Odd as it may sound, Trump claimed that there was fraud in 2016, just not to the extent of the last election. Preparing the way for any future loss, I guess. But you’re referring to claims of foreign interference? Intelligence agencies reported that it was true, and the Mueller report didn’t exonerate the prez of collusion as he claims it did.

That is my general philosophical position - and incidentally, it's why humankind is headed for extinction. — counterpunch

Let’s hope it doesn’t take root then.

No. It's not sarcasm. My philosophical aim is to save humankind from extinction, and I know how. The only conceit is the immodesty of saying so. So, yes, it's tongue in cheek, but true nevertheless.

There is no alternative to acting on the basis of belief; the important thig is to make sure those beliefs are valid. I said, I don't know if the election was fraudulent - but if it was, they did the right thing. — counterpunch

They didn't do the right thing because they had no evidence that there had been voter fraud. Acting on blind belief is not doing the right thing. Even if it turned out that there had been voter fraud, they still would not have been doing the right thing, but rather their blind belief would have just happened to turn out to be true. I haven't read the whole thread so apologies if someone else has already made this point.

They didn't do the right thing because they had no evidence that there had been voter fraud. Acting on blind belief is not doing the right thing. Even if it turned out that there had been voter fraud, they still would not have been doing the right, but their blind belief would have just happened to turn out to be true. I haven't read the whole thread so apologies if someone else has already made this point. — Janus

When you claim that the election would be fraudulent before the actual election, then yeah. How come his followers had forgotten that?

I don't know if the election was a fraud or not. I'm in the UK - a long way from this, and I could get just as convincing arguments from the other side, saying the 2016 vote was valid and the 2020 vote a fraud. I don't know enough to form an opinion. But I can say, both sides have made claims the election system is open to fraud - and that's not good. Particularly as, it seems, in 2016 and 2020 - the apparent results have been, or are going to be sustained. Is all this sour grapes?

I don't know if the election was a fraud or not. I'm in the UK - a long way from this, and I could get just as convincing arguments from the other side, saying the 2016 vote was valid and the 2020 vote a fraud. I don't know enough to form an opinion. But I can say, both sides have made claims the election system is open to fraud - and that's not good. Particularly as, it seems, in 2016 and 2020 - the apparent results have been, or are going to be sustained. Is all this sour grapes? — counterpunch

No one contested in 2016 as far as I know, and I just mentioned the very large differences of how transfer of power was handled between 2016 and now. Also just mentioned that Trump said he believed there to be fraud BEFORE the election.. so what do you make of that shit? Ridiculous move.. He threatened calling fraud and did it.. he was always going to do it.. doesn't matter how clean the system.

Also, 2020 results are not sour grapes, as even very conservative judges agreed the grounds for the fraud were ridiculous.. all of them.

I would like to agree with you, but objective truth is a very difficult thing to establish, particularly - in the midst of a politicised, polarised media frenzy. Those who occupied the capital believed what they were led to believe - and acted to defend democracy. It's not they who should be condemned, but those who misled them - namely, the media.

Similarly, I don't condemn Extinction Rebellion. They're wrong, or misled anti-capitalists. They believe they are acting in a just cause. Thing is, it's not capitalism to blame. The climate and ecological crisis is a consequence of our mistaken relationship to science. We use the tools - but we don't read the instructions - in that, we don't act on the basis of a scientific understanding of reality. We act on the basis of ideology, and apply technology according to what's ideologically valid.

Perhaps the democrats and republicans should appoint a scientist to design an objectively fair and fraud proof voting system. Unlike journalists, scientists have ethics built in to their methodology.

There is no alternative to acting on the basis of belief; the important thig is to make sure those beliefs are valid. — counterpunch

Actually, yes, there is. Questioning your beliefs is important. Only an idiot would arrive at one idea without justification and run with it forever. If you can justify your beliefs, you should do so. If not, you should listen. And certainly not try and, say, stage a coup.

If one has every reason to believe X and none to believe in Y, your belief in Y is not a justification for bad actions. This is why "He seemed a threat because he was a <insert ethnic minority>" is not a justification for assaulting someone, even though it's the sort that racists think fine. To justify your actions in the world, your beliefs must have some basis in that world.

That is my general philosophical position — counterpunch

Good to know.

50% of people are below average intelligence - and average intelligence isn't much to brag about. Those working in the media; one would assume, are above average intelligence. They should know better than to mislead the muggles.

It's like Black Lies Matter. It has absolutely no basis in statistical fact. In fact, police arrest over 10 million people per year. There are around 1000 arrest related deaths, 42% white, 32% black. There's no racist genocide being committed by the police. Yet the media cheer as businesses are burned and looted, and Black Lives Matter is painted in 10 foot high letters along 5th avenue - while the same media condemn those who seek to defend democracy from what they believe is a fraudulent election.

I would like to agree with you, but objective truth is a very difficult thing to establish, particularly - in the midst of a politicised, polarised media frenzy. — counterpunch

The truth may be hard, or even impossible to establish; if it's merely hard then evidence can be found and presented, if impossible then no evidence can be found. If no evidence for voter fraud can be found then there is no justification for believing there had been voter fraud, and even less justification for mob action based on the blind belief, itself based on the baseless ravings of an imbecile, that there had been voter fraud.

When you claim that the election would be fraudulent before the actual election, then yeah. How come his followers had forgotten that? — schopenhauer1

Poor attention span I guess. It seems to go with the territory.

There are around 1000 arrest related deaths, 42% white, 32% black. — counterpunch

What do you think the percentage of whites to blacks is?

Have a look at this video on youtube:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube%2c+john+oliver%2c+voting+machines&docid=608054794221454549&mid=F3D928B00F76B8480811F3D928B00F76B8480811&view=detail&FORM=VIRE

It's John Oliver - a left wing comedian, from before 2016, talking about voting machines. The Dems cast doubt on the integrity of the vote before 2016. Trump isn't the author of this narrative. The left are. If Trump is a raving imbecile, misleading his followers - it must be that Trump fixed the voting system, then declined to take credit for it. Or, the left were lying in 2016. Which is it?

That is my general philosophical position - and incidentally, it's why humankind is headed for extinction. It's not capitalism. It's a lack of regard for science as an increasingly valid and coherent understanding of reality, particularly, in the application of technology. — counterpunch

So, your general philosophical position is that people should act blindly and hope that their actions will turn out to be justified by evidence? And mankind's failure to do that is the reason it is heading for extinction? And yet you valorize science which advocates acting only on evidence? You sound confused! Just what humanity needs right now; a confused savior!

In fact, police arrest over 10 million people per year. There are around 1000 arrest related deaths, 42% white, 32% black. There's no racist genocide being committed by the police. — counterpunch

Yeah we've heard all this racist bs a million times. I don't even think *you* think you're being clever, it's more like a mindless vocal tick. BLM is not about the thousands of black people accidentally killed or killed in self-defence by police. No one is protesting because some cop won a gun duel. It's because of the smaller but still shamefully significant number of black people being murdered by police. Pretending up is down is something anyone with a bad ideology has to do, especially racists, so I'm not shocked.

the same media condemn those who seek to defend democracy from what they believe is a fraudulent election. — counterpunch

Another reality inversion. A lynch mob trying to stop the government accepting the will of the people is there to "defend democracy" in fascist double speak. Again, nothing new or smart here, just another example of why you should be loathed.

What do you think the percentage of whites to blacks is? — Janus

Black people are 13% of the US population, but commit a lot more crime. For example, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics data from 2003-2012, blacks commit around 6000 murders per year - and whites about 5000, even though white people are 76% of the population.

Black people are 13% of the US population, but commit a lot more crime. — counterpunch

If that is indeed true it would probably be so because they are an economically and socially oppressed and disadvantaged minority. And to further complicate the issue, the statistics re population are straightforward, whereas those re crimes committed are not. This might help you gain a less simplistic view.

Send me something that cites baseless Democrat claims of voting fraud, not a video featuring a comedian. And in any case even if the democrats had made baseless claims that wouldn't justify them or the republicans doing so; so you're not presenting an argument but merely rhetoric.

Okay, loathe me then, but statistics speak louder than social media narratives. And the fact is, Black Lies Matter is a false social media narrative created by neo marxist ideologues with carefully edited phone cam footage, to incite black people to riots, and spike the US Presidential election by stuffing politically correct ideology down everyone's throats.

But it has no statistical validity. Police arrest over 10 million people per year. There are less than 1000 arrest related deaths. A minority of those are black people. Furthermore, George Floyd was a junkie scumbag, arrested for passing fake bills, who needed to be restrained because he fought police like a mad dog while hopped up on about six different drugs. He was claiming 'I can't breathe' long before anyone had hold of his neck - undermining the credibility of any such claim later on. And he was saying it because "I can't breathe" is a BLM mantra. How careless is that, making a slogan out of "I can't breathe?" You don't give a shit about black people. It's all a power game to you self righteous neo-marxist ideologues. You claimed the election was a fraud in 2016 - just as, you incited riots with lies; and democracy and law and order are the losers here.

A Multi-Level Bayesian Analysis of Racial Bias in Police Shootings at the County-Level in the United States, 2011–2014

The results provide evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans relative to unarmed white Americans, in that the probability of being {black, unarmed, and shot by police} is about 3.49 times the probability of being {white, unarmed, and shot by police} on average.

...

As such, the results of this study provide evidence that there is racial bias in police shootings that is not explainable as a response to local-level crime rates, and is related to either: 1) racial bias in police encountering suspects/civilians, or 2) racial bias by police in the use of force upon encountering suspects/civilians.

Black Lies Matter — counterpunch

The Freudian slip is telling! Or perhaps it isn't a slip at all, which would be even more telling!

If that is indeed true it would probably be so because they are an economically and socially oppressed and disadvantaged minority. And to further complicate the issue, the statistics re population are straightforward, whereas those re crimes committed are not. — Janus

Poverty is the parent of crime. Aristotle.

One doesn't need to study African American crime to see this. Even in countries with a very small percentage of black people, such as counterpunch's own, crime rates soar highest in the most squalid places.

But beyond that, being black in America is simply more criminal. A black person caught with weed is three and a half times more likely to be arrested. A black driver is far more likely to be pulled over. A black neighborhood is much more policed than a similarly poor white neighborhood.

Add onto that the fact that, surprise surprise, murderous racist white cops aren't exactly honest about their feelings. If you want to arrest or shoot someone, there's always "assault of a police officer" to fall back on. There was a video I saw a while ago of a white cop shooting an unarmed black guy in the back. Just strolled over and dumped a gun next to the body. If it hadn't have been filmed, that would have been one more black criminal rather than the equally tragic one more dead victim of racist white cops.

It doesn't take into account the number, or type of crimes committed. Look at the bare statistics. Black people - particularly young black males, are much more inclined to violent crime than the average. They commit much more crime than the average. Consequently, they put themselves in harms way. It's not rocket science. A Bayesian analysis covers up the simple truth.

:100:

Do you know the races of the officers involved in the shootings? I'd be interested to know whether this is a white officer problem or not.

The Freudian slip is telling! — Janus

Alas, no slip. Just a racist piece of crap being racist.

That was entirely on purpose - because Black Lies matter is based on lies; a false social media narrative, constructed from carefully edited phonecam footage. For example, it wasn't until police bodycam footage was leaked, we knew that George Floyd resisted arrest in a very aggressive way, and needed to be restrained. Did no-one film that except the police?

Similarly, a black British MP - named Dawn Bulter, filmed the police stopping her car, gave them a bunch of attitude, and then flipped the image to suggest she was the driver - when in fact, she was a passenger, and the driver was white, and splattered the video all over twitter. It's all lies - spread via social media. It's an agenda - not a fact.

Right, you're a racist then; so not worth engaging with; please fuck off now.

You should read the paper before you make assumptions about what it does or doesn’t take into account.

It is sometimes suggested that in urban areas with more black residents and higher levels of inequality, individuals may be more likely to commit violent crime, and thus the racial bias in police shooting may be explainable as a proximate response by police to areas of high violence and crime (community violence theory). In other words, if the environment is such that race and crime covary, police shooting ratios may show signs of racial bias, even if it is crime, not race, that is the causal driver of police shootings. In the models fit in this study, however, there is no evidence of an association between black-specific crime rates (neither in assault-related arrests nor in weapons-related arrests) and racial bias in police shootings, irrespective of whether or not other controls were included in the model. As such, the results of this study provide no empirical support for the idea that racial bias in police shootings (in the time period, 2011–2014, described in this study) is driven by race-specific crime rates (at least as measured by the proxies of assault- and weapons-related arrest rates in 2012).

I'm not standing for that. I wish to complain. I haven't insulted you, and I don't expect to be insulted. But that's exactly where you left wing ideologues go when you haven't got a leg to stand on; decry the person as racist, sexist or homophobic. I've made quite clear, it's political correctness I have a problem with - not black people, or gays, or women. Left wing ideology. That's what's under discussion here. It's not me playing identity politics - it's you!