2020 Election Commentary

[HappyDaze]

Greetings!

Terence Popp discusses Coup D'estate we are witnessing.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

When Popp talks, I picture him as Roddy Piper. It doesn't hurt that the message is pretty much "Put on these glasses, or start eating that trash can."

[rawma]

"Russian interference" was always "Russians put out some fake news bullshit to add chaos". It was never that they changed any election results or hacked something. And yes they put out more misinformation this year too. So? It never bothered me much. Misinformation is not that big a deal. The extremes of both political parties and bullshit groups like qanon put out so much misinformation it's hard to get worked up about more misinformation from a foreign nation.

So Richard Nixon wouldn't have had to resign if he'd just gotten Russians to break into the Democratic headquarters... I learn so much here!

"President-elect" is not an official term, at least according to Wikipedia. But to 80% of the US population--and 99% of the world--yes, he is.

And indeed, almost 80% of Americans think Biden won. (Hey, polls can be off, as in Florida, so maybe let's only say 75% as of 11/10 and remember there's a margin of error.)

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll/nearly-80-of-americans-say-biden-won-white-house-ignoring-trumps-refusal-to-concede-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKBN27Q3ED

But president-elect does have some legal meaning; once the GSA recognizes the apparent winner as president-elect, they get funding and access for the transition effort. The current head of the GSA won't recognize Biden's victory but coincidentally she is looking for another job. Luckily, it's not like there's a health crisis or an economic crisis ravaging the country, so delaying the transition just to soothe Donald Trump's ego can't possibly have any bad effects on the country.

[Mistwell]

Is he still calling himself "Doctor"?

While it is a bit pretentious, Gorka does have a doctorate in Political Science. Strictly speaking, he isn't wrong.

He's a "doctor" like Tom Parker was a "colonel":

Haaretz

Stop Calling Him 'Dr.': The Academic Fraud of Sebastian Gorka, Trump's Terrorism 'Expert'

The only formally qualified examiner for Gorka's Ph.D. on a panel packed with personal friends was an extreme right-wing Hungarian MEP who recently advocated putting pigs heads on a fence on the Hungarian border to keep out Muslims

Early on a mustache-twirling villain emerged as the face of the Trump White House. With the mannerisms of a pompous English B-movie baddy, Sebastian Gorka is to Donald Trump what the Sheriff of Nottingham was to King John. The malevolent sidekick.

Dr. Gorka styles himself as the crusading academic. A Kissinger for our troubled times. The brilliant scholar of terrorism who has taught at elite colleges and published groundbreaking research. He often reminds the imbeciles of the press that as a man of great learning only he truly comprehends the threat of Muslims.

But experts have listened to Gorka's advocacy of the Muslim ban, attacks on the media and sterling defence of Trump's "well-oiled' administration and wondered how could such a well trained academic make such baseless and ignorant claims about topics he purports to be an expert on? In March he became embroiled in a remarkable spat with a Republican National Security consultant, Michael S. Smith. Gorka is flailing widely – tilting at enemies real and imagined.

I started digging and it didn't take long to find out that Gorka is a fraud – a charlatan of the most brazen hue – a snake-oil salesman whose supposed Ph.D dissertation would have never passed muster in America or Britain and to put the cherry on the cake was approved by an fraudulent panel of examiners. The polar opposite of Lt. Gen H.R. McMasters' celebrated dissertation awarded by UNC Chapel Hill.

Gorka is Hungarian-English. He gained an American passport in 2012. His nationalist parents fled to London from Budapest in 1956. His dissertation – Content and End-State-based Alteration in the Practice of Political Violence since the End of the Cold War: the difference between the terrorism of the Cold War and the terrorism of al Qaeda: the rise of the "transcendental terrorist, was apparently granted in 2007 by Corvinus University of Budapest.

The tract is long on Islamophobia and the unsubstantiated claims of the polemicist but short on theory, evidence or academic rigor. Corvinus is not an institution with a profile, so I looked: sadly it doesn't even make the top 1,000 in the Times Higher Education World University Rankings.

Even Gorka's attendance poses a mystery. When exactly was he a graduate student at the university? Did he take classes? Did he receive any training in Islam or Islamic studies? His CV notes that he left Hungary in 2004 to work for the U.S. Defense Department in Germany and then in 2008 relocated to the U.S. There is no evidence that he ever returned to live and study in Budapest.

The dissertation is online and includes the 'evaluations' of three referees who each presented a page of generalized comments – completely at odds with the detailed substantive and methodological evaluations that I've seen at every Ph.D defence I've been on over the last twenty years.

Two of the three referees did not even have a Ph.D. One was the U.S. Defense Attaché at the American Embassy in Budapest at the time, while the other was employed at the UK's Defence Academy and just had a BA from Manchester University awarded in 1969.

This 'neutral' examiner had published a book in Hungary with Gorka three years previously. While graduate students sometimes collaborate with their advisors the independent external examiners must have no nepotistic ties with the candidate.

More important, a basic principle of assessing educational achievement is that your examiners have at least the degree level of the degree they are awarding. Undergraduates do not award Ph.Ds.

In Gorka's case the only examiner who lists a doctorate was György Schöpflin – an extreme right wing Hungarian Member of the European Parliament who recently advocated putting pigs heads on a fence on the Hungarian border to keep out Muslims. I have been told that Schöpflin was a family friend. Both Schöpflin and Gorka's father fled from Budapest to London in the 1950s and both moved in exile right-wing nationalist circles.

If that is true, we are left in sum with a degree that was awarded in absence – on the basis of a dissertation without basic political science methodological underpinnings – and apparently from an examining committee of two of Gorka's diplomat friends, with only BA degrees; along with an old family friend, Schöpflin.

In sum, Gorka's Ph.D is about as legitimate as if he had been awarded it by Trump University. Facts matter, but so does the gathering, synthesizing and creation of knowledge that is what we call 'education.' If you fake a Ph.D you are faking your credentials. He delivers provable untruths to the American public but is believed by many because he presents himself as an esteemed scholar of Islam. Gorka would never have got away with such chutzpah in the UK.

Experience and scholarship work in harness to produce answers to questions. When you have neither experience nor training you are likely to not merely get the answers wrong, but not even have an inkling of which questions to ask.

Clearly Gorka yearns to be taken seriously and he uses the "Dr." credentials in a way that no one who earned the degree would ever do. In his 2016 screed, Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War, he is Dr. Sebastian Gorka on the front cover.

Tacky or just an alternative fact? This is the man we have as a chief national security advisor to the President. That may not change, but lets give him the professional respect he deserves and stop calling him 'Dr.'

Andrew Reynolds is a Professor of Political Science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.Follow him on Twitter: @AndyReynoldsUNC

So Gorka earned his PhD the way Elvis earned his blackbelt?  LOFL!

Strange isn't it, how out of all the right-wing thinkers, the ones that attract the biggest following are crackpots (Marvin Olasky, Jordan Peterson), frauds (Gorka) or outright Nazis (Charles Murray).

Interesting if true, but then I'll have to vet the author of this "takedown" as well. After reading around the link you provided, I am skeptical that the person that wrote this opinion piece is even remotely unbiased. You may not respect his doctorate, but ostensibly he does have one. I do agree that very few (not a medical doctor would actually call themselves a doctor) would use this title, and as I mentioned I find it tacky. Though I have had professors that insisted on just that, so it's not unheard of. Not sure where you get the notion that Murray is a Nazi. Sam Harris certainly doesn't think so, nor do I. Just because he has examined some politically incorrect subjects is no reason to slander the man. Secondly, the only real Nazi's basically died out 75+ years, so hyperbole aside, what's your beef with Murray? As to the crackpots... that's an opinion, and it's pretty obvious your biases are showing. I would wager Peterson has published more cited publications than you have read in your lifetime, perhaps not, but I'll trust the prevailing opinion in lieu of yours.

Greetings!

Yeah, Shuddemell! I have had *many* professors refer to themselves as DR--quite explicitly, as a matter of fact. What's with the quaint insistence by others that *only* Medical Doctors are referred to as "DR."? I would say most academics I have seen refer to themselves as DR. History, Philosophy, Political Science, Anthropology, and on and on.

As one Philosophy Professor told me, "I studied for 12 years and more to earn my Ph.D. So I am quite entitled to be referred to as DR, thank you very much. Courts of Law, academic institutions and more fully recognize the merit and status of DR, and those that have put in the work to achieve such a title."

I'm not sure where these people get the idea that only medical experts are doctors--they aren't. There are different specialties, but the achievement of PH.D. is still DR for whoever has achieved that status, and rightfully so. For those to insist that only medical people are DR is ignorant and pathetic, and simply not true or accurate.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

The only places where I've really seen the "don't call people with non-clinical PhDs doctors is in clinical settings (hospitals, etc.), and the reason is typically said to be for avoiding confusing patients. This still has some weirdness in behavioral settings with psychologists vs. psychiatrists, but both generally go with "doctor" without too much issue. What I really found weird is when you have someone with a PhD in Nursing. They're a doctor, but not a doctor (but, as a NP, they are a medical provider)... Just weird.

I technically have a doctorate. My diploma says Doctorate of Jurisprudence. But if anyone ever calls me Dr., it's as a joke.

[EOTB]

Can any of you doctors figure out how not to quote 6 posts to add a sentence of commentary?

[Pat]

Can any of you doctors figure out how not to quote 6 posts to add a sentence of commentary?

Can any of you doctors figure out how not to quote 6 posts to add a sentence of commentary?

Can any of you doctors figure out how not to quote 6 posts to add a sentence of commentary?

Can any of you doctors figure out how not to quote 6 posts to add a sentence of commentary?

Can any of you doctors figure out how not to quote 6 posts to add a sentence of commentary?

Can any of you doctors figure out how not to quote 6 posts to add a sentence of commentary?

Can any of you doctors figure out how not to quote 6 posts to add a sentence of commentary?

Can any of you doctors figure out how not to quote 6 posts to add a sentence of commentary?

Can any of you doctors figure out how not to quote 6 posts to add a sentence of commentary?

Can any of you doctors figure out how not to quote 6 posts to add a sentence of commentary?

No.

[EOTB]

Oh fuck, I'm on the opposite side of an argument from Elfdart using fap emojis - that's the universe telling you there's no reason to doubt!

The counter-arguers:

Lincoln Project crushees

Fact-checking analysts who believe the phrase "head on a pike" is not a metaphor

Assorted leftists more gleeful than any time since before they learned what "catfishing" was

Elfdart, more gleeful than any time since before he learned he could no longer catfish them

Yes, I think with opposition like this I need to reconsider RIGHT NOW before all the facts that could be, are put before a court

It seems to me that different people have different positions that fall along a spectrum, rather than just us-vs-them. Specifically about fraud, at one extreme, RandyB believes that there were over 40 million fraudulent votes cast for Biden. I'm not sure who is the other extreme on this forum - but there are certainly some liberals in general who now reflexively dismiss claims of fraud without critical thought -- just as there are some conservatives who reflexively believe claims of fraud without critical thought.

-

Also, I think I'm the one being called out over the "head on a pike". For the record, I agree that it was metaphorical, but I don't think that makes it acceptable. Specifically, I was responding to this article posted by shuddemell that calls out liberals for making metaphorical death threats:

https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/26/7-open-leftist-threats-that-political-terror-is-coming-to-america-whether-trump-wins-or-not/

I agreed with the article that the metaphorical death threats by liberals was wrong. (ref)

Yes, and I'm stating that I think only people who have difficulty with context would say one of these things is like the other:

"This specific group will be first against the wall and shot in the revolution"

"That guy's head should be on a pike"

Only one of these is recognized idiom.  You can leftsplain this all you want, but no one here is a child unfamiliar with language usage.  We've heard the phrase for decades and know what it means.  So either you don't know (ignorant/unable to discern context) or you know but don't care.  But those two being rhetorically equivalent is not a valid option.

If idiom usage is bad, only one side is disingenuously punished for it by gatekeepers friendly to the other - again, this speaks volumes


https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/831483401467265024

[EOTB]

No.

Great, now the architect-engineers are getting in on it too!

[consolcwby]

Today's Info dump:
===================
https://twitter.com/TimMurtaugh/status/1328169116230971397
https://twitter.com/TimMurtaugh/status/1328353599865442304
https://twitter.com/CodeMonkeyZ/status/1328342166007992323
https://twitter.com/CodeMonkeyZ/status/1328354011913699328
https://twitter.com/KMCRadio/status/1328312042030309376
https://www.manilatimes.net/2016/06/21/opinion/columnists/never-again-to-smartmatic/269238/
https://twitter.com/RepMattGaetz/status/1328393545913430020

Twitter suspended an account - no shit:
"1) here is the K R A K E N:
[THREAD]
Do -minion controls 70 Million votes,
Do -minion machines are used in 28 States
including:
– Pennsylvania
– Georgia
– Michigan
– Wisconsin
2) Do -minion machines are used also in:
– Arizona
– Nevada

and in:
– Colorado
– Minnesota
– Ohio

who really won these States?
5) wherever Do -minion machines are used,
you can be certain the SCAM has been rampant

I estimate a SCAM of 35 MILLION votes – Nationwide"
— Greg Rubini (@GregRubini) November 15, 2020

If this above information is true... then - OUCH! If a troll - it's still interesting (as far as twitter/reddit trolling).
And, of course, there's this: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-imposing-certain-sanctions-event-foreign-interference-united-states-election/

===================

Note: Of course, I don't believe everything I read nor everything I hear of. But posting information to further conversation and letting people research and make up their own minds is what I'm doing. When I find something interesting I post it. Perhaps Clinton/Biden vote differentials are meant to be looked at as a % of registered and confirmed votes? Or a ratio? Something to followup on for sure. Not disputing anyone here, just posting...

[Snowman0147]

That is quite the info dump and thank you for it.

[Pat]

Letter from the ranking member of the House Subcommittee of Government Operations to the Administrator of the General Services Administration, defining how the President-Elect is determined.
https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Letter-to-GSA-re-Transition-final-11.13.20-1.pdf

November 13, 2020

The Honorable Emily Murphy
Administrator
General Services Administration
1800 F St. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20405

Dear Administrator Murphy:

On November 9, 2020, Democratic House Members sent you a letter that misrepresented the facts surrounding your responsibilities under the Presidential Transition Act of 1963. I write to correct the record.

Under the Act, you, as administrator of the General Services Administration (GSA), have the authority to provide government-funded transition assistance to the President-Elect and the Vice-President-Elect. However, this assistance can only occur after there are "apparent successful candidates for the office of the President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained by the Administrator [you]."

There are enough state contests in question, such that there is not yet an apparent President or Vice-President-Elect. Precedent and legislative history present three situations where there may be an un-apparent President-Elect:

• The drafters of the Act anticipated three electoral situations where there would be an unapparent President-Elect: (1) a tie, (2) a plurality winner, or (3) the presence of extensive voter fraud or intimidation. The third being applicable to 2020 since the Trump campaign has raised questions and filed legal challenges in several states;
• The drafters concluded that "if there is any doubt in the Administrator's mind" the Administrator does not have to release transition assistance. Since states have not yet certified an electoral winner and some states are still tabulating legal ballots, there remains doubt as to the winner; and
• The precedent set by the Clinton Administration in the contested 2000 election is that to ascertain an apparent President-Elect there would need to be a concession—which has not yet occurred in 2020—or no more legitimate continuing legal challenges—which has not yet occurred in 2020.

According to Congressional intent and past precedent set by President Clinton, as of today, there is no apparent President-Elect.

A GSA spokesman recently stated that "the GSA Administrator ascertains the apparent successful candidate once a winner is clear based on the process laid out in the Constitution." I strongly encourage you to do just that: follow the Constitution and past precedent, not the media, when making your determination of the President-Elect. This democracy relies on a rule of law and the law must be followed.

Sincerely,
Jody Hice
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Government Operations

[jhkim]

5) wherever Do -minion machines are used,
you can be certain the SCAM has been rampant

I estimate a SCAM of 35 MILLION votes – Nationwide"
— Greg Rubini (@GregRubini) November 15, 2020

If this above information is true... then - OUCH! If a troll - it's still interesting

Note: Of course, I don't believe everything I read nor everything I hear of. But posting information to further conversation and letting people research and make up their own minds is what I'm doing. When I find something interesting I post it. Perhaps Clinton/Biden vote differentials are meant to be looked at as a % of registered and confirmed votes? Or a ratio? Something to followup on for sure. Not disputing anyone here, just posting...

But there's nothing there about how he came to that conclusion, so I don't see how I would evaluate this. Regarding information: I found it interesting to browse through the VerifiedVoting maps, which track which machines are used in which counties.

https://verifiedvoting.org/verifier/#mode/navigate/map/ppEquip/mapType/normal/year/2020

The interesting thing is that you can use the Search tab to look through at exactly where ES&S systems are used, or Dominion systems. One thing that shocked me in this was how widespread Internet voting is now. I had read previously about its use in Delaware and West Virginia, but there are a number of other states that are apparently allowing it in some cases: North Dakota, Missouri, Alabama, North Carolina, and South Carolina. I've previously written about opposing electronic-only (aka DRE) voting machines - but Internet voting is even worse.

I don't have a clear opinion on ES&S versus Dominion at this point. Prior to this election, it seemed to me that they were both evaluated similarly. There also doesn't seem to be a partisan divide between the two leading vendors - plenty of Democratic and Republican states have bought into both.

[oggsmash]

  Best long term prognosis at this point for the country is for both those senate seats in Georgia to go to Democrats.   That should get things moving right along towards to the best outcome we will all get from the political division.

[Ghostmaker]

What the fuck.

Wow. Just... wow. I cannot wait to see how the left tries to spin this. There is no sane, rational reason for us to use a goddamn election system with ties to fucking Venezuela of all places.

Stolen elections. That's what we get. Hope everyone bought enough ammo.

[Elfdart]

Letter from the ranking member of the House Subcommittee of Government Operations to the Administrator of the General Services Administration, defining how the President-Elect is determined.
https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Letter-to-GSA-re-Transition-final-11.13.20-1.pdf

November 13, 2020

The Honorable Emily Murphy
Administrator
General Services Administration
1800 F St. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20405

Dear Administrator Murphy:

On November 9, 2020, Democratic House Members sent you a letter that misrepresented the facts surrounding your responsibilities under the Presidential Transition Act of 1963. I write to correct the record.

Under the Act, you, as administrator of the General Services Administration (GSA), have the authority to provide government-funded transition assistance to the President-Elect and the Vice-President-Elect. However, this assistance can only occur after there are "apparent successful candidates for the office of the President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained by the Administrator [you]."

There are enough state contests in question, such that there is not yet an apparent President or Vice-President-Elect. Precedent and legislative history present three situations where there may be an un-apparent President-Elect:

• The drafters of the Act anticipated three electoral situations where there would be an unapparent President-Elect: (1) a tie, (2) a plurality winner, or (3) the presence of extensive voter fraud or intimidation. The third being applicable to 2020 since the Trump campaign has raised questions and filed legal challenges in several states;
• The drafters concluded that "if there is any doubt in the Administrator's mind" the Administrator does not have to release transition assistance. Since states have not yet certified an electoral winner and some states are still tabulating legal ballots, there remains doubt as to the winner; and
• The precedent set by the Clinton Administration in the contested 2000 election is that to ascertain an apparent President-Elect there would need to be a concession—which has not yet occurred in 2020—or no more legitimate continuing legal challenges—which has not yet occurred in 2020.

According to Congressional intent and past precedent set by President Clinton, as of today, there is no apparent President-Elect.

A GSA spokesman recently stated that "the GSA Administrator ascertains the apparent successful candidate once a winner is clear based on the process laid out in the Constitution." I strongly encourage you to do just that: follow the Constitution and past precedent, not the media, when making your determination of the President-Elect. This democracy relies on a rule of law and the law must be followed.

Sincerely,
Jody Hice
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Government Operations

In other words, one of Cheeto Mussolini's lackeys wrote a letter that rivals Mommie Dearest when it comes to unintentional comedy -with the bolded part being the "Tina! Bring me the axe!" scene.

(3) the presence of extensive voter fraud or intimidation. The third being applicable to 2020 since the Trump campaign has raised questions and filed legal challenges in several states;

There is no "extensive voter fraud" and what little has been uncovered has mostly been MAGA morons trying to cheat at the polls. The fact that the white supremacist Oompa-Loompa's personal attorney* has made all kinds of ridiculous claims doesn't make them true.

*You know, this guy:

[Pat]

There is no "extensive voter fraud" and what little has been uncovered has mostly been MAGA morons trying to cheat at the polls. The fact that the white supremacist Oompa-Loompa's personal attorney* has made all kinds of ridiculous claims doesn't make them true.

Determining that is the job of the courts, not GSA administrators or highly partisan internet posters who think movie clips are evidence.

And it would be a strange world where a "white supremacist" does so well among black and hispanic voters, wouldn't it?