Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Reblogged:Will Independents Save the GOP From Itself?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Trump will not be sworn in again. Our destroyers understand it would be the end of them so they will not allow it under any circumstance.

The pearl-clutchers should start worrying about their much bigger problems, such as what course of action MAGA selects after the enemies of humanity murder Trump as they have explicitly and gleefully fantasied doing on television, in print and on social media, since 2016.

MAGA is inches away from following the enemy's lead of abandoning traditional processes. When that happens things will rapidly get very bad. It is going to be much, much worse than another 2016-2020. (Remember all the no war? Russia tamed? North Korea calm? Middle East peace, remember that? Abraham Accords? MUCH worse than all that! Clutch your pearls at the thought!! 😄)

After 2025, you will think back and wish for a hundred more 2016-2020s.

But, yeah, carry on, pearl-clutchers! Loudly support whatever it takes to keep him out of the White House!!

Edited by Jon Letendre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump’s primary attack on the American way of conducting elections was a threat, not an realized act of war. Specifically, illegally declaring (selected parts) of the constitutionally-mandated election procedure (the counting of electoral votes) to be invalid. This did not happen, and I can’t say that it was more than a rumination. He was defeated at the polls and that should have been the end of it. It is not important that he did not actually force Pence to implement his plan, what matters is that he even considered it in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, DavidOdden said:

illegally declaring (selected parts) of the constitutionally-mandated election procedure (the counting of electoral votes) to be invalid.

Saying the truth about our rotten election systems is illegal, now? Fucking hilarious!!

You want him and us to shut up, just stop talking, but you're going to regret it once he and we do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Saying the truth about our rotten election systems is illegal, now? Fucking hilarious!!

You want him and us to shut up, just stop talking, but you're going to regret it once he and we do that

It's fucking hilarious that you think I said anything even vaguely implying that any form of speech is illegal. You should learn to read more carefully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now "declaring" isn't "even vaguely" like "saying." Pearl clutchers are tedious in the extreme, aren't they?

Pence had the right to turn the results back. Doing so would not have been constitutionally problematic, that's just another piece of pure nonsense from the willful destroyers of our republic.

The constitution requires the VP to sign off on the results. This means the constitution allows him to question the results and send them back, otherwise why have the provision that requires him to review and accept results? That would be a meaningless rubber-stamp provision.

TDS sufferers will cling to any non-sense they imagine they can plausibly pretend to believe in.

Edited by Jon Letendre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the Democrats control the press and have (long since) rejected the idea of objective reporting, it should be borne in mind that they have motive, means, and opportunity to lie about Trump, exaggerate about him, take his statements out of context, and so forth. This absolutely includes lying about his personality and about his various alleged transgressions. I'm sure they would be perfectly willing to lie about it under oath, too, because they call it "their own truth," and they think, in pure primacy-of-consciousness fashion, that if it's widely enough believed, that makes it true. (They have also found that they can "make it true" by simply having one of their judges rule that it's true, without evidence and without cross-examination.)

As a result, I can't be sure that Trump is anywhere near as bad as they say, and I don't see how anyone else can be sure, either.

I am worried about the religious wing of the Republican party. I know such people actually exist. Peikoff even mentioned them in The DIM Hypothesis. However, I think that the overly religious people are a liability to the Republicans, because they drive people of other religions (or of no religion) out of the party. I also think Trump knows this, and this is why he has recommended compromise on abortion for electability purposes.

I also think that the Democrats have motive, means, and opportunity to exaggerate how much influence the religious people have, because they know full well that religion drives people away from the Republicans, and that's to the advantage of the Democrats. This misleads the religious people themselves into thinking they are more influential than they really are, and that, plus the fact that the Democrats are deliberately trying to poke the religionists to make them crazy, leads the religionists to make louder and more ridiculous demands, which only helps the Democrats more, even if only by turning would-be Republican votes into non-votes.

As a result, I can't be sure that the Republican party as a whole is really as religious as they say.

But we don't have to rely on the press. Trump and Biden both have actual track records. What were things like from 2016 to 2020 when Trump was actually President? I don't remember a dictatorship. (Although Roe vs. Wade being overturned was a low point and has ultimately led to chaos.) I remember the whole government bureaucracy trying to sabotage everything Trump did -- I remember them trying to impeach him because he caught Biden getting bribed by Burisma in Ukraine -- but I still think things were much better than they were from 2020 to 2024, when we did have a (Covid) dictatorship for a while.

53 minutes ago, DavidOdden said:

Specifically, illegally declaring (selected parts) of the constitutionally-mandated election procedure (the counting of electoral votes) to be invalid.

Yeah, and that would have worked, too, if those January 6th rioters hadn't barged into the Capitol and... oh, wait... Trump was supposed to have arranged that... but why would Trump disrupt his own party's rejection of the vote count? Hmmm...

(Actually I don't think it was illegal to reject electoral votes, and I don't think those processes are there merely to be ceremonial rubber stamps... in fact, fraud might be a good reason to reject electoral votes...)

Edited by necrovore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, tadmjones said:

not an attack in the sense you seem to mean.

Trump stirred up threats and harassment against innocent election workers, driving at least some of them to quit.

He also stirred up tampering with the system that made it harder for some people to vote and easier for politicians to interfere.

21 hours ago, tadmjones said:

As to orderly transfer of power, what did Trump do to illegally impede the transfer?

He stirred up the Jan. 6 insurrection.

 

21 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Trump's election opposition on the other hand congratulated the violent rioters through out the country and gave every public indication that further violence should be expected, tolerated and welcomed until their demands were met.

What violent rioters?  What indication of further violence?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny that there are more privately owned guns in America than people, about two million more every month, but the "insurrectionists" neglected to bring any to their attempted takeover of the United States of America.

Again, TDS sufferers will cling to any nonsense they imagine they can plausibly pretend to believe in.

Edited by Jon Letendre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Trump stirred up threats and harassment against innocent election workers, driving at least some of them to quit.

He also stirred up tampering with the system that made it harder for some people to vote and easier for politicians to interfere.

He stirred up the Jan. 6 insurrection.

 

What violent rioters?  What indication of further violence?

 

Harris was on Late Night with Stephen Colbert praising the actions of the BLM rioters and explaining how it should be realized that those actions would/should continue until they feel their demands have been met, you know basically how democracy works.

The show aired in March and in May and June the rioters were busy burning DC and storming government buildings , remember when they forced the Secret Service to move Trump into ‘the bunker’ , what a hoot, she basically called for it. She got 81 million votes too right ?

Edited by tadmjones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, necrovore said:

(Actually I don't think it was illegal to reject electoral votes, and I don't think those processes are there merely to be ceremonial rubber stamps... in fact, fraud might be a good reason to reject electoral votes...)

If this conversation were being conducted on generic social media, it would be contextually correct to think that the central issue is legality therefore prosecution and other legal sanctions such as ballot-barring would be the ultimate motivation for the discussion. But this isn't Facebook or Saloon, this is an Objectivist forum. I think I am sufficiently on record as opposing the conclusion that there was a clear violation of the law by Trump. What should be most important here is moral evaluation of his character, and whether he is fit to be president of the United States, given the enormous power (improperly) given to that position. Trump's (attempted) maneuver is sufficient evidence of his despotic African / Russian dictator style of governance, and he deserves condemnation for that. It does not follow from that that Biden is the better choice, we are basically scrod for the next term.

The vote fraud card is very dangerous since it is used by both winners and losers in actually fair but not 100% perfect elections in many Third World nations, and often leads to riots and in some cases military intervention. It's not a card that we should play lightly, instead we should grant that we lost, if "we" lost, and look to see what should be done in the future to improve the message to the voters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should acknowledge that I casually played the legality card in my previous post, which was irrelevant. I do think that his scheme was illegal, but that is only relevant in deciding whether he is morally fit to be the supreme law enforcer of the US, and in no way supports the existing efforts to prosecute of exclude him from the ballot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, DavidOdden said:

The vote fraud card is very dangerous since it is used by both winners and losers in actually fair but not 100% perfect elections in many Third World nations, and often leads to riots and in some cases military intervention.

The country is becoming so divided that there are likely to be riots regardless of who wins or why.

However, the "vote fraud card" is being used legitimately: many laws governing elections in some states are written not to prevent fraud but to ensure that fraud remains possible, like for example making it illegal to require that voters show ID when they vote (which makes it easy for one person to vote in-person for another person), or making it illegal to require that they show proof of citizenship when they register to vote (which makes it easy for non-citizens to vote), or making it difficult to remove voters from voter rolls when they leave the state, which causes absentee ballots to automatically be mailed to their former addresses, so that those ballots can be voted by someone else and mailed back and counted. (Not much is done to verify that the signatures match; the Democrats apply pressure that "every vote be counted" regardless of its legitimacy. You wouldn't want some poor slob's vote not to be counted because he couldn't sign his name...)

Of course voter fraud is still illegal on paper, but in the big cities, shoplifting and battery are still illegal on paper, and you can see what happens when the enforcement mechanisms against those laws are gutted, even though the laws remain on the books.

(This is not to mention those allegedly "non-partisan" non-profits which secure exclusive access to voter rolls on the basis of their non-partisanship and then use it only to the advantage of the Democrats. A Republican-leaning organization that did such a thing would be shut down by the government, but not a Democrat-leaning one.)

There are UN agencies and such that issue guidance (information) to third-world countries about how to run fair elections which would have credible results for the people living there. (Not to mention those of other countries...) Laws like the ones above actually violate this guidance. There are also other countries that have democratic elections without these problems. In Europe, for example, you have to have a government-issued ID to vote, and mail-in ballots are illegal.

So the problem is that fraud is already baked into the system. This does not mean Trump is guaranteed to lose, but it does mean he will have to get a super-majority, maybe 60% of the vote, in order to look like he has gotten 51%. So he would do better not to drive away independents.

Edited by necrovore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elon Musk on X: "Biden’s strategy is very simple: 1. Get as many illegals in the country as possible. 2. Legalize them to create a permanent majority – a one-party state. That is why they are encouraging so much illegal immigration. Simple, yet effective. https://t.co/B9M5ypUOQB" / X (twitter.com)

Elon Musk, 2/2/24, "Biden’s strategy is very simple: 1. Get as many illegals in the country as possible. 2. Legalize them to create a permanent majority – a one-party state. That is why they are encouraging so much illegal immigration. Simple, yet effective."

Edited by Jon Letendre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that really sticks out to me is that in my experience with leftists, Trump haters, democrats, liberals, they never, and I mean never, bring facts to me that I didn't already know about.

Whereas they are constantly responding to me with "what? I never heard that. You think that's true? Where could I look into that?" LATER: "OK, so it is true, but so what?" This happens to me over and over and over. They can't immediately see the SO WHAT because of SO MUCH more they don't know about, but good luck explaining any that to one of them.

They are not informed.

AND THAT'S OK.

But why they won't take the responsible and logical next step of not voting I truly don't understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

Can you be more specific about what Harris said and what the BLM people did?

 

The interview is available on the greater webs, and there was a lot of commentary on her statements at the time. Do you not remember the kerfuffle or were you never aware ? It was around the same time she was personally promoting the idea for people to donate to fund bail for rioters that were arrested in places like Kenosha.

As to what the rioters were doing? Are you honestly asking because you are unaware of the actions or is it you disagree with the characterization?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Elon Musk on X: "In the “bet-you-didn’t-know” category, Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas issued written guidance making it clear that: 1. Illegal presence alone is not grounds for deportation. 2. Criminal charges, convictions or gang membership alone are not enough for deportation. You…" / X (twitter.com)

 

Elon Musk, 2/3/24:

In the “bet-you-didn’t-know” category, Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas issued written guidance making it clear that: 1. Illegal presence alone is not grounds for deportation. 2. Criminal charges, convictions or gang membership alone are not enough for deportation. You basically have to be a convicted axe murderer to be deported! That’s because every deportation is a lost vote.

·
1.6M
Views
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

I found something in which Harris was clearly supporting peaceful protesters, not rioters.  Why do you say she was supporting rioters?

 

Oh , you see the BLM ‘thing’ as a legitimate organic movement. Yeah in that frame you’re correct she is legitimately supporting only the peaceful protesters, my bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/2/2024 at 1:22 PM, necrovore said:

Since the Democrats control the press and have (long since) rejected the idea of objective reporting, it should be borne in mind that they have motive, means, and opportunity to lie about Trump, exaggerate about him, take his statements out of context, and so forth. . . .

They certainly do replay on and on statements of Trump's taken out of context, and these are easily spotted. After all, we are not confined to television or radio. We can look up full remarks on the internet. Television does de-contexting with Trump's remark about being dictator for his first day in office. Serious business instead requires looking into specific plans he and his campaign team have lain out for what he would direct being done during his coming administration (assuming the practical conditions that he gets the nomination, gets more electoral votes than his Democratic opponent, and then does not have his actual edicts among those proposed overruled by the judiciary). We should look also into what "emergency powers" the Executive has; that facility is a regular step in states that have transitioned from democratic republic to dictatorship.

As opposed to much of the political talk on television, we should take seriously the charges of prosecutors and the verdicts of juries or judges. Prosecution wins so often in the cases they bring, even with procedure stacked so heavily in favor of the accused, because prosecutors select for prosecution only cases which, with the evidence they have, are highly likely to result in conviction. Trump has been adjudicated in a civil trial to have committed a rape. That is something to be taken more seriously than mere allegations or talk on partisan television.

It is not objective and not credible that every time a judge or jury rules against one's favored candidate or Party (what some of the Party imagines would be in the Party's interest) the decision was made due to outside pressure or bribery or political preferences. A judge recently ruled in Illinois that keeping Trump's name off the Primary ballot would be unconstitutional. To pass off the decision as simply favoritism towards Trump is not rational. The rule of law in this country is not a joke, not a farce, and not comprehensible to those who would rather talk about people than the ideas and reasoning in our legal system. Again, the most important case before the US Supreme Court last year halted a Republican Party effort to have State Legislatures have more power in deciding election outcomes.* Passing off the Court decision to the Court being against success of the Republican party would be plum ignorant.

6 hours ago, necrovore said:

The country is becoming so divided that there are likely to be riots regardless of who wins or why.

. . .

I don't think so. It seems there must be a focal event (such as the murder of MLK) or violence organized by organizations with a specific civil-disobedience or resistance-to-government purpose, focused by its leadership for a particular date of gathering (such as busting into the Capitol and busting its security staff on 6 January 2021, and a lot of those criminals are locked up, unavailable for a rerun). In a speech in Waco several months ago, candidate Trump urged supportive population in general to gather in New York on a court date he had coming up—gather and  protest the legal proceedings against him or anyway such was going to happen spontaneously and with violence. Few, if any, showed in the street. Relatively few had shown up at his inauguration (I imagine too many were too frail with age for that sort of assembly.) Even with a Presidential candidate himself advocating or rationalizing or predicting violence over an unfavorable election outcome, I'd bet a Coke there will be civil order. Pro-Choice and anti-abortionists were vehemently opposed across decades, but there were only a few acts of violence (arson of abortion clinics). Overwhelmingly, people will stay here in this country and not commit violence, even under law they rate as highly unjust, to have a peaceful place under law to live.

Edited by Boydstun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Boydstun said:

to have a peaceful place under law to live.

Tens of millions in the US, billions around the globe, feel that they're not getting that, and never will.

Look at the unrest in Europe at this moment.

Your prediction of continuing countenance and peace has been rather reliable in the past but things are changing in radical, fundamental ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Boydstun said:

Trump has been adjudicated in a civil trial to have committed a rape.

Because the standard of proof is lower in civil trials -- "preponderance of the evidence" instead of "beyond a reasonable doubt."

You may remember they found no shortage of people who were "raped" by Kavanaugh, too. Or by Julian Assange. Or by Russell Brand. Anybody who is inconvenient to the government.

The law under which Trump was convicted had been modified recently in order to make convictions like that possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a preposterous insult to Donald Trump's very person to suggest he would go near that gross woman. He accessed professional models his whole life, the notion is ridiculous.

Stuff like that has only infuriated his supporters. No one buys it and they are getting less and less likely to object at all to the coming irregular repercussions. They are becoming more and more convinced those irregular repercussions are necessary and unavoidable -- that's what all the fraudulent attacks on him have accomplished and are accomplishing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, necrovore said:

Because the standard of proof is lower in civil trials -- "preponderance of the evidence" instead of "beyond a reasonable doubt."

You may remember they found no shortage of people who were "raped" by Kavanaugh, too. Or by Julian Assange. Or by Russell Brand. Anybody who is inconvenient to the government.

The law under which Trump was convicted had been modified recently in order to make convictions like that possible.

By modification, do you mean a special exemption was applied to the statute of limitations involving sexual crimes , but that the extension was ‘sun setted’ or that after this calendar year the limitations are to be reimposed?

And if this is that situation , then the victim in this case was if not instrumental at least involved in lobbying the New York legislatures to implement the exemptions. She is basically a hero citizen!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Tens of millions in the US, billions around the globe, feel that they're not getting that, and never will.

Look at the unrest in Europe at this moment.

Your prediction of continuing countenance and peace has been rather reliable in the past but things are changing in radical, fundamental ways.

How much longer do you suppose we can we expect this ignorant, alt-right, anti-immigration racist to choose non-violence for the sake of his "peaceful place under law to live"?

 

 

Edited by Jon Letendre
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...