John Holbo Profile picture
5 Jan, 14 tweets, 3 min read
Trump has taught the Republicans that a level of bald-faced nonsense-on-stilts can be sold, beyond anything our politicians have heretofore contemplated. It isn't just Greene. It's every elected R who is even dipping a toe, which is most R congresscritters by now. 1/
The 'fraud' claims at this point are a tight, normative contradiction, roped to an empirical double-absurdity - not merely an empirical long-shot. Normatively, the fraud-claimers are keeping their options open as to which of two contradictory principles they wish to espouse. 2/
1) the principle that 'all (legal!) votes should count', and any mere formal technicality that stands in the way - like, yes, we went through the counts, and through the courts, many times - is not enough. We need ALL LEGAL VOTES TO COUNT. 3/
(Note that there is an internal contradiction already. You are insisting on legality while tossing commitment to the mechanisms of legalism - courts and counts. You are insisting on a supra-legal standard of 'legal vote'.) 4/
2) Or maybe they are standing up for the wild, total headstand denial of that very principle. All that matters is technicalities. We should be prepared to toss millions of votes on a technical dime, even if no one even suggests that they were not legally cast by real voters. 5/
You should not be able to advance a fraud claim while holding BOTH of those principles true. What makes it possible is, to recall an apt phrase, that conservatism is the view that the law protects some, without binding them, while binding others, without protecting them. 6/
If you don't, on some level, believe that, none of this makes any sense. And now on to the empirical level. Obviously there is, first, the wild 'maybe an evil demon stole the election' speculative quality of it. 7/
If you can imagine a scenario in which an evil demon stole the election, we should proceed on the assumption that this is in fact the situation. (I guess maybe this should count as an extra level of normative absurdity, a Cartesian doubt ought, but only applied against D's.) 8/
But moving on: you are now operating on the assumption that some malevolent agency had the power to - and in fact did - flip hundreds of thousands or millions of votes, by some means, we know not how. Maybe this wasn't just in the four states under contention. 9/
The only response if you believe basically all ballots in all states are likely to be fatally tainted, is to toss the entire election, up and down the ballot. All the races. But this only-possible reasonable response to the scenario R's says is actual is not even considered. 10/
So basically there is no possible world in which the R response to the situation makes any sense. I am amazed that MOST R congresscritters are proposing, in effect, that you can just capriciously choose beliefs about elections, including quite illogical beliefs. 11/
And the same is true on the legal side. There is this article II argument that basically boils down to the possibility of being hyper-sticklerish about electoral rule change not adopted by legislatures but delegated to courts or officials. 12/
Now this is radical. But let it ride. Then you have to toss all the votes in every state in which any such any changes were adopted, which is many more than just the four in question. And yet no one taking this Mark Levin line is even bothering to be threadbare consistent. 13/
As we come down to it, I am gobsmacked at how far through the looking-glass we are. R's are all 'but D's have challenged results!' But a comeback would be: but D's have never made multiple charges, all of which are obviously false/invalid in all possible worlds. 14/

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with John Holbo

John Holbo Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @jholbo1

7 Jan
It's impossible to focus on philosophy today but here's an ask. I'm doing a rapid fly-over of Augustine and Aquinas on my way to starting to teach history of modern. I can't spend more than a few minutes trying to give a 'flavor'. It's rather ridiculous, yes.
But does anyone has an idea what would be good readings from Augustine and/or Aquinas - I mean: 1-2 pages tops - that are extractable 'fun reads', also representative. I don't mean funny-amusing. I mean: students might get something out, small though these bits must be.
I'm going to touch on Augustine and that darned pear tree. But that's Augustine as autobiographer, on sin. Can someone suggest a short stretch where he is arguing, philosophically, strikingly. Maybe something about free will? The nature of mind? I really am not an Augustinian.
Read 4 tweets
7 Jan
So now we know what @scottjshapiro was REALLY up to, all those times he was light tweeting. Shame! Shame! 1/ reason.com/volokh/2021/01… Image
More seriously, this is not good enough. It's true Trump's Fed Society judges did not turn out mafiosi (as Trump hoped.) But the Fed Society has been happy to make Trump their vehicle - knowing who he is and what he is likely to do. Namely, something like we saw today. 2/
If the programmers running our little simulation were devising an experiment to test whether the Federalist Society is primarily committed to the Constitution - that is, to strengthening the impartial rule of law, rather than of men ... 3/
Read 16 tweets
5 Jan
I'm thinking of including this in my segment on p-values next sem. Lab-perfect example of p-values not telling us the likelihood that something happened 'by chance'. They tell, at most, relative to a model - in this case a suspiciously vague 'normal'. votepatternanalysis.substack.com/p/anomalies-in… Image
It is hard to think straight about such problems, partly due to absolute cosmic unlikelihood of anything, in particular, happening - rather than some other thing. When every event is unlikely - but aren't they all? - you get a sort of one-size fits all cosmic paranoid style .
What do people think of it? I mean: set aside that anyone beavering away at proving fraud is probably severely confabulating at this point, it seems like a nice example of garden variety crude analysis, showing how genuinely hard good analysis of this sort is. Baseline agonistes.
Read 5 tweets
5 Jan
I googled 'Kierkegaard pseudonyms' because I wanted a complete list of his literary alter-egos. It turns out Google has a 'nicknames' feature? It's true he was nicknamed 'fork' by his family. (There's a good story about that.) Was Marx 'Charley' to friends? 'Bento'? Image
Huh. Image
Huh. Image
Read 4 tweets
12 Nov 20
theamericanconservative.com/dreher/live-no… The 'live not by lies' crew collides with: people who won't stand for lies. Something's got to give.

What is actually going on in this little playlet? 'Concern about voter fraud among Democrats', as a response to Biden's acceptance, is ... a lie. 1/
And a disrespectful one. In the abstract, sure, somebody's job has to be worrying about voter fraud. But since everyone who has studied it certifies it cannot be - hence isn't - perpetrated at scale, all allegations to the contrary are, ahem, incredible lies. 2/
Now: suppose people on the other side - the leftists - are not willing to live by lies? As seems not unlikely. It's not clear what the punishment should be for living by lies, out loud, in the workplace, like this guy. Maybe everyone else should just roll their eyes. 3/
Read 14 tweets
12 Nov 20
The dynamic is this: Trump, for reasons financial, legal and personally pathological, is doing his best to trash the room - our constitutional order - before checking out 1 minute before noon on the day, while stealing all the bathrobes and small soaps. 1/
It is notable that the R establishment is, largely, letting him do it. Why? 1) they are afraid of him, since they are afraid of his base. 2) they want the joint trashed but would prefer not to do it so obviously themselves. Reason: they want the country to be ungovernable. 2/
Why? Because they have no plan to govern the country. The R's are a cartel for securing R power, which leaves no time out for distractions like governing. So they don't want to look bad compared to a party - the D's - that aspires to govern. The R's want it totally wrecked. 3/
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!