Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

2020 election

Rate this topic


merjet

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

You haven't answered anything.  You've just perpetrated your own smear.  

 

It is Hurd's smear, did you read his litany of the things that don't make sense about the election being legitimate? Against that litany you said people had more time to vote and apparently for you that is enough to explain the unprecedented numbers for both candidates.

Unprecedented voting methods, the stopping and restarting of tabulation in the 'important' states, all the markers previously predictive of an election were met by Trump and yet Biden's campaign managed to outperform all previous election totals and prevail to be installed flanked by 30k federal troops. But for you all that can be explained satisfactorily based on what I have no idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

There were unusually many problems with the 2020 election because election officials were trying to use innovative methods to allow people to vote in spite of the pandemic and the lock downs.  There is no evidence that this altered he outcome of the election.

There were people looking for reasons to disbelieve the election who saw things they didn't understand and jumped to false conclusions about fraud.

You ignored this.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

There is no evidence that this altered the outcome of the election.

Well sure; that's because in the rush to "make sure everyone can vote," the usual ways of detecting fraud were bypassed.

Edited by necrovore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What innovations were needed to count one piece of mail from one voter?

Computer systems for tabulation? 
 

Prior to Covid , I would go to the firehouse and vote on the machine with the paper read out. I imagine the election workers were responsible for the counting and reporting the totals of the votes processed through their polling station. But when I was forced to mail my ballot I think it went to the county seat for processing , I imagine all votes in our county were mailed to the same location , that seems to mean that it is reasonable to consider that more responsibility for security and accuracy was placed in fewer hands. That centralization of processing control was probably similar throughout the country in an unprecedented manner , but I’m sure it was just fine. Innovation breeds integrity as they say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 2017 (and '18 and '19) elections couldn't be trusted, they were, in effect, hackable. Trump was illegitimate due to "collusion with the Russians!" That idea was always stupid but notice that the usual suspects pretended to believe it with all their heart and have fastidiously stopped talking about it ever since it was proven not only false but also fabricated by Hillary and elements of the intelligence services.

In 2021 (and '22 and '23) elections are secure and only conspiracy theorists and white supremacists would disagree and "Respect our Democracy!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me: "In 2017 (and '18 and '19) elections couldn't be trusted, they were, in effect, hackable."

 

54 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

Who says this?

Collusion with the Russians is not the same as hacking.

 

 

I am using hackable as a synonym of vulnerable, not as unauthorized access to a computer system.

All of you believe-anything-anti-Trump mainstream normies said that the 2016 election was illegitimate as it had suffered "Russian collusion," an idea that was never supported in any grounded facts, was always stupid, has since been proven false and was dishonestly and feverishly pumped for years by the same mainstream voices you blindly trust to this day.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

All of you believe-anything-anti-Trump mainstream normies said that the 2016 election was illegitimate

I have never said or believed that the 2016 election was illegitimate.  I have always accepted that election as being valid.  I don't know to what extent Russian disinformation affected the election.  Even if it tipped the balance, this is not grounds for invalidating the election.  However, it is important to guard against disinformation, whether it concerns an election, a pandemic, or anything else.

Disinformation is not the same as collusion.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

But now, anyone who thinks elections are in any way vulnerable are gullible rubes with no respect for reason or standards of evidence, white supremacist conspiracy theorists and a danger to our democracy.

It would be closer to the point to say that anyone who thinks the 2020 election was actually stolen is either paranoid and/or emotion-guided to the point of becoming gullible and of failing to practice respect for reason or standards of evidence and/or a conspiracy theorist and/or a white supremacist, and that anyone who takes part in insurrections like the one on January 6, 2021 at the U.S. Capitol, or who smears, harasses, or threatens poll workers for doing their job, or who increases the power of politicians over elections, is a danger to our democracy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

It would be closer to the point to say that anyone who thinks the 2020 election was actually stolen is either paranoid and/or emotion-guided to the point of becoming gullible and of failing to practice respect for reason or standards of evidence and/or a conspiracy theorist and/or a white supremacist

This is an ad hominem and/or an argument from intimidation and/or guilt by alleged association.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, tadmjones said:

What does ‘guard against disinformation’ mean? And why does ‘everyone’ say it now? We should all wipe our asses ,too.

We hear it everywhere because the Predator Class liars who drive the mainstream narratives are concerned that the truth is coming out and they are losing control.

Their tactic is to scare the sheeple with the “dangers of misinformation” then smear all the truth-tellers with it and justify censorship with it. The censorship will get a pass from many people like Doug who become convinced “misinformation” is no less than a threat to security.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly , supposedly rational people use terms and speech that only facilitate the accumulation and use of censorious power. It’s newspeak , rational people wouldn’t easily tolerate punitive actions against liars, unless of course there is a legitimate legal recourse that should be instantiated. But the added category(ies) work to normalize actions taken for the purpose of throttling dissent to the narrative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

The censorship will get a pass from many people like Doug who become convinced “misinformation” is no less than a threat to security.

I do not condone censorship.  I agree with Ayn Rand that the way to fight bad ideas is with better ideas.  It may also be helpful to shine some light on where statements are coming from.

It is definitely a good idea to teach people to view statements with caution and to recognize signs that a statement should be viewed with suspicion,

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/28/2023 at 3:27 PM, Doug Morris said:

It would be closer to the point to say that anyone who thinks the 2020 election was actually stolen is either paranoid and/or emotion-guided to the point of becoming gullible and of failing to practice respect for reason or standards of evidence and/or a conspiracy theorist and/or a white supremacist, and that anyone who takes part in insurrections like the one on January 6, 2021 at the U.S. Capitol, or who smears, harasses, or threatens poll workers for doing their job, or who increases the power of politicians over elections, is a danger to our democracy. 

 

On 4/28/2023 at 6:28 PM, necrovore said:

This is an ad hominem and/or an argument from intimidation and/or guilt by alleged association.

 

21 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

I said it would be closer to the point.  I did not say it was the point.

 

 

You are an impressive accountability dodger, Doug. A specimen of truly elegant gaslighting skill. You have your cake, shove it into other people's mouths, and deny ever having had it, too -- and you make it look effortless.

Edited by Jon Letendre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

 

It is definitely a good idea to teach people to view statements with caution and to recognize signs that a statement should be viewed with suspicion,

 

Well really you must mean the stupid people, yes? Not- stupid people realize that not all things on the webs is by virtue of being published  'true'. Blessed are the teachers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

I was not trying to shove a cake into other people's mouths.  I was resisting your attempt to shove a cake into other people's mouths.

 

Right. You didn't engage in ad hominem and/or an argument from intimidation and/or guilt by alleged association. You never did anything wrong at all. All you were doing was resisting someone else who did do something wrong. Thank you for that perfect response that buttresses my point. You're a master.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/28/2023 at 4:44 PM, Jon Letendre said:

But now, anyone who thinks elections are in any way vulnerable are gullible rubes with no respect for reason or standards of evidence, white supremacist conspiracy theorists and a danger to our democracy.

This was a silly post.  I tried to present a more reasonable approach to these issues.  Unfortunately, my first attempt paralleled this silly post too closely, giving it unfortunate characteristics that misled or confused some people as to what I was trying to say.  I certainly was not trying to argue ad hominem.

I hope the following makes clearer what I was trying to say.

1.  It is perfectly legitimate to be concerned about vulnerabilities in our election system, especially when this is approached in the spirit of looking for ways to make that system more robust.  I am not objecting to this.  As far as I know, no reasonable person is objecting.

2.  Our system of democratic elections and orderly transfers of power is an essential part of the protections we have for the extent to which we have freedom and respect for our rights.  If this system becomes non-functional, we will be left with a contest of physical force to determine who comes to power.  Whoever wins this contest, having used force to get power, will probably use force to keep it, and we will have a dictatorship.  Therefore, anyone who acts to threaten, damage, or undermine this system of democratic elections and orderly transfers of power is acting as an enemy of freedom and individual rights, whether or not that is their intention.  This applies to the insurrectionists at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.  It applies to anyone who harasses, defames, or threatens poll workers for doing their jobs.  It applies to anyone who increases the power of politicians to tamper with elections.  And it applies to anyone who encourages or incites such actions, Donald Trump in particular.

3.  There are no legitimate grounds for saying the 2020 election was stolen.  We would not even be discussing this if Trump had not lied and said the election was stolen when he knew perfectly well it wasn't.  We also would not be discussing this if there weren't so many people so willing to believe Trump's lies.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are ample grounds for saying the 2020 election was stolen, but the Democrats keep trying to sweep the evidence under the rug by saying it's "illegitimate" to consider it, and by conducting ad hominem and other attacks against people who do consider it.

The Democrats frequently object to anti-fraud measures because they equivocate between intimidating people from carrying out legitimate activities and intimidating them from carrying out illegitimate activities. Putting police in a store to prevent shoplifting is "intimidating," but if it's done properly it should only intimidate actual shoplifters, not ordinary customers. Take the police away, though, and shoplifting becomes rampant, as exemplified by Democrat-controlled cities.

The same thing happens with election fraud. The Democrats oppose any measure that would make such fraud more difficult, such as requiring voters to show ID. That is not intimidation except to people trying to get away with fraud.

Another example of equivocation is where in Arizona a law against tampering with voting machines was used by Democrats to prevent the inspection of a voting machine after the election to see if it had been tampered with. So instead of preventing fraud, the law was used to abet it.

Another example is that the reason the Constitution requires election results to be approved by Congress and the Vice President is precisely so that if there are any suspicions of fraud, there is another chance to deal with that fraud. These approvals are not supposed to be mere rubber stamps. Having these procedures (and the courts) be rubber stamps only ensures that people who do commit fraud can be sure of getting away with it.

Of course, Democrats think they have the right to commit election fraud; every now and then there's another university professor saying so. It's fairly common for Leftist professors to say that sort of thing. Why not take them at their word, at least insofar as believing they believe it?

Most of the court cases brought by Trump failed because of judges refusing to look at the evidence on the grounds that it would be "catastrophic" for them to overturn an election -- on any basis. Such a point of view also only serves to ensure that people who commit fraud can be sure of getting away with it. (It would not have been necessary to simply declare Trump the winner; there is plenty of time between early November and January 20 in which to run and tally another election. This would put any fraudsters in the position of having to repeat their crimes while being under greater scrutiny than last time.)

The "insurrection" on January 6 was basically a Reichstag Fire. My evidence is that (1) the Democrats were the only ones who could have benefited from it, (2) there was never any chance that it could benefit anyone else, and (3) the question of who would benefit would have been evident to the people planning the event before it occurred.

The original Reichstag Fire was staged by Nazis; the Nazis blamed it on their opposition and used it to consolidate their power. The Democrats have done the same thing with theirs.

A few gullible Trump supporters were apparently among the participants in January 6th, but although much attention has been drawn to these participants, there has never been any clarity concerning who organized and directed the whole thing, and I think this has been for a reason. I think it's clear that Trump did not organize it. Trump had good reasons for believing he had been cheated out of the election, he didn't know how to prove it, and even if he could get proof, there wasn't a court he could take it to. Still, it wouldn't make sense for him to have asked small groups such as the Oath Keepers or the Proud Boys to overthrow the government for him. They are too small; there are not enough of them. (And most of the people who went into the Capitol on January 6th were not members of these groups, and were unarmed and were let in by police, who by the way were under the command, not of the President, but of Nancy Pelosi, since she was Speaker of the House.) Nor did his speech on January 6th constitute a call to the general public to overthrow the government. He just asked people to exercise their First Amendment rights.

1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

Whoever wins this contest, having used force to get power, will probably use force to keep it, and we will have a dictatorship.

The Democrats have already won the contest, and we do have a nascent dictatorship. That is the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...