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):

    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.

    Where did I mention “unlawfully cast or counted votes” in my definition?

    • #151
  2. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    What safeguards did Act 77 lack?

    Now that is something I admit I don’t know about.

    Ed? Percival?

    • #152
  3. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Where did I mention “unlawfully cast or counted votes” in my definition?

    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.

    You do understand that some of those procedures are given in the state constitutions or statutes, don’t you?

    • #153
  4. 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):

    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?

    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.  

    • #154
  5. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Where did I mention “unlawfully cast or counted votes” in my definition?

    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.

    You do understand that some of those procedures are given in the state constitutions or statutes, don’t you?

    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.

    • #155
  6. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    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?

    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.

    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?

    • #156
  7. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Where did I mention “unlawfully cast or counted votes” in my definition?

    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.

    You do understand that some of those procedures are given in the state constitutions or statutes, don’t you?

    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.

    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?

    • #157
  8. 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):

    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?

    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.

    The votes were cast or counted in a manner inconsistent with state law.

    Do you disagree with that?

    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.

    It is a problem that they were cast or counted in a manner inconsistent with state law.

    Do you disagree with that?

    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.

    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?

    Yes, for the reasons stated above.

    • #158
  9. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    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):

    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?

    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.

    The votes were cast or counted in a manner inconsistent with state law.

    Do you disagree with that?

    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.

    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?

    It is a problem that they were cast or counted in a manner inconsistent with state law.

    Do you disagree with that?

    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.

    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.

    • #159
  10. 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):

    Where did I mention “unlawfully cast or counted votes” in my definition?

    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.

    You do understand that some of those procedures are given in the state constitutions or statutes, don’t you?

    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.

    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?

    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.  

    • #160
  11. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Where did I mention “unlawfully cast or counted votes” in my definition?

    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.

    You do understand that some of those procedures are given in the state constitutions or statutes, don’t you?

    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.

    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?

    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.

    What Weve Got Here Is Failure To Communicate GIFs - Get the best GIF on  GIPHY

    • #161
  12. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    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):

    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?

    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.

    The votes were cast or counted in a manner inconsistent with state law.

    Do you disagree with that?

    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.

    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?

    It is a problem that they were cast or counted in a manner inconsistent with state law.

    Do you disagree with that?

    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.

    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.

    And it is important to him that there are not safeguards to verify that ability, or even that voter’s existence.

    • #162
  13. 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):

    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?

    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.

    The votes were cast or counted in a manner inconsistent with state law.

    Do you disagree with that?

    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.

    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?

    I’m saying the question of whether the action is consistent with the law is open at the time in question.

    It is a problem that they were cast or counted in a manner inconsistent with state law.

    Do you disagree with that?

    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.

    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.

    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.

    • #163
  14. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    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):

    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?

    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.

    The votes were cast or counted in a manner inconsistent with state law.

    Do you disagree with that?

    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.

    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?

    I’m saying the question of whether the action is consistent with the law is open at the time in question.

    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?

    It is a problem that they were cast or counted in a manner inconsistent with state law.

    Do you disagree with that?

    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.

    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.

    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.

    You missed the point. Try again.  My (now bolded) remark there was solely in response to your (now bolded) clause.

    • #164
  15. 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):

    Where did I mention “unlawfully cast or counted votes” in my definition?

    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.

    You do understand that some of those procedures are given in the state constitutions or statutes, don’t you?

    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.

    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?

    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.

    What Weve Got Here Is Failure To Communicate GIFs - Get the best GIF onGIPHY

    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?

    • #165
  16. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    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:

    Neil earlier:

    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.

    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.

    • #166
  17. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    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.

    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.

    Your definition of election integrity:

    Neil earlier:

    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.

    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.

    I will amend to, the procedures presented to the voter by local election officials at the time the vote is cast.

    • #167
  18. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    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.

    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.

    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?

    Your definition of election integrity:

    Neil earlier:

    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.

    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.

    I will amend to, the procedures presented to the voter by local election officials at the time the vote is cast.

    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.

    • #168
  19. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Your new definition of election integrity:

    Neil:

    The integrity of the election is determined by whether lawful voters casts votes in a manner consistent with the procedures presented to the voter by local election officials at the time the vote is cast.

    What gives these procedures their authority?

    • #169
  20. Headedwest Coolidge
    Headedwest
    @Headedwest

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    What gives these procedures their authority?

    At this point, surely you know these are ‘pearls before swine’.

    • #170
  21. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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.

    • #171
  22. Neil Hansen (Klaatu) Inactive
    Neil Hansen (Klaatu)
    @Klaatu

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Your new definition of election integrity:

    Neil:

    The integrity of the election is determined by whether lawful voters casts votes in a manner consistent with the procedures presented to the voter by local election officials at the time the vote is cast.

    What gives these procedures their authority?

    Procedures do not have authority.

    • #172
  23. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    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?

    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.

    What are you talking about? When did I treat as suspect any of these votes?

    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.

    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.

    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.

    • #173
  24. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Your new definition of election integrity:

    Neil:

    The integrity of the election is determined by whether lawful voters casts votes in a manner consistent with the procedures presented to the voter by local election officials at the time the vote is cast.

    What gives these procedures their authority?

    Procedures do not have authority.

    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.

    • #174
  25. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):
    I will amend to, the procedures presented to the voter by local election officials at the time the vote is cast.

    You are assuming that there is an actual voter per vote.

    Assumes facts not in evidence.

    • #175
  26. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Headedwest (View Comment):

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

    I don’t think most readers will get this far in the comments, Headedwest. No worries.

    • #176
  27. Gazpacho Grande' Coolidge
    Gazpacho Grande'
    @ChrisCampion

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    I think your analysis is tainted by confirmation bias and that is exactly what Charles Krauthammer warned against. Take a moment and attempt to steelman the arguments made by those who disagree with you in each of these instances and see if the idea of a nefarious conspiracy is the best explanation.

    You bring up a valid point. I checked one definition of conspiracy:

    : to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement accused of conspiring to overthrow the governmentconspired to monopolize and restrict tradeb: SCHEME2: to act in harmony toward a common end. Circumstances conspired to defeat his efforts.

    You were the one who used the word “nefarious,” not me. I would suggest that the items I listed were not done in good faith, were done to do harm, in some cases broke the law, were done in secret with the intent to deceive. Although I do have a bias against the Dems, I think that my use of the word here is justified. But we can disagree.

    It is the assumption the actions were not done in good faith which I believe is mistaken. Can you not imagine a good faith reason government officials would take extreme measures to prevent the spread of a deadly virus? Or a member of Congress wanting to find out what led to a violent attack on the Congress itself?

    Violent?  A better question to be asked is who perpetrated the violence.  You could ask a dead woman, but she’s dead.

    • #177
  28. Gazpacho Grande' Coolidge
    Gazpacho Grande'
    @ChrisCampion

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    lowtech redneck (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    It used to be a conservative criticism of the left that they saw us as evil while we simply saw them as wrong.

    Which has proven to be a delusion on our part; the majority of the Left might have been well-intentioned statist 20 years ago, but the hardcore base has long since mainstreamed and cemented neo-Marxist, Orwellian racist woke fascism as the guiding ideology of the Democrat party, and their informed supporters have either embraced or collaborated with this agenda. For all practical purposes, good faith from the Left does not exist anymore, just factions who realize people (not on the Right) they care about are now targets of the inevitable purges, or else uninformed voters who are slowly beginning to realize they were fed lies, and migrating away from the Democrats (such as the people who would have voted against Biden had they known about Hunter’s laptop*).

    *Speaking of bad faith, Jonah Goldberg-alongside a panel of open Democrats in what was presented, in Orwellian fashion, as a conference against disinformation, dismissed this as unimportant.

    But hey, I suppose dozens of intelligence officers dismissing what even the New York Times now admits is true as ‘Russian disinformation’ isn’t evidence of bad faith either, right? Oh, and what happened to their copy of the contents of the Laptop again? There is quite a pattern of ‘competence’ going on there….

    No, being wrong is not evidence of bad faith and this country will never rid ourselves of our current poisonous politics until we accept that.

    Also, https://perceptiongap.us/

    These are interesting excuses for what’s either stupid or evil.  At one point, we fired or jailed these idiots.

    But enjoy yourself.

    • #178
  29. Gazpacho Grande' Coolidge
    Gazpacho Grande'
    @ChrisCampion

    Headedwest (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Anyone who doesn’t like an exchange can ignore it.

    Most discussion platforms have an “ignore user” button. This is particularly useful when the most prolific and least interesting poster doesn’t edit his responses, so they are huge.

    Out in meatspace ™, I apply this same type of ignore feature to ugly people.

    I kid, of course. Mostly.

    • #179
  30. Gazpacho Grande' Coolidge
    Gazpacho Grande'
    @ChrisCampion

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Neil Hansen (Klaatu) (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn: Feel free to add to the list!

    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. And a great deal of rigging of the sort Mollie Hemingway describes. And more.

    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.

    Illegal as determined by whom?

    By the laws.

    Do you need details? I have details.

    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.

    • #180
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.