Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

tadmjones

Regulars
  • Posts

    2022
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    49

Posts posted by tadmjones

  1. 2 hours ago, 2046 said:

    Given that James Lindsay is a left liberal how odd that he would attack his own collectivist determinist Marxist postmodernist etc belief system

    Odder still for a left liberal , he believes there is merit to discuss the irregularities in the election and after three years of not supporting Trump he voted for him this year, being from the left he pulls for the underdog and given that Biden was being pushed by the “state run media” , Trump was the obvious choice.

    Man is he duped !

  2. A benevolent distinction could point to nationalism as expressed in collective participation in organizing and maintaining a civil society based on the recognition and protection of individual rights , as opposed to an organizational scheme based on the abrogation of rights imposed by force.

    I see the populist push for an American Nationalsim as recognizing the current collective desire to seek the former as opposed to and as reaction to a perceived instantiation of the latter.

     

  3. Fire seems to be the favored tool of the hard left/antifa/anarchist/black bloc types , when you see buildings ablaze the professionals are in town.

    Portland on weeknights and those in the Capitol on the 6th are the larping brigades.

    Within hours of becoming president Biden legitimately outlawed acknowledging biological sex identity cementing a path to ensuring a re-civilized society. Feel the unity!

  4. 23 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

    So more than 50 courts the United States are like the OJ court. If they were, I would have stormed the Capitol too.
    There is no Justice in the United States. We can't count on anything. I can get murdered at any time and the guy will get away with it.


    Careful with this thought process. If we continue on this trajectory, there will be no country left.

    I think I saw an article stating that 81 cases/suits were filed in regards to the election , 30 of which are still active. I assume some venues saw multiple cases but I don’t think there are cases before a court in every state, perhaps ?

    My comment about OJ was in response to being made to plead fealty to the inherently and  incorruptible integrity of our institutions. Or at the very least agreeing with the idea that using the term legitimate in this  context means the same thing.

  5. 1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

    This makes sense. Doing away with the filibuster is not inherently more beneficial to Democrats or Republicans. The filibuster is essentially abuse of loopholes in Senate rules. It isn't intended by the Constitution or protected by the Constitution. It should be eliminated. 

    Sounds good about DC, the people who live there are citizens and deserve to vote. Puerto Rico isn't a big deal, at least at if the requirements for statehood are sensible. 

    That sounds good. You didn't even try to specify "illegal immigration", unless you mean something else by "migration"? Increased immigration is good generally speaking. 

    Do you accept that Biden is the legitimately elected and current president of the United States of America? Just to clarify.

    It is a fact that Biden is the current president of the United States. 

  6. Again I bring up PA, and previously the WI supreme court rulings, to introduce the idea that questioning the elections results may not be a simple as shouting "No MASSIVE fraud".

    Why wouldn't a Republican governor conspire to help bring about the defeat of Republican President? His own judgement would automatically be overridden by 'party' affiliation ? If I am alleging corruption party affiliation and partisan political appearances aren't necessarily the heaviest weighted elements in gaining/wielding/keeping power.

    Isn't DC under one party rule currently ?

  7. What if similar conditions or situations exist in other states, with regard to those states' results in the general election , could they also be considered 'massive' as it would pertain individually to those states?

    My point is not to prosecute every allegation here, just exploring what 'massive' means in the context of the general election and the 50 entities in which it transpired.

  8. Have you read the Pa House Resolution 8? In it the Pa St Legislature resolves to void the slate of electors due to various actions they deem to be unconstitutional and makes the election results illegitimate . If what is alleged to have taken place in Pa in the general election is accurate and those actions caused the results to be in question, would it be consistent to claim 'massive' fraud ( if the unconstitutional actions can be shown to have been implemented knowingly in violation of state law) or 'massive' malfeasance or incompetence if those actions were deemed to have occurred absent of malice or conspiracy to purposefully contravene election law?

    If the damages to the integrity of the Pa elections were found to be fatal, if those actions were found to be the cause or causes of rendering the results constitutionally illegitimate , that would be 'massive' in regards the Pa results, no ? 

  9. Why would the ‘ENTIRE legal system’ (not even sure what that is supposed to denote) need to be corrupt in order to have some level of corruption of the flesh and blood individuals that play a part in the ‘system’. Claiming to have received unfair treatment under any system isn’t a universal condemnation of said system. It is a claim of being wronged.

    The system that is the target of much of the ire is the election ‘system’ and not getting any relief in the courts. And in the case of at least one venue , not all the justices on the supreme agreed with the decision. Part of the dissent was a criticism of the court for not adjudicating election law matters in previous and recent proceeding , a claim of obfuscation in a corrupt manner. 

  10. 2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

    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?

    What makes you think the Left will go anywhere , let alone far? There is nothing in their rhetoric or proposed legislation that suggests this , surely, stop fear mongering. This is not a socialist takeover, the American system will prevail , if the majority of the population as represented by voters do not agree with the policies of their elected officials they will be voted out fairly , surely. It would be immoral for them to act otherwise, surely.

×
×
  • Create New...