Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Shameful Display of Anarchy and Violence

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

1 hour 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.

Would you agree that you want a change in the "rules of evidence" that courts use in the United States?

  • If so, what is that change? How should courts deal with "non credible" evidence? How should they deal with "lack of standing"?
  • Should next time when Democrats object, a special privilege be given to them in an election?
  • Should Texas have a right to interfere with internal issues within Pennsylvania?
  • "When someone says, I never saw it happen, but it must have happened"  should we investigate it?
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 593
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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

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

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

2 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

How about just in person voting , with ID coupled with requested absentee non-curable ballots for situations that would rationally justify their use , even during pandemics. 

  • Based on your request, you are not arguing fraud anymore.
    • You simply want a procedural change. This is a major shift. Not an allegation of fraud
  • If so, the question is why was this not fought in court before the election?
    • The possibility of advantage was known.
    • Why is it called fraud when everyone knew about it?
      • That is the fraud that has been perpetrated. "Calling it fraud"
      • That is what got that woman killed
      • The truth is, it was incompetence, mistakes, lack of coordination which causes a loss
  • BUT ... even without using your requested procedures, Republicans won seats.
    • It would be an accident if only one did, but more did.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The allegation stands , the requests are ways to avoid some level of fraud in the future.

How did calling out fraud get that woman killed ? I think she got killed by believing that fraud occurred and deciding to trespass because of her belief. Do you mean she was killed because fraud didn’t occur?

 

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

Do you mean she was killed because fraud didn’t occur?

I've made the case that No massive fraud, especially in the legal sense occurred. She was duped. She simply was on the losing side of an election. There was no need for her to risk her life and to die.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ? 

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

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 ? 

It would be massive fraud in Pa and in that case Pa should go to Trump.

But ... Biden would still be president because he would still have the electoral votes to make him president. Pa does not matter. If you think it does or did, you were duped.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

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?

That would mean you are right, there was massive fraud. Massive fraud implying a coordinated, directed effort to commit fraud (steal the vote). The case would have to make that there was "enough" defrauding to change the election. Not the amount that happens typically in all elections.

If you can get around the issue that Arizona and Georgia with Republican governors ALSO were part of the fraud, then you would have a credible case. Otherwise, Arizona and Georgia win the presidency for Biden. In other words, if the assumed fraud in Pa was "similar" in Michigan etc. , it still would not change anything.

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

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.

One would have to make the case that this fraud was done in 50 different independent systems. This fraud should have also been effective in most of the red states.

The case would have to be made that there was a "goal" directed by a source to give the presidency to Biden but to take away the congress from Biden. Like someone like Yaron Brook was behind it. The problem is that a democrat would not do that, why cause a presidency that would be debilitated by the Senate? So that would have to be explained. Ultimately the case has to be made that a party other than Republican or Democratic committed the fraud.

Massive is meant in the context of what Bill Bar said (paraphrasing) "Not enough to change the over all result".

Edited by Easy Truth
Highlighting
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ?

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

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".

One cannot over turn an election by simply shouting "MASSIVE fraud" either.

Show us links to the rulings and we can go through them.

Can questioning be unlimited? One has to examine: What should stop that process. Why not question ALL previous presidential elections? Why not revisit Gore vs. Bush?

I will argue that the questioning happened and ended properly in the courts. As I said before, if you are arguing that it did not work, you are arguing against the efficacy of judicial system (maybe fraud or corruption or a problem in the judicial system). That courts can't do it right or didn't do it right because of some corruption.

Then we'll have to drill down and see who did what and why was it wrong and ultimately how should the courts do it?

Ultimately the core question still to be answered is: When should we stop asking questions? In any election?

19 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

If I am alleging corruption party affiliation and partisan political appearances aren't necessarily the heaviest weighted elements in gaining/wielding/keeping power.

Sometimes but we're talking very low probability. In other words what would be the motivation of a Republican Governor in going against his own party's nominee? In this case 2 governors doing that.

Party affiliations is in fact the most effective way to get support, financial and otherwise. I'm assuming that's what you're arguing against.

You would also have to get around the things that Trump did to lose support in those two states.

In Arizona:

Made fun of Mccain, in theory if Trump had not done that, with only 10 thousand votes, we would have won. You don't think it is likely that 10 thousand people out of 15 million were upset about how Mccain was treated?

In addition to that the two senate seats have gone Democrat. Wouldn't that indicate a shift to the left in general, in other words is that overall shift fraudulent too?

In Georgia:

Republicans almost seemed to win the first time around. The runoff was won with around 10 thousand votes too. Someone else will have to talk about the internals of Georgia but I saw Trump confusing people about the 2000 dollar checks, and I saw Trumps former lawyer telling people not to vote at all. Bottom line, it takes very little to move 10 thousand votes one way or the other. Trump simply screwed it up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2021 at 10:47 PM, tadmjones said:

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.

There is ¬everything¬ in their rhetoric, by pols and media, and too, the social media giants, to suggest they will take the US as far Left as they can. Do not be misled, the signs are there when they speak openly about doing away with the filibuster, bringing in DC and Puerto Rico (less probable) as new and Democrat states, and increasing migration, that they want further powers and prolonged, in their minds, permanent, control: To what end?

Don't fall for "But they don't mean it!". Next comes, " Even if they mean it they won't do it". Last, "even if they would, they can't do it". Those were the evasions I heard in Zimbabwe and in S Africa. 

The optimistic note is that Leftists always give themselves away in their arrogance and non-self-awareness. They seem so bedazzled by their own brilliant sophistry and moral superiority, they do not see that they make fools of themselves, lose touch with reality (like overspending on 'noble' initiatives) and their ideology goes too far against the spirit of a country. Leftists are often rationalists too.

I am counting upon the mid -terms to see the start of a reverse shift (If the GOP gets its act together, with Nikki Haley's energy).

I estimate there will be many of those swing-voters who determined this election waking up shortly to Buyer's Remorse. I think many turned their prior support for him, against Trump, as a gesture to their finer feelings (e.g. racial guilt, used effectively by the Dems) - perhaps not dreaming for a moment he could - actually - lose. Now, they are looking at what Biden proposes and has already put in operation, and are thinking : I didn't want this!

 

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

openly about doing away with the filibuster

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. 

15 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

bringing in DC and Puerto Rico

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. 

16 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

increasing migration

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. 

3 hours ago, tadmjones said:

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".

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/23/2021 at 12:23 PM, Eiuol said:

I didn't, but I don't even know what it was a response to in Harrison's post. 

It seemed like he was just filling in some potentially-useful information on that particular open question, which I appreciated.  The very worst thing one could say about it is that it's irrelevant (in which case one can simply scroll past it) but since it is still a mystery I'm not sure one could even say that for certain.

I'm still wondering why it's the only form of argument anyone outside of this forum currently seems capable of using.

On 1/23/2021 at 12:23 PM, Eiuol said:

I struggle to see any ideological motivation behind any riots in the summer. In Portland, I would agree with you, but beyond that, they were effects of social unrest rather than ideological goals. People don't need to be compelled to riot.

Here I think there's a grain of truth on both sides of it.

I live about 45 minutes away from the Twin Cities (where the George Floyd riots started) and I spent some time last year surveying the extent of the damage.  From the targets they chose to loot and burn and the graffiti they left behind it's clear to me that many of the rioters were actually short-range opportunists looking for a free flatscreen TV and also that many others were racially motivated by a profound hatred of white people (and also of Capitalism itself).

Like I said: the blunt force of many disorganized little thugs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/23/2021 at 10:00 AM, MisterSwig said:

More important than racking up a body count is getting what you want, which usually entails the surrender of your enemy. That is, unless you're a psychotic mass murderer, in which case you'll probably lose followers at a rapid clip once they realize you're insane. So to me war is about the means to effecting a surrender or retreat, not necessarily mass death and destruction. Though sometimes mass death and destruction will be necessary to cause the end of the conflict. It depends on various factors, including the philosophy, will and power of your foe.

This seems like a very poetically loose (almost Nietzschean) definition of "war" to me.  I'm not really interested in pursuing this point much further (since we both understand that we mean two different things by it) but I think "war" is about bombs, bullets, and bodies.

In the words of Kara Thrace:  "This isn't duelling pistols at dawn; this is war.  You sneak up behind the other guy and club him over the head before he can react!"

So I wouldn't call what's happening now an actual "war" in my sense of it, nor do I think it'd be a good idea to have a civil war anytime in the near future.  Our ideas have not spread very far; we and our sympathizers would not last long in an actual firefight.

On 1/23/2021 at 10:00 AM, MisterSwig said:

Or, maybe you think you have the right to what's being taken and you're willing to stay and fight for it. Just because you resort to violence doesn't mean you're wrong. Again, that depends on various factors, like who initiated the conflict and why.

Although that's true I'd like to mention the contrast between the American and French revolutions, briefly.

The American revolution, although violent, was also philosophical.  Its participants knew what they were fighting for and why and that knowledge allowed them to create something beautiful after the real fighting was over.  The French, on the other hand, leapt into combat before properly thinking any of the relevant issues through; they got the reign of terror and then Napoleon.

So although you are right that violence can be justified (SOMETIMES) you would be wholly wrong to advocate the fighting before we (as a society) have done the thinking.

Do you know how much critical thinking your average Joe has done on these issues?  If we asked them to fight for their "freedom" now, before they've even conceived of what that means, I do not think the results would look anything like the American revolution.

On 1/23/2021 at 10:00 AM, MisterSwig said:

Some are done with words. Only a relatively small subgroup stormed the castle. And their action was appropriately directed at the politicians. Compare that with the left, whose violence and hatred is aimed at America generally.

Was it proper for that minority of bad apples to aim their "action" at the politicians?  I'll grant you right away that most of Trump's demonstrators were law-abiding and peaceful (just as most of the BLM protesters last summer were) but if you think those senators deserved a good reason to fear for their lives then I really will need to hear your reasons why.

 

On 1/23/2021 at 10:00 AM, MisterSwig said:

So, I say it's time to pick a side. The debate is over. Granted, there is no ideal to be found, but one side is beyond the pale.

Weirdly enough, despite the fact that this was the bit that really got to me, I actually do agree with most of it.  One side here certainly is beyond the pale and this does involve values that're worth fighting for.  But if there is no ideal to be found then what're we supposed to fight for?

Not a single Trumpist that showed up on January Sixth would be able to articulate a proper political ideal; I'm confident of that.  And if they can't then what makes you think they are in fact on our side?

I don't think there were any O'ist sympathizers among them.  And I don't think that helping them gain the government's cudgel will prevent or even postpone our own reign of terror. 

Fundamentally, I think those Trumpists have much more in common with Antifa than with any John Galt.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Kickass music video!
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2021 at 5:03 PM, whYNOT said:

Hang on, you are drawing a false equivalence, there is and has been a distinct gulf between the Leftist children and the average conservative and Trump supporter - - it is the first who predominantly were and are making all the noise and social upheaval, e.g., demands for safe spaces and safe words. Etc. The latter are and have been self-restrained and self-responsible for the most part and for the great majority.

Oh, totally.  The left wants to control our boardrooms and the right wants to control our bedrooms.  Most Trumpists don't want postmodernism in public education (etc); some of them want to prohibit abortions, others immigration, a few sprinkled on top want to have Creationism taught in science class and of course all of them endorse Trump's pandemic handouts.

Can we set aside the government's role in what's probably going to be another economic depression to agree that the Trumpists are categorically wrong (just as wrong as the socialists!) if they endorse the welfare state?

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

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

Is he the legitimate president? 

18 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Fundamentally, I think those Trumpists have much more in common with Antifa than with any John Galt.

You'll appreciate this:

 

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

OJ was legitimately acquitted.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/23/2021 at 12:23 PM, Eiuol said:

I think the Proud Boys are aiming their hatred at America as well.

I've listened to several interviews with the leader of the Proud Boys (whose name currently escapes me) and I found their website after it came up in the Presidential debates, all of which contradicts that conclusion.  There's an "American Supremacist" shirt he was photographed in that conveys their overall ideology quite precisely - they think America is superior to any other country that's ever existed.

I won't say they're perfect (and a few of the things on their website struck me as actually sexist, although they're the sort of thing Ayn Rand herself probably would've endorsed) but I really don't think they can be characterized as feeling anything towards America except adoration.

 

I did get a real kick out of the video link, though (since Trump is basically Bernie 2.0) and you should give Senbonzakura (Japanese for "one thousand cherry blossoms") a shot!  :)

 

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
One Thousand Cherry Blossoms
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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...