Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

2020 election

Rate this topic


merjet

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, necrovore said:

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."

People who do a good enough job of compartmentalizing their inconsistencies may be able to limit the spread.  Christianity has had a lot of practice doing this.  Trump and his supporters aren't doing it.  A big part of Trump's irrationality is a desperate search for personal reassurance.  A big part of his supporters' irrationality amounts to Trump worship.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be really nifty if Doug ever just tried to get out of his information bubble, if he sought information outside of the mainstream messaging, if he attempted to look into any of the information offered by people in these discussions instead of sitting back uniformed and pretending that asking for proof every time, every detail, every discussion, is an adequate substitute. It  really is like holding a child's hand through every step, and not like having an intellectual discussion wherein both parties have done their homework and are prepared to discuss an issue intelligently. If he tried, even just a little, he would already know that the facts mentioned in this discussion about the FBI's behavior came out at trial and are uncontroversially true.

Jonathan Turley, civil libertarian, liberal, hardly right wing to say the least, Professor of Law at George Washington University:

"The Michigan case stands as one of the most chilling examples of entrapment techniques used by the FBI. While Whitmer declared Trump “complicit” in her planned execution, the FBI increasingly appeared more “complicit” in the creation of a government-inspired, government-funded, and largely government-staffed plot."

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/04/20/top-prosecutor-drops-out-of-whitmer-kidnapping-case/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

Why should I?  Promotions, transfers, and changes of employer are normal.

 

 

I’ll admit having no knowledge of FBI culture, but a position within the organization that seats you closer the top of chain looks like a promotion, a mark of a career going on an upward trajectory. But like you said changes of employer are normal, less normal is ending what looks like from the outside a successful career in a relatively short span after a promotion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

People who do a good enough job of compartmentalizing their inconsistencies may be able to limit the spread.  Christianity has had a lot of practice doing this.  Trump and his supporters aren't doing it.  A big part of Trump's irrationality is a desperate search for personal reassurance.  A big part of his supporters' irrationality amounts to Trump worship.

 

So what accounts for support of the person of Joe Biden, he is provably corrupt and leaving him in his office is an actual threat to the Republic , but no one seems to be up in arms as they were/are about Trump’s brashness.

Does Biden really even have ‘supporters’?

Edited by tadmjones
Added. Even
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Law Professor Jonathan Turley:

"The Whitmer conspiracy was a production written, funded, and largely populated by FBI agents and informants. At every point, FBI literally drove the conspirators and controlled their actions. In the end, a majority of the “conspirators” were actually FBI agents or informants."

https://nypost.com/2022/04/13/inside-fbis-probe-and-entrapment-of-a-michigan-militia-crew/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

People who do a good enough job of compartmentalizing their inconsistencies may be able to limit the spread.  Christianity has had a lot of practice doing this.  Trump and his supporters aren't doing it.  A big part of Trump's irrationality is a desperate search for personal reassurance.  A big part of his supporters' irrationality amounts to Trump worship.

It seems like you're painting Trump supporters with an overly broad brush.

Couldn't it just be that people support Trump because he supports many of the policies they want and opposes many of the policies they don't want?

But I guess Trump supporters couldn't be that rational.

Edited by necrovore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we have Turley's opinion on the Whitmer case.

So far no one has provided any solid facts, nor any of the links I have requested to back up their claims.

On the Whitmer kidnapping, Wikipedia lists 14 defendants, of whom 5 were found guilty by a jury, 3 pleaded guilty, 2 were acquitted, and 4 had their trials pending.

Suddenly there seems to be a lot of talk about the relatively minor topic of the Whitmer kidnapping and no response to my requests for evidence or documentation relating to the stolen election claim.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, tadmjones said:

So what accounts for support of the person of Joe Biden,

There are many reasons why people vote the way they do, among them bad ideas, partisanship, and people voting their emotions.  In addition,, Trump is badly flawed, and this throws votes to his opponent.

19 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Joe Biden, he is provably corrupt

There is a difference between ordinary corruption, of which many politicians including Trump are guilty, and attacking the basic workings of our system, as Trump is doing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, necrovore said:

It seems like you're painting Trump supporters with an overly broad brush.

Couldn't it just be that people support Trump because he supports many of the policies they want and opposes many of the policies they don't want?

But I guess Trump supporters couldn't be that rational.

This would of course vary with the individual Trump supporter.  But Trump's supporters include a large, highly irrational hard core.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

So far no one has provided any solid facts, nor any of the links I have requested to back up their claims.

There is no such thing as a "solid fact" on the Internet. You have to look at the real world.

[On second thought this statement may be too broad... and at the moment I don't have time to hash it out...]

[I will say that historians usually go for primary sources, which means that if they want to find out what Trump was thinking, they would go to his speeches and writings, not to all these third-party judgments about him.]

Edited by necrovore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have tried to do some basic searches on the Internet and I believe the results are heavily filtered. The thing is, I can't find any information whatever that the "mainstream" media believes to be false, unless the mainstream media is quoting it for the purpose of rebutting it. The only things I can find are things they would deem true.

It's far too perfect.

In a free country, or on a free Internet, I would expect to find conflicting points of view, just like I would expect to find books in a bookstore which contradict each other, like Rand and Kant. I used to be able to find such things on the Internet, too. Different groups might argue with each other, but each group would have a place where it could speak for itself, and you could use your own judgment to decide which group was correct (if any was).

What I'm seeing now is more like when you go into a Christian bookstore and there are no books at all that are critical of Christianity or have anything bad to say about it. They may have disagreements about other issues, but every book says Christianity is great. You wouldn't find atheist authors like Rand in there at all. Somebody who only had access to such bookstores would also have a hard time finding "evidence" that there is anything "wrong" with Christianity. (They might find contradictions, however, either between different pieces of Christian literature, or between the literature and the real world. But they'd have to talk about them in hushed tones, and only with people they could trust.)

The same thing happens if you go into a bookstore in a Communist country. There are no books that have anything bad to say about Communism or about the regime.

Maybe that's why I can't find any evidence.

Paradoxically I'd be more inclined to believe "Trump's claims" were false if I could find them in their original form and find other articles about them that explain why they are false. Instead, all I find is the latter.

Like I said, it's far too perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, necrovore said:

There is no such thing as a "solid fact" on the Internet. You have to look at the real world.

You made claims about judges' rulings.  I asked you to link to actual examples of such rulings, which you should be able to do if what you say is true.  You have given me no response.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Doug Morris said:

You made claims about judges' rulings.  I asked you to link to actual examples of such rulings, which you should be able to do if what you say is true.  You have given me no response.

That's a non-sequitur. I may have seen a judge's ruling but be unable to find it.

You are free, if you wish, to disagree with me on the basis that I can't find proof, but you are not free to demand that I withdraw my argument merely because I'm unable to prove it to your satisfaction. Someone considering my argument might have better abilities to find the rulings than I have.

Nor does my inability to find some piece of evidence or other "prove" that I am irrational or even that my argument is. By such a standard, every rational person would be required to maintain a properly indexed library of everything they have ever seen or heard, so that they can provide proof of all their beliefs on demand. That's absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

You can't expect anyone to believe you if you can't provide evidence.

They may be able to get the evidence elsewhere.

Or they may already have it. Or they may have at least seen it so they know what I'm talking about.

I didn't reach my conclusions by having privileged access to information that no one else could have seen. I reached them by means of information that was available to many people at the time. Other people will have seen the same information.

Edited by necrovore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, necrovore said:

I have tried to do some basic searches on the Internet and I believe the results are heavily filtered. The thing is, I can't find any information whatever that the "mainstream" media believes to be false,

 

13 hours ago, necrovore said:

Paradoxically I'd be more inclined to believe "Trump's claims" were false if I could find them in their original form

I did some of your work for you.  I went through Trump's website, which would hardly be filtered by the mainstream media, and found something called "American Greatness", which looks like it's not filtered by the mainstream media either.   (Web address amgreatness.com).  That's two sources you can start with to do your own searching.  

You'll probably have to go back to items from November, 2020 or thereabouts to find "Trump's claims" in their original form.  You may need to check various sources.  The New York Times claims to be the "newspaper of record", so they might have something.

If this is too much work for you, it's going to be very hard to resolve anything. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose it would also be interesting to look at the 2020 Democratic Primary, where it looked like Bernie Sanders was going to win, but there were some weird anomalies with the vote counting, and it ended up going to Biden.

None of that had anything to do with Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah the 2020 Dem primaries were quite the spectacle. How anyone could watch that and believe it was organic is way beyond me. They all bowed out one after the other for no good reasons at all and well, that left Joe Biden. Joe Biden, who no one wanted as seen by his inability to fill even just a high school gym (compared to Trump who sold out huge venues breaking several records including beating Elton John's attendance record at a stadium in New Hampshire.)

Edited by Jon Letendre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see voting machine software code.

I did see enormous discrepancies in objective manifestations of support, in the 2020 general election and in the 2020 Dem primaries.

Bernie had been filling large venues for years, Biden was a big fat zero. A lot of people talked about it when Obama chose him for the 2008 campaign. People were dumbfounded. In government his whole life, never achieved anything of note and no one liked him. Obama's win was no surprise, the enthusiasm of the voters was evident in his rallies and people from all walks of life wanted him.

When Biden was rising in the primaries and all the Dems were dropping out I couldn't find anyone, anyone at all, who wanted Biden. The mainstream polling outfits and media were reporting his rising support but nothing I observed myself has ever lined up with that messaging.

Edited by Jon Letendre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

People who will vote for a candidate won't necessarily come to a campaign event.

 

Sure , but given the historic enthusiasm and vote tallies , one or two of Biden’s events should have looked a little like all of Trump’s. 
Late in the campaign, deep into the pandemic, I think drew 70k to a field in PA , not sure but I think he lost that county.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

When Biden was rising in the primaries and all the Dems were dropping out I couldn't find anyone, anyone at all, who wanted Biden. The mainstream polling outfits and media were reporting his rising support but nothing I observed myself has ever lined up with that messaging.

Did anyone poll people on why they were voting for Biden?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would assume there literally tens of thousands of polls conducted during the 2020 election focused on likely voters and likely Democrat voters. Biden obviously believed the polls showed that all black voters would vote for him to the point of chastising publicly any examples to the contrary, after all the Democrat party has alway been out for the blacks.

It was wasted effort , Biden’s favorability is an ostensively organic given to anyone with even a glancing interest in American politics. 

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...