whYNOT

Um. Many conservative thinkers have lately been doing the best thinking? They can rise above the personae of public figures - i.e. "Trump" v. "Biden" - and identify the political/moral essentials? That they don't take their emotions to be tools of cognition? That they are not subservient to the mainstream media's propaganda?

Rather dated, imo. The left, as a matter of fact, already have some control of "our" boardrooms - and will now do so further. Regulations, taxation and social activists getting products banned - are just a few aspects. The right are -objectively - justified in opposing open immigration, a rationalist idea which overlooks the context of a welfare state, affirmative action, wage laws, etc. which would penalize present American citizens and workers. And "our" bedrooms? I personally know of several conservatives and read of dozens more who have openly embraced that their sons and daughters, sisters and brothers (and parents sometimes) are gay. As here, there has been a tidal change from those US conservatives re: sexuality. That war is won. Most of it is an old 'narrative' the Left want us to believe to encourage/create 'victims', a victimhood mentality without which Lefties haven't any cause to exist. When it comes to the madness of parents telling the young kids, and/or leaving their child's gender - NOT his/her sexuality, mind - up to the child's whim, a rational thinker would here agree completely with the conservatives. The right may "want to prohibit" abortions, but the fact that 60% of the US support at least first trimester abortion, is not some thing they can overturn through SCOTUS, and they know it. Also: Heard of any attacks on clinics and doctors lately? The limit of what the pro-lifers are left with, is little more than an advocacy program that they have evidently not been prepared to try to enforce. (And they are justified in not wanting their tax dollars to support abortion agendas at home and abroad). If it is no more than an "economic depression", you see ahead, you disagree with Sowell and other erudite observers - and the obvious and explicit activity and aims of the Democrats - that they badly want a one party state, one that will be increasingly Socialist, you can bet.

All is well! Nothing to worry about. Tra la la... Why are conservative-libertarians more aware of reality? https://www.unionleader.com/opinion/columnists/thomas-sowell-a-vote-at-the-crossroads/article_e34abb8c-933b-5650-b0c0-5d43496aeeb7.html

There is ¬everything¬ in their rhetoric, by pols and media, and too, the social media giants, to suggest they will take the US as far Left as they can. Do not be misled, the signs are there when they speak openly about doing away with the filibuster, bringing in DC and Puerto Rico (less probable) as new and Democrat states, and increasing migration, that they want further powers and prolonged, in their minds, permanent, control: To what end? Don't fall for "But they don't mean it!". Next comes, " Even if they mean it they won't do it". Last, "even if they would, they can't do it". Those were the evasions I heard in Zimbabwe and in S Africa. The optimistic note is that Leftists always give themselves away in their arrogance and non-self-awareness. They seem so bedazzled by their own brilliant sophistry and moral superiority, they do not see that they make fools of themselves, lose touch with reality (like overspending on 'noble' initiatives) and their ideology goes too far against the spirit of a country. Leftists are often rationalists too. I am counting upon the mid -terms to see the start of a reverse shift (If the GOP gets its act together, with Nikki Haley's energy). I estimate there will be many of those swing-voters who determined this election waking up shortly to Buyer's Remorse. I think many turned their prior support for him, against Trump, as a gesture to their finer feelings (e.g. racial guilt, used effectively by the Dems) - perhaps not dreaming for a moment he could - actually - lose. Now, they are looking at what Biden proposes and has already put in operation, and are thinking : I didn't want this!

Drooling seen on CNN: https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6223009033001

Aha. Then what about spreading the idea OF spreading germs? That's the deep level of thinking the world has sunk to.

Understood, but an option that wasn't on the table. This unholy alliance comprising the new Democrat Party could have been broken up, probably permanently, with one more Republican victory. This would have heralded a more moderate political return. As it stands, who can tell how far Left they will go?

There's some merit to a certain amount of innocent incompetence above cynically manipulative efficiency. When I find that dichotomy I side with the innocents.

I think you guys fall into two camps: A. Pissed the Trump didn't win. B. Glad that he didn't win. The trouble is the A's blame Trump himself for his defeat, thinking that a president has infinite power, sort of mystical omnipotence, while the vote of the majority is secondary or even superfluous. That notion forgets that the dominant philosophy of the ¬people¬ is what always counts most. That is where Objectivists came in, or didn't. That tide has turned. Trump cannot be faulted for the nation's philosophical transition. Or some would, I'm sure. Which leads to the B's - I hope you enjoy the ride! Short-lived, I also hope.

Your small amount of psychological analysis is understandable but rather misplaced, I think. And how you draw a connection from "giving up the legal fight" - to "expressing hatred of the judicial system" - is beyond me! You could not rather view that as ¬respect¬ for the judicial system? We can sit around nit-picking Trump's actions, intentions and motives forever. No one else in history has ever been analyzed as much. His political strategems were ill-advised or naive - meaning - to the Trump cynics out there- that he was somewhat of an innocent in the ways of dirty politics, from his own internal opposition - and the depths the Dems could stoop. What remains, 1. his love of country supersedes his love of power. The opposition's love of power supersedes any love of country. 2. The one direction, Trump's, was (for all Americans) greater independence and therefore more individual freedom; the other way, dependence and loss of freedom. I am sorry to say: wait and see. (And losing the Senate was entirely his doing? How much can be laid at Trump's door, as this false causality? Even Sowell several months back, in a Tube entitled Why Biden must not Win, predicted that losing the presidency would likely mean losing the Senate. Why was that crystal clear to a liberal conservative thinker, while all being "Trump's fault" to Objectivists? As well as Yaron Brooks' faulty prediction that the Senate would stay as is. There is no reason that the new surge by the Dems should have been limited to the Oval Office - is there?)

Next, in a totalitarian state, spreading ideas will be actionable. (Oh, wait ...) Is there a face mask to protect against a thought pandemic? The irrational is the insane or the impossible, I believe Rand said, Michael. Try to prove in court that it was my germs you caught off a door handle. Then, that it was my negligence or malice at fault. If anyone wants, who and what stops them from going round masked their whole day and every day of their lives? Just leave me out.

Easier to attribute the basest motivation to Trump, i.e. self-enriching and self-aggrandizing, than to consider, just for a moment that his top value might be his country and all he is, warts and all - and is doing is for that end? That is "arbitrary" and skeptical-subjective. We shall see. Obvious is that the Democrats and their propaganda arm, the MSM, are and will, even after his departure be going after Trump with everything they've got, to try to block any chance of his (or the GOP's) re-emergence. They are terrified of losing their power again but also need revenge on him and his support base.

"Lie: intentional false statement". A guy says he saw a plane flew over, the other says, no, it was a bird. And proves as much. Was the first "lying" in order to - intentionally - deceive, or merely mistaken? Get it? "He kept the money". This to you is proof of intent to personally profit? Not for future campaigning in order to overturn the Democrats? Maybe Trump saw the folly in throwing more money at making "his cases stick". Maybe a Republican revival could use the donations? Do you believe they are going straight into his pocket? https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/12/trump-fraud-claims-fundraising-436188

Nice to see you haven't changed your original mantras. Groundless? How did you know that - until they were found to be ...groundless. Why would Trump have to tamely submit without a full inquiry, given there were some suspicious circumstances? True, I think there was and is some denial going on by he and his supporters about the results, but at the time who knew? But he and they knew, full well, this election was the most important one, about the future direction of the USA and they wouldn't automatically accept the result until trying all avenues open to them. It's not as if the Democrats were not in denial about an election for 4 years solid - was it? And strange, that no media I've seen have taken them to task about their lies and manufactured deceits, character attacks, and money and time wasted in that "groundless" pursuit. To repeat, Trump wasn't "lying": he clearly genuinely believed/s fraud to have occurred, so at most he was in error. So let's agree they were both in denial. And from reputation, I would not have put it past the Democrats to have tried to rig the election. His "attacks on masks" finds favor with me, being for personal choice re: masking - and against lock downs - from the start, as you'd know in another thread. Essentially: the freedom to independently choose what's good for one's own life, without Gvt. mandates, therefore trusting the people to make up their own minds like adults and go on functioning normally, or mask or to self-isolate, etc. The complete antithesis to nannyism. Are you finding it preferable for the bureaucrats to tell you and force you what to do with your life and health? And anyway, there was controversy then and now about masks. With almost total masking in most countries, It hasn't prevented further outbreaks.

I can't see the dependent belief at work (whatever Trump says, goes); I saw and recognize still, the identical values in the nation he holds as they hold. Which is independent to each. Maybe, they too will never accept a Left-Socialist-Nanny state...? There is this too: to a far lesser degree do the Conservative-Christians enshrine a political leader, he is after all, as they are, subordinate to God - and all that stuff. The secularist, authoritarian, dictatorial, 'moral' leader is the Left's substitute for an absolute 'God'. They are much more prone to slavish dependence upon 'the Leader'.

Do you imply that the summer riots/protests were morally justified? If so, why?

Why would you think I was replying to you? The interesting point for me is that tu quoque is a category of ad hominem as I suspected.

"Past actions discredit your argument". Some variations. A. You cannot hold that violent rioting is bad since you violently rioted (/justified violent riots) yourself. B. You believe that rioting is good/justifiable when it's in your cause and bad/unjustifiable in anyone else's. C. You did such and such therefore I can do the same. I think the point being that a person can be objectively correct: initiating violence is bad... And subjectively wrong or vicious: ...[but] when I choose it it is good. So the first necessary effort is to separate the argument from the individual. And assess it in seclusion: True/false, good/bad. (Exercise is good). And the second action is to re-combine argument with individual to point out his double standard/self-contradiction/hypocrisy. This part seems a justifiable ad hominem. In moral justice, YOU cannot get away with advocating and doing what you please when it conveniently suits YOU.

TQ a variation of argumentum ad hominem: ---- Types of Ad Hominem Fallacy "There isn’t just one type of ad hominem fallacy. Let’s look at the different types of ad hominem arguments you might find. Abusive - This is where the person is directly attacked. (i.e. This is why a woman shouldn’t do a man's job.) Circumstantial - Personal circumstances motivate a person's argument, so it must be false. (i.e. This car is proven to get great gas mileage. Yeah right! You just want my sale.) Guilt by Association - Due to an association to something negative, an argument is discredited. (i.e. Pol Pot was evil and against religion. All people against religion are bad.) Tu Quoque - Past actions discredit your argument. (i.e. You don’t believe that cheating is bad when you cheated on your wife.)"

Hang on, you are drawing a false equivalence, there is and has been a distinct gulf between the Leftist children and the average conservative and Trump supporter - - it is the first who predominantly were and are making all the noise and social upheaval, e.g., demands for safe spaces and safe words. Etc. The latter are and have been self-restrained and self-responsible for the most part and for the great majority. Natch, this is where the attack on the Capitol will be conveniently cited: as though the few hundred attackers out of some thousands who were there, represent the average Trump supporter (numbering over 70 millions, I believe). And on a single day, not every day for several years. The "exception that proves the rule", that attack was a bug not a feature of the mass of them. Same with altruism that broadly had its origins with the religious and has now been hijacked far more extensively by the Left. There is where sacrificial conduct and demands have soared lately, with the Leftist kids. Any self-respecting conservative, the grown-up, I read and hear from is aghast at the depths of self-sacrifice they go to, gleefully sacrificing every value they can get their hands on, the nation too. No, the bond that the supporters have with Trump is anything but a - Nanny with children - one. Quite the opposite. He seems to respect them for being independent, American adults and they know this.

And then there's Kamala to come, it gets worse. Sowell on Harris:

Should be reminding you of Bidenism - the Nanny state, de luxe. Wait and see, presuming you can't see yet.

Resist! Non-violently, goes without saying, intellectually and with passionate conviction. A good article I thought: http://ip1.thejmg.com/t/1830259/2735224/96630/36/

The further phase after collection of newsreports, compromised by "reality" NOT existing "independent of any perceiver's[e.g a witness', an informant's] consciousness" is that the reporter, writer, editor, publisher and/or anchorperson - also -supplies their own primacy of consciousness to the substance, tone and delivery of the story. How do we play this one? How do we want it to come across to our public? Who will the report benefit - our side or theirs? What should we include, what leave out? Do we spike the story, tone it down, barely/never mention it, or give it maximum, dramatic coverage? (And make certain Carol over at MSNBC knows what we're doing so they do the same). And so, crudely: "the fake news", which has the power to emotionally influence millions who believe it as Gospel. Who, of course lap it up according to their preconceptions. Since, to finalize the journalistic process, they the end users are just as much given to reality existing *dependent upon* their consciousnesses as are the media people. A ragtag assault on the Capitol is equal to 9/11 is equal to every violent assault in history... why, because I feel so and wish it to be. Countrywide protests/rioting, conversely were innocent and justifiable "protests". CNN wouldn't lie to me.

Wait and see. I'm a fair guy and offer you a chance at double or quits. $20 says that a year from now you will recollect Trump's term with more fondness. As -maybe - the last period of a movement towards independence, individual freedom from others and the state - chaotic as it seemed. Freedom, if one can handle it, can *look* chaotic. Totalitarianism, as contrast is tightly ~organized~ by its nature.