[Tom Bishop]

Incorrect. You admitted yourself that the first fifteen minutes was introduction and background about himself and about his work.

Wow, you'll go to any lame lengths to support your narrative. "10 or 15 minutes for introductions and background on the work, before the real questions start." Seriously? Intro was 60 seconds. He then talks about his experience inside China and outside, and returning and present day. His art, his philosophy, his book etc. The latter being the point of the interview. 60 seconds on Trump, referencing a quote in his book regarding Trump by name. Then for the remaining 10 minutes he talks about globalization, human rights and stuff like that.

When they got off the background stuff one of the first things they did was to ask him to expand on Trump and his authoritarianism. That is what they wanted to talk about after going over his background, and even had graphic prepared with a quote from his book that seemed to suggest that Trump was an authoritarian.

Actually, there were questions about how his words about china are dangerous and how he feels about that. His thoughts on freedom of speech and such prior to the Trump question. And if you think that's "background" then I guess the question about Trump that came later was background too.

His book was largely about China and not about Trump. It's not a book about Trump. Your assertion that discussion about Chinese authoritarianism is not about the background of his work falls flat.

Look at these ludicrous excuses you continue to generate. It is pretty pathetic that you cant come up with one excuse and need a continuous series of them. First it's because of this, then it's because of that, then another thing. Face plant fail.

[Rama Set]

Incorrect. You admitted yourself that the first fifteen minutes was introduction and background about himself and about his work.

Wow, you'll go to any lame lengths to support your narrative. "10 or 15 minutes for introductions and background on the work, before the real questions start." Seriously? Intro was 60 seconds. He then talks about his experience inside China and outside, and returning and present day. His art, his philosophy, his book etc. The latter being the point of the interview. 60 seconds on Trump, referencing a quote in his book regarding Trump by name. Then for the remaining 10 minutes he talks about globalization, human rights and stuff like that.

When they got off the background stuff one of the first things they did was to ask him to expand on Trump and his authoritarianism. That is what they wanted to talk about after going over his background, and even had graphic prepared with a quote from his book that seemed to suggest that Trump was an authoritarian.

Actually, there were questions about how his words about china are dangerous and how he feels about that. His thoughts on freedom of speech and such prior to the Trump question. And if you think that's "background" then I guess the question about Trump that came later was background too.

His book was largely about China and not about Trump. It's not a book about Trump. Your assertion that discussion about Chinese authoritarianism is not about the background of his work falls flat.

Look at these ludicrous excuses you continue to generate. It is pretty pathetic that you cant come up with one excuse and need a continuous series of them. First it's because of this, then it's because of that, then another thing. Face plant fail.

He has been rehashing the same point over and over.  This clearly was not an entire interview designed to bash Trump, and Ai Wei Wei clearly said that Trump wasn't an authoritarian because he doesn't have systemic support.  I know you only comprehend a world of stark black and white, but that isn't what the world is actually like. 

Now perhaps we can turn away from your butthurt feelings on PBS and turn back to the topic of Trump?  Tell us what you think of Trump recommending vaccines?  Is he part of the sheep?  If not, why is his support different than others?  If yes, why are you comfortable supporting him in light of strident condemnation of the vaccine?

[stack]

It is curious. I wonder if the Qanon's and normal ardent Trump supporters have disavowed DJT because of his super-pro vaccine stance. I mean, he is super-pro vaccine...as evidenced by his quotes...

Dear Republicans: Your favorite president wants you to get vaccinated

2021:

- February: 'Everybody, go get your shot”
- March: “I would recommend it to a lot of people that don’t want to get it and a lot of those people voted for me, frankly.”
- April: “The federal pause on the J&J shot makes no sense,” Trump said, adding: “Just six people out of the nearly 7 million who’ve gotten the Johnson & Johnson vaccine reported blood clots.”
- April: “I’m all in favor of the vaccine. It’s one of the great achievements, a true miracle, and not only for the United States. We’re saving tens of millions of lives throughout the world. We’re saving entire countries.”
- July: “I recommend you take it, but I also believe in your freedoms 100 percent.”
- August: “Now one thing: When you have the vaccine, people that do [get infected] — and it’s a very small number relatively, but people that do get it — get better much quicker,” Trump said. “And it’s very important to know. They don’t get nearly as sick, and they get better."
- August: “I recommend take the vaccines,” he said. “It’s good. I did it. Take the vaccines.”
- September: “The vaccines do work,” Trump said on a conservative talk-radio show. “And they are effective. So here’s my thing: I think I saved millions and millions of lives around the world.”

Not to mention, we all know he got the booster.

[Lord Dave]

It is curious. I wonder if the Qanon's and normal ardent Trump supporters have disavowed DJT because of his super-pro vaccine stance. I mean, he is super-pro vaccine...as evidenced by his quotes...

Dear Republicans: Your favorite president wants you to get vaccinated

2021:

- February: 'Everybody, go get your shot”
- March: “I would recommend it to a lot of people that don’t want to get it and a lot of those people voted for me, frankly.”
- April: “The federal pause on the J&J shot makes no sense,” Trump said, adding: “Just six people out of the nearly 7 million who’ve gotten the Johnson & Johnson vaccine reported blood clots.”
- April: “I’m all in favor of the vaccine. It’s one of the great achievements, a true miracle, and not only for the United States. We’re saving tens of millions of lives throughout the world. We’re saving entire countries.”
- July: “I recommend you take it, but I also believe in your freedoms 100 percent.”
- August: “Now one thing: When you have the vaccine, people that do [get infected] — and it’s a very small number relatively, but people that do get it — get better much quicker,” Trump said. “And it’s very important to know. They don’t get nearly as sick, and they get better."
- August: “I recommend take the vaccines,” he said. “It’s good. I did it. Take the vaccines.”
- September: “The vaccines do work,” Trump said on a conservative talk-radio show. “And they are effective. So here’s my thing: I think I saved millions and millions of lives around the world.”

Not to mention, we all know he got the booster.

They have a blind spot.  Or just boo him when he talks about it.

[Rama Set]

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/after-2020-trump-backers-forged-election-docs-even-more-states-n1287365

This looks like more republican election fraud from 2020.

[Lord Dave]

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/after-2020-trump-backers-forged-election-docs-even-more-states-n1287365

This looks like more republican election fraud from 2020.

Trump kept saying he had proof of fraud.....

[WTF_Seriously]

Any day now Trump's going to be reinstated as president.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mike-lindell-claims-he-has-election-fraud-evidence-to-jail-millions-for-life/ar-AASIeUs?li=BBnbfcL

[stack]

I'm still kinda surprised it's 2022 and the election is still a "thing". But perhaps I shouldn't be surprised...

Former President Trump Cuts NPR Interview Short When Pressed On Election Lies | NPR



I can't wait to see what Pillow guy's evidence is that will incarcerate 90% of the US population, including man, woman, and child.

"We already have all the pieces of the puzzle," Lindell said. "When you talk about evidence, we have enough evidence to put everybody in prison for life –300 some million people."

And it's shocking that he has spent $25 million on the fraud thing. I almost feel sorry for him.

[Roundy]

Any day now Trump's going to be reinstated as president.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mike-lindell-claims-he-has-election-fraud-evidence-to-jail-millions-for-life/ar-AASIeUs?li=BBnbfcL

Surely at this point the only people paying any attention to what this doofus says are liberals like us that are laughing at him. Right?

[honk]

Most Republicans still believe that the election was stolen, and Republican politicians are pointing to 2020 as justification to pass new laws restricting voter rights as well as laws to essentially let them declare their preferred candidate the winner if they like. It's easy to laugh at a clown like Lindell, but he's not representative of the true danger of repeating and spreading the lie that Trump won the election.

[Pete Svarrior]

Most Republicans still believe that the election was stolen

What's more interesting is that the only group that's decidedly certain the election was not fraudulent is the group whose candidate won.

[Rama Set]

Most Republicans still believe that the election was stolen

What's more interesting is that the only group that's decidedly certain the election was not fraudulent is the group whose candidate won.

It’s not that interesting. It’s pretty normal.

[Roundy]

Most Republicans still believe that the election was stolen

What's more interesting is that the only group that's decidedly certain the election was not fraudulent is the group whose candidate won.

Sure. I mean, that ignores all of the judges appointed by Trump who refused to back up his lies, and all of the Republicans that have spoken against the lie, and the fact that not a shred of evidence yet exists to support the lie. But wow, how interesting.

[Pete Svarrior]

Sure. I mean, that ignores all of the judges appointed by Trump who refused to back up his lies, and all of the Republicans that have spoken against the lie, and the fact that not a shred of evidence yet exists to support the lie. But wow, how interesting.

It's telling that you seem to think me pointing this out implies that I grant Trump's screeching legitimacy, or that you need to rush to Joe Biden's defence.

No, I didn't say the election was a fraud, nor do I believe it was (since this apparently needs stating 🙄). I said it was interesting that the only voter group that seems completely convinced is the group that won. If your nation keeps acting like polarising idiots, it's only gonna get more interesting.

It’s not that interesting. It’s pretty normal.

Is it? Obviously I have a strong places-that-aren't-the-USA bias, but that seems largely unprecedented for western-style democracies. Do you have any examples of this happening elsewhere in similar systems?

[Rama Set]

It’s not that interesting. It’s pretty normal.

Is it? Obviously I have a strong places-that-aren't-the-USA bias, but that seems largely unprecedented for western-style democracies. Do you have any examples of this happening elsewhere in similar systems?

Sorry, I should specify: it’s normal for the loser of a US election to be more suspicious of the result than the winner. Like Russiagate in 2016. 2020 feels extraordinary because unlike 2016, the suspicion hasn’t abated even with pretty thorough debunking of every claim of fraud.

[Pete Svarrior]

Sorry, I should specify: it’s normal for the loser of a US election to be more suspicious of the result than the winner. Like Russiagate in 2016.

Hmm, were the numbers of Democrats that brought Trump's election into question actually comparable to what's happening now? I was under the impression that it was mostly a few desperate journos, the same type that made up batshit stories about his piss fetish or whatever. And now it's difficult to research the subject because anything to do with Trump and election legitimacy brings up the wrong election.

I'm curious and I'll keep digging, but in the meantime if you have any data, I'd love to see it.

Also, Republicans being sceptical wouldn't be too surprising. It's the fact that everyone but Democrats seems to score pretty low on confidence that makes it additionally interesting. The scores for independents and all respondents are quite low.

[Rama Set]

Sorry, I should specify: it’s normal for the loser of a US election to be more suspicious of the result than the winner. Like Russiagate in 2016.

Hmm, were the numbers of Democrats that brought Trump's election into question actually comparable to what's happening now?

I don’t think it’s comparable. I bet you’d be hard pressed to find any election in any western democracy where 50% of the losers refuse to concede defeat two years later. It’s truly ominous.

I was under the impression that it was mostly a few desperate journos, the same type that made up batshit stories about his piss fetish or whatever. And now it's difficult to research the subject because anything to do with Trump and election legitimacy brings up the wrong election.

Anecdotally, most everyone I knew tossed out the word “collusion” at some point for a short time, but it died down pretty quick.

I'm curious and I'll keep digging, but in the meantime if you have any data, I'd love to see it.

I found which explores the “winner effect” and has links to some other sources.

Also, Republicans being sceptical wouldn't be too surprising. It's the fact that everyone but Democrats seems to score pretty low on confidence that makes it additionally interesting. The scores for independents and all respondents are quite low.

What confidence did independents have and what percentage of the population are they? In advance, I’ll declare that most American’s declaring themselves independent are usually just cloaking their true political allegiance in the same way that people claim they don’t have biases. I don’t buy that they aren’t just republicans who are afraid to own up to their beliefs. Regardless, I’m interested to know what they polled like.

[Snupes]

No, I didn't say the election was a fraud, nor do I believe it was (since this apparently needs stating 🙄).

To be fair, you're surely aware how your statement will likely read in a world of bad-faith "I just think it's interesting" and "I'm just asking question" interlocutors that vaguepost and then get indignant and defensive when pushed on implications. I find it hard to believe that's genuinely surprising. If I read your comment and weren't already fairly certain you didn't believe the election was fraudulent, I would probably suspect you're playing the Jordan Peterson game as well lol

It's the fact that everyone but Democrats seems to score pretty low on confidence that makes it additionally interesting. The scores for independents and all respondents are quite low.

Do you mind linking some data for this? From what I've read (which I'll admit is just a handful of articles and studies) it seems this split tends to happen, and given the hard reaction from the right--and the fact that people are reactionary--it makes sense to me that the left would react by expressing greater confidence. I only briefly looked (I'm working right now and shouldn't be here responding lol) but I'm not seeing any great data for independents this election vs prior elections. If you have that that'd be great, otherwise I'll look again after work.

Basically I don't disagree that it's interesting by the definition of the word, but interesting can mean so many things colloquially that it just seems like a weird post to make with no further extrapolation.

EDIT: Looking at the poll that spawned this, 82% trust for Dems and 68% for Independents seems like what I would expect. I'm going by memory so I don't remember the exact numbers but Democratic victories were, what, around 75% trust from Dems for 2008/2012? The Republican trust there is 33%, vs like 65% in 2008 and ~55% from 2012, but obv we haven't had a president and party push election fraud this hard and this publicly/successfully before.

I got that data from a Harvard study I can link if needed, I don't have it on hand right now, but I guess I definitely need to know what data we're using, how we're measuring confidence, and how we're defining words. 😅

[Roundy]

Sure. I mean, that ignores all of the judges appointed by Trump who refused to back up his lies, and all of the Republicans that have spoken against the lie, and the fact that not a shred of evidence yet exists to support the lie. But wow, how interesting.

It's telling that you seem to think me pointing this out implies that I grant Trump's screeching legitimacy, or that you need to rush to Joe Biden's defence.

No, I didn't say the election was a fraud, nor do I believe it was (since this apparently needs stating 🙄). I said it was interesting that the only voter group that seems completely convinced is the group that won. If your nation keeps acting like polarising idiots, it's only gonna get more interesting.

Oh, crap. Then I guess I have to agree with you on all points. I totally misinterpreted what you were saying.

You have to understand that I come across many people who would say much what you said and be legitimizing Trump's claims. But in hindsight it was pretty dumb attributing anything like that to you.

As to the larger point, I just don't know what to do about the deeply polarized state of our country. It's frustrating, because as you well recognize, in this specific case anyway, one side is clearly right and one wrong. And the more you try to talk reason to them, the more they tune you out as an elitist communist snob. And if you try ridiculing them they wear it like a badge of honor. It's a fact that I keep bringing up that Rush Limbaugh's fans referred to themselves as dittoheads. It's a badge of honor to them to be a blithering puppet. It's unreal. And I'm not saying this isn't something you see on both sides, but it seems to be baked into being a modern Republican.

As far as Joe Biden I'm only rushing to his defense as a legitimate winner in the last election. I'm not happy with the job that he's doing. I still thank God every day that Trump isn't still in office.

[honk]

Is it normal to survey citizens about whether or not they believe the election their nation just held was legitimate? In the United States or any other country? I'm not really sure how to look something like that up, but my guess is that in most countries, it's not really a subject that comes up in mainstream political discussions. I don't remember it being a thing for the last few presidential elections - at least not since 2000, and in that case it involved a genuine procedural controversy. People generally have faith in the integrity of the voting process, even if they hate the results. It's only become an issue for this last election because Trump made it an issue. Public trust is a fragile thing, and it only takes a few careless remarks from an influential leader like Trump to shatter it. I think something similar could very easily happen in other Western democracies - someone loses an election and doesn't like it, cries foul, and then all of a sudden a process once generally accepted as trustworthy is now incredibly controversial. That doesn't sound like a uniquely American problem to me.