Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, tadmjones said:

What would you consider as evidence of election fraud? 

Certainly not an outcome that my friends and I don't like.  (It's hard to say what that would even be, given Trump's serious flaws.)

Not biased people, who don't understand what they're seeing, spying on election workers and jumping to conclusions. 

The burden is on those who claim fraud to present evidence and let the rest of us evaluate it.

Solid evidence of ballot stuffing or of waylaying legitimate ballots, in sufficient quantity to affect the outcome, would be evidence.  A discrepancy between a recount and an original count, in sufficient quantity to affect the outcome, would be tentative evidence.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

Certainly not an outcome that my friends and I don't like.  (It's hard to say what that would even be, given Trump's serious flaws.)

Not biased people, who don't understand what they're seeing, spying on election workers and jumping to conclusions. 

The burden is on those who claim fraud to present evidence and let the rest of us evaluate it.

Solid evidence of ballot stuffing or of waylaying legitimate ballots, in sufficient quantity to affect the outcome, would be evidence.  A discrepancy between a recount and an original count, in sufficient quantity to affect the outcome, would be tentative evidence.

 

You touched mostly on what is not to be considered evidence , but as far as tentative , would things like these be worth an investigation ?

https://thefederalist.com/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if you agree that situation deserves at least public scrutiny, which element is most troubling , the incompetence or the cover up and the ease with which the ‘officials’ opted for falsifying records ?

I understand this is an example of just one county in one state , but certifying results that were known to be unverified is fraud , and cover up is fraud after the fact. Unless the video is fake , I’d certainly call this direct evidence of election fraud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, tadmjones said:

So if you agree that situation deserves at least public scrutiny, which element is most troubling , the incompetence or the cover up and the ease with which the ‘officials’ opted for falsifying records ?

The cover up and the ease with which the ‘officials’ opted for falsifying records.

11 hours ago, tadmjones said:

I’d certainly call this direct evidence of election fraud.

If we define "fraud" broadly enough to include things that don't necessarily affect the outcome and don't necessarily involve an attempt to affect the outcome.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

The cover up and the ease with which the ‘officials’ opted for falsifying records.

If we define "fraud" broadly enough to include things that don't necessarily affect the outcome and don't necessarily involve an attempt to affect the outcome.

 

How broad does fraud need to be defined beyond knowingly not following election law? I haven't reviewed PA election law , but I'm going to assume that if fraudulent county level results are co-mingled with state certification it 'taints' the state-wide results.

 

The 'Insurrectionists!' were revolting against the very foundations of democracy , the Republic of Laws not Men, they were traitors to our country and cause by violating the principles and established legal order! but county level election officials are gonna mess up here and there and if it's not like overly egregious .. not a big deal , well ok if they did something that affects the actual outcome sure that be bad , but fraud just expect it , ignore it , but don't fuckin step on an outbounds for 24 hours lawn , traitor!

Edited by tadmjones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, tadmjones said:

The 'Insurrectionists!'

They were insurrectionists.  They used violence to attack the orderly, constitutional transfer of power.  They invaded a legislative chamber of the Capitol, not just the lawn.  They murdered some police officers.

Serious incompetence and attempts to cover it up should not be ignored.  If that whistle blower report is true, there needs to be a tightening up of the way things are done there, there are probably people who need to be fired, and there may well be people who need to go to jail.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No police officers died as a result of violence, two unarmed woman did, one was shot in the neck by the Congressional security forces.

Have you seen the video of Ashli Babbit , the woman shot, that shows her as the first person to reach the hallway and she was yelling at the Capitol police to call for reinforcements, in that video she punches and tries to stop the guy who broke the glass panel that she eventually went through. Her action of going through the open panel can be seen as her trying to get away from the escalating and violence prone situation in her immediate area. 

What information leads you to still believe police officers died at the Capitol? 

As to the whistleblower account , why or how should those allegations be followed up ? Everyone knows there is zero evidence of fraud , all of the legal challenges and thousands of affidavits were debunked.

Biden won the most popular votes in history in the most transparent election in history and police officers were murdered at the Capitol on Jan 6. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tadmjones said:

No police officers died as a result of violence

My understanding, based on news reports from around that time, is that one police officer died as a result of injuries from the violence and that some others died as a result of stress from the violence.  This does not necessarily mean that they died before they could be taken for treatment.

2 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Have you seen the video of Ashli Babbit

In the chaos, there may have been a mistake about Ashli Babbit.  If so, the insurrectionists are responsible because they created the chaos.

2 hours ago, tadmjones said:

As to the whistleblower account , why or how should those allegations be followed up ?

We need to distinguish between Trump's false, baseless claims of a stolen election and any cases of incompetence that there is strong enough evidence for, especially if there is evidence the incompetence was covered up.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The officer whose casket was displayed in the Capitol died the following day from a stroke attributed to a preexisting medical condition . At least two other Capitol police members died by suicide not long after the Jan 6.

A female protester died at the Capitol but her family disagrees with the coroner’s report that attributed her death to an overdose of adderall. There is video and witness reports that claim she was trampled and pinned on a stairway , there is video of police clubbing her while on the ground and unconscious while people near by are calling out for medical assistance. I think two other people , though I don’t believe they were even at the area near the building died of heart attacks , which in a reported crowd of close to a million people is not statistically surprising .

No one was arrested for being armed and no one has yet to be charged with insurrection so that distinction is false .

Who is Ray Epps ? He was on video on the 5th calling for people to storm the building and on video of 6th speaking into the ear of the person who was the first to violently engage security and rip open a barrier. He’s been ‘cleared’ by the FBI. Several (if not all ) of the doors at the Capitol building have ‘mag locks’ which are controlled from remote security stations , who opened them ? Why was security so lax in the midst of heightened risk , practically all the agencies involved admit to knowing about the risk , but none have yet offered an explanation as to why or why not the security forces were not bolstered. There were a lot of competing factors that increased the environment for chaos to ensue.

The procedural challenges to the slates of swing states electors , challenges made publicly by sufficient members of the House and Senate , evaporated directly after the incursion. I think it worked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to go down a rabbit hole debating an ever-expanding mass of details about something that happened more than a year ago.  I'll bow out of discussion about the January 6, 2021 insurrection.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence of a stolen election, but there may be evidence of incompetence and cover-up of incompetence.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/13/2022 at 11:09 PM, Dupin said:

We have reached the point where being nice is ineffective against some injustices, such as “mandates.”  The truckers have the right idea.

These new fascists are basically psychopaths. Playing nice doesn't work with them.

On 2/13/2022 at 11:09 PM, Dupin said:

By the way, why insert a clip of Brook saying today is worse than years ago?  We need him to tell us that?

You're right. We don't need Brook to tell us that. I think Scott often wants to respond to Brook's takes. That's pretty much it. He sees Brook as representing the mainstream wing of the movement, so it's important to address what he says.

On 2/13/2022 at 11:09 PM, Dupin said:

So he [Brook] blathered on about how today’s situation is different, today it’s not a question of tyrants and revolution.  Well it is and it’s obvious.

We need to help others understand how it's a question of tyrants and revolution. I don't think it's very obvious to most people, including many Objectivists, because Trudeau and Biden don't look or act like Hitler and Stalin. This is the problem of soft tyranny that gradually creeps up on you. You grow used to having less and less freedom, until eventually you're perfectly comfortable doing as you're told. You don't mind having to wear a mask or show your vaccination card, because it's so easy and free to just go to the street corner and let some stranger inject you. The government makes it so easy to be compliant.

Edited by MisterSwig
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

These new fascists are basically psychopaths. Playing nice doesn't work with them.

Can you clarify which people this refers to?

6 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

We need to help others understand how it's a question of tyrants and revolution.

We also need to get it clear where to draw the line between rightful and wrongful actions.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/19/2022 at 11:03 AM, Doug Morris said:

I don't want to go down a rabbit hole debating an ever-expanding mass of details about something that happened more than a year ago.  I'll bow out of discussion about the January 6, 2021 insurrection.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence of a stolen election, but there may be evidence of incompetence and cover-up of incompetence.

 

I believe most state election laws require that election records be preserved for a period of not more than 22 months, so we won't be seeing any 'evidence'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

Can you clarify which people this refers to?

Let's start with Biden and Trudeau. In response to the truckers demanding the end of vaccine mandates so they can perform their jobs and live their lives, these leaders ignore the truckers' plight and promise further abuses if the truckers don't stop making a fuss.

Psychopaths.

Edited by MisterSwig
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

We also need to get it clear where to draw the line between rightful and wrongful actions.

If you agree that Trudeau and his regime are in the wrong, then the truckers have not gone far enough, because the people have not changed Trudeau's mind or removed him. Trudeau did not magically appear as dictator of Canada. He was elected and is supported by the majority of the population. Part of the truckers' battle is against the people. The citizens who make Trudeau possible deserve every minute of lost sleep due to honking, and every minute of lost travel time due to jammed roadways. Any "innocent" citizen is on the side of the truckers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave Goodman returns as our guest on the show to discuss the politics of Leonard Peikoff and how his thinking has changed over the last couple decades since he formed the DIM theory. We cover Peikoff's statements on voting for John Kerry in 2004, his immigration debate with Yaron Brook, his voting for Donald Trump, and his most recent support for the Freedom Convoy truckers, compared to Brook's objection to the truckers' tactics. Check it out!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, tadmjones said:

I believe most state election laws require that election records be preserved for a period of not more than 22 months, so we won't be seeing any 'evidence'.

There's already been plenty of time to look for evidence.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Dave Goodman returns as our guest on the show to discuss the politics of Leonard Peikoff and how his thinking has changed over the last couple decades since he formed the DIM theory. ...

About how Binswanger voted in 2016, the following is from “The American Spirit”:

Back in June [2016] Harry Binswanger published on his website the article “Contra Trump,” proclaiming to his followers  “I will either not vote, or vote for Hillary.”  At some point he made up his mind which of the two because the evening before the election (held November 8th) he posted to his “Harry Binswanger Letter” (HBL) a last minute plea for everyone to vote for Hillary.

Near the end of March of next year [2017] Mr. Binswanger posted a comment about the election to the blog of Robert Paul Wolff, professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts. Because he knew Rand personally he feels he can speak in her name (he has done this repeatedly – see his entry in “Who’s Who” on this website for another example). In fact probably Rand would have liked much about Trump, especially compared to Hillary. Here is what Mr. Binswanger posted, and recall that this is after Trump had nominated a conservative Supreme Court justice:

    “Rand (whom I knew well personally) would have loathed Trump. All the leading Objectivist intellectuals do.  I voted for Hillary.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

Trump is emotion-guided, which puts him fundamentally at odds with Rand's philosophy, and in a way that makes him very dangerous.

It sounds like textbook rationalism.  Sure, to some extent Trump is guided by his emotions, ditto here, but do you want to say he does not think?

Do you remember Rand writing that if anything saves America it will be her sense of life?   And isn’t – this is me now – a sense of life in large part emotional?  Though I wouldn’t attribute the best sense of life to Trump his is not bad.

(We are talking about 2016 and 2020.  For 2024 I hope Ron Desantis or Ron Johnson runs and gets the Republican nomination.)

Edited by Dupin
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...