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. Ed G. Inactive
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    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.

    Accepted by whom?

    The details matter too. Security is diminished if ballots are mailed even to those who didn’t request one; security is diminished if the drop off locations are insecure.

    Again, though, that isn’t the only circumstance he mentioned.

    • #121
  2. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    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.

    And then you say there isn’t enough evidence. And then you say that there is no way of knowing who got the majority of the illegal votes.

    • #122
  3. 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):

    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.

    IF it is true the official who made the change did not have the legal authority to do is an issue for the courts to determine.  The improperly enacted change itself is not evidence the integrity of the election was compromised in any way.  Regardless of whether a court determines the change was improper, the remedy for such does not involve invalidating the votes cast.  Ballots cast by legal voters in the manner prescribed by election officials are properly counted.  Citing such votes as a reason to question the results of the election is simply wrong.

    • #123
  4. 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):

    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.

    Accepted by whom?

    The details matter too. Security is diminished if ballots are mailed even to those who didn’t request one; security is diminished if the drop off locations are insecure.

    Again, though, that isn’t the only circumstance he mentioned.

    States across the country.

    Mailboxes are secure?

    He mentioned two court cases.

    • #124
  5. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Percival (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    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.

    And then you say there isn’t enough evidence. And then you say that there is no way of knowing who got the majority of the illegal votes.

    Seems like you are admitting the charges are baseless.

    • #125
  6. 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):

    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.

    IF it is true the official who made the change did not have the legal authority to do is an issue for the courts to determine. The improperly enacted change itself is not evidence the integrity of the election was compromised in any way. Regardless of whether a court determines the change was improper, the remedy for such does not involve invalidating the votes cast. Ballots cast by legal voters in the manner prescribed by election officials are properly counted. Citing such votes as a reason to question the results of the election is simply wrong.

    Yes the courts would rule on it, but it’s not magic or some incomprehensible language. Each of us can “rule” on it too. 

    We’ll disagree, but I think that improperly changing the procedure is itself compromised integrity. 

    • #126
  7. Ed G. Inactive
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    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.

    Accepted by whom?

    The details matter too. Security is diminished if ballots are mailed even to those who didn’t request one; security is diminished if the drop off locations are insecure.

    Again, though, that isn’t the only circumstance he mentioned.

    States across the country.

    Mailboxes are secure?

    I think those states are wrong overall. Sure, it can be secure in theory, but it’s too easy to be insecure in fact. Especially when the insecurity is built in. 

    I’m not sure what your point is about mailboxes. Mailboxes are secure if we can assume that the postal workers have no reason to mishandle the contents. We saw several actual cases of intentional mishandling not to mention the many cases of simply negligent handling. 

    My point about mailing ballots to those who didn’t request one was more that we can’t be sure of who is receiving, filling out, and returning them. Chain of custody is impossible, not to mention the increased risk of coercion or theft. 

    • #127
  8. 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):

    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.

    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.

    IF it is true the official who made the change did not have the legal authority to do is an issue for the courts to determine. The improperly enacted change itself is not evidence the integrity of the election was compromised in any way. Regardless of whether a court determines the change was improper, the remedy for such does not involve invalidating the votes cast. Ballots cast by legal voters in the manner prescribed by election officials are properly counted. Citing such votes as a reason to question the results of the election is simply wrong.

    Yes the courts would rule on it, but it’s not magic or some incomprehensible language. Each of us can “rule” on it too.

    We’ll disagree, but I think that improperly changing the procedure is itself compromised integrity.

    We have courts for a reason.  Reading a statute without hearing the arguments from each side and having the requisite familiarity with applicable case law does not generally lead to an informed “ruling.”

    How would the integrity of PA’s election been different if the provisions of Act 77 had been enacted by constitutional amendment?

    • #128
  9. 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):

    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.

    Accepted by whom?

    The details matter too. Security is diminished if ballots are mailed even to those who didn’t request one; security is diminished if the drop off locations are insecure.

    Again, though, that isn’t the only circumstance he mentioned.

    States across the country.

    Mailboxes are secure?

    I think those states are wrong overall. Sure, it can be secure in theory, but it’s too easy to be insecure in fact. Especially when the insecurity is built in.

    I’m not sure what your point is about mailboxes. Mailboxes are secure if we can assume that the postal workers have no reason to mishandle the contents. We saw several actual cases of intentional mishandling not to mention the many cases of simply negligent handling.

    My point about mailing ballots to those who didn’t request one was more that we can’t be sure of who is receiving, filling out, and returning them. Chain of custody is impossible, not to mention the increased risk of coercion or theft.

    Explain how signing and mailing a ballot by placing it in a corner mailbox is inherently less secure than walking up to a polling station, signing the log, and casting a ballot.

    How is a mailbox different than a drop box?

    • #129
  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):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Ed G. (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.

    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.

    IF it is true the official who made the change did not have the legal authority to do is an issue for the courts to determine. The improperly enacted change itself is not evidence the integrity of the election was compromised in any way. Regardless of whether a court determines the change was improper, the remedy for such does not involve invalidating the votes cast. Ballots cast by legal voters in the manner prescribed by election officials are properly counted. Citing such votes as a reason to question the results of the election is simply wrong.

    Yes the courts would rule on it, but it’s not magic or some incomprehensible language. Each of us can “rule” on it too.

    We’ll disagree, but I think that improperly changing the procedure is itself compromised integrity.

    We have courts for a reason. Reading a statute without hearing the arguments from each side and having the requisite familiarity with applicable case law does not generally lead to an informed “ruling.”

    How would the integrity of PA’s election been different if the provisions of Act 77 had been enacted by constitutional amendment?

    Yes yes I agree that courts and due process are good. Courts aren’t sole arbiters of what is right good and true. They could of course also be wrong. This is a distraction.

    How would integrity have been different had the change been enacted by due process and authority? It wouldn’t have been doubly compromised, only singly if authoritatively compromised. 

    • #130
  11. 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):

    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.

    Accepted by whom?

    The details matter too. Security is diminished if ballots are mailed even to those who didn’t request one; security is diminished if the drop off locations are insecure.

    Again, though, that isn’t the only circumstance he mentioned.

    States across the country.

    Mailboxes are secure?

    I think those states are wrong overall. Sure, it can be secure in theory, but it’s too easy to be insecure in fact. Especially when the insecurity is built in.

    I’m not sure what your point is about mailboxes. Mailboxes are secure if we can assume that the postal workers have no reason to mishandle the contents. We saw several actual cases of intentional mishandling not to mention the many cases of simply negligent handling.

    My point about mailing ballots to those who didn’t request one was more that we can’t be sure of who is receiving, filling out, and returning them. Chain of custody is impossible, not to mention the increased risk of coercion or theft.

    Explain how signing and mailing a ballot by placing it in a corner mailbox is inherently less secure than walking up to a polling station, signing the log, and casting a ballot.

    How is a mailbox different than a drop box?

    Neither are as secure as in person voting in my opinion. Chain of custody is much less an issue with in person voting. In fact, once the vote is cast then chain of custody is not an issue at all except for purposes of audit. So if the chain of custody only begins when you walk into the polling place and ends before you walk out that means the chain is short and completely public/in view. My comment that you quoted otherwise directly addresses security shortcomings involved in mail in voting. 

    • #131
  12. Headedwest Coolidge
    Headedwest
    @Headedwest

    Suggestion to the editors: demote this back to the member feed.

    • #132
  13. lowtech redneck Coolidge
    lowtech redneck
    @lowtech redneck

    Headedwest (View Comment):

    Suggestion to the editors: demote this back to the member feed.

    No, the article itself is worthy of the main page, no sense taking it down just because of what could charitably be described as a misguided game of ‘twelve angry men’ on behalf of progressive narratives/conspiracies in the comments.

    • #133
  14. Headedwest Coolidge
    Headedwest
    @Headedwest

    lowtech redneck (View Comment):

    Headedwest (View Comment):

    Suggestion to the editors: demote this back to the member feed.

    No, the article itself is worthy of the main page, no sense taking it down just because of what could charitably be described as a misguided game of ‘twelve angry men’ on behalf of progressive narratives/conspiracies in the comments.

    What I was thinking was what we have been told repeatedly: promotion to the main feed is supposed to be reserved for discussions that make Ricochet look good to non-members.

    • #134
  15. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Yes yes I agree that courts and due process are good. Courts aren’t sole arbiters of what is right good and true. They could of course also be wrong. This is a distraction.

    How would integrity have been different had the change been enacted by due process and authority? It wouldn’t have been doubly compromised, only singly if authoritatively compromised.

    The question isn’t what is right and true but what is legal and illegal.

    Now you are just begging the question.

    • #135
  16. 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):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    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.

    Accepted by whom?

    The details matter too. Security is diminished if ballots are mailed even to those who didn’t request one; security is diminished if the drop off locations are insecure.

    Again, though, that isn’t the only circumstance he mentioned.

    States across the country.

    Mailboxes are secure?

    I think those states are wrong overall. Sure, it can be secure in theory, but it’s too easy to be insecure in fact. Especially when the insecurity is built in.

    I’m not sure what your point is about mailboxes. Mailboxes are secure if we can assume that the postal workers have no reason to mishandle the contents. We saw several actual cases of intentional mishandling not to mention the many cases of simply negligent handling.

    My point about mailing ballots to those who didn’t request one was more that we can’t be sure of who is receiving, filling out, and returning them. Chain of custody is impossible, not to mention the increased risk of coercion or theft.

    Explain how signing and mailing a ballot by placing it in a corner mailbox is inherently less secure than walking up to a polling station, signing the log, and casting a ballot.

    How is a mailbox different than a drop box?

    Neither are as secure as in person voting in my opinion. Chain of custody is much less an issue with in person voting. In fact, once the vote is cast then chain of custody is not an issue at all except for purposes of audit. So if the chain of custody only begins when you walk into the polling place and ends before you walk out that means the chain is short and completely public/in view. My comment that you quoted otherwise directly addresses security shortcomings involved in mail in voting.

    And my question compared in person to mail in voting.

    • #136
  17. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    lowtech redneck (View Comment):

    Headedwest (View Comment):

    Suggestion to the editors: demote this back to the member feed.

    No, the article itself is worthy of the main page, no sense taking it down just because of what could charitably be described as a misguided game of ‘twelve angry men’ on behalf of progressive narratives/conspiracies in the comments.

    Henry Fonda’s Davis  was the hero in “12 Angry Men.”

    • #137
  18. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Headedwest (View Comment):

    lowtech redneck (View Comment):

    Headedwest (View Comment):

    Suggestion to the editors: demote this back to the member feed.

    No, the article itself is worthy of the main page, no sense taking it down just because of what could charitably be described as a misguided game of ‘twelve angry men’ on behalf of progressive narratives/conspiracies in the comments.

    What I was thinking was what we have been told repeatedly: promotion to the main feed is supposed to be reserved for discussions that make Ricochet look good to non-members.

    And having your assumptions questioned looks bad?

    • #138
  19. 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):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    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.

    Accepted by whom?

    The details matter too. Security is diminished if ballots are mailed even to those who didn’t request one; security is diminished if the drop off locations are insecure.

    Again, though, that isn’t the only circumstance he mentioned.

    States across the country.

    Mailboxes are secure?

    I think those states are wrong overall. Sure, it can be secure in theory, but it’s too easy to be insecure in fact. Especially when the insecurity is built in.

    I’m not sure what your point is about mailboxes. Mailboxes are secure if we can assume that the postal workers have no reason to mishandle the contents. We saw several actual cases of intentional mishandling not to mention the many cases of simply negligent handling.

    My point about mailing ballots to those who didn’t request one was more that we can’t be sure of who is receiving, filling out, and returning them. Chain of custody is impossible, not to mention the increased risk of coercion or theft.

    Explain how signing and mailing a ballot by placing it in a corner mailbox is inherently less secure than walking up to a polling station, signing the log, and casting a ballot.

    How is a mailbox different than a drop box?

    Neither are as secure as in person voting in my opinion. Chain of custody is much less an issue with in person voting. In fact, once the vote is cast then chain of custody is not an issue at all except for purposes of audit. So if the chain of custody only begins when you walk into the polling place and ends before you walk out that means the chain is short and completely public/in view. My comment that you quoted otherwise directly addresses security shortcomings involved in mail in voting.

    And my question compared in person to mail in voting.

    Yes, and I answered your question. 

    • #139
  20. lowtech redneck Coolidge
    lowtech redneck
    @lowtech redneck

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    lowtech redneck (View Comment):

    Headedwest (View Comment):

    Suggestion to the editors: demote this back to the member feed.

    No, the article itself is worthy of the main page, no sense taking it down just because of what could charitably be described as a misguided game of ‘twelve angry men’ on behalf of progressive narratives/conspiracies in the comments.

    Henry Fonda’s Davis was the hero in “12 Angry Men.”

    Hence the ‘misguided’ part.

    • #140
  21. Ed G. Inactive
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Yes yes I agree that courts and due process are good. Courts aren’t sole arbiters of what is right good and true. They could of course also be wrong. This is a distraction.

    How would integrity have been different had the change been enacted by due process and authority? It wouldn’t have been doubly compromised, only singly if authoritatively compromised.

    The question isn’t what is right and true but what is legal and illegal.

    Now you are just begging the question.

    Actually part of the question is concerning legal and illegal, but another part is concerning compromised integrity whether it’s legal or not.  I don’t think I’m begging any questions, but I do think you’re lost in the weeds. I’m choosing to find my way back out. 

    • #141
  22. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Yes yes I agree that courts and due process are good. Courts aren’t sole arbiters of what is right good and true. They could of course also be wrong. This is a distraction.

    How would integrity have been different had the change been enacted by due process and authority? It wouldn’t have been doubly compromised, only singly if authoritatively compromised.

    The question isn’t what is right and true but what is legal and illegal.

    Now you are just begging the question.

    Actually part of the question is concerning legal and illegal, but another part is concerning compromised integrity whether it’s legal or not. I don’t think I’m begging any questions, but I do think you’re lost in the weeds. I’m choosing to find my way back out.

    Your argument seems to depend entirely on mail in voting being inherently compromised.  That premise is unfounded.

    • #142
  23. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    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.

    Um, yes. Your definition:

    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.

    • #143
  24. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    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?

    I am less worried about the zombie voters (in most states) than most Republicans, actually.  I go over a few reasons for that in the big post. (Off the top of my head, one reason is that Mark Davis in GA is not much worried. He knows this stuff.)

    • #144
  25. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    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.

    Um, yes. Your definition:

    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.

    And?

    • #145
  26. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    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.

    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.”

    Yes, and then I said:

    Me, # 62:

    A medley of miscellaneous corruption and incompetence. A spiderweb of interconnected follies, with probably not much central planning. But more than incompetence. There was some real conspiring, as in the infamous Time article, although “collusion” and “networking” are good terms too.

    Note the complete absence of any accusation against PA voters who voted in accordance with the illegal Act 77 as engaging in any conspiracy.

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

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

    To some extent and with certain safeguards, reasonably secure, yes.

    And even Democrats have been, for the same decades, been talking about mail-in voting as pretty darn insecure.

    • #146
  27. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    How would the integrity of PA’s election been different if the provisions of Act 77 had been enacted by constitutional amendment?

    The provisions of Act 77, and all the votes cast under them, would have been legal.

    That is problem enough with Act 77.

    I’d still think said mail-in votes were less secure, however–at least if there weren’t some real safeguards accompanying the amendment.

    • #147
  28. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    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.

    Um, yes. Your definition:

    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.

    And?

    And unlawfully cast or counted votes are not votes cast and counted in a manner consistent with the procedures set for the election.

    • #148
  29. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    How would the integrity of PA’s election been different if the provisions of Act 77 had been enacted by constitutional amendment?

    The provisions of Act 77, and all the votes cast under them, would have been legal.

    That is problem enough with Act 77.

    I’d still think said mail-in votes were less secure, however–at least if there weren’t some real safeguards accompanying the amendment.

    No, that isn’t “problem enough” to call the integrity of the election into question.  The onus is on those question the validity of an election to demonstrate votes were cast by those who were ineligible to vote.

    What safeguards did Act 77 lack?

    • #149
  30. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    How would the integrity of PA’s election been different if the provisions of Act 77 had been enacted by constitutional amendment?

    The provisions of Act 77, and all the votes cast under them, would have been legal.

    That is problem enough with Act 77.

    I’d still think said mail-in votes were less secure, however–at least if there weren’t some real safeguards accompanying the amendment.

    No, that isn’t “problem enough” to call the integrity of the election into question. The onus is on those question the validity of an election to demonstrate votes were cast by those who were ineligible to vote.

    So millions of votes cast in violation of the state’s constitution (PA) and tens of thousands against the regulations given in the state’s statutory law (WI) are totally not an issue for election integrity assuming these voters were people who had the option of voting in some other, more legal way?

    • #150
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.