Voter Fraud: The GOP's Loch Ness Monster

The Loch Ness Monster - IT'S ALIVE!!!

The GOP and Trump keep alleging and looking for widespread vote fraud. They keep failing to find it. Trump's vote fraud commission failed to find the millions of fraudulent votes that Trump claimed and still claims were cast in the 2016 election. That effort ended after finding no evidence. NPR just announced that a Texas republican will pay up to $25,000 for information about voter fraud in 2020 that leads to a conviction. 

AP commented in 2018 on the end of the commission: 

The now-disbanded voting integrity commission launched by the Trump administration uncovered no evidence to support claims of widespread voter fraud, according to an analysis of administration documents released Friday. In a letter to Vice President Mike Pence and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who are both Republicans and led the commission, Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap said the documents show there was a “pre-ordained outcome” and that drafts of a commission report included a section on evidence of voter fraud that was “glaringly empty.”

 
The New York Times went looking for evidence of vote fraud in the 2020 election and writes this in an article entitled The Times Called Officials in Every State: No Evidence of Voter Fraud:

PHILADELPHIA — Election officials in dozens of states representing both political parties said that there was no evidence that fraud or other irregularities played a role in the outcome of the presidential race, amounting to a forceful rebuke of President Trump’s portrait of a fraudulent election.

Over the last several days, the president, members of his administration, congressional Republicans and right wing allies have put forth the false claim that the election was stolen from Mr. Trump and have refused to accept results that showed Joseph R. Biden Jr. as the winner.

“There’s a great human capacity for inventing things that aren’t true about elections,” said Frank LaRose, a Republican who serves as Ohio’s secretary of state. “The conspiracy theories and rumors and all those things run rampant. For some reason, elections breed that type of mythology.”

The New York Times contacted the offices of the top election officials in every state on Monday and Tuesday to ask whether they suspected or had evidence of illegal voting. Officials in 45 states responded directly to The Times. For four of the remaining states, The Times spoke to other statewide officials or found public comments from secretaries of state; none reported any major voting issues.  

What emerged in The Times’s reporting was how, beyond the president, Republicans in many states were engaged in a widespread effort to delegitimize the nation’s voting system.  

Some Republicans have even turned to lashing members of their own party who, in their eyes, did not show sufficient dedication to rooting out fraud. In Georgia, where Mr. Biden is leading, the two Republican senators, Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue, both of whom are in a runoff to gain re-election, have called for the resignation of the Republican secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger. “The secretary of state has failed to deliver honest and transparent elections,” the senators said in a statement.

The GOP and Trump vote fraud searches have all failed. Sometimes absence of evidence really does amount to evidence of absence. 

Action urgently required to stop Trump from further damaging this nation (All ideas welcome)

 

 As I write, the latest Politico Poll reveals that 70% of Republicans in the US do not believe the 2020 election was "fair and free." https://thehill.com/homenews/news/525388-poll-70-percent-of-republicans-dont-believe-election-was-free-and-fair  Even if nothing else was wrong right now that alone would constitute a tremendous challenge to our system-- a major legitimation crisis. But these numbers reflect a concerted effort on the part of the Trump-captured GOP to do everything possible to change the results or else to make sure that when Trump leaves the White House, "tens of millions" (as Tucker Carlson said in his Monday rant against the election result) would be furious at democrats for "stealing" the election even if all legal concerns are dismissed as they probably will be. Unless Trump admits defeat, he will remain a frighteningly relevant de facto leader of a hollowed out party of sycophants who no longer have a program (there was no party platform in 2020, but only loyalty to Trump, the Dear Leader). About 70 million voters are behind Trump, and he has set about firing Pentagon and NSA top officials,  replacing them with loyalists. This is an ominous signal even if it is a theatrical move. The Secretary of State, Pompeo, has promised "a smooth transition to a second Trump term" in brazen defiance of all the votes cast in the election and in the absence of any evidence of conspiratorial vote tampering and fraud across 4 US time zones. Lindsay Graham and Mitch McConnell have also doubled down on the drive to convince Americans that Biden hasn't  "won" the election, or even that Trump won and it was stolen from him by unspecified conspirators.  Graham is raising money for the legal challenges against various states for Trump (who is not only raising funds for legal battles but using his America First Super Pac to air commercials nation-wide). Of course, states that show Trump picking up votes (e.g. Arizona) face no accusations, and we've yet to hear any GOP Senators or Representatives that won down ballot challenge their own victories even though many of those ballots are the same ones that were counted in states like Georgia, Pennsylvania and others that supposedly stole the election. So, the stealing is conveniently selective.

But logic and consistency have nothing to do with this massive propaganda assault on the facts. As Trump once said early in his term, "What you see and hear [in the news] is not what is happening." A four year attempt to convince his followers that he alone is to be believed and trusted has largely succeeded, creating what is, in effect, an uncritical devotion of the kind charismatic authoritarian leaders and fascists have relied on in the past. If between 1/3 to 1/2 of the electorate have been so conditioned, then a new movement which is counter-democratic has arrived. One which Trump can lead from outside the government; one which could lead to instability in the country. And cronies like Pompeo who have Trump's back now will be plausible successors when Trump passes away, if this movement endures. 

Again, one of the 2 major parties refuses to acknowledge election results which are the same as any others that were accepted in the past.  We're past the time when a peaceful transfer of power, the release of transition funds and meetings in the White House would occur. This is not akin to the Gore-Bush voting count and legal struggle. That was at least a specifiable problem that had to do with razor thin margins in only 1 or 2 counties in the state of Florida. This is a situation in which several states (some in which Republicans oversaw the election such as Georgia) are being accused of covering up a massive fraud perpetrated on the people. 

If this continues into December, it will lead to increased anger and madness among Trump supporters and those GOP officials who have been, as Biden put it tactfully, "mildly intimidated" by Trump. Jake Tapper reports that several Senators and Reps he spoke with stated, on condition of anonymity, that they would not openly defy Trump's assertions for fear of not just the ruination of their careers but for fear also of death threats. 

We have in Trump a leader who has a pattern of viciously attacking anyone who "gets in his way" (e.g. Anthony Fauci in his mind) and then remaining silent while his supporters-- often fringe elements-- issue death threats. Dr. Fauci now requires a security detail after receiving multiple death threats to himself and his family members. Trump has never made a statement calling on his own supporters to refrain from death-threats and other horrific and illegal behavior. We saw this recently when he continued attacking Governor Whitmore of Michigan after an attempt was made by Trump-loyal radicals to kidnap her. Thus intimidation and death threats that Trump refuses to denounce become de facto instruments of his power.

In short, we had better take this very seriously as 4 years were largely wasted treating the Trump menace as something that was "bad," but which could be easily absorbed by "the institutional guard-rails of democracy." That is pure magical thinking. Institutions are as strong as the people that compose them. In the end an institution is, as sociologists know, a pattern of predictable norm-governed behavior. Nothing here is predictable or reliable. We are witnessing the fraying of the GOP and thus about half of our politicians and citizens. The GOP is no longer a real party, but a goon squad; a mindless group of frightened and/or power-hungry careerists held in thralldom by a dangerous demagogue and tyrant. Democracy is in danger, authoritarianism is already here. Winning the Presidential election was an important defeat, but it was a battle-- not the entire war. The war on US representative democracy is upon us. What we now see is fast approaching sedition. Each day it is allowed to pass as an acceptable disappointment is another day of victory for those who truly would steal not only the election, but the administrative apparatuses of the state, if they could. Short of that, they will minimally continue to menace the country as a well-funded insurgent group with "respected" politicians and tens of millions of voters on board. 

It is well past time to thwart any further attempts to erode democracy. I cannot say exactly how, but I suspect that law enforcement will have to play a role. The stakes are too high to sit and treat this as shocking spectacle to analyze. We must see to it that either Trump immediately provide his alleged "credible evidence" of fraud or else release transitional funds to Biden and take the other normal steps that make up smooth transition from one administration to the next. Any political speeches or press conferences featuring Pence, Pompeo, Barr, Graham, McConnell, et al.,  must be treated as sedition if they continue to baldly accuse states of fraud and/or promise a "smooth transition to a 2nd Trump term," as Pompeo did yesterday.  Everyone should know that when it comes to rhetoric the mere ability to get away with repeating destructive and incendiary lies converts the lies into convictions that loyal followers then treat as truths upon which to act. This must not continue.

Any suggestions or ideas regarding how to thwart this coup-like onslaught by Trump and the GOP would be very welcome.

The Pfizer SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine

Diagram of immune responses to the virus

Pfizer released some data in a press release indicating that the company's SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is about 90% effective in reducing infections in the tested patients so far. Additional data will be generated in the ongoing clinical trial, so the final efficacy data could be different than what was released. The data has not been subject to peer review, so this is only preliminary.

The Pfizer vaccine is injected as shown in part b of the figure above. The protection from this vaccine is believed to come from the immune response in the lungs, but not in the nose and upper airway. 

A paper summarizing SARS-Cov-2 vaccines under development make the following observations:

1. It is likely that two doses of a vaccine will be required, with booster doses potentially necessary at later time points; in this case, at least 16 billion doses will be needed to meet the global demand. 
2. For SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates, there have so far been no signals of enhanced disease in animal models or in humans; however, such a safety signal would certainly derail the development of a vaccine candidate and would negatively affect vaccine development in general.
3. Participants in the 100 μg group did not receive a booster dose due to tolerability profiles of the 100 μg dose post-prime and the 30 μg dose post-boost.
4. At 14 days post-boost, titres reached 1:180 and 1:437, respectively. Convalescent serum was also tested and reached titres of 1:94. However, it is unknown how representative these sera were.
5. Systemic adverse events after the prime dose seemed to be dose-dependent and included fever—especially in the 100 μg group, for which it was seen in 50% of individuals—fatigue, headache and chills.

What is not yet known is how long immunity will last and how well immunity will protect people in different age groups. Data from one group of older individuals (65–85 years) indicated that the immune response and antibody titres were lower compared to that in younger individuals. The vaccine uses a genetically modified RNA variant of the spike protein that covers the surface of the virus. That protein is what the virus uses to enter human cells. Because RNA in the vaccine is used to generate the immune response in vaccinated people, it has to be stored on dry ice (-78.5ᵒ C, or -109.3ᵒ F). That will create significant logistics complications in manufacturing, distributing and storing the vaccine. RNA is a very unstable molecule due to the ubiquitous presence of enzymes that rapidly break it down. That is why the vaccine needs to be solidly frozen on dry ice. 

The side effects seem to be generally more pronounced for the vaccine compared to most flu vaccines. That makes the vaccine generally less pleasant for most people compared to flu vaccines.

The vaccine works as shown below. The vaccine is injected into muscle and some of the RNV enters into cells where the RNA is translated into the spike protein. The body them mounts an immune response against the spike protein.

 

For context, traditional vaccine development generally takes about 10-15 years. Given the urgency of the threat, development time for SARS-CoV-2 is shooting for a about 10-18 months, assuming something does not go seriously wrong during the development and regulatory review period. Given that accelerated development schedule, the risk of failure to detect a serious side-effect increases, especially a side-effect that takes years to manifest itself.

Fighting in the War on Truth and Reason

It is clearer than ever that going forward the liberal-conservative and urban-rural political-culture wars will probably remain bitter, and deeply polarizing and distrust generating. With Trump effectively out of the way[1], one can see in radical right conservative rhetoric the same dark free speech (DFS) arguments and reasoning that were used before. If one is to effectively spot and rebut the lies, emotional manipulation and flawed reasoning, it helps to consider some of the most common and most effective DFS tactics. Three of the more common fallacies are summarized below.

Straw man fallacy

The strawman argument is a an easy way to make a weak DFS position look stronger than it is. Straw man avoids directly dealing with opposing views. Instead this fallacy substitutes a weaker argument that is more easily rebutted. That generates a false appearance of a weak DFS argument rebutting a stronger original argument. Examples of the straw man include:

 

“The Senator thinks we can solve all our ecological problems by driving a Prius.”

“The Senator thinks the environment is such a wreck that no one’s car choice or driving habits would make the slightest difference.”

False dilemma fallacy 

This fallacy is also called the “black-and-white fallacy,” “either-or fallacy” or “false dichotomy.” This line of reasoning fails by limiting the options to two when there are in fact more options to choose from. It’s not a fallacy if there actually are only two options. This fallacy is often an emotional manipulation ploy intended to polarize the audience by making one side look good and honest, while demonizing the other. Examples include:

“Either we go to war, or we appear weak.”

“Either you are pro-NRA or you oppose the 2nd Amendment and/or want to take all of our guns away.”

“Either we shelter in place, strictly observe social distancing and wear masks on those rare occasions when we have to venture out (in which case, we obviously don’t care a whit about the economy), or we reopen our businesses and start to resume “normal” life (in which case, we obviously don’t care a whit about people or safety or the common good).”

“Either we let every immigrant into our country, or we close the borders for everyone.”

Red herring fallacy

A red herring fallacy can be difficult to spot because it’s not always clear how different topics relate. A side topic may be used in a relevant way, or in an irrelevant way. There are usually several factors or lines on reasoning involved in political disagreements. Various subtopics can be entangled in issues. The red herring is a DFS attempt to divert the attention away from the relevant issue by raising another, usually irrelevant issue. It is an intentional distraction tactic to move the argument or a question to a different issue that is easier to respond to. Clarifying how one part of the conversation is relevant to the core topic helps spot and rebut red herrings. When one spots a red herring, one can rebut it by saying it is irrelevant to the topic being discussed, and/or by explaining why it is fallacious. If the persoming trying to use the red herring refuses to stay on point, one can allow the change of topic, insist on going back to the original argument, or just disengage from the discussion.

Red herrings by Trump include:

“I don't know Putin, have no deals in Russia, and the haters are going crazy - yet Obama can make a deal with Iran, #1 in terror, no problem!” 

“It’s locker room talk, and it’s one of those things. I will knock the hell out of ISIS. We’re going to defeat ISIS. ISIS happened a number of years ago in a vacuum that was left because of bad judgment. And I will tell you, I will take care of ISIS.”

Example in the media:

Reporter: “It’s been two years since your policies were implemented, and so far they have failed to reduce unemployment rates.” 

Politician: “I have been working hard ever since I came into office, and I’m happy to say that I met with many business leaders throughout the country, who all say that they are glad to see that our hard work is paying off.”

Footnote: 

1. That assumes the supreme court or GOP state legislatures do not intervene to re-elect Trump. The odds of that seem to be so low that it is not a realistic possibility. Nonetheless, the odds of successful intervention for Trump are not zero, but pretty close. 

“Joe [DiMaggio] Biden… a nation turns its [lonely] divided eyes to you”

We, here in the United States, are still very much a politically divided country. The close 2020 presidential election this last week has proven that out as an objective fact.

Currently, there are lots of celebrations …and… protests, and understandably so.  Both sides are experiencing their respective highs and lows. But once the emotional dust settles (hopefully by Inauguration Day), is it possible that there will be enough bipartisan compromise to move forward in any kind of positive/constructive way?  Surely there are plenty of issues we can all agree on as a society. This leads me to wonder about some things… 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Question 1: In a show of patriotic reconciliation, should the new Biden Administration invite several prominent, influential, maybe centrist-type Republicans into its fold (to include governors, senators, congress people, ex-office holders, military types) as well as into Biden’s Cabinet selections, all in a gesture, an effort, to “pull the county together?”  Isn’t this the only way a divided, polarized country can heal and find a way to work together?  If NO, fine.  You’re done with this question.  If YES, who do you think should be on this bipartisan list?  In other words, who do you foresee as those Republican icons? (E,g., Tom Ridge, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Bill Weld, Christine Todd Whitman, Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, Jeff Flake, Will Hurd, Colin Powell, James Mattis, Michael Steele, etc.)

[your Republican icon list here]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Question 2: Is a bipartisan (Dem/Repub/Ind) Biden Administration a bad / dangerous / frivolous / reckless / foolish / giving away of newfound Democratic power / (what have you) idea?  If YES, fine.  You’re done with this question.  If NO, list the pros and cons of a bipartisan Biden Administration.

[your pros versus cons list here] 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Question 3: Is hope for a Biden bipartisan government just more pie-in-the-sky, liberal idealism?  And the “real” hard-to-digest truth is we are so divided in our values that there is no way we could ever reconcile our major differences.  Regardless of your answer here, isn't it true that stubbornly clinging to our steadfast differences may give each side a momentary “feels good” triumph over the other, but to what end does this lead?  What is the end game with this non-bipartisan tactic? 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Question 4: Has Dark Free Speech and social media manipulation gone on for too long, to the point where we as a society can no longer think “straight,” “honestly,” “unbiasedly,” etc., about political reality?  Has that condition reached a point of no return?  Are our respective bubbles so strong that there is not enough collective interest in seeking out objective truths, if such truths threaten our subjective truths; that feelings are now able to trump facts?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Question 5: Other than bipartisan reconciliation through a politically diverse administration, can you think of a better way… or ANY way really... to bring a divided country together?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Answer any or all questions of your choosing.  And thanks for thinking about it, posting, and recommending. :)

 

Why are people conservative or liberal?

 When looking at how closely divided the nation is on politics I thought it can't be that 70 million are just stupid.  So why?

How is Susan Rice's kid a conservative?  Can't be the environment he was raised in. 

So....

This article likely will get a discussion going some.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/10/can-your-genes-predict-whether-youll-be-a-conservative-or-a-liberal/280677/

Now this is just a conversation starter.  7 year old article from a magazine.  

This type of mind provided societies with an evolutionary advantage or else it would not be here.    Same with liberal minds. It's not 80 to 20.  So how is it so even today?   

Knowing this might help us understand that we can't change how they think.  Maybe we need to move the discussion to other issues?  The conservative mind will always be conservative.  If we change the issues we can move society forward on to other things.  

Millions today are dancing in the streets.  They get it.  70 million are at home wondering why the best president ever lost.  

I always say Nature and Nurture.

Thoughts folks?