Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

2020 election

Rate this topic


merjet

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

 

 

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

 

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.

 

 

Are there any grounds you would concede that could be legitimate 'concerns' as to how the election of 2020 was carried out and to what if any extent the concerns could have affected the outcome or official tallies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, necrovore said:

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.

Please explain each of these statements.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

Are there any grounds you would concede that could be legitimate 'concerns' as to how the election of 2020 was carried out and to what if any extent the concerns could have affected the outcome or official tallies?

Are there any grounds you wish me to evaluate?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Doug Morris said:
3 hours ago, necrovore said:

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.

Please explain each of these statements.

Is there any way that Trump (or his supporters) could have planned in advance to benefit from having a mob storm the Capitol? And I mean serious benefits, the kind that would have looked credible, and possibly survived the inevitable legal challenge. What could they have hoped to gain, especially since Trump and his supporters went to great lengths, after months of riots in the cities, to paint themselves as advocates of law and order? Bank robbers, by contrast, at least hope to get some money, and can also hope to disappear.

Is there any way, prior to the event, that Trump (or his supporters) could have assessed the risk and consequences of failure and decided it was worth doing anyway? Bank robbers make assessments of how secure the bank is, where the armed guards are, how much time they have before the police arrive, and so forth, and they might decide not to do a robbery if they think it's too risky.

Is there any way that Trump or his supporters could have plotted to carry out such an action but failed or refused to assess the obviously high risk and severe consequences?

On the other hand, the Democrats could have anticipated benefiting from being able to accuse Republicans of staging an "insurrection." It would also have been a great way to distract attention from election fraud and the legitimate attempts to combat it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, necrovore said:

Is there any way that Trump (or his supporters) could have planned in advance to benefit from having a mob storm the Capitol? And I mean serious benefits, the kind that would have looked credible, and possibly survived the inevitable legal challenge. What could they have hoped to gain, especially since Trump and his supporters went to great lengths, after months of riots in the cities, to paint themselves as advocates of law and order? Bank robbers, by contrast, at least hope to get some money, and can also hope to disappear.

Is there any way, prior to the event, that Trump (or his supporters) could have assessed the risk and consequences of failure and decided it was worth doing anyway? Bank robbers make assessments of how secure the bank is, where the armed guards are, how much time they have before the police arrive, and so forth, and they might decide not to do a robbery if they think it's too risky.

Is there any way that Trump or his supporters could have plotted to carry out such an action but failed or refused to assess the obviously high risk and severe consequences?

On the other hand, the Democrats could have anticipated benefiting from being able to accuse Republicans of staging an "insurrection." It would also have been a great way to distract attention from election fraud and the legitimate attempts to combat it.

What makes you so sure Trump and his supporters would have been that rational?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, necrovore said:

The Democrats oppose any measure that would make such fraud more difficult, such as requiring voters to show ID

The Democrats' argument is that some voters have a hard time getting ID's.  How much such fraud is there for the ID requirement to prevent?

6 hours ago, necrovore said:

 

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.

If this is like the Georgia case, you have it backwards.

6 hours ago, necrovore said:

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.

Can you give an example?

6 hours ago, necrovore said:

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.

Can you provide links to some of these judgments?

6 hours ago, necrovore said:

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.

There were no legitimate grounds for suspecting fraud.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Doug Morris said:

There were no legitimate grounds for suspecting fraud.

That is not true. Dr. Hurd's post showed a number of red flags, any of which is grounds for suspecting fraud.

Do you hold that all of those red flags are false?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/26/2023 at 6:49 PM, necrovore said:

I saw a post by Dr. Michael Hurd on his web page which summarizes the issues with the 2020 election.

 

On 4/26/2023 at 6:49 PM, necrovore said:

“Commonly accepted red flag indicators of fraud are: 1. Statistically highly unlikely results 2. Statistically highly unlikely turnouts 3. Changes to procedures in the run up to the election 4. Sudden counting suspensions or delays 5. Statistically contradictory results 6. Extended or lengthy voting 7. Eyewitness accounts of fraudulent behaviour. 8. Violence or force to prevent voting or disguise fraud.

1.  False.

2  False.

3.  Due to attempts to deal with the pandemic and the lock downs, not to any fraud.

4.  How many?

5. False.

6.  How much?

7.  The result of people jumping to conclusions about things they didn't understand, because they badly wanted to believe Trump's lies.

8.  Any at all?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

What makes you so sure Trump and his supporters would have been that rational?

 

There were hundreds of thousands if not a million Trump supporters in DC , the overwhelming majority of the attendees of the “Stop the Steal” rallies did not enter the Capitol or even converge on the ‘grounds’. A very small percentage along with FBI informants and personnel did goad an irrational element into forming a riot, calling that an insurrection is at best hyperbole. I suppose they were irrational enough to try and over throw the world’s largest superpower unarmed. Luckily the proper officials decided to deploy 30 k troops at the inauguration in case another unarmed mob formed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

There were hundreds of thousands if not a million Trump supporters in DC , the overwhelming majority of the attendees of the “Stop the Steal” rallies did not enter the Capitol or even converge on the ‘grounds’. A very small percentage along with FBI informants and personnel did goad an irrational element into forming a riot, calling that an insurrection is at best hyperbole. I suppose they were irrational enough to try and over throw the world’s largest superpower unarmed. Luckily the proper officials decided to deploy 30 k troops at the inauguration in case another unarmed mob formed.

You seem to be admitting the insurrectionists, or "rioters" as you would have it, were irrational.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

There is plenty of evidence that Trump and his supporters are very irrational.

37 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

You seem to be admitting the insurrectionists, or "rioters" as you would have it, were irrational.

That's a non sequitur because it doesn't prove that Trump or his supporters were irrational in the specific ways necessary to have tried to carry out the described "insurrection."

Even criminals and psychopaths have "patterns of behavior." This does not fit the pattern of Trump or his supporters (in general). They do not have a history of doing or even advocating this sort of thing. Quite the opposite.

(Given that there are tens of millions of Trump supporters, it may be possible to find one or two who have the required profile; these are the kinds of people who could have been tempted to participate in such an insurrection. However, they are neither typical nor influential, as people on the Left try to portray them. Just because you can find a white supremacist who supports Trump doesn't mean that all Trump supporters are white supremacists, and so forth. Stephen King has had fans who are creepy serial killers but that doesn't mean all Stephen King fans are creepy serial killers.)

However, the idea that Democrats could have staged it does fit with their pattern. They even rehearsed it, with the Governor Whitmer kidnapping thing.

53 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

2  False.

Some counties had more than 100% turnout.

53 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

3.  Due to attempts to deal with the pandemic and the lock downs, not to any fraud.

The pandemic itself was a fraud, wasn't it?

53 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

4.  How many?

The vote count stopped, in four states simultaneously, at 1:30 in the morning or something, and resumed hours later with a different vote count.

53 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

6.  How much?

For weeks leading up to the election.

53 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

7.  The result of people jumping to conclusions about things they didn't understand, because they badly wanted to believe Trump's lies.

There was video evidence (shot with cell phones) of observers being violently shut out of vote counting in some counties even though they had the legal right to be present. Those counties ended up having enough votes to flip their states to Biden. This was while counting was still in progress and before Trump could have "lied" yet. It was used (perhaps I should say offered) as evidence in court cases, along with sworn statements, only to be dismissed because overturning an election was considered too severe a remedy.

Edited by necrovore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, necrovore said:

That's a non sequitur because it doesn't prove that Trump or his supporters were irrational in the specific ways necessary to have tried to carry out the described "insurrection."

Once someone becomes irrational, the irrationality spreads.

13 hours ago, necrovore said:

However, the idea that Democrats could have staged it does fit with their pattern. They even rehearsed it, with the Governor Whitmer kidnapping thing.

Please give evidence that the Democrats staged the Governor Whitmer kidnapping.

13 hours ago, necrovore said:

Some counties had more than 100% turnout.

Is that the number of votes, cast and accepted, exceeded the number of registered voters?  By enough to affect the result in that state?  Please give specifics, including which counties in which states.

14 hours ago, necrovore said:

The pandemic itself was a fraud, wasn't it?

No, it was not.  A lot of people died from it.

14 hours ago, necrovore said:

The vote count stopped, in four states simultaneously, at 1:30 in the morning or something, and resumed hours later with a different vote count.

Please give specifics, including which states and specific vote counts.

14 hours ago, necrovore said:

For weeks leading up to the election.

So there was early voting and absentee voting.  Probably more than usual because of the pandemic, the lockdowns, and the special efforts to let people vote anyway.  So what?

14 hours ago, necrovore said:

There was video evidence (shot with cell phones) of observers being violently shut out of vote counting in some counties even though they had the legal right to be present.

Specifics, please.

14 hours ago, necrovore said:

This was while counting was still in progress and before Trump could have "lied" yet.

Didn't Trump start insisting the election would be stolen even before it took place?

14 hours ago, necrovore said:

It was used (perhaps I should say offered) as evidence in court cases, along with sworn statements, only to be dismissed because overturning an election was considered too severe a remedy.

Can you link to documentation?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

Once someone becomes irrational, the irrationality spreads.

That's an example of the kind of falsehood that underlies a dictatorship.

What it really means is that ideas spread, and the dictators don't want any ideas to spread that they don't approve of.

People have free will about what ideas they believe, but if an idea "has legs" it's usually because there's enough evidence for it that it seems plausible. The regime's disapproval of it only adds fuel to the fire.

This is why dictatorial regimes clamp down on communications, as they did in East Germany and the Soviet Union. Gotta keep that "irrationality" from "spreading."

It's also why they will demand no end of "evidence" from anybody who disagrees with them, and even if some such evidence is produced, it will never be satisfactory -- but they never have to produce any of their own. The correctness of the dictators themselves is to be regarded as an axiom. The dictators are innocent until proven guilty; the dissenters are guilty until proven innocent. Except that the standards of proof are set so that nothing can ever be proved.

This is also why dissenters are usually shot, to prevent their "irrationality" from spreading.

Unfortunately for the dictators, shooting dissenters does not work. The dissenters are only messengers, and people's beliefs aren't what matters. Reality is what matters. Reality, and not the regime, is what determines whether beliefs are right or wrong. This is why reality is the regime's greatest enemy.

You can deny evidence, you can erase history, but that doesn't make it go away. Existence has primacy over consciousness. History repeats itself because the underlying principles never change.

Once of those principles, discovered in the last century or so, is that dictatorship kills people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were more FBI agents and informants that participated in the “kidnapping plot” than there were non FBI affiliated participants. The director of the field office that oversaw that “plot” was later promoted or reassigned to head the DC field office that oversaw the security for DC leading up to January 6 th that again saw uncover FBI personnel involved goading individuals into criminal acts. 

There is video of Ashli Babbit in the hallway where she was shot , that shows her arriving before the crowd that is present when she was killed and trying to implore the security on scene to gather more support to quell further rioting it also shows her trying to stop people from breaking down the doors into the hallway. Which is not an oblivious way for someone to act if their goal were to physically capture Pence and drag him to the gallows ,again unarmed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The modus operandi is to under-cover recruit vulnerable people to participate in what they are told will be a violent crime. Basically, entrap some highly suggestible and evil people who then in fact do their part in what they think will be a big violent crime, then arrest them.

There is never any chance of the event taking place because every element of its execution (aside from the entrapped persons) is made up, doesn't exist. Then they tell the public it was a real conspiracy with a real chance of coming to fruition but they stopped it and saved lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone gathered the intelligence and documented instances that such an assertion could be based?

Without a federal agency producing such a report publicly, I am bound to rationally not entertain such arbitrary blather , no documented proof means no bad things happen , except by coincidence and drawing unfounded inferences, and that would be irrational.

C’mon man you know better. Save lives get your booster today!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/3/2023 at 1:47 PM, necrovore said:
On 5/3/2023 at 11:19 AM, Doug Morris said:

Once someone becomes irrational, the irrationality spreads.

That's an example of the kind of falsehood that underlies a dictatorship.

I was referring to irrationality spreading witihin the irrational person, from issue to issue, not claiming that it would spread from person to person.  Why didn't you pay more attention to which statement of yours I was answering?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, tadmjones said:

There is video of Ashli Babbit in the hallway where she was shot , that shows her arriving before the crowd that is present when she was killed and trying to implore the security on scene to gather more support to quell further rioting it also shows her trying to stop people from breaking down the doors into the hallway. Which is not an oblivious way for someone to act if their goal were to physically capture Pence and drag him to the gallows ,again unarmed.

Wasn't she shot trying to climb into the legislative chamber?  That would surely look like an attempt at aggression on her part, even if that was not her intent.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

Or at least, so the defense lawyers claimed.  What evidence is there for this?

 

The defense claims? Were their claims proven false?, because if their claims are acknowledged as true , they could still be described as 'defense claims' .

Do you find it odd that the field office head was moved to DC and has since left service ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

I was referring to irrationality spreading witihin the irrational person, from issue to issue, not claiming that it would spread from person to person.

But that is not correct, either; there are a lot of people such as Christians who maintain the same inconsistencies throughout their lives, without the irrationality "spreading."

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...