4 ms·

Uh, well, I don't know that. Let me turn it around for you: How will we continue as a nation if this comes to pass? How will you, knowing in good conscience th

by knaq 6y ago

Uh, well, I don't know that. Let me turn it around for you: How will we continue as a nation if this comes to pass? How will you, knowing in good conscience that fraud changed the results, claim to represent the people when you have discarded the votes of 80 million people? You are presuming that your opponents knowingly commit evil. They feel exactly the same about you.

kthejoker2 6y ago
"In good conscience" is not just "I wish it to be true"; it also means you're satisfied by the evidence presented, and the arguments against it have been weighted.
- knaq 6y ago
  Sure. Many millions of Americans are satisfied by the evidence presented, and the arguments against it have been weighted. They believe that an illegitimately elected person is about to seize power. They believe that you are gleefully dancing on the grave of democracy. They are wondering "How will we continue as a nation if this comes to pass?" right now. They'd like a fix for this nation-destroying injustice.
  - rootusrootus 6y ago
    So you are basically answering the original question with "yes." Half the citizens in America have lost confidence in the electoral process, which is tantamount to saying that the nation is already doomed. A lot of us are hoping that a significant number of Republican voters know the truth and are just playing hardball politics. That would be distasteful, but less alarming.
    - knaq 6y ago
      Likewise, a lot of us are hoping that a significant number of Democrat voters know the truth and are just playing hardball politics, not that it is much better. You didn't want this result? You should have thought about that when you supported weakening election security. Republicans aren't buying your excuses about the virus, or about black people being unable to get an ID card, or about anything else. You broke security on purpose. Any lack of evidence is because you purposely make it impossible to collect the evidence. (like a cop turning off his camera before doing evil) The result has been expected for months: a fraudulent Biden victory. Next time, maybe cooperate on election security? Is that too much to ask? Ink the fingers, since we're 3rd-world now. Have ID, just like India and Mexico do. All votes must be cast in person. Take extra pictures when voting (face, fingerprints, iris, retina), to better enable prosecution of misbehavior. No machine goes on a network. Every machine is observed by multiple unrelated people (don't know each other) for the entire time, starting from verification that it is empty and continuing until all recounts are completed. No excuses. You asked for the current situation when you dismantled what little security we had. Expecting opponents to trust the result is absurd. You broke security because you knew that fraud in your favor would happen if people didn't have to worry about getting caught.
      - mcphage 6y ago
        > Expecting opponents to trust the result is absurd. Did you trust the result in 2016? Do you trust the House results, or the Senate results?
        knaq 6y ago
        Overall, yes, but not for all seats. New Hampshire was untrustworthy in 2016, both for the presidential electors and for the senator. Some of the house seats, particularly in California, were untrustworthy. Florida was nearly stolen via Broward County, and then again for governor/senator in 2018. Numerous seats were stolen in 2018 and 2020, though I do believe that overall control of the House could be legitimate. I think you're implying that fraud could reasonably go both directions. I call your attention to the fact that felons are 5 to 7 times more likely to vote for democrats than republicans. Election workers who are willing to commit crime are clearly going to favor democrats. That just isn't the law-and-order party. In any case, if you had an issue with the 2016 results, you should have cooperated to secure the elections. You didn't, because you know that you benefit from insecure elections. The situation with fraud evidence is like a cop found with a dozen dead people, all shot between the eyes, and his body camera turned off. He says they all attacked him, and he was just a really lucky man. There is no evidence otherwise, because he disabled the camera. Didn't do anything bad? Sure...
        mcphage 6y ago
        > I call your attention to the fact that felons are 5 to 7 times more likely to vote for democrats than republicans. Well, that is what happens when one party seeks to remove your ability to vote, and the other defends your ability to vote. > That just isn't the law-and-order party. I’m amazed that you can imply that the Republicans are the law and order party, and not realize that you’ll get laughed at. Mad props.
        knaq 6y ago
        Causation goes the other way. Nobody thought felons should vote until democrats realized that it would tip elections. Oh, my mistake on the law and order. I should go Burn Loot Murder, rioting every night. Seriously? Portland is not a republican stronghold. The most crime-ridden places vote democrat. I'll grant that Kamala Harris loved to prosecute crack users with a law that Joe Biden introduced, and that Donald Trump reduced the penalty. I'm not sure you want to take credit for the law that locked up lots of black people, but you may.

by knaq 6y ago

kthejoker2 6y ago

"In good conscience" is not just "I wish it to be true"; it also means you're satisfied by the evidence presented, and the arguments against it have been weighted.

knaq 6y ago
Sure. Many millions of Americans are satisfied by the evidence presented, and the arguments against it have been weighted. They believe that an illegitimately elected person is about to seize power. They believe that you are gleefully dancing on the grave of democracy. They are wondering "How will we continue as a nation if this comes to pass?" right now. They'd like a fix for this nation-destroying injustice.
- rootusrootus 6y ago
  So you are basically answering the original question with "yes." Half the citizens in America have lost confidence in the electoral process, which is tantamount to saying that the nation is already doomed. A lot of us are hoping that a significant number of Republican voters know the truth and are just playing hardball politics. That would be distasteful, but less alarming.
  - knaq 6y ago
    Likewise, a lot of us are hoping that a significant number of Democrat voters know the truth and are just playing hardball politics, not that it is much better. You didn't want this result? You should have thought about that when you supported weakening election security. Republicans aren't buying your excuses about the virus, or about black people being unable to get an ID card, or about anything else. You broke security on purpose. Any lack of evidence is because you purposely make it impossible to collect the evidence. (like a cop turning off his camera before doing evil) The result has been expected for months: a fraudulent Biden victory. Next time, maybe cooperate on election security? Is that too much to ask? Ink the fingers, since we're 3rd-world now. Have ID, just like India and Mexico do. All votes must be cast in person. Take extra pictures when voting (face, fingerprints, iris, retina), to better enable prosecution of misbehavior. No machine goes on a network. Every machine is observed by multiple unrelated people (don't know each other) for the entire time, starting from verification that it is empty and continuing until all recounts are completed. No excuses. You asked for the current situation when you dismantled what little security we had. Expecting opponents to trust the result is absurd. You broke security because you knew that fraud in your favor would happen if people didn't have to worry about getting caught.
    - mcphage 6y ago
      > Expecting opponents to trust the result is absurd. Did you trust the result in 2016? Do you trust the House results, or the Senate results?
      - knaq 6y ago
        Overall, yes, but not for all seats. New Hampshire was untrustworthy in 2016, both for the presidential electors and for the senator. Some of the house seats, particularly in California, were untrustworthy. Florida was nearly stolen via Broward County, and then again for governor/senator in 2018. Numerous seats were stolen in 2018 and 2020, though I do believe that overall control of the House could be legitimate. I think you're implying that fraud could reasonably go both directions. I call your attention to the fact that felons are 5 to 7 times more likely to vote for democrats than republicans. Election workers who are willing to commit crime are clearly going to favor democrats. That just isn't the law-and-order party. In any case, if you had an issue with the 2016 results, you should have cooperated to secure the elections. You didn't, because you know that you benefit from insecure elections. The situation with fraud evidence is like a cop found with a dozen dead people, all shot between the eyes, and his body camera turned off. He says they all attacked him, and he was just a really lucky man. There is no evidence otherwise, because he disabled the camera. Didn't do anything bad? Sure...
        mcphage 6y ago
        > I call your attention to the fact that felons are 5 to 7 times more likely to vote for democrats than republicans. Well, that is what happens when one party seeks to remove your ability to vote, and the other defends your ability to vote. > That just isn't the law-and-order party. I’m amazed that you can imply that the Republicans are the law and order party, and not realize that you’ll get laughed at. Mad props.
        knaq 6y ago
        Causation goes the other way. Nobody thought felons should vote until democrats realized that it would tip elections. Oh, my mistake on the law and order. I should go Burn Loot Murder, rioting every night. Seriously? Portland is not a republican stronghold. The most crime-ridden places vote democrat. I'll grant that Kamala Harris loved to prosecute crack users with a law that Joe Biden introduced, and that Donald Trump reduced the penalty. I'm not sure you want to take credit for the law that locked up lots of black people, but you may.