Date: Wednesday, 16 December 2020 at 22:12
Subject: election fraud
Hi Henk,
I enjoyed our conversation this morning and am looking forward to more of the same next year.
This article, not from the MSM, comes the closest to capturing my views on US election fraud.
An Outside Look at Election Fraud
Regards,
John
| date: | Dec 17, 2020, 8:26 AM | ||
| subject: | Re: election fraud |
Likewise John
I read the article, and could only conclude that the guy’s views are completely evidence free - “there’s always been fraud and it never amounted to all that much” is not much of a compelling argument. That’s only good for confirmation bias for people who want a justification for thinking what they’re thinking – such as yourself perhaps?
Where’s the fact based analysis addressing the 100’s and 100’s (or is it 1000’s by now?) of falsifiable specifics in the 100’s and 100’s of allegations? And it can’t be debunking just of a few of the main ones - I’d expect that some of the allegations can (easily) be debunked, but cherry picking those isn’t going to disprove the allegations. What’s needed is a debunking of enough allegations so that what’s left can be shown to be insufficient to have made a difference. If the courts won’t touch that then I think I may be inclined to think that things are really becoming problematic.
So what is your view based on? A judgement call based on everything you’ve read and experienced over the years? Aka bias?
I acknowledge that proving a negative can be bothersome – just look at how much trouble Trump had with all the Russian collusion allegations – but dismissing it all is just going to be fuel on the “conspiracy theorists” flames. And rightly so in my humble view. Which view is not based on anything more than seeing 100’s and 100’s of detailed allegations – not (necessarily) enough to conclude that the election was stolen, but enough to conclude that they have a case that must be addressed. I want to see the cross examinations that convincingly put things in a different light. Absent that I’m (probably) going to conclude that the case (probably) stands (more or less) as alleged.
So, is your view based on anything credible? Or are you just showing your bias?
I expect that the case will be basically settled (for now?) by the time we talk again. Jan 6 Congress must certify the electoral vote, at which point Biden will become the official president-elect (as opposed to the media declared version). I say “for now” because if those allegations haven’t been sufficiently debunked then I expect that the last word will be far from said, and the polarisation of America will (likely) get (a lot?) worse.
All the best John. I wish you and Pat a great time over Xmas and New Year’s. I think we both wonder what 2021 will bring.
your friend henk
ps if conservatives in the US are suffering a big set back then I’m inclined to think they also may in Britain. Big developments the last 12 years seem to have gone in tandem, or at least in parallel: Almost a year before Lehmans Brothers’ collapse we had the Northern Rock collapse, that basically announced the coming sub-prime crisis, which was then well and truly confirmed by Lehman Brothers. Then in 2016 Britain went Brexit before the US elected Trump. Things don’t usually go in a straight line, and I think conservatives shouldn’t take for granted that things will continue to go their way (as guys like Steve Turley seem to do). I can fairly easily imagine that the system can pull off an election heist (if that’s what it is), and I can also easily imagine that in spite of all of Boris’ brave words the “system” in elite Britain will still have the last laugh for now and we won’t really be out of the EU’s clutches by Jan 1. He talks a tough talk, but what is actually happening looks ambiguous to me. Of course, I should mention that my expectations, even when qualified, don’t exactly have a great track record. We’ll know more by the time we talk again, but how much it’ll still be more of the same I’m not sure.
All the best, John
Date: Thursday, 17 December 2020 at 19:06
Subject: Re: election fraud
Greetings Henk,
And again, all the best for you and your family in 2021.
And happy 65th birthday. Welcome to the world of senior citizens. Millennials are now starting to become the dominant generation as baby boomers fade away, or get pushed aside.
What is up with all this talk about my biases? Are you claiming to be less biased than me? Are you claiming that your opinion is more justified than mine, that your knowledge is better than mine, that your sources are better, your research is better??????
Regards,
John
| date: | Dec 18, 2020, 7:49 AM | ||
| subject: | Re: election fraud |
Hey John
Of course I think that you’re biased. Just like (I’m pretty sure that) you think that I’m biased. I’m also pretty sure that both of us have a point.
But I have realised that I asked the same question 3 times. That was really unnecessary, and I’m sorry.
But my basic point still stands, or so I think. That was a low-info article that didn’t do anything to address the real issue. The issue is not that it’s the Repubs turn to be sore losers, though it may end up being that. But before that can be concluded “they” first have to debunk the allegations of unprecedented scale of voting fraud and show that it didn’t or couldn’t have made enough difference. You can’t just dismiss it because it doesn’t fit your worldview. Just like I can’t just accept it because it fits mine.
all the best, John
your friend henk
Date: Friday, 18 December 2020 at 14:27
Subject: Re: election fraud
Apology accepted, Henk. You have a better understanding of our limited ability to avoid bias than most people. Paradoxically, we all need to balance knowing that our being right is partially an illusion with the need for a worldview that gives us a sense of stability. We cannot go around always saying to ourselves I am biased, I am biased, I am biased... And we should be cautious of saying to ourselves I am right, I am right, I am right.
But my basic point still stands, or so I think. Yes and no.
Your basic point stands but your criticism of the article does not. It is merely an opinion piece which captures my opinion. It is not a comprehensive analysis nor does it pretend to be. So you are partly criticizing something that does not exist. Agreed, the article does not offer much. BJ Campbell is merely someone whose opinion I somewhat value because he is an independent conservative thinker largely uninfluenced by the MSM narratives. You probably have a bunch of thinkers like that as well that influence you.
As for something more comprehensive about voter fraud, but still incomplete, are the numerous court cases lost by the Trump camp since the election.
Regards,
John
| date: | Dec 19, 2020, 3:29 PM | ||
| subject: | Re: election fraud |
Hey John
Indeed I do
One of them is Andrew McCarthy at NRO. It took him a year or two to accept the FBI and DoJ shenanigans involved with Hilary Clinton’s email server, and then with the surveillance on the Trump team, but eventually he put all the pieces together fairly thoroughly. At first he was not ready to accept much, “these guys don’t do stuff like that, they’re professionals”. With the Muller investigation and the impeachment he had their number more or less from the beginning, if I remember correctly.
He sounds a bit like that now. See e.g. https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/12/a-stunning-passage-from-the-latest-court-rejection-of-team-trump/
where he basically echoes your point. Which makes me think and reserve my judgment. I’ve commented to Diane that with all these allegations there’s not much to show for it in court verdicts. However, there’s more than one plausible reason for that. Activist liberal judges and intimidated and/or never-Trump conservative ones would be among them. I haven’t see much solid merit in the court dismissals. Of course, I wouldn’t find that in the AmThinker , but I should in the never-Trump NRO.
I took you a while to see the bias in the MSM, so I expect it will take you a while to recognise the rot in the deep state and elite institutions. Which is not to argue that there was unprecedented fraud. We shall see, eventually. I’ve just seen too many numbers, graphs, sworn eye witness testimonies, state hearing summaries and other falsifiable specifics to dismiss it all as casually as you (seem to) do. And of course, our biases play a role, I suspect.
all the best, John
your friend henk
| date: | Dec 20, 2020, 11:49 AM | ||
| subject: | Re: election fraud |
Greetings Henk,
It took you a while to see the bias in the MSM, so I expect it will take you a while to recognise the rot in the deep state and elite institutions.
You helped me to see some things more clearly and I thank you. Also, Brexit and Trump in 2016 helped me to understand that something was very wrong with my worldview, something important was afoot that I did not understand, did not foresee. And the performance of Hillary contributed as well, a deeply flawed candidate who felt entitled to the US Presidency. You kept hammering away at me for being a secular humanist progressive globalist. All of this and more had quite an impact.
I almost never read anything from the NYT or WP anymore. At times I am disgusted with CNN. I no longer embrace a secular humanist, progressive and globalist worldview. I occasionally make myself watch Tucker Carlson on FOX. I now regularly read a Catholic conservative writer, an independent thinker. I occasionally read articles from NRO including Andrew McCarthy, and I was reading the National Review in the late 1960s.
Yes, there is a lot of rot, a lot of lying and manipulation.
But there is another way to understand the world. Everyone has a worldview and most people are unaware of its power. So I think I am free of the secular humanist, progressive and globalist worldview. And I remain free of the religious, conservative nationalist worldview. There are other powerful worldviews. Science is one. It is a very good worldview until people are completely captured by it, believing that truth can only be found through science. Both the Woke and Anti-Woke activists have been captured by their worldviews. Likewise with Extreme Feminism and Extreme Masculinism. Likewise with the Pro Corporate and Anti-Corporate.
So now I look for truly independent thinkers who deeply understand that it is not possible to be totally independent, but try their best.
The NRO and all who work there are part of the MSM. Only if you accept the NR worldview may you work there. From my perspective, CNN, FOX and NRO are all about the same, unknowingly held captive by their worldview.
Far more serious than the rot, which is bad, very bad, are those who are unknowingly held captive. Good independent thinkers are very difficult to find and are probably less than 1% of those who are trying to influence us.
Regards,
John
| date: | Dec 22, 2020, 8:13 AM | ||
| subject: | Re: election fraud |
Very good John
I more or less agree with everything you say. I’d have different emphases or perspectives, unsurprisingly, but no disagreements. The only difference I’d submit is not going to be a surprise either – it’s not whether your worldview is independent or not that matters most, but whether it is valid or not, in the absolute sense.
And thank you for sharing that. It would seem that I needn’t have been quite as discouraged as I became 2 or 3 years ago, that nothing I could manage to say seemed to make much difference. And I’m not even referring to you not being able to see what I thought I saw. It’s deeper than that. It’s about our inability to reconcile our views, which includes me not being able to see, or to agree, with what you were trying to say as well. And it gets complicated when I have to seriously include the consideration that I am also “deceived” in some areas. Not being able to sort all that was discouraging to me. Still is, but I am learning to accept it.
And I do thank you for your perseverance, because you’ve been instrumental in letting me see how much I take my worldview for granted, and see confirmations that aren’t confirmations at all, but just expressions of what I already believed. Or how sloppy I could be, and probably still am to some degree, in accepting” facts” or reasoning that fit my worldview.
all the best, John
your friend henk
| date: | Dec 22, 2020, 11:24 AM | ||
| subject: | Re: election fraud |
So, Henk, may I post this thread of emails on my website? These are good examples of meaningful conversations, particularly the last two exchanges. It will be interesting to look back on this a few years from now. I have learned that writing to each other is also writing messages to our future selves. Regards John.
| date: | Dec 23, 2020, 1:22 PM | ||
| subject: | Re: election fraud |
Yeah, no problem John
Good luck
| date: | Dec 24, 2020, 6:54 AM | ||
| subject: | Re: election fraud |
https://www.scribd.com/document/488495896/Navarro-Report
How much of this is made up, fabricated, mis-represented, and/or greatly exaggerated by sour loser Trumpers, you think, John?
Enough to keep dismissing it as sour loser moaning? Or might there be a case that needs to be answered?
Also, don’t you find it interesting that there is no rioting (except when antifa attacks peaceful demonstrations)? Do you still believe that (American) right wing excesses are just (about) as bad as left wing excesses?
cheers,
henk
| date: | Dec 24, 2020, 2:33 PM | ||
| subject: | Re: election fraud |
Greetings Henk,
Peter Navarro is someone in whom I have very little confidence.
Or might there be a case that needs to be answered?
Here is how I now think about the issue of election fraud, and about other issues. It has become ever more difficult to find the truth about most important issues. Issues are complex. It would be easy to invest 100 hours researching the election fraud issue looking at multiple points of view. If I did I would probably not be able to reach a better conclusion. And I am not willing to invest my life that way. So I take shortcuts. I look for independent thinkers who have no financial interest in the matter. That rules out most of the media. I look for thinkers who understand and are open about their own bias, no hidden agendas. And I look for thinkers with a worldview different from mine. And I build up trust over a period of years. Andrew Sullivan fits the bill and I have been reading him for at least ten years. So I respect his opinion on the matter. More recently, BJ Campbell seems also be what I am looking for.
BUT, is it possible that there was election fraud? YES. Is it possible that Sullivan and Campbell are wrong? YES. Is it possible that I am wrong with my conclusion. YES. Is it possible that you have a better handle on the issue than I do? YES.
Do you still believe that (American) right wing excesses are just (about) as bad as left wing excesses? Yes.
Here is how I now think about the issue of excesses, and about other issues. It has become ever more difficult to find the truth about most important issues. Issues are complex...
More significantly, these issues have become less important to me. The system is unsustainable. The system and the players, including us, are the problem. There is a widespread lack of integrity, or better said, a widespread lack of self-awareness. Few are not held captive by their worldview and most do not understand this about themselves. So yes, I think that the warring political tribes are about the same. I do not much care anymore whether the right or the left are a tiny bit closer to the truth. Both are far, far far from what is needed for a better world.
Peter Navarro is someone in whom I have very little confidence. But I cannot know his level of integrity. I cannot know what he truly thinks in the privacy of his own mind. I cannot know whether he is lying or not. I cannot know whether he is captive to his worldview or not. But he has done nothing to earn one iota of trust from me.
Regards,
John
| date: | Dec 28, 2020, 12:58 PM | ||
| subject: | Re: election fraud |
I’ve been reading and re-reading your comments below, trying to understand not just what you’re saying, but also why you’re saying that. And there’s a thought that occurred to me.
I think that the best way to phrase it is by putting some words in your mouth: you have no confidence that you can determine what is truth and what is error or lies. What that looks like from my perspective is that you have no interest in the truth of a matter – you avoid it.
That’s what I saw in your response to Mattie Friedman’s article in the Atlantic about the outrageous and blatant fabrication of “news” against Israel by all the main stream media. You weren’t interested. And you certainly weren’t going to let these easily checked allegations change your mind. You said so almost verbatim at the time (apart from the ‘easily checked’ – that’s my gratuitous addition ). I saw the same in your response to my compiled list of solid legal and historical reasons why Israel has an immensely better claim to Judea and Samaria than the Palestinians do. Even Wikipedia could have told you that I wasn’t making that up. Sure there’s more to it, and there are many counterclaims on this issue. But to then dismiss it all as “unknowable” is, …, well, fill in whatever you think is appropriate. And I see it again with these election fraud allegations. I agree that there is so much false information out there that it is not easy to sort out what is true and what isn’t. But what I see is that you’ve concluded that you’re basically helpless in sorting out truth from error, or not interested enough, and decided that you’re going to be (a fairly helpless) dependent on opinions from people who have become trustworthy to you, for reasons that are far from objective. And similarly, dismiss claims by people you don’t like, because you don’t like them. (Of course, I do that too, I will not listen to the BBC or CNN anymore. And to say that that’s for more factual reasons than your dismissal of this compilation of election fraud evidence is going to be unhelpful, debatable, and in the eye of the beholder, so I acknowledge that this discussion can’t go anywhere.)
But my main point stands – you avoid issues of “truth”, while I think “truth” is (almost?) always the very core of an issue.
If truth doesn’t matter – cuz that’s what your approach means to me – then what is left? Just people’s opinions that you for unavoidably subjective (aka biased) reasons have decided you want to listen to. If facts are irrelevant, then you can believe anything you want. And ultimately your world becomes a fantasyland.
How can you do that, John? How can you act like facts and truth are irrelevant? Ah, never mind. I’ve asked that before and you’ve answered that before. We’re back to our unbridgeable gap. This is just me not being able to understand you but still trying to make sense out of it. You’ll have to forgive me for not being able to just write you off let it go.
Btw, I agree that much “facts” are in the eye of the beholder. But that’s not a good reason to throw in the towel on being able to sort the main issues. I’m too much of a scientist to be able to dismiss the “facts”.
On a different tack: None of these allegations will be sorted any time soon. All that will be clear by Jan 20 is which direction we’ll be going in the short term. In the meantime things have become a little clearer re Brexit. From what I understand it could have been worse, and it could have been better. But we’re out. Sort of. That’s still a big deal. How much we’re actually out will also have to become clear still. Either way, I don’t believe that the fight between the progglobs and the tradnats in the UK is any more settled than it is in America.
all the best, John
your friend henk
| date: | Dec 29, 2020, 2:29 PM | ||
| subject: | Re: election fraud |
Greetings Henk,
Putting words in my mouth gives me an opportunity to respond but some of this is covering old ground as you note. Continue to be impressed by the effort you are putting into this conversation. It is very difficult for two people with dramatically different worldviews to understand each other. There are impressive initiatives of interest to me that are trying to do so.
Truth matters and it matters to me. I am interested in the truth and I do not seek to avoid it. But I think we differ on the effort required to get closer to the truth. The truth about election fraud is an important issue and just this morning I read the following:
The Top 10 Suppressed News Stories of 2020
1) Election fraud: It turned out that everything that happened in 2020 before Nov. 3 was just prologue for the greatest deception in American history — namely the hijacking of a presidential election through means both legal and illegal. Most importantly, every state that changed its election procedures without the consent of its legislature violated the U.S. Constitution. That’s why Republicans plan to challenge the Electoral College vote on Jan. 6. Whether you like Donald Trump or not should be irrelevant. You either follow the Constitution or you don’t. The fact that Trump increased his support in almost every demographic since 2016 and yet lost the election will apparently remain a mystery because the Democratic Party, with an assist from weak Republicans, is intent on continuing the charade that Joe Biden is a beloved elder statesman even more popular than Barack Obama.
As I stated earlier, it would take me at least 100 hours of research to get closer to the truth about election fraud. I am unwilling to invest that amount of time on this issue. It is more a matter of how I want to spend my time than the issue itself. I want to chat with Pat over coffee, exercise on my treadmill, work in my garden, read a book, Zoom with friends and when I run low in energy, spend time watching mindless TV. And there are at least 10 complex issues of interest to me that I would like to research further.
I saw the same in your response to my compiled list of solid legal and historical reasons why Israel has an immensely better claim to Judea and Samaria than the Palestinians do.
I see that you did not absorb the argument I made when we discussed this issue years ago so I will try again. Who has the most valid claim on Judea and Samaria, the Jews or the Palestinians, is not a matter of objective fact. In this case, there is no objective truth to find, only a case to be made. It is much like asking about Canada, who has the most valid claim on the land, the First Nations or Dutch immigrants like my father who bought a farm in Nova Scotia. On some matters you mistake my assertion that there is no truth to be found from being uninterested in truth. By the way, over the years, I probably spent more than 100 hours researching this issue.
But what I see is that you’ve concluded that you’re basically helpless in sorting out truth from error, or not interested enough, and decided that you’re going to be (a fairly helpless) dependent on opinions from people who have become trustworthy to you, for reasons that are far from objective. And similarly, dismiss claims by people you don’t like, because you don’t like them.
Basically helpless,fairly helpless? You make me sound like an idiot. I would probably be at around the 95th percentile if effort invested into building a worldview were to be measured.
But my main point stands – you avoid issues of “truth”, while I think “truth” is (almost?) always the very core of an issue.
As we have discovered in our past conversations, this is our unbridgeable gap. You think there is some fundamental basis for determining truth and I do not. You think truth, ultimately, comes from God while I think truth is a human construct. Thus you continue to seek truth. I came to a conclusion years ago that, for me, seeking wisdom was a better use of my time than seeking truth. What you look like from my perspective is someone with no interest in wisdom - you avoid it. I see no reason to value truth over wisdom.
How can you act like facts and truth are irrelevant.
Here you make a common mistake which I remember bringing to you attention in the past. You conflate facts and truth. Facts are always important and information presented as fact should always be accurate. But facts of a matter do not by themselves establish the truth of a matter. Facts as presented are a subset of some larger number of facts. Selecting and prioritizing facts cannot be avoided. Positioning facts within a certain context cannot be avoided. On the matter of election fraud, agreeing on which facts with what weight in what context would in itself be a big task.
I’m too much of a scientist to be able to dismiss the “facts”.
Likewise, conflating science and facts is a mistake, one I often see atheists making.
All that will be clear by Jan 20 is which direction we’ll be going in the short term.
We probably agree that in both the short term and long term, the direction is not good.
Henk, I would like to give you the opportunity to have the last word,which I would like to include on my website, after a tiny bit of editing and formatting.
Regards,
John
| date: | Dec 31, 2020, 7:35 AM | ||
| subject: | Re: election fraud |
Hey John
and good morning to you. A few more hours and we can say goodbye to 2020. I do wish you and Pat a very good 2021. But as one American wag said, “if you didn’t like 2020, wait till it turns 21 and starts drinking!”, meaning I’m not sure what will happen. Or like you said, we both think that for the foreseeable future prospects aren’t looking good.
Thank you for giving me the last word. But I’m mostly content to leave things as they are. We’ve both said things we’ve already tried to say a time or two before, and we’re both still imperfect in understanding, or even hearing, the other because what you/I say just doesn’t fit into our paradigms. What I’d really like to do right now is sit on a sunny patio with you and a good glass of suitable alcohol and leisurely and amiably meander through the various areas where we’re not that far apart. That would be a fitting thing to do on the last day of 2020. But that ain’t gonna happen any time soon by the looks of things.
One thing I’d point out on that patio is that we need to get our definitions of “facts” synched. You use them differently than I do. To me facts are small elements of truth. If it’s not (demonstrated to be) true than it’s not a fact, but only an allegation or a claim, or unverified “data” or information. A fact has a wider context, that can put a totally different light on it, but the fact itself should not be debateable, like I think you think. We can debate whether “it” is a fact, and we should, and we won’t always be able to agree whether “it” is a fact or not. Like you said, that takes time and effort that’s often not worth it. But to me a fact is something that’s accepted as true and becomes a valid building block for our paradigms. I think you see “facts” in general as just “information”, that may or may not be valid. Just like you think disagreeing paradigms can both be valid, so (I think that) you think that competing information is just that, with no overriding need to establish which one is (essentially) valid and which one is not, partially because often there’s no way to even begin to demonstrate whether it’s true or not, and partially because there isn’t even an inherent “true” or not involved.
You once said that you look at the big picture, not the details that I wanted to discuss. I agree with that, but only to a degree. Because a valid big picture, paradigm, should be continuously open to additional data, to be verified as “facts”. And if the “facts” don’t fit the paradigm, then the paradigm should be adjusted, or challenged outright. That’s a tall order, and most people aren’t able to do that, you and I included to a good degree. But that is essential if two sincere and honest and very good friends want to synchronise their worldviews. And I think that’s where we’re very different. You accept incompatible paradigms as OK - I don’t. You are noticeably less interested in “facts”, and therefor in the underlying information, than I am. I put a lot of importance on what I call “falsifiable specifics” – something that can be demonstrated to be false, like names, locations, dates, incidents, numbers. And if it can’t be or isn’t demonstrated to be false then it gets some credibility as perhaps being true. To me they are in a sense the building blocks of our paradigms, the smaller elements that we should be able to agree on. And if we can agree on those, than we might be able to agree on the corresponding paradigm(s) a bit better. Or so I once naively thought. Because left out of that equation is the overriding issue that our paradigms are ideological, with a deep seated subconscious foundation against which “facts” don’t have a chance. All we need to do to protect our paradigm and underlying ideology is to say that the “fact” is just a claim, and not proven, and then reject any submitted “proof” as inadequate. In our discussions sometimes I can’t even get that far, you only need to claim that it’s not important enough to spend your time on. The thing is that I can’t even disagree with you on that all that much, because we all have to weed out lots of stuff that just isn’t important enough (to us). Of course, the first things that get screened out are the threats to our paradigms, so it is a bit of a catch-22 thing.
And no, I’m not conflating science and facts – true science (eventually) evaluates all relevant data/information and when demonstrated to be valid said data becomes “fact” and is used to adjusts its theories, as opposed to dismissing relevant information as not important enough.
It’s your website that you want to put our discussion on – so I think that you should finish with your views on “facts”. Please put what (you think that) I just tried to say in a perspective that makes sense to you. That’s much more interesting to me (and other people, I suspect) than just hearing one person’s view (even if it’s my own ).
all the best for 2021 to you an Pat, John
your friend henk
| date: | Jan 1, 2021, 1:53 PM | ||
| subject: | Re: election fraud |
Happy New Year, Henk.
Thinking about sharing a drink or two on a sunny patio and reflecting on common ground is such a lovely way to pause our ongoing conversation.
Regards,
John