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Don - [21]

    Because your idea is not gaining traction and you refuse to do what it takes to get traction. Harassing bloggers is not working. Come up with something different.

  24. [24] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    You have no idea what I have or haven't done.

    Well, except for harassing bloggers and incompletely maintaining a website...

    Why does it require hard work to get an idea entered into the public discourse?

    Because there are a million ideas in the public discourse. Hard work get your idea to the top and noticed. Your idea is at bedrock bottom and ignored.

    Why shouldn't I keep trying to do work on getting CW to address One Demand as it is part of what I do to try to get the idea into the public discourse?

    Because he already told you no in no uncertain terms...

    Isn't that what comments sections which are part of social media supposed to be used for?

    Minus the spam to which you are.

    Again with the big money smoking gun demands which is not how big money corrupting our political process works.

    There has been enough evidence in the last forty years to convince 80% of citizens that big money is a problem that corrupts our political process or they would not want the big money out.

    If you make specific accusations, I expect you to back them up. Falling back on your little "80%" is completely half assing it. Not much difference in your "80%" and Trumps, "i hear good people are saying it...". Just lies unless you can back it up.

  25. [25] 
    Kick wrote:

    nypoet22
    16

    maybe girl scouts could be more successful politically if they sold pie!

    Those Samoas® are dang nearly pie. So good.

    https://www.littlebrowniebakers.com/products/samoas/

  26. [26] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Once again: we have still not reached the 20 million vaccinations we were promised were going to happen back in December. And yet this fact is strangely never mentioned in all this breathless coverage of Biden somehow selling us all short by not vaccinating, say, 150 million people in the first 100 days.

    You're right CW, same old double standard back in full force.

    I did my part for President Biden by getting my first COVID-19 vaccine today. I'm one in a million. ;)

  27. [27] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick,

    I didn't know that you are in the group that includes healthcare workers and the most vulnerable to developing severe disease.

    Assuming you are, I'm glad you got your vaccine. Have you been scheduled for a second shot, assuming also that you got the Pfizer vaccine?

  28. [28] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    One of the messages that the Biden administration must get out clearly, concisely and consistently centers around the prioritization of vaccination against Covid-19, in the US and around the world.

    They need to make clear how important it is that healthcare workers who are working closely with Covid patients and those people who are the most vulnerable to developing severe disease should be prioritized to be the first group to get the vaccine. This needs to be followed on a global basis, especially now and until vaccine production is ramped up.

    Those of us who are not in that group need to double down on changing our behavior and following ALL of the public health measures in an effort to break the chains of transmission while we wait for our turn to be vaccinated.

  29. [29] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    9

    It was unrealistic to think that Bernie could raise enough money with his small contribution campaign in 2015-2016.

    Bernie didn't have a small contribution campaign in 2015-2016... which anyone with two brain cells to rub together can look up in order to avoid the voter misinformation you keep repeating. This has been explained to you before many times:

    https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate?id=N00000528

    A candidate who receives $97.1 million dollars and ~42% of their campaign dollars in large contributions doesn't meet your purity test. Please stop lying about this.

    Yet everyone here keeps insisting that One Demand is unrealistic.

    Asking people to pledge to vote for themselves via a write-in vote that isn't possible in the vast majority of states is not just "unrealistic," it is impossible under current voter laws in multiple states.

    What separates these allegedly unrealistic things?

    "Allegedly" is a term that is used to convey that something is claimed to be the case or have taken place, although there is no proof. Since there is definitive proof that Bernie wasn't a small-donor candidate in the 2016 election cycle and shit-tons of proof that the vast majority of Americans cannot vote via write-in, we have definitive proof that your examples are total bullshit.

    The media covered the other unrealistic things and then they became real.

    Big lie.

    Of course you could make the case that Trump got a lot more coverage then Bernie. But that just shows that even with the minimal amount of coverage that Bernie got that he was still able to flip the unrealistic to realistic.

    Nope. Bernie doesn't fit your description at all.

    It is obvious that CW feels he benefits from One Demand being unrealistic because then he can spew his party line nonsense that you have no other choice.

    It is obvious you are full up to your eyeballs in bullshit.

    It certainly appears that CW has concluded that the best way to keep One Deamnd unrealistic is to use the determination of unrealistic to ignore One Demand because if people found out about One Demand it might become realistic just like all those other unrealistic things.

    You spew your bullshit near daily in his comments section. If CW was afraid of your bullshit, why would he allow you to do that? Your (lack of) critical thinking skills is showing.

    I'm not afraid to find out if I am wrong about how citizens using the basic tools of democracy to influence politicians using our votes is realistic or not.

    You're not afraid to find out if you're wrong? Good... see above... because you're wrong near every time you spew your bullshit. :)

  30. [30] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Bashi, Kick
    Wow.

    All that nonsense from you that does not address anything I said with anything other than repeating the claims you already made that was nonsense the first time you said it.

    Nothing of any substance.

    If you ever act like an adult and actually discuss things without your childish games I will respond.

    You have provided nothing worthy of response because it obvious to anyone reading it that you are trolling.

  31. [31] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    15

    Girl scouts sell cookies.

    Fact.

    Activists sell ideas.

    The majority of them have ideas that are workable.

    One Demand is an idea.

    An idea that isn't possible in the majority of states.

    It is an opposing idea to voting for big money candidates that do not deliver a working product.

    Every candidate in America meets your definition of "big money candidate." If none of those candidates delivered a working product, you'd have nothing to bitch and complain about. Also: Opinions are like ratholes.

    It may work in getting them elected but it does not work in providing a working government.

    And yet, a working government does exist... whether or not you're pleased with the way it works.

    The only way the product of an activist can work is if people find out about that product and decide to use it.

    You just admitted you don't have a product, remember? Now you're claiming you have a product. Do you even understand what having a "product" means? Apparently not.

    Also, the vast majority of states do not allow write-in votes: Thirty-three states will only accept votes for write-in candidates who have officially registered with the state and any other votes aren't valid and aren't counted. Nine states do not allow write-in votes.

    Simple math:

    9 states where your "idea" can't be done at all.

    33 states where "Big Money" is involved by the voter in order to register themselves in order to cast a valid vote that will be counted... otherwise, their vote is invalidated and goes uncounted.

    42 states!

    I can prove this:

    A write-in candidate is someone whose name does not appear on the ballot, but whose name must be written on the ballot by voters.[1]

    As of 2020, most states allow voters to write in the name of a candidate who does not appear on the ballot. However, states have varying rules about which write-in votes they count. These rules can be grouped into three categories:

    * No requirements for whom voters may write-in
    * Only write-in votes for registered candidates will be counted.
    * No write-in votes allowed[2]

    Eight states do not have any requirements and will allow voters to write in any name as a write-in vote. This means that regardless of who you write in, the vote will be counted.[3] Those states are Alabama, Delaware, Iowa, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, and Wyoming.

    Thirty-three states will only accept votes for write-in candidates who have officially registered with the state. In order for the vote to be counted, the candidate must have submitted all the necessary registration documents by a specific deadline, either by filing paperwork, paying a fee, collecting signatures, or some combination of the aforementioned.[4] Conversely, if a voter writes in the name of a candidate who has not properly filled out and submitted the paperwork, the vote will not be valid and counted.[5]

    Nine states (Arkansas, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina and South Dakota), do not allow write-in votes.

    https://ballotpedia.org/What_is_a_write-in_candidate%3F_(2020)

    *
    As One Demand is basic democracy in action to call One Demand unrealistic is saying that democracy is unrealistic.

    Bullshit. It isn't "democracy in action" to pledge to cast an invalid vote that won't be counted unless you pay "Big Money" to register yourself in the majority of states in order to make your vote valid and have it be counted. Nine states don't even give you that option at all anyway.

    Explain why using our votes to influence politicians is not basic democracy in action.

    An uncounted/invalided vote isn't the equivalent of a "vote." An invalid and uncounted vote isn't democracy; it's voluntary forfeiture of your place in our democracy and self-disenfranchisement.

    Then explain how using our votes to influence politicians cannot work.

    An uncounted/invalid "vote" doesn't constitute a valid vote. The only thing you influence a politician to do is campaign for those who will vote. The candidate who gets the most valid votes generally wins. You make their job easier by removing your voice voluntarily since you're not casting a valid vote.

    Then explain why we should vote if those things you explained are true.

    I don't give a shit if you vote; neither does a politician. The object of campaigning is to reach voters who will cast a legal vote. If you're not a valid voter, you are basically nonexistent to a campaign and crossed of their list.

    Or maybe just come up with another irrelevant tidbit like the girl scouts and their cookies.

    How does it feel to be less relevant than a Girl Scout cookie?

    Anything except acknowledging reality.

    How about you acknowledging the reality that your spew is full of lies and your idea of "reality" doesn't meet the definition. You can continue to lie yourself, but you're fooling no one who regularly reads this forum. :)

  32. [32] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Don,

    That is why you fail...
    -Yoda

  33. [33] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You have Girl Scout cookies down there?

    Huh. Up here we call them Girl Guide cookies. Which are very delicious. I usually buy them by the dozen of boxes. Heh.

  34. [34] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    27

    I didn't know that you are in the group that includes healthcare workers and the most vulnerable to developing severe disease.

    Because I am a volunteer at my local Veterans Administration hospital where my SO is a first responder, I was offered the vaccine in December 2020 but waited until all the doctors, nurses, and other full-time staff had a chance to receive theirs. My SO finally cajoled me into taking my first vaccine. He keeps trying to coax me into getting a chest x-ray (for fun?), and I keep refusing that too.

    Assuming you are, I'm glad you got your vaccine. Have you been scheduled for a second shot, assuming also that you got the Pfizer vaccine?

    I actually got the Moderna vaccine and have an appointment for another one in 28 days. My husband got the Pfizer since it was the only one approved when he received his. He said the first dose felt similar to receiving a flu shot, but the second one knocked him flat for about two days. He took bedrest for about 48 hours straight and whined a lot about body aches. Then he returned to normal.

    So far, the Moderna feels similar to getting a flu shot. My arm is beginning to ache. Otherwise, situation normal.

    Full disclosure: I realize this might be TMI, but I'm trying to get first-hand information to those that might be interested yet hesitant to take the vaccine. :)

  35. [35] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Good to hear.

  36. [36] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    28

    Great points. I could not agree more.

    Remember this?

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2020/02/25/reactions-to-the-democratic-debates-round-ten/#comment-154318

    Been living with COVID-19 on a first-hand basis since just shortly before we reported that. I watched in horror as Trump repeatedly lied and conned the public regarding the facts. Thank the voters Trump is gone; it's going to take a lot to undo the damage he's caused with his lies.

  37. [37] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Trump's lies were not a meaningful problem for those of us perceptive enough to recognize them as lies and ignore them.

    Anybody for whom Trump's lies caused undue damage might want to go to the pharmacy for some gullibility pills.

  38. [38] 
    TheStig wrote:

    C.R.S-37

    So, what you are saying is, it doesn't matter that Trump F'd us, as long as we understand he F'd us?

    The casualty count doesn't matter? The economic consequences aren't a problem? No - We learned a valuable lesson!

    I suppose putting your hand into the garbage disposal and losing a few fingers is a valuable lesson, but isn't foresight better? Trump was/is a known commodity long before he was elected. He performed as expected.

  39. [39] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Stig

    If you're talking about the dempa - er, I mean the pandemic, I don't blame that on Trump. He may have not managed it as well as we might have hoped, but I don't think anybody else would have done a bit better, causing me to deny that he phuqued us. Even if you believe he lied about it, I doubt that it made any difference as to how it played out.

    Your 'hand in the disposall' analogy is not comparable.

  40. [40] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @crs [39],

    you can't possibly be serious. donald more than 'mismanaged' the pandemic, he screwed the pooch about as thoroughly as one can. as of this moment, about 425,000 americans have lost their lives due to covid-19. by comparison, india has three times our population and one-third our number of covid-related deaths. at this time last year, not a single american was dead due to covid. how many of those deaths do you really think couldn't possibly have been prevented by better leadership?

    JL

  41. [41] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    39

    If you're talking about the dempa - er, I mean the pandemic, I don't blame that on Trump. He may have not managed it as well as we might have hoped, but I don't think anybody else would have done a bit better, causing me to deny that he phuqued us.

    It's obvious you're in denial, Stucki. "Be best" to pick up some of those gullibility pills at your Podunk pharmacy, and while you're in there, see if they'll sell you something for ignorance being bliss.

    Even if you believe he lied about it, I doubt that it made any difference as to how it played out.

    If you don't believe he lied about it -- despite all evidence in the affirmative -- take care of your obvious affliction by making an appointment with a proctologist for a procedure to extricate your cranium from Uranus.

    Your 'hand in the disposall' analogy is not comparable.

    That's why I went with "your head up your backside." :)

Comments for this article are closed.