Trump lost the election in 2020 to Biden

No conspiracy. Copy paste. Easy explanation.

Do you believe Trump would select competent people with integrity or sycophants to his staff and government?

It's sad to watch people make programmed assumptions while feeling free and daring, all the while. We are swimming in an internet sea of subtle, well-calculated internet "headlines" and "polls" designed to influence. But it seems to be barely noticed.

Will Trump be a "dictator" ? Well, was he ACTUALLY a dictator in the four years he was president?

Is Biden "senile" for real? Well, is he able to talk and respond to questions meaningfully?

Both sides push scary characterizations that are meant to influence. And many, many people, on both sides, fall for those characterizations after barely noticing them, and feel wise and knowing.

@PaulC123

If you tell a Republican "May I have $500 please?"

That Republican will either tell you:

1) "No! Get the **** outta here!"

OR

2) "Here's a job application to ABC Company - go work for your $500."

Depending on what ABC Company is, #2 may or may not be helpful. But now let's look at the reverse, will we?

If you ask a Democrat "May I have $500 please?"

They will either say:

1) "What's in it for me?"

OR

2) "No, but I would love for you to come help us with the Pride parade, and the Black Lives Matter protests, and everything else we're organizing!"

Now - yes, I am exaggerating and oversimplifying a lot for the purpose of getting the point across. But you get the gist - they care more about the people at the top than the people at the bottom. The only difference is that Republicans tend to be a bit more clear about it.

And it's the same thing whether you ask for help, money, benefits, or better policies. Both parties don't care about you much beyond securing your vote - which is why they always seem to care more about "disadvantaged communities" when election time rolls around.

Have you ever noticed that people only talk about Pride when it's Pride Month? Or that fighting racism, sexism, etc. only becomes more important when it's needed to secure a vote or popularity?

Politics is dirty. No matter how much a politician actually genuinely wants to help you - even if they really, really wanted to - the chances of anything actually happening are low.

"The way to hell is paved with good intentions" and so it is with politics. Many well intentioned policies can go mayhem - so why are we still voting for the same people that keep on messing it up?

Why can't we work together to pick people that we actually want? Why are we busy doing strategic voting?

Instead of disputing electoral votes and voter fraud - instead of mourning for what someone "could have done" - which as I was trying to point out earlier - they probably wouldn't have done much better than their opponents - let's focus on reforming things so that votes actually go towards building a better world.

Which..considering the state of things...probably will never happen. :D

The trick is to focus on what you can ACTUALLY observe, and what can be quantified with NUMBERS, and not be distracted by worries and fears about things that have not ACTUALLY happened but are constantly sold to you to be what "might happen" (cause, like, everybody knows it, you know?) if you don't vote the way the fear-mongers want you to vote.

The bias and premeditation in such fear-mongering is so obvious that it's alarming to notice how few see through it.

"Back in the day" it was much harder to influence whole populations with nonsensical fears (although, of course, it was tried, using, for example, the radio). Why? The politicians had to do much of their own influencing, by methods that were less efficient and harder to fake. They had to get up and speak. To real audiences. And to debate, in front of moderators who were actually trying to be neutral and not subtly influence the result.

Now? Social and other media are often a storm of choreographed nonsense. Candidates can try to minimize or even avoid debate, using one nonsensical excuse after another, and countless "influencers" will spring up to defend the candidate's ability to stay hidden. Social media platforms can move nations now. War doesn't need to be fought with rockets -- it can be fought by influencing vast segments of the population -- and the younger and less experienced the better -- into supporting positions and into electing candidates who will do the bidding of those who support or fool or intimidate the influencers.

And the influenced? They'll passionately believe they are independent and bold, all the while. They'll get angry if told they are not being objective.

But do they insist on getting and knowing the actual numbers that shape our lives? Right now, what are the numbers? Inflation? Interest rates? Crime reporting? Rents? Home prices? Addiction rates? Homelessness? Medical cost and availability? The national debt? Taxes? Number of wars?

Or do they, instead, repeat (with emotion) what "everybody, like, knows ... you know?"

@Noflaps

I'm curious (and not that I don't agree with you) but where has a moderator subtly influenced the result?

Musical, tea-loving kitten -- I have some instances in mind, but I don't wish to criticize any particular individual who is not here to defend himself or herself. I'm only interested in discussing general ideas and trends that I believe I've noticed over the years and that concern me (perhaps justifiably, or perhaps because, I must admit it, I could be wrong).

But we should ask ourselves, when we watch a debate, and then reflect upon -- is any candidate being protected from a hard question or subjected to them selectively? Are there questions that can't be asked? Does the moderator, by his or her displayed emotions, tone of voice, body language or choice of words, reflect a poorly concealed preference or an admiration or a dislike? Are some candidates barely given airtime at all, while some are given much more? Does the after-debate "commentary" reflect what we actually heard?

Some moderators and commentators have earned my admiration.

Do I see Mods Public Shaming again??? ;-P

Sorry you left the door open and it was too easy to take the opportunity. lol

Last time I check Biden is not having a bromance with may dictators. ;-)

I really miss the good ol time the right wing was not seeing itself as victims. I miss the Reagan / Mulroney era when we had to Irish Leaders that were behaving like real men. ;-P

Effective responses are always intelligible and pertinent. And they tend to provide numeric facts rather than unresponsive laughter or vague attempts at humor.

Sure pretending almost everyone is so dumb that they're
>influenced?

And writing
>they'll passionately believe they are independent and bold, all the while. They'll get angry if told they are not being objective.
is so much more intelligible and pertinent.

Surely not condescending.