WAS THE 2020 ELECTION STOLEN?
Does the Pope wear a little white beanie?
Scroll down for an article from the Epoch Times - “Why I Still Doubt the 2020 Election”. In this piece the writer, who has many decades of experience in the political sphere, talks plainly about the propensity of the left - the Democrat Party and its sympathizers - to play the political game deceitfully.
The writer says:
"Unlike traditional conservatives and liberals, the predominantly secular leftists who participate in politics often don't have the moral training that comes with committed religious affiliation."
This is a kinder, gentler way of saying what I have long argued - the lawless, atheistic, treasonous Godless left - the Democrat Party and their running-dog (走狗) RINO fellow travelers - what this writer refers to as "secular leftists" - are unbounded by any traditional moral constraint. It isn't so much that they have had no moral training but have rejected what moral training they have received. In their supreme arrogance, they have repudiated the idea and person of God and all the moral framework and constraints that are attached to and flows from Him, including the God-based libertarian Judeo-Christian philosophy this nation was built upon. Indeed, they deem themselves smarter than God, whose existence they deny.
Thus, to them, there are no limits. There is no absolute truth, no moral right or wrong, no absolute standard of good or evil hovering above and passing judgment on humanity. Power is the only good, the only god, and, if you are better and smarter than everybody else, if you are convinced you know what is best, it follows that only you and your pompous Godless ilk deserve to hold power. Moreover, you are justified in obtaining and keeping power by any means necessary. All things then rightly become possible to you. Everything is justified in the noble pursuit of absolute power by those who alone deserve to exercise it - those who are certain they are better and smarter than the rest of us.
Accordingly, these power-hungry demons are capable of anything. Basking in their transcendent Godless conceit and overweening sense of moral superiority, they predictably will resort to anything to achieve and retain power. Stealing an election? No problem! Such a maneuver is probably among the more benign tactics these soulless traitors are prepared to resort to.
Though the writer of the referenced piece (scroll down) diplomatically hesitates to declare the 2020 election was absolutely stolen - having first made a convincing argument, he opts to straddle the fence - I believe a broad and intuitive perspective on the issue - especially considering the tell-tale, ad hominem reaction of the left to those who have raised honest questions about 2020 election integrity - “Election deniers! Threats to democracy!” - allows no other reasoned conclusion. As I have often argued in the past:
“The credibility of WHAT you see argued is a function of HOW it is argued. Find the truth in the methodology of argument. The truth cuts its own way and can be argued for in an honest, open manner that does not insult the intelligence of those it seeks to persuade. Deceit cannot be so argued.”
Ad hominem attack, broadly used by the left in today’s politics, is a strategy never intended to get at the truth but instead always to obscure and deflect attention away from it. Ad hominem attack is the clearest possible a declaration that the attacker has something to hide. No matter what the subject at hand, those who refuse to address honest questions raised, but instead launch vicious, personal ad hominem attacks on those who raise them do, at the very least, betray the weakness of their position and reveal their own awareness that they cannot honestly answer the arguments. In a world ever characterized by limited information - you can never know everything you might need to know about anything - and full of chaotic, cacophonous, contested opinions and arguments, if you understand nothing else but this dynamic, you have the basis for making a sound decision. Vote against the ad hominem attacker and you will almost always get it right.
Without reference to any such passé, pedestrian ideas as truth, reality, fairness, law, justice or even the sanctity of life, leftists will do whatever they think they can get away with in their pursuit of power and they will invariably attack ad hominem those who raise questions or oppose them. The more extreme the circumstances, the more extreme the measures they will employ.
Count on it. If you are understanding our current circumstances in America in any less dramatic and dire a framework, you are a patsy - part of the problem, not the solution - if indeed there is a solution short of the whole house being burned to the ground.
Right vs. wrong, truth vs. lies, reality vs. fantasy, law vs. lawlessness, order vs. chaos, light vs. darkness, good vs. evil, God vs. the Godless…
Step right up and take your pick, folks. Like it or not, you will…
If you can be fooled, you will be.
These are the times that try men’s souls…
Torquemada
https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/why-i-still-doubt-the-2020-election-5532586
EPOCH TIMES OPINION VIEWPOINTS
Why I Still Doubt the 2020 Election
Sixty years of political experience have taught me that secular leftists, unlike most traditional conservatives and liberals, often don't play by the rules.
A elections worker is seen in a November 2020 file photo. (Elaine Cromie/Getty Images)
By Rob Natelson
11/20/2023
Commentary
When I said in a TV interview that I didn’t know who won the 2020 presidential election, I was expressing a view similar to that held by a very large cohort of Americans. That didn’t stop two left-leaning news websites from targeting me last year with investigative stories. Why? Perhaps they were trying to get me hauled up before the House of Representatives Jan. 6 committee.
In American history there have been several contested presidential elections, including in 1960 and 2000. Some people doubted the certified results. But the victors either debated the doubters or ignored them. I don’t know of any election after which the victors excommunicated doubters as secular heretics—“election deniers.”
The establishment insistence that everyone sing the same tune about the 2020 election looks too much like “the lady doth protest too much” to be reassuring. I suspect that some of the election affirmers have their own secret doubts.
Secret doubts may explain why the establishment media so loudly denied any serious irregularities only hours after the election, before anyone could have conducted a serious investigation. Secret doubts may explain the haste to cite the failure of President Donald Trump’s courtroom strategy as “evidence” of the absence of problems—although nearly all his lawsuits were dismissed on procedural grounds, not on the merits.
Secret doubts also may explain the media’s insistence on referring to all claims of election irregularities as allegations of “fraud.” In fact, some of the most serious alleged irregularities weren't literally fraudulent. They fit into other categories of wrongdoing.
RELATED STORIES
Ballot Fraud Scheme Uncovered: 29 Felony Counts | Facts Matter
11/15/2023
How the Federal-Private Speech Police Operated in Election 2020: With Radar Highly Attuned to the Right
11/10/2023
Despite the pervasive claim that the 2020 election was the cleanest presidential contest ever, disturbing bits of circumstantial evidence simply won’t go away. Some bits are merely odd—like the fact that nearly all the bellwether counties voted for President Trump rather than President Joe Biden. Another is that President Biden garnered more votes than any other presidential candidate in history, despite his obvious political shortcomings and minimal campaigning.
Other bits of evidence are more weighty, and some of these remain undenied and perhaps undeniable. The shady influence of “Zuckerbucks.” Social media censorship. The widespread disregard of a constitutionally-authorized federal statute requiring a single-day election.
The Trump haters at Time Magazine summarized what happened in a post-election piece: “[T]he participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream—a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information.”
The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election
Admittedly, Time Magazine claimed this was “not rigging the election; [but] fortifying it.”
Sure.
At this point, I believe, it's irresponsible to claim categorically that President Trump won. But it's also irresponsible to rule out the possibility that he won.
Another element adds to my skepticism: Sixty years of dealing with the far left has taught me that, unlike most conservatives and liberals, they routinely disregard rules they find inconvenient, or, if they deem it useful, they change rules retroactively.
This is one of the most repeated, most confirmed lessons from my political experience. I first encountered the phenomenon in the 1964 Goldwater presidential campaign, when I saw normal journalistic standards suspended to ensure Barry Goldwater’s defeat. I saw it again and again in college: For example, just before participating in a formal debate as a proponent of U.S. support for South Vietnam, I learned that the agreed format had been silently changed to disadvantage my side.
The political word for the latter kind of conduct is “sandbagging.” It's not good form.
In law school, when we students thought the outcome of a case was determined by a rule we had studied, leftist professors admonished us, “Tools not rules!” In other words, rules control nothing; they're merely tools you manipulate for the results you want. The fancy word for this kind of amorality is “instrumentalism,” and it subverts the rule of law.
When I was active in politics, I witnessed leftist rule-manipulation with a vengeance. To cite just one example: In 1998, our volunteer civic group won a vote to amend the state constitution so the people could vote on tax hikes. However, the state supreme court was dominated by a leftist majority. In early 1999, the court changed the election rules retroactively to void the result. Yes, that did violate the U.S. Constitution—specifically Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. But rules are only tools, right?
At the university where I spent the majority of my academic career, as at most universities, leftists predominated. One year, another Republican and I were the only ones applying for tenure. Hence, the tenure committee changed the standards retroactively to lift the bar higher than it had ever been before. (Fortunately, we both cleared it anyway.) Similarly, when I made a course-change request of a kind always granted to others, the dean and faculty changed the rules retroactively to deny the change. I had to resort to litigation to win what left-of-center faculty members had been routinely granted for years.
To cite a more current example: In Colorado, where I now live, “progressive” state politicians lost some public votes cutting tax rates. Their solution wasn't to persuade the voters better, but to have the legislature change the ballot-language rules to falsely communicate that voting for lower taxes was, essentially, voting to close the schools and open the prisons.
The examples go on and on.
My point is that ignoring or changing the rules would be perfectly in character for leftists in charge of election machinery. Unlike traditional conservatives and liberals, the predominantly secular leftists who participate in politics often don't have the moral training that comes with committed religious affiliation.
Whatever the reason, it's clear that before the 2020 election, many rules were changed or disregarded to benefit President Biden and disadvantage President Trump. This renders it more credible that other rules were disregarded as well—such as those governing ballot collection, ballot custody, and ballot counting.
Historians eventually will write the full story of the 2020 election. There's no use pretending the outcome can be changed now.
But the conduct of that election tells us something about the civic virus that now afflicts America. And it highlights the need to assure that we don't repeat the experience in 2024.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.