Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
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
Where did I mention “unlawfully cast or counted votes” in my definition?
Now that is something I admit I don’t know about.
Ed? Percival?
Your definition:
You do understand that some of those procedures are given in the state constitutions or statutes, don’t you?
No, they are not.
The voters in question were entitled to cast a vote and they cast their vote in a manner consistent with the state provided guidance.
Are you seriously arguing voters are supposed to self-adjudicate procedural legal disputes prior to casting a ballot? Voters follow the procedure election officials set forth.
The votes were cast or counted in a manner inconsistent with state law.
Do you disagree with that?
It is a problem that they were cast or counted in a manner inconsistent with state law.
Do you disagree with that?
It is a violation of election integrity that they were cast or counted in a manner inconsistent with state law.
Do you disagree with that?
No, I am not seriously arguing that.
Now it’s your turn! You answer my question, please, or else please leave me alone:
Did you know that some of the procedures for elections are given in the state constitutions or statutes?
Yes I disagree, there was a dispute regarding state law at the time the votes were cast or counted. That dispute had not been resolved.
Yes I disagree for the reason stated above and because the potential defect does not reflect on the legal ability of the voter to cast a vote.
Yes, for the reasons stated above.
I don’t know what’s going on in this conversation. You’re telling me that actions that are inconsistent with law become consistent with law when there’s an unresolved dispute?
You should revise your definition of election integrity. Plainly, you do not believe that every inconsistency with the procedures set forth for an election affects election integrity. Your actual definition for the election integrity involves whether a voter, regardless of whether he does vote legally, was able to vote legally.
Your question presumes voters adjudicate complex procedural legal issues prior to casting their ballot. It is not up to voters to determine whether the procedures county election officials, secretaries of state, or governors promulgate are consistent with state law.
No, my question has nothing whatsoever to do with that.
Some of the procedures for elections are given in the state constitutions or statutes. It’s a fact. You can look it up.
We must have some communication problem. We’re not speaking the same language.
And it is important to him that there are not safeguards to verify that ability, or even that voter’s existence.
I’m saying the question of whether the action is consistent with the law is open at the time in question.
No, my definition depends on whether a voter complied with the procedures as set forth by local election officials at the time his ballot was cast.
Ok, so you didn’t actually answer my question. That only means that some people at the time didn’t know everything.
The dispute is now resolved. Now we do know. The votes were cast or counted in a manner inconsistently with the law. That’s a knowable fact. Do you accept this fact?
You missed the point. Try again. My (now bolded) remark there was solely in response to your (now bolded) clause.
Do you research all applicable election statutes and constitutional provisions prior to casting a ballot or do you accept the process as presented by your local election official as valid?
I do my best with the local instructions.
Why do you ask? I’m not talking about unicorns here, or even about G-d or angels. This isn’t relevant to the topic at hand. Procedures for elections given in the state constitutions or statutes actually exist, and I was under the impression that most people know they exist.
Your definition of election integrity:
It follows from your definition that when voters, even lawful ones, cast votes in a manner inconsistent with the procedures set forth for the election, we have an election integrity problem. It’s a problem whether the procedures are in local law, bureaucratic regulation, state statutory law, or the state constitution.
So you do your best with local instructions? Good.
Of course it is relevant. Voters do not have to be state election law experts to cast a ballot and have it counted. Expecting each voter to decide whether a governor’s executive order or secretary of state’s interpretation of an election statute is legally valid prior to casting their ballot is absurd. Their failure to do so has zero bearing on the integrity of the election.
I will amend to, the procedures presented to the voter by local election officials at the time the vote is cast.
It’s not relevant to any conversation I’ve ever had.
Yes, it would be absurd to expect that. So why don’t you find somebody who thinks that and bother him? Why bother me?
Ah. Now you have amended your definition. Much better, as far as the conversation is concerned.
But a worse definition. Your first definition was better.
Your new definition of election integrity:
What gives these procedures their authority?
At this point, surely you know these are ‘pearls before swine’.
And yet you would treat as suspect any vote cast in a situation where there is some dispute as to who may or may not issue changes to election procedure.
Only worse if you believe “the procedures set forth for the election” and “the procedures presented to the voter by local election officials” are substantively different.
Procedures do not have authority.
What are you talking about? When did I treat as suspect any of these votes?
They are dramatically different. The procedures set forth for the election in statutory law and the state Constitution are directly flouted in the procedures presented to the voter by local election officials. That’s the whole point of talking about these situations.
And yet election integrity hangs on them?
Another failure to communicate. I have no idea what you are thinking or what you are talking about.
You are assuming that there is an actual voter per vote.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
I don’t think most readers will get this far in the comments, Headedwest. No worries.
Violent? A better question to be asked is who perpetrated the violence. You could ask a dead woman, but she’s dead.
These are interesting excuses for what’s either stupid or evil. At one point, we fired or jailed these idiots.
But enjoy yourself.
Out in meatspace ™, I apply this same type of ignore feature to ugly people.
I kid, of course. Mostly.
So does the internet, but he’s not interested in looking. You must cite the proof for him to be convinced, and even then, you did not convince him hard enough.
See how easy it is to bubble-wrap self in the untenable position from which you shall not be moved? It’s cozy in there! I think they have hot cocoa.