Five states, fake elector documents:

@techsouth said
Here is what I think you're seeing. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Trump is obviously at least 10x more corrupt than anyone else at his level. Everyone sees that and for some reason close to half of Americans are okay with that and at the very least support Trump and maybe even want more corruption. Or, for those that DON'T see that, the only possible explanation is they're ...[text shortened]... thoughts that aren't almost verbatim regurgitations of talking points we've all heard over and over?

Sorry but you seem to have crawled back into your foxhole and covered your ears, if you cannot sea an ocean of difference between Trump and Biden when it comes to the way they conduct themselves in and out of office it’s because you blatantly refuse to or your just lying about it.🤷🏻‍♂️
I didn’t give opinions about Trump I gave concrete examples of the kind of actions that separates him the usual trough snuffler’s.
He’s still telling his biggest lie and he’s doing untold damage to YOUR democracy.
He said on tape before the 2016 election that he would only accept the result if he won, he said it again leading up to the 2020 election and now we know they were the only verifiable times he actually told the truth.
This ‘C’mon they’re all the same’ angle would probably work if one of them wasn’t Donald Trump.

@kevcvs57 said
Sorry but you seem to have crawled back into your foxhole and covered your ears, if you cannot sea an ocean of difference between Trump and Biden when it comes to the way they conduct themselves in and out of office it’s because you blatantly refuse to or your just lying about it.🤷🏻‍♂️
I didn’t give opinions about Trump I gave concrete examples of the kind of actions that s ...[text shortened]... th.
This ‘C’mon they’re all the same’ angle would probably work if one of them wasn’t Donald Trump.

Let me tell you the types of things that can persuade me and the types of things that can't. My presumption here is that everyone engaging in any kind of debate has at least some aspiration of persuading others in some way to change their opinion. If you want to persuade me that I'm wrong, here are some things to think about that might give you more success (and this would probably be true for persuading others as well).

The things that don't persuade me are insults and anything like peer pressure. In fact, that usually in some small way make me a little more confident in the opinion I started with.

My experience is that few people change their opinion based on these debates. Can we just for a little while pause the primary debate and consider the idea of political disagreement more at the "meta" level? If you prefer to keep bringing up anti-Trump talking points, all I can say is that I'm pretty sure I'll have already heard them and can easily find them all over the Internet in prominent places. You've already listed 6 or 7 that I've heard before. What is the urgency of bringing up an 8th point? And I would hope you already realize this, but you should at least be aware that for most of the talking points, there are different takes. I'm not here to persuade you of any of them, but you seem like you're not even aware that they exist, much less what they are.

There are obviously a huge number of people that think Trump is somewhere between Hitler and the devil. And that would make me consider the possibility that I'm missing something that others are seeing. But there also a huge number of people that think that Trump is much better than the Democrat rivals. So if we're looking at numbers, there is nothing there that would make me conclude for sure that I'm missing something obvious.

We all have cognitive blind spots. A number of years ago I read a book called "Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me)" by Elliot Aronson. It, along with a few other resources was a real eye opener for me. Up until about that time I had been confident of all my hastily formed beliefs so much so I'd see those that disagree as total idiots. But I've realized that especially with politics that those on the other "team" are just as confident of their hastily formed beliefs and see me as just as much of an idiot as I had seen them. In many cases, the truth with regards to a political debate is not completely knowable, but in some cases I would feel like I have very convincing arguments, but still cannot change anyone's mind.

At this point, I strive for much more mental discipline and try really hard to not be too hasty in dismissing a differing perspective or opinion.

You, and many others here, think Trump uses propaganda to effectively lure masses of people into a destructive agenda. The ability to shape a political narrative for a self-serving agenda is a tactic used over and over through out history and it is my experience that every successful politician and political party has mastered this skill to some degree. The thing you ought to realize is that you've been targeted too and you may have fallen for some mal-formed narratives without realizing it.

So here are some things that might help persuade me:

Perhaps you've read things like "Mistakes Were Made" and raised your self awareness about your own cognitive blind spots long before me. But if that were the case, I would expect to see evidence in how you approach a disagreement. Maybe I'm wrong, but you and several others here come across like you are not even aware you have any form of cognitive blind spots. If you were aware, you'd be a little slower to write off alternative perspectives. Even if you'd worked through the facts far better than I, you'd be a lot more capable of entertaining an opposing view point and demonstrating you can see it in another framework.

Second: You would not so quickly turn to insults.

Third: You'd recognize that there is dishonesty and self-serving narratives coming from all directions. There would be some evidence that you can spot fake arguments coming from Democrats too. If you say there are none, or very few, all I can say is the result of saying that does to your credibility is part of the reason your perspective on Trump has no power to persuade me of anything. I'm not saying that you have to say the Democrats are just as bad as Republicans in order to hold some credibility, but if you haven't figured out that you're being lied to too, you seem to me like a person with very low mental self awareness. I may be completely wrong, but that is how it seems from the discussion so far.

This whole thread is about so-called "fake electors". As I've mentioned before I have to manage my time and there is no chance I can endeavor to debate any and all things I disagree about. And I am not even here to defend Trump and wouldn't disagree with all criticisms even if I had for it all.

From my perspective guided some by knowing how the Electoral College functions this outrage over so called fake electors is a good test case. If you're outraged over this, you seem to me like someone who'll get outraged over anything CNN tells you to be angry about and have absolutely no filter whatsoever. Maybe I'm misreading things and maybe it's just my own cognitive blind spots. But if you persist in being outraged over these fake electors you reduce your credibility with me to the point your opinion on other things have less affect on me.

Take all this for what it's worth. If you'd like, you can list a few other bad things about Trump roughly the same as has been done in a million other places on the Internet. Or you can insult me a little more. Do whatever you think will be the most productive.

@techsouth said
Let me tell you the types of things that can persuade me and the types of things that can't. My presumption here is that everyone engaging in any kind of debate has at least some aspiration of persuading others in some way to change their opinion. If you want to persuade me that I'm wrong, here are some things to think about that might give you more success (and this woul ...[text shortened]... e Internet. Or you can insult me a little more. Do whatever you think will be the most productive.

I will guess that you are aware
that forgery is illegal as is fraud.
Will you agree that people who
break the law should be prosecuted?

@techsouth said
This whole thread is about so-called "fake electors".

The thread title is actually incorrect. The officials who forged documents were real, and forged fake documents in an attempt to give Trump a victory.

This makes your earlier comparisons to a "Nigerian Prince" scam of no effect, since these weren't random scammers pretending to be someone else; these were officials.

This is a serious matter, like police forging fake search warrants and attempting to use them, that you can't just sweep under the rug to lessen how bad the GOP looks.

@vivify said
The thread title is actually incorrect. The officials who forged documents were real, and forged fake documents in an attempt to give Trump a victory.

This makes your earlier comparisons to a "Nigerian Prince" scam of no effect, since these weren't random scammers pretending to be someone else; these were officials.

This is a serious matter, like police forging fake s ...[text shortened]... and attempting to use them, that you can't just sweep under the rug to lessen how bad the GOP looks.

You seem like an intelligent guy and ordinarily I'd feel some discomfort if if an intelligent person comes to a drastically different conclusion than me.

But in this short post it seems evident you don't know how the Electoral College operates and have no intention of finding out since the less you know the worse the GOP will appear to you.

That's why your credibility is not substantial enough to influence me.

@jimm619 said
I will guess that you are aware
that forgery is illegal as is fraud.
Will you agree that people who
break the law should be prosecuted?

I will agree that law breakers should be prosecuted (including those who assault police officers and vandalize statues). As I said earlier in this very same thread, if these guys were prosecuted and I was on the jury, I'd judge according to the law, whatever it happens to be.

But, you'll agree that if my next door neighbor, who I know is NOT a police officer and they know that I know they are not a police officer... printed fake search warrant papers for my house and knocked on my door that the following are reasonable:

(1) I'd be more inclined to get a good chuckle than to get angry.
(2) I'd not forfeit a good citizenship award if I didn't know for sure what, if any, crime was committed.
(3) I'd be more inclined to believe my neighbor was making some kind of statement than to believe he actually expected to search my house.

And in this whole thread, in all that has been written, you actually believe that things I am saying indicate I don't understand that forgery is a crime and that all would be cleared up once I see that?

Well, all I can say is I'm walking away a little more confident in my original opinion based on that. I'd actually have more self doubt if you somehow OVER-estimated my reasoning abilities. I'm debating people who can't grasp any point that is not totally black and white. I matured beyond that long ago.

@techsouth said
You seem like an intelligent guy and ordinarily I'd feel some discomfort if if an intelligent person comes to a drastically different conclusion than me.

But in this short post it seems evident you don't know how the Electoral College operates and have no intention of finding out since the less you know the worse the GOP will appear to you.

That's why your credibility is not substantial enough to influence me.

Note how you haven't made any points, merely assertions about my intent.

I stated a fact: the forgeries were sent by actual officials. This is invalidates your frequent "Nigerian prince" comparisons because the forgeries were sent by people with credentials, not random unknown scammers.

Form this simple point, you conclude that I don't know how the Electoral College works and that I have no interest in learning? How on earth is that logical?

I think you simply can't argue with that point, so you resort to nonsensical ad-hominem posts. An interesting tactic since you've been accusing others of such attacks throughout this thread.

@vivify said
Note how you haven't made any points, merely assertions about my intent.

I stated a fact: the forgeries were sent by actual officials. This is invalidates your frequent "Nigerian prince" comparisons because the forgeries were sent by people with credentials, not random unknown scammers.

Form this simple point, you conclude that I don't know how the Electoral College w ...[text shortened]... s. An interesting tactic since you've been accusing others of such attacks throughout this thread.

I've argued the points earlier on this thread. And I note I have not convinced anyone of anything, which is about par for literally every debate thread on the Internet. (I don't mean this is a criticism of you, because I concede that I am rarely convinced of anything in Internet debates either).

I know I wrote a long thread and chances are some skimmed it, which is something I should have known would happen when I wrote it. (Again, this is not a criticism, I do the same thing). But you might have noticed that I am attempting to pause debating the primary point and elevate to a "meta" debate, which asks questions such as why we fail to persuade and be persuaded. I hope to both be more productive, and find people who challenge my beliefs more effectively.

Yes, I know you've rejected my "Nigerian Prince" analogy. You weren't convinced. If I've failed to acknowledge that, I apologize. And I recall reading a number of times that the "forgeries" were sent by "actual officials". If I have failed to acknowledge that also, I apologize again.

I have totally stopped trying to argue the primary issue. When I said your credibility was not sufficient to persuade me, that is not about the original issue. Perhaps I have a cognitive blind spot and can't see the reason for outrage about fake electors like I should. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that you won't be the one to convince me that I'm wrong.

I realized after my last post that I put you in an unfair corner. You shouldn't have to concede this point in order to gain credibility.

So let me ask you this. Think through all the major "outrages" against Trump and/or the GOP in the last several years. Can you tell me any that you believe were just propaganda created by Democrats? Of all the criticism directed at the right (in a country of 330 million people who often lie about many other things), is any of it fake?

I'm not still arguing about the fake electors. If you reply to this message and DON'T bring up the fake electors, I will not interpret that as you conceding the point. I acknowledge that you have not conceded in any way about that issue.