Quote of the Day: Conspiracy or Incompetence?

 

“Whenever you’re faced with an explanation of what’s going on in Washington, the choice between incompetence and conspiracy, always choose incompetence.”  — Charles Krauthammer

I still miss him. Charles Krauthammer was able to observe the political landscape with savvy and insight, and often nailed the Washington scene accordingly. But when I read this quotation, I wondered if Charles would make the same observation, given the events of the last five to ten years.

I think today he would come to a different conclusion.

Instead, he would likely say that rather than choose between incompetence and conspiracy, an astute observer would need to say that both incompetence and conspiracy apply.

A person wouldn’t have to go far to recognize that several events, to be described accurately, would include both attributes:

  • The Russian hoax—clearly the plans of the FBI were insidious and lawless—a conspiracy extraordinaire—but the sloppiness of their efforts has also damaged the agency’s reputation forever.
  • Hillary’s efforts to take down Trump were baked into the conspiracy pie, and her explanation for covering her deletion of 30,000 emails was laughable.
  • The Great Reset continues to proceed in the background, with the international set conspiring with our own elites(so to speak), already wreaking havoc on our economy.
  • Modern monetary theory (MMT) is lauded as the most progressive approach to managing the economy, defying reason and common sense, while its proponents continue to defend it with misguided hopes, expectations, and dreams.
  • Marxism is raising its ugly head again (called only “socialism”), pushed by the elites in their attempt to control society, while choosing to ignore the disastrous results of the Marxist agenda in the past.
  • COVID-19 management has been a farce, as Washington bureaucrats bumbled and stumbled in their efforts to figure out how to protect the population, yet using strategies that are obvious attempts to increase their control over our citizens.
  • The commission investigating the January 6 “insurrection” is an embarrassment to anyone who knows what actually happened. This group is conspiring to ensure that Donald Trump is punished for having been our President, and they are dragging out their investigation with irrelevant interviews of people, just to smear as many people as they can along the way. Their efforts are an insult to our country and the world.

The list could be much, much longer, but it’s clear to me that we are governed by ignorant and incompetent bureaucrats who have exaggerated views of their own competence, and who are determined to unite in an effort to destroy the freedoms that we treasure.

What do you think of my analysis?

Feel free to add to the list!

Published in Group Writing
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 201 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    The laws? As adjudicated by?

    I don’t know what precisely that means, although I could name a court in PA and another in WI that would probably answer you.

    How about “As known by”? I can answer that question much more easily.

    Which court in PA or WI invalidated a sufficient number of ballots to overturn the results in that state?

    None did. They only said that the votes were illegally cast or illegally counted.

    Do you still want to know which courts?

    Yes, I would like to know the basis for the ruling. Did the court find the procedure by which the votes were cast defective in some way or did it find they were fraudulent? If the former, that doesn’t call the integrity of the election into question.

    There are scores of plausible election shenanigan claims, many of which are probable, and some of which are confirmed. Not all of them involve fraud, which is only one variety of illegality. These particular two in WI and PA involve illegalities that enable fraud.

    What technical definition you may have in mind for the term “integrity of the election,” I do not know. But I say: An election in which illegally cast or counted votes exceeded the margin of victory in just one swing state is a national disgrace.

    Now, as for this particular Wisconsin problem, you may go to this post and follow the links in the first paragraph to find which court. You can read the whole post to find an introduction to the problem and also to, if you are willing and able, join me among those who know about this illegality (with or without “adjudication,” whatever precisely that may be).

    As for this particular problem in Pennsylvania, it was the PA Commonwealth Court; you may go to my big post and do a Ctr-F search for the phrase “offer to vote” to find seven short paragraphs that introduce the problem.

    The integrity of the election is determined by whether lawful voters casts votes in a manner consistent with the procedures set forth for the election and all those votes were accurately counted.  If some element of those procedures are later determined to have been implemented improperly would not alter that.  For instance the PA Act 77 was passed in 2019 and changed the manner in which PA voters could vote by mail.  A court later found the legislature did not have the authority to make those changes but a constitutional amendment was necessary.  That defect did not affect the integrity of the election.

    • #91
  2. lowtech redneck Coolidge
    lowtech redneck
    @lowtech redneck

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):.

    No, our poisonous politics are the result of both sides catering exclusively to their base and the resulting purity tests each base imposes on elected officials. It is not the left alone that has made compromise a disqualifying feature in our politics.

    Hold up…you actually think the Republican party has been catering exclusively to their base?  I dare say the base views things quite differently.

    The Republican party has been ‘compromising’ (‘coincidently’ in the ways that corporate donors support, in direct conflict with the base) with the Democrats for decades, which has ‘coincidently’ coincided with the ascendance of woke extremism among the Left-almost as if such ‘compromises’ have emboldened a political opposition that, at its core, was never acting in good faith, and merely pursing a policy of incrementalism before their long march through the institutions empowered them to indoctrinate huge numbers of younger Americans, thereby enabling them to dispense with the charade.  

    • #92
  3. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Neil, the FBI sitting on Hunter Biden’s laptop for over a year denied you the information you needed to make an intelligent decision.

    That was a joke. Not the part about what the FBI was sitting on the information. The other part.

    • #93
  4. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Percival (View Comment):

    Neil, the FBI sitting on Hunter Biden’s laptop for over a year denied you the information you needed to make an intelligent decision.

    That was a joke. Not the part about what the FBI was sitting on the information. The other part.

    Nothing re: Hunter Biden would have changed my decision making.

    • #94
  5. Ed G. Inactive
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

     

    ….

    No one provided anything.

    So we are back to the defense of their attempt at collusion being incompetent.

    Or, that there was no collusion because there was no collusion.

    Indeed. Even if this were an offer to collude, does merely hearing the offer count as collusion? I don’t think it does.

    It certainly proves a willingness to collude with a hostile foreign power.

    Incorrect. You’re assuming that Trump Jr. thought the information being offered would be false or improper. You’re assuming  that Trump Jr. was willing to do something improper as compensation for the information. You’re assuming that Trump Jr. was willing to to do something improper in reaction to the information received. None of that is in evidence. 

    On the other hand, the Steele Dossier and Crossfire Hurricane and much else proves actual improper (illegal?) action on the part of the other side. 

    • #95
  6. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Yes, I would like to know the basis for the ruling. Did the court find the procedure by which the votes were cast defective in some way or did it find they were fraudulent? If the former, that doesn’t call the integrity of the election into question.

    There are scores of plausible election shenanigan claims, many of which are probable, and some of which are confirmed. Not all of them involve fraud, which is only one variety of illegality. These particular two in WI and PA involve illegalities that enable fraud.

    What technical definition you may have in mind for the term “integrity of the election,” I do not know. But I say: An election in which illegally cast or counted votes exceeded the margin of victory in just one swing state is a national disgrace.

    Now, as for this particular Wisconsin problem, you may go to this post and follow the links in the first paragraph to find which court. You can read the whole post to find an introduction to the problem and also to, if you are willing and able, join me among those who know about this illegality (with or without “adjudication,” whatever precisely that may be).

    As for this particular problem in Pennsylvania, it was the PA Commonwealth Court; you may go to my big post and do a Ctr-F search for the phrase “offer to vote” to find seven short paragraphs that introduce the problem.

    The integrity of the election is determined by whether lawful voters casts votes in a manner consistent with the procedures set forth for the election and all those votes were accurately counted.

    Good definition!

    Ok, so there was no election integrity in 2020.  Illegally cast votes confirmed the Biden margin of victory in swing states.  Probably at least five of them. But, to be more precise:
    –pretty good arguments indicate that illegally cast or counted votes exceeded the Biden margin of victory in AZ, NV, GA, PA, and WI;
    –courts have confirmed some of the relevant evidence in PA and WI;
    –some of the relevant evidence in PA, GA, and AZ concerns specifically Biden votes;
    –Post Office + DL data confirms some of the relevant evidence in GA;
    –and, while not of all these claims involve fraud, all or nearly all go a long way towards enabling fraud.

    If some element of those procedures are later determined to have been implemented improperly would not alter that. For instance the PA Act 77 was passed in 2019 and changed the manner in which PA voters could vote by mail. A court later found the legislature did not have the authority to make those changes but a constitutional amendment was necessary. That defect did not affect the integrity of the election.

    What now?  It was fraud-enabling, but we can set that aside. If 77 was unconstitutional, do you think 77 was still legal?

    • #96
  7. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

     

    ….

    No one provided anything.

    So we are back to the defense of their attempt at collusion being incompetent.

    Or, that there was no collusion because there was no collusion.

    Indeed. Even if this were an offer to collude, does merely hearing the offer count as collusion? I don’t think it does.

    It certainly proves a willingness to collude with a hostile foreign power.

    Incorrect. You’re assuming that Trump Jr. thought the information being offered would be false or improper. You’re assuming that Trump Jr. was willing to do something improper as compensation for the information. You’re assuming that Trump Jr. was willing to to do something improper in reaction to the information received. None of that is in evidence.

    On the other hand, the Steele Dossier and Crossfire Hurricane and much else proves actual improper (illegal?) action on the part of the other side.

    Receiving it from a hostile power would have made it improper.

    • #97
  8. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Neil, the FBI sitting on Hunter Biden’s laptop for over a year denied you the information you needed to make an intelligent decision.

    That was a joke. Not the part about what the FBI was sitting on the information. The other part.

    Nothing re: Hunter Biden would have changed my decision making.

    Leaving aside the President’s son being a crack-addicted stripper-boffer for a moment. Entering into shady deals with the CCP? Deals that they have even more details on than we do? Some large percentage of the take from these deals being set aside for “the big guy?” There wouldn’t be just a chance of blackmail if they did have that information?

    • #98
  9. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    The integrity of the election is determined by whether lawful voters casts votes in a manner consistent with the procedures set forth for the election and all those votes were accurately counted.

     

    Good definition!

    Ok, so there was no election integrity in 2020. Illegally cast votes confirmed the Biden margin of victory in swing states. Probably at least five of them. But, to be more precise:
    –pretty good arguments indicate that illegally cast or counted votes exceeded the Biden margin of victory in AZ, NV, GA, PA, and WI;
    –courts have confirmed some of the relevant evidence in PA and WI;
    –some of the relevant evidence in PA, GA, and AZ concerns specifically Biden votes;
    –Post Office + DL data confirms some of the relevant evidence in GA;
    –and, while not of all these claims involve fraud, all or nearly all go a long way towards enabling fraud.

    If some element of those procedures are later determined to have been implemented improperly would not alter that. For instance the PA Act 77 was passed in 2019 and changed the manner in which PA voters could vote by mail. A court later found the legislature did not have the authority to make those changes but a constitutional amendment was necessary. That defect did not affect the integrity of the election.

    What now? It was fraud-enabling, but we can set that aside. If 77 was unconstitutional, do you think 77 was still legal?

    “Illegally cast” does not necessarily invalidate a ballot.  A voter who follows the state defined procedures to cast his ballot is not disenfranchised if some element of those procedures is legally defective.

    Act 77 did not enable fraud because it was enacted by the legislature rather than by constitutional amendment and the remedy for it being improperly enacted is not to invalidate the votes cast in the manner it lays out.

    • #99
  10. Ed G. Inactive
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

     

    ….

    No one provided anything.

    So we are back to the defense of their attempt at collusion being incompetent.

    Or, that there was no collusion because there was no collusion.

    Indeed. Even if this were an offer to collude, does merely hearing the offer count as collusion? I don’t think it does.

    It certainly proves a willingness to collude with a hostile foreign power.

    Incorrect. You’re assuming that Trump Jr. thought the information being offered would be false or improper. You’re assuming that Trump Jr. was willing to do something improper as compensation for the information. You’re assuming that Trump Jr. was willing to to do something improper in reaction to the information received. None of that is in evidence.

    On the other hand, the Steele Dossier and Crossfire Hurricane and much else proves actual improper (illegal?) action on the part of the other side.

    Receiving it from a hostile power would have made it improper.

    Why would it be improper to receive information if that information were true?

    Why would it be improper to receive information if nothing improper were done as a result of that information?

    Was Russia actually a hostile power at the time? I guess it depends on how you define that term. 

    Finally, as I said earlier: I can go along with your ultra strict judgement on political dirty dealing. I will not go along with one-sided, bad faith application of the rules though. The Russia Collusion hoax itself was actual improper/illegal action out in the open which was overlooked and justified by pointing to alleged and actually non-existent collusion on the part of Trump. 

    • #100
  11. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

     

    ….

    No one provided anything.

    So we are back to the defense of their attempt at collusion being incompetent.

    Or, that there was no collusion because there was no collusion.

    Indeed. Even if this were an offer to collude, does merely hearing the offer count as collusion? I don’t think it does.

    It certainly proves a willingness to collude with a hostile foreign power.

    Incorrect. You’re assuming that Trump Jr. thought the information being offered would be false or improper. You’re assuming that Trump Jr. was willing to do something improper as compensation for the information. You’re assuming that Trump Jr. was willing to to do something improper in reaction to the information received. None of that is in evidence.

    On the other hand, the Steele Dossier and Crossfire Hurricane and much else proves actual improper (illegal?) action on the part of the other side.

    Receiving it from a hostile power would have made it improper.

    Why would it be improper to receive information if that information were true?

    Why would it be improper to receive information if nothing improper were done as a result of that information?

    Was Russia actually a hostile power at the time? I guess it depends on how you define that term.

    Finally, as I said earlier: I can go along with your ultra strict judgement on political dirty dealing. I will not go along with one-sided, bad faith application of the rules though. The Russia Collusion hoax itself was actual improper/illegal action out in the open which was overlooked and justified by pointing to alleged and actually non-existent collusion on the part of Trump.

    For the same reason we do not allow foreign citizens, let alone foreign governments to contribute to political campaigns. 

    • #101
  12. Ed G. Inactive
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    The integrity of the election is determined by whether lawful voters casts votes in a manner consistent with the procedures set forth for the election and all those votes were accurately counted.

    Good definition!

    Ok, so there was no election integrity in 2020. Illegally cast votes confirmed the Biden margin of victory in swing states. Probably at least five of them. But, to be more precise:
    –pretty good arguments indicate that illegally cast or counted votes exceeded the Biden margin of victory in AZ, NV, GA, PA, and WI;
    –courts have confirmed some of the relevant evidence in PA and WI;
    –some of the relevant evidence in PA, GA, and AZ concerns specifically Biden votes;
    –Post Office + DL data confirms some of the relevant evidence in GA;
    –and, while not of all these claims involve fraud, all or nearly all go a long way towards enabling fraud.

    If some element of those procedures are later determined to have been implemented improperly would not alter that. For instance the PA Act 77 was passed in 2019 and changed the manner in which PA voters could vote by mail. A court later found the legislature did not have the authority to make those changes but a constitutional amendment was necessary. That defect did not affect the integrity of the election.

    What now? It was fraud-enabling, but we can set that aside. If 77 was unconstitutional, do you think 77 was still legal?

    “Illegally cast” does not necessarily invalidate a ballot. A voter who follows the state defined procedures to cast his ballot is not disenfranchised if some element of those procedures is legally defective.

    Act 77 did not enable fraud because it was enacted by the legislature rather than by constitutional amendment and the remedy for it being improperly enacted is not to invalidate the votes cast in the manner it lays out.

    You’re moving the goal post. Perhaps those specific voters in that one instance themselves did nothing wrong in casting their votes in what turns out to be an illegal manner that was nevertheless prescribed to them by the election officials. That does not invalidate the claim that the integrity was compromised. .

    You’re also getting hyper specific when St. Augustine laid out a variety of ways in which the integrity was compromised and a variety of ways in which votes were actually cast and/or accepted illegally other than the specific example of PA 77.

    • #102
  13. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    “Illegally cast” does not necessarily invalidate a ballot.

    Whoever said it did?

    A voter who follows the state defined procedures to cast his ballot is not disenfranchised if some element of those procedures is legally defective.

    Act 77 did not enable fraud because it was enacted by the legislature rather than by constitutional amendment and the remedy for it being improperly enacted is not to invalidate the votes cast in the manner it lays out.

    Indeed, that would not be the remedy. The only remedy is what I’ve been saying since November 2020: Know what happened, and reform to do better in future.

    But it did enable fraud since it enabled massive numbers of less secure votes.

    Now do you have anything to say that responds to anything I actually said?

    • #103
  14. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    You’re moving the goal post. Perhaps those specific voters in that one instance themselves did nothing wrong in casting their votes in what turns out to be an illegal manner that was nevertheless prescribed to them by the election officials. That does not invalidate the claim that the integrity was compromised.

    By Neil’s own definition, in fact.

    • #104
  15. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    The integrity of the election is determined by whether lawful voters casts votes in a manner consistent with the procedures set forth for the election and all those votes were accurately counted.

     

    Good definition!

    Ok, so there was no election integrity in 2020. Illegally cast votes confirmed the Biden margin of victory in swing states. Probably at least five of them. But, to be more precise:
    –pretty good arguments indicate that illegally cast or counted votes exceeded the Biden margin of victory in AZ, NV, GA, PA, and WI;
    –courts have confirmed some of the relevant evidence in PA and WI;
    –some of the relevant evidence in PA, GA, and AZ concerns specifically Biden votes;
    –Post Office + DL data confirms some of the relevant evidence in GA;
    –and, while not of all these claims involve fraud, all or nearly all go a long way towards enabling fraud.

    If some element of those procedures are later determined to have been implemented improperly would not alter that. For instance the PA Act 77 was passed in 2019 and changed the manner in which PA voters could vote by mail. A court later found the legislature did not have the authority to make those changes but a constitutional amendment was necessary. That defect did not affect the integrity of the election.

    What now? It was fraud-enabling, but we can set that aside. If 77 was unconstitutional, do you think 77 was still legal?

    “Illegally cast” does not necessarily invalidate a ballot. A voter who follows the state defined procedures to cast his ballot is not disenfranchised if some element of those procedures is legally defective.

    Act 77 did not enable fraud because it was enacted by the legislature rather than by constitutional amendment and the remedy for it being improperly enacted is not to invalidate the votes cast in the manner it lays out.

    You’re moving the goal post. Perhaps those specific voters in that one instance themselves did nothing wrong in casting their votes in what turns out to be an illegal manner that was nevertheless prescribed to them by the election officials. That does not invalidate the claim that the integrity was compromised. .

    You’re also getting hyper specific when St. Augustine laid out a variety of ways in which the integrity was compromised and a variety of ways in which votes were actually cast and/or accepted illegally other than the specific example of {A 77.

    Do you have instances where the integrity was actually compromised?

    St. Augustine mentioned court cases in WI and PA, best I can tell both of those involve cases where election procedures were changed by an official other than that which the law demands just like PA Act 77.

    • #105
  16. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    “Illegally cast” does not necessarily invalidate a ballot.

    Whoever said it did?

    A voter who follows the state defined procedures to cast his ballot is not disenfranchised if some element of those procedures is legally defective.

    Act 77 did not enable fraud because it was enacted by the legislature rather than by constitutional amendment and the remedy for it being improperly enacted is not to invalidate the votes cast in the manner it lays out.

    Indeed, that would not be the remedy. The only remedy is what I’ve been saying since November 2020: Know what happened, and reform to do better in future.

    But it did enable fraud since it enabled massive numbers of less secure votes.

    Now do you have anything to say that responds to anything I actually said?

    Then how exactly were those voters party to a conspiracy?

    It did not enable fraud as mail in ballots are not less secure.

    • #106
  17. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    You’re moving the goal post. Perhaps those specific voters in that one instance themselves did nothing wrong in casting their votes in what turns out to be an illegal manner that was nevertheless prescribed to them by the election officials. That does not invalidate the claim that the integrity was compromised.

    By Neil’s own definition, in fact.

    Um… no.

    • #107
  18. Ed G. Inactive
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    ….

    No one provided anything.

    So we are back to the defense of their attempt at collusion being incompetent.

    Or, that there was no collusion because there was no collusion.

    Indeed. Even if this were an offer to collude, does merely hearing the offer count as collusion? I don’t think it does.

    It certainly proves a willingness to collude with a hostile foreign power.

    Incorrect. You’re assuming that Trump Jr. thought the information being offered would be false or improper. You’re assuming that Trump Jr. was willing to do something improper as compensation for the information. You’re assuming that Trump Jr. was willing to to do something improper in reaction to the information received. None of that is in evidence.

    On the other hand, the Steele Dossier and Crossfire Hurricane and much else proves actual improper (illegal?) action on the part of the other side.

    Receiving it from a hostile power would have made it improper.

    Why would it be improper to receive information if that information were true?

    Why would it be improper to receive information if nothing improper were done as a result of that information?

    Was Russia actually a hostile power at the time? I guess it depends on how you define that term.

    Finally, as I said earlier: I can go along with your ultra strict judgement on political dirty dealing. I will not go along with one-sided, bad faith application of the rules though. The Russia Collusion hoax itself was actual improper/illegal action out in the open which was overlooked and justified by pointing to alleged and actually non-existent collusion on the part of Trump.

    For the same reason we do not allow foreign citizens, let alone foreign governments to contribute to political campaigns.

    Oh don’t we? Illegal aliens acquire social security cards and drivers licenses. They acquire voter registration too.

    Is information the same as money? I don’t think it is. If a foreign government gave a private citizen money and that citizen then contributed that money to a political campaign then that would be illegal. Maybe improper too.

    If a foreign government gave information to a private citizen then that citizen shared that information with a political campaign, has anything illegal or improper occurred providing that the information is true and that nothing improper was done to acquire the information or that nothing improper is done in response to that information?

    • #108
  19. Ed G. Inactive
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    You’re moving the goal post. Perhaps those specific voters in that one instance themselves did nothing wrong in casting their votes in what turns out to be an illegal manner that was nevertheless prescribed to them by the election officials. That does not invalidate the claim that the integrity was compromised. .

    You’re also getting hyper specific when St. Augustine laid out a variety of ways in which the integrity was compromised and a variety of ways in which votes were actually cast and/or accepted illegally other than the specific example of {A 77.

    Do you have instances where the integrity was actually compromised?

    St. Augustine mentioned court cases in WI and PA, best I can tell both of those involve cases where election procedures were changed by an official other than that which the law demands just like PA Act 77.

    Those are instances of actually compromised integrity. As are the other links he provided. 

    • #109
  20. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):
    Do you have instances where the integrity was actually compromised?

    Can you set the standards any higher? Do you need to see the death certificates of all the dead people voting in Cook County?

    • #110
  21. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Do you have instances where the integrity was actually compromised?

    St. Augustine mentioned court cases in WI and PA, best I can tell both of those involve cases where election procedures were changed by an official other than that which the law demands just like PA Act 77.

    Votes were cast or counted in violation of the law. That meets your definition of election integrity being compromised.

    • #111
  22. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Do you have instances where the integrity was actually compromised?

    St. Augustine mentioned court cases in WI and PA, best I can tell both of those involve cases where election procedures were changed by an official other than that which the law demands just like PA Act 77.

    Votes were cast or counted in violation of the law. That meets your definition of election integrity being compromised.

    No, it doesn’t.

    • #112
  23. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Percival (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):
    Do you have instances where the integrity was actually compromised?

    Can you set the standards any higher? Do you need to see the death certificates of all the dead people voting in Cook County?

    Normally charges require evidence.

    • #113
  24. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Then how exactly were those voters party to a conspiracy?

    Did someone say they were?

    I didn’t.  You’re straw-manning me.  I said they were illegally cast or counted votes.  What I said about conspiring/networking/other verbbing was different.

    It did not enable fraud as mail in ballots are not less secure.

    As Dogbert said, “I respectfully decline the invitation to join your hallucination.”  This used to be common knowledge.

    • #114
  25. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    You’re moving the goal post. Perhaps those specific voters in that one instance themselves did nothing wrong in casting their votes in what turns out to be an illegal manner that was nevertheless prescribed to them by the election officials. That does not invalidate the claim that the integrity was compromised. .

    You’re also getting hyper specific when St. Augustine laid out a variety of ways in which the integrity was compromised and a variety of ways in which votes were actually cast and/or accepted illegally other than the specific example of {A 77.

    Do you have instances where the integrity was actually compromised?

    St. Augustine mentioned court cases in WI and PA, best I can tell both of those involve cases where election procedures were changed by an official other than that which the law demands just like PA Act 77.

    Those are instances of actually compromised integrity. As are the other links he provided.

    No, they are not.  A change in voting procedure due to an action by the secretary of state or governor rather than the state legislature does not compromise integrity.

    • #115
  26. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Do you have instances where the integrity was actually compromised?

    St. Augustine mentioned court cases in WI and PA, best I can tell both of those involve cases where election procedures were changed by an official other than that which the law demands just like PA Act 77.

    Votes were cast or counted in violation of the law. That meets your definition of election integrity being compromised.

    No, it doesn’t.

    Is it only armed robbery if I take all your money? If I leave you with five bucks and that cheap watch, are we good?

    • #116
  27. Ed G. Inactive
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Susan Quinn:

    “Whenever you’re faced with an explanation of what’s going on in Washington, the choice between incompetence and conspiracy, always choose incompetence.”  — Charles Krauthammer

    I still miss him. Charles Krauthammer was able to observe the political landscape with savvy and insight, and often nailed the Washington scene accordingly. But when I read this quotation, I wondered if Charles would make the same observation, given the events of the last five to ten years.

    I think today he would come to a different conclusion.

    Instead, he would likely say that rather than choose between incompetence and conspiracy, an astute observer would need to say that both incompetence and conspiracy apply.

    A person wouldn’t have to go far to recognize that several events, to be described accurately, would include both attributes:

    Susan, back to your point. I agree that we regularly see a combination of timidity, incompetence, and fakery. I think the last includes malicious behavior, but perhaps it doesn’t go far enough to include illegal or improper actions. As I suggested earlier, repeated incompetence becomes a choice at some point, both for the perpetrator and the enabler. 

    • #117
  28. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Then how exactly were those voters party to a conspiracy?

    Did someone say they were?

    I didn’t. You’re straw-manning me. I said they were illegally cast or counted votes. What I said about conspiring/networking/other verbbing was different.

    It did not enable fraud as mail in ballots are not less secure.

    As Dogbert said, “I respectfully decline the invitation to join your hallucination.” This used to be common knowledge.

    You wrote in response the Susan’s request for more examples of conspiracies, “The 2020 election.

    Illegally cast or counted votes exceeded the Biden margin of victory in five swing states. Even the courts have verified that in two states.”

    Mail in ballots have been accepted as a secure means of voting for decades.

    • #118
  29. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Percival (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Do you have instances where the integrity was actually compromised?

    St. Augustine mentioned court cases in WI and PA, best I can tell both of those involve cases where election procedures were changed by an official other than that which the law demands just like PA Act 77.

    Votes were cast or counted in violation of the law. That meets your definition of election integrity being compromised.

    No, it doesn’t.

    Is it only armed robbery if I take all your money? If I leave you with five bucks and that cheap watch, are we good?

    What?  

    • #119
  30. Ed G. Inactive
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    You’re moving the goal post. Perhaps those specific voters in that one instance themselves did nothing wrong in casting their votes in what turns out to be an illegal manner that was nevertheless prescribed to them by the election officials. That does not invalidate the claim that the integrity was compromised. .

    You’re also getting hyper specific when St. Augustine laid out a variety of ways in which the integrity was compromised and a variety of ways in which votes were actually cast and/or accepted illegally other than the specific example of {A 77.

    Do you have instances where the integrity was actually compromised?

    St. Augustine mentioned court cases in WI and PA, best I can tell both of those involve cases where election procedures were changed by an official other than that which the law demands just like PA Act 77.

    Those are instances of actually compromised integrity. As are the other links he provided.

    No, they are not. A change in voting procedure due to an action by the secretary of state or governor rather than the state legislature does not compromise integrity.

    It’s true that the officials didn’t actually have the authority to enact the change. That in itself compromises the integrity of the lawful procedure. Inherently and on its face. Changes were made to the procedure contrary to duly enacted law. For only good and honest reasons, of course. Of course. Not that it actually matters to the point.

    The actual change enacted, though, compromised integrity. You might reasonably disagree with that, I guess, but terming the disagreement as out of bounds or proof of wrongdoing on our side or even of delusion about false lies about rigged elections – I won’t go for that at all. 

    • #120
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.