Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Shameful Display of Anarchy and Violence

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

And maybe Stalin believed in laissez fair capitalism. He saw the folly in respecting individual rights so he just acted like communist. We can both play at arbitrary statements.

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.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 597
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

As America prepares to certify our next President, a large band of hooligans have taken upon themselves to storm the Capitol.  This in the name of Freedom?  Are these hooligans striving to look for th

14 January 2021 We will crush their violence enacted under their feast of self-delusion and contempt for our Constitutional rule of law. The republic will prevail. The citizens on both sides are

Also there's an argument to the effect that, well look, the representatives in Congress deserve this. While, strictly speaking, this is correct, it doesn't follow merely from that fact that this is th

Posted Images

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

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.

Maybe he does hold America as his top value, and if so, he's doing it in a way that expresses hatred to America at the same time. It's like I was saying about Tad when he said that he thinks people should have symbolically taken a shit on America. It's a very strange and twisted way to love something, in the same way that an abusive father loves his children. You can say that the father treats his children in a way that he hates them, but he claims he is doing it because he loves them. He fails to protect the Senate when it is under attack (other people had to do it), giving an ambiguous response to the insurrection (again, very specific people doing it not the people who are random protesters or walking the halls), and failing to show many symbolic respects to the country or the office. And if he gave up the legal fight and is diverting his money elsewhere now, and still does not accept the judgments, he is expressing hatred to the judicial system and the way that it works. 

Trump loves America so much that he will abuse her until she does what he wants. Because he thinks that's what love is.

 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, whYNOT said:

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.

If Trump had said "I want to make sure this election was fair", that would be much more reasonable and much less destructive than saying that the election was stolen.

16 hours ago, whYNOT said:

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.

I'm not interested in rehashing that whole other thread, so I'll just repeat my key point.  Subjecting other people to physical danger, including danger of disease, can rise to the level of physical aggression.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

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?

Trump's businesses and family have gained significant financial benefit from his presidency.

Trump placed a lot of emphasis on personal loyalty to him.

Trump blew a chance to save at least one Senate seat, and thus control of the Senate, for the Republicans.  He was more interested in repeating and pushing his claim that he really won his election.

The accusations against Trump are not arbitrary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Why did the Congressmen and Senators that publicly stated they would challenge several slates of electors and force a reading into the Congressional record of evidence of irregularities suddenly , not ?

The tacit explanation is , I suppose, the ‘insurrectionists’ committed such egregious acts , that they changed their minds ? They seemed willing to risk their future political careers on arguments they held at 10 am about events that transpired in Nov , but those factors became less relevant after the riot /insurrection? How so? 

Some congressmen (which is inclusive of senators: Congress is comprised of senators and representatives) continued down that path, despite the insurrectionists' egregious acts, others did not. The reason why many of them agreed to challenge the election originally is because they were under political pressure to do so, by Trump and his supporters. They are deeply concerned with their continued ability to fundraise and be elected to office, and sought to appease these radical elements. In this way, they were not "risking their future political careers" so much as doing what they thought best at the time to ensure them.

This is also why they were willing to abandon their challenges when the optics of such a protest changed. Not because they "changed their minds" about anything, but because they judged that the political blowback for further supporting Trump's claims, especially in that moment, was no longer worth it.

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

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?

Easier in the sense of being more consistent and reasonable and supported by evidence, yes. The idea that Trump's "top value might be his country" is tortured and preposterous, and an infinitely more difficult case to make. You may as well suggest that Hitler really just wanted to provide showers to the Jews and accidentally mistook Zyklon B for shampoo. ("Haven't you considered, just for a moment, that his top value might be hygiene?")

In a way, Trump's motivation is almost beside the point. That he was so hostile to truth, so damaging to our democracy, is enough: and he could have the best motives in the world, but if his implementation of those motives is so consistently poor and self-refuting, then he has no business sniffing power regardless.

But inferring his character, insofar as we are able, does help us to contextualize his past actions and predict his future ones. As just one example of so, so many, Trump's challenge to the election was both consistent with, and predictable by, an understanding of his character as fundamentally "self-enriching and self-aggrandizing." Not with any love for or valuing of his country, which both literally and symbolically came under assault as a direct result of Trump's actions. (Remembering Rand's essay on "Apollo and Dionysus" for just a moment, can you imagine what she might have made of... oh, someone dressed as a viking, storming the Capitol?)

This conversation reminds me (depressingly) of conversations I've had and witnessed with creationists. Yes, if I was willing to throw out all other evidence, including the evidence of my senses and what my reason has apprehended, I might reach some other conclusion. But why in the hell should I ever reject evidence and reason in that way... and what does it mean to witness Objectivists calling for such a thing?

You could answer me here, or you could circle back to respond to my questions about the "de facto monopoly" or how Objectivist intellectuals are now leftists, or you could move on to some other, equally arbitrary claim. It doesn't really matter and I understand that the specifics of your arguments are not the point; they are fully fungible. You have crossed over some kind of epistemological threshold -- an event horizon, the existence of which I can infer, but not truly see or understand for myself -- and only you can choose, howsoever such a thing is done, to bring yourself back. I sincerely hope that you do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

Maybe he does hold America as his top value, and if so, he's doing it in a way that expresses hatred to America at the same time. It's like I was saying about Tad when he said that he thinks people should have symbolically taken a shit on America. It's a very strange and twisted way to love something, in the same way that an abusive father loves his children. You can say that the father treats his children in a way that he hates them, but he claims he is doing it because he loves them. He fails to protect the Senate when it is under attack (other people had to do it), giving an ambiguous response to the insurrection (again, very specific people doing it not the people who are random protesters or walking the halls), and failing to show many symbolic respects to the country or the office. And if he gave up the legal fight and is diverting his money elsewhere now, and still does not accept the judgments, he is expressing hatred to the judicial system and the way that it works. 

Trump loves America so much that he will abuse her until she does what he wants. Because he thinks that's what love is.

 

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?)

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

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.

Too much word salad there.

Just sum it up. He was incompetent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

Too much word salad there.

Just sum it up. He was incompetent.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

 

You forgot

C. Relieved Trump  lost and not looking forward to Biden

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

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.

Both candidates were seriously flawed, making it a hard choice.  My view was that neither one was acceptable to vote for, so I voted for Jorgensen.

The country is complicated and varied, and the reasons for Trump's defeat were complicated and varied.  His flaws certainly played a role.

There are not enough Objectivists yet to have much effect on an election.  If there were, we might have gotten better candidates from both parties, or a clearer choice.

We'll see how Biden's presldency turns out.  We'll never know whether Trump's reelection would have been better or worse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/23/2021 at 10:23 AM, Eiuol said:

Aren't we missing something crucial here, namely that the majority of rioters were not carrying any particular kind of metaphorical or real flag?

That's not true, but even if it were that would make my point ten times stronger. The right is better than Antifa and BLM, but they're way better than a mob that riots for no ideology whatsoever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggested, rather tongue in cheek-ly, shit trucks as an alternative to physical violence  basically because any alternative to physical violence is necessary. The only legitimate form of protest at the Capitol that day would have been to gather outside the building . And any and all dissatisfaction should be aimed at the politicians not at the idea of the American republic. 

The opportunity for fraud , malfeasance and incompetent procedural handlings of all the vote counting in the 2020 general election was unprecedented. 

Trump made statements prior to Nov that covid had so drastically changed the playing field that extra scrutiny would be required. Instead of tightening scrutiny and implementing  unprecedented controls on the chain of custody of ballots, election standards were loosened . The 'swing state' results showed obvious irregularities and various unexplained statistical anomalies, albeit  some of the irregularities are present to some degree or other in past elections, but that in and of itself does not bar anyone from bringing the grievances. There was no extra-ordinary , unprecedented attempt to examine the ballots based mostly on the idea that unprecedented procedures are not called for, for examination of results, only that unprecedented procedures can be implemented for carrying out the voting process.  

I am squarely on the side of "count every legal vote" as opposed to "count every vote" and I feel ( yes my own subjective emotional response) that given the epidemic and the way it affected the process required a thorough examination of the ballots. My suspicions and misgivings about the results as reported were only heightened by the pushback and stonewalling of various court proceedings.

Motive and opportunity are important factors in assessing allegations. Trump and his supporters  repeatedly called for forensic examinations perhaps too broadly and or too specifically in different instances and most were blocked. If the fraud was nonexistent more examinations would have been damning to his case, thwarting the examinations did what exactly ?

Are there any instances of extra-ordinary efforts to examine ballots? I admit there was a lot of anti-Trump perceived voters, but they failed to punish down ballot candidates to the same degree. How is it the historic levels of voting for Biden did not result in down ballot candidates overcoming the anti-Trump votes? Especially when you consider the gains Trump made in minority voter support.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

I am squarely on the side of "count every legal vote" as opposed to "count every vote" and I feel ( yes my own subjective emotional response) that given the epidemic and the way it affected the process required a thorough examination of the ballots. My suspicions and misgivings about the results as reported were only heightened by the pushback and stonewalling of various court proceedings.

That is a valid concern. The basic push back on it is that fact that Trump or the Republican party had opportunity to address those issues, in court, far before the election. That was their responsibility. In fact, the California republican party did do that successfully and the gained republican seats in communist California. So ultimately, there may perhaps be unfair advantage due to mail in ballots for Democrats, but there was no (massive coordinated) LEGAL fraud. Whatever happened for the most part has been legal. Now moving forward, a discussion about mail in ballots and "who should vote" is fine. Trying to address it legally is the proper way to go rather than promoting the idea that the ENTIRE legal system is corrupt.

30 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

Are there any instances of extra-ordinary efforts to examine ballots? I admit there was a lot of anti-Trump perceived voters, but they failed to punish down ballot candidates to the same degree. How is it the historic levels of voting for Biden did not result in down ballot candidates overcoming the anti-Trump votes? Especially when you consider the gains Trump made in minority voter support.

I either don't understand your argument or it seems like you are shooting your self in the foot. If there were anomalies like that, a massive coordinated "steal the vote" did not take place. A coordination steal the vote should have stolen both the presidency and congress.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or it can be pointed to question whether or not the 'steal' was a concentrated effort in say six or so 'battle ground" "swing state" cities under partisan control. Like stopping the counting and then stuffing the boxes to beat the algorithms. Without thorough forensic examination those allegations will remain unanswered. Two ways Biden 'proves' he won, debunked claims, and unexamined claims. So far , and forever apparently, he needs only one, unexamined claims.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

Or it can be pointed to question whether or not the 'steal' was a concentrated effort in say six or so 'battle ground" "swing state" cities under partisan control. Like stopping the counting and then stuffing the boxes to beat the algorithms. Without thorough forensic examination those allegations will remain unanswered. Two ways Biden 'proves' he won, debunked claims, and unexamined claims. So far , and forever apparently, he needs only one, unexamined claims.

Out of all the battleground states, if you can convince me that Arizona and Georgia, who have Republican governors at the helm, had massive coordinated fraud to prevent Trump from winning, you will convince me. (They are used because their Governors would have every reason to push the results in Trump's favor)

Keep in mind, these two states (Arizona and Georgia) alone (ignoring ALL other battle ground states, as in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin etc.) gave Biden the Presidency (above 270 electoral votes). Pennsylvania for instance is a moot point if Arizona and Georgia went to Biden. In other words, Biden would still be president if Pennsylvania went to Trump. 

It's unfortunate because the woman who died probably did not take this into consideration.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, whYNOT said:

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? 

I will explain it. Generally, at least if you think the justice system at its fundamentals is still proper and legitimate (even if flawed in many ways), or will get you something that you want (whether it's justice or some pragmatic goal), then there is no reason to stop fighting through means of the judicial system. You might give up the legal fight if you 1) run out of money, 2) assent to the judicial decision completely even if you disagree, 3) never believed in your cause so you just used it as a way to get people to give you money, 4) an alternative legal or legal strategy would provide more benefit, 5) incompetency at achieving your goals. 

1 isn't the case. 2 isn't the case. 3 is a possibility. 4 is a possibility. 3 is the one you are disagreeing with. 4 is your claim. Trump never does and has never spoke out against "stop the steal", so there is little base to say that he thinks the judicial system is working as it should. He believes that injustice has been committed, and now no longer wants to use the justice system to correct the injustice. That injustice is the entire system. The injustice is the American legal system.

Now, I don't care if he really believes this. Maybe it's manipulative, maybe he genuinely believes he is doing something to express love for America. Doesn't matter which it is. The behavior is more like that of someone who hates America. 

2 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Trying to address it legally is the proper way to go rather than promoting the idea that the ENTIRE legal system is corrupt.

I'm not even sure so much anymore that people like Tad believe this, even though that is the implication of the whole "stop the steal" thing. It's hard for anyone to admit that they were fighting for the wrong cause. Especially hard if it would mean that the person they supported did harm to their side. It's like sanction of the victim: not admitting or not realizing that someone is harming you, and brushing most things off as mistakes, and being totally reluctant to accept the worst. Even the Proud Boys recognize that Trump has betrayed them.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

Claiming to have received unfair treatment under any system isn’t a universal condemnation of said system.

It's not the claim of unfair treatment, it's the claim that justice was not done after it had been through the court system, and then to give up on fighting it in the system, and then to proceed to "stop the steal" at the Capitol. You might not see it, but that's the problem. You've been fooled, and continue to be fooled. 

25 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

The system that is the target of much of the ire is the election ‘system’ and not getting any relief in the courts.

It would be nice if that was the case. But this can only work if you argue that the judges are corrupt, the Senators are corrupt, the deep state is all over, the governors are corrupt, the post office can't function, the legal remedies are not proper, and you can't appeal to anyone. You have to say that all branches of government are corrupt. That's how big a deal the election system is in this case: all branches of government have been involved. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My skepticism of the integrity of the people who run our ‘systems’ was not born around the 2020 general election.

If there is anyway to see the rioting and unrest of the summer as being  predicated on some real or supposed harm that flowed from the ‘systems’ then they certainly preceded Trump.

Link to post
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...