Sen. Rand Paul continues making false claims of 2020 election fraud
- Thread starter Charlemagne
- Start date
Sure. There's probably a more technical term for this.
No one is impartial. Everyon has bias. People have their personal experience, their preferences, their hunches, etc.
Being personally impartial is impossible.
What you can have is procedural, or structural, or maybe process impartiality.
You have professional norms that support transparency, checks from other people, review, and procedure that helps you adjust for your biases and even if you can't get rid of them, they offer the chance for other people to look and judge what happened.
Since we're talking law, this would include aspects like formal rules of evidence, the requirement for lawyers and judges to submit their arguments in a public fashion, where other people can read it. More informal standards like professional reputation and the desire to preserve the role society has given you (most judges take their role of being judges seriously) and so on.
Is this system perfect? Of course not. But it acts as a hedge.
Now, this hand waving about what people are talking about can be abused both ways. When people want to pretend judges and judgments can't be contested they imply that judges and the legal system is "just calling balls and strikes" and completely neutral and impartial. You could replace judges with computers in this system. When people want to pretend that all judgments they don't like are suspect they will claim that the whole idea of impartiality is a myth. (Which isn't really untrue, since the "balls and strikes" version is a myth.)
I'm barely on my first coffee since I've been sick, so I'm not sure that's been clear. Did it help?
What you are forgetting is what we are discussing. We are talking about judges at the circuit or higher level. Procedurally they may be exactly the same, but so what? It's a contrived argument, one that would dwell on the "procedural impartiality"- whatever that may be. What is crucial, and the only thing that counts, is the simple fact that judges will arrive at different conclusions after being presented with the same arguments and evidence, presented in the exactly the same settings. And that is a clearest evidence of their personal "bias". And to be polite I presume that their bias is a result of their approach to the reading and applying of the Constitution.
And so? If you have many judges coming to the same conclusion, and people reading over their arguments finding the reasoning sound, then you have a consistent result.
At this point, you have to argument systemic bias.
So what is your argument?
Is it that all judges are in on a conspiracy?
Is it that all judges have a consistent bias resulting in them all disagreeing with you?
You seem to want an investigation, but you also say everyone is biased and any investigation you disagree with can't be trusted, so what is it you want?
What is a serious( and I don't even say honest) investigation? It's an opportunity to examine the allegations. It's a look at the evidence, timelines, an opportunity to examine experts on all sides- under oath in the structured setting. Or we can "solve" this by using the commentators from Fox and CNN. The process is what counts and what will cause for the reasonable majority to prevail.
I think this maybe does a little too much credit to JC's post above, which simply suggested that ALL the judges (incl GOP appointments) are such appalling secret leftard traitors that they would deliberately ignore the fact that Trump won the election and instead deny him the win in order to betray America.
Crap like that simply has to be slapped down hard.
You want an investigation into judges because you think they are biased since every single Rudy G case was a total shitshow in court?
Or do you want an investigation into what Rudy said 'wasn't fraud' when he was on oath and not on Fox?
Or do you have specific cases where you think there was something wrong with the voting process and real evidence to back it up that Rudy and all of the GOP couldn't find?
You’re talking with them like if they were normal people. Let’s face it if any of us had a wife who is 25% as crazy as the republican party is right now and if you’re not dropping her as a bag of shit then you are insane and deserve whatever is going to come out from your cohabitation.
Variety of reasons. Most of them political. What Sen. Paul did was brilliant. He didn't say- the election was corrupt. He simply said that real or perceived irregularities deserve a closer look- a reasonable position for anyone fair minded. And then, of course, Rand Paul destroyed Stephanopoulos for taking a stand on the unexamined issue- an act of activism, not journalism. The end is that Stephanopoulos looks like a hack and Paul took no position, yet no Republican, whether he believes one way or the other, will ever fault the Gentlemen from Kentucky. Pretty slick.
Yes, "I'm just asking questions" is a time-tested hack maneuver. It's very effective because it is basically unfalsifiable.
I mean, if he was serious, he would propose an investigation. He's a fucking Senator. He can introduce legislation to demand one.
But he won't. Much easier to leverage the "We will never know!" since people won't check on whether or not what he is saying is true or look into the investigations that have already happened.
(Not gonna defend Stephanopoulos because Stephanopoulos is an empty suit.)
This is what passed for "journalism" on January 24, 2021 at ABC News. Tell me what's wrong with it. It also invalidates your assertion that Sen. Paul did not propose an investigation.
"Days after President Joe Biden took office and the Democrats took control of the U.S. Senate, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., would not unequivocally say Sunday that the 2020 presidential election was not stolen and called for an investigation of fraud, without providing evidence".
He's posturing though. He lied about Wisconsin in that interview. He isn't proposing an investigation. He isn't introducing legislation. He isn't saying what he would expect in an investigation or who should be doing it. He isn't discussing the investigations that already happened. His claims of wanting to protect integrity going forward and look into things that were done and improve them is belied by the fact he won't support S.1., which has provisions to do all these things he says he wants.
And, you will note, he did refuse to unequivocally say that it wasn't stolen.
No. You just don't know how to read. How is he suppose to say one way or the other while demanding investigation? And he won't support Pelosi's legislation because, unlike you, he actually bothered to read it.
LOL.
He could easily write up legislation demanding investigations.
He could specify what he wants investigated in light of what has been investigated already.
He could not lie about what happened in Wisconsin (and elsewhere).
He's not doing these things because he doesn't have to. Rubes like you will support him regardless.
here is more stuff that needs to be investigated! Every combination too.
Last edited:
Exactly why he can keep spouting nonsense that you will buy.
Because he knows nobody will actually do the investigations, which he knows would find nothing.
As Frank says.
He could bring it to the floor but then he would have to commit things to writing and he isn't going to do that.
If he really thought it was important, he could do his best to convince people.
He could highlight moves at the state level to investigate and lend his voice.
But... nothing. Just TV appearances to boost his profile.
There's a simple rule of thumb to follow - when someone is lying about the underlying elements, you shouldn't trust them.
Paul is lying about what is already known and unknown about the election, so his "I just want honest investigations" shouldn't be taken as serious.
He could bring it to the floor but then he would have to commit things to writing and he isn't going to do that.
If he really thought it was important, he could do his best to convince people.
He could highlight moves at the state level to investigate and lend his voice.
But... nothing. Just TV appearances to boost his profile.
There's a simple rule of thumb to follow - when someone is lying about the underlying elements, you shouldn't trust them.
Paul is lying about what is already known and unknown about the election, so his "I just want honest investigations" shouldn't be taken as serious.
