Sorry, but whose to say it was absolutely wrong? Do you honestly have any faith in the integrity of our elections systems as they stand? At the same time, keep in mind how many people did fall for the very policies you are railing against and find foolish, or how many of us "went along to get along."
I find your concerns about the electoral integrity founded. For one reason, it is something we are not allowed to question. A historical truth is that to find those that would rule over you, find those that can not be questioned. Even a reasonable inquiry gets you labeled "denier". This is in fact a clear sign something is wrong.
A process with integrity can withstand scrutiny. An election process that can not be scrutinized can not sustain integrity.
Yes, an indicator that something is amiss is the proactive denial of it. We even had mantras fo that as well "fair and secure" elections. Sounds eerily familiar to "Safe and effective" vaccines. If something is effective, does it need advertising? If something is "fair" does it need to announce that it is "fair?"
It's why I steer away from saying things like "honestly" and "to be frank" because in the end, it's you who decides that. Have I acted honestly and frankly? Are my words and actions in line with one another. There is a lot of wisdom in the words "let another praise you, and not your own mouth."
I think there is a legitimate use of reassurances, even when you have a sound process and ethical basis. A response to questioning with a reassuring "let me show you" is different from "trust me, and don't look behind the curtain", and miles from "don't ask any questions you evil election denier" and calling challenging the results treason.
For the record, I am not saying the election were corrupt in all states. I'm sure they were not in many states. Perhaps in all 50. But, I am seeing valid reasons to question, and a dictatorial reaction to the questions. The latter is a red flag. The tricky part is what do we do about it?
If you step back you will realize that the national party (in my mind there is only one) has been trying to centralize control of elections in the federal government for decades. Our constitution distributes this power to the states for good reason. Efforts to characterize the electoral college as "obsolete" for are intellectually dishonest. The purpose is take control away from the states. A single point of corruption is far worse than the many points we have now. Be careful of "solutions" that include federal oversight - that is like reassuring the chickens that the brigade of foxes will keep them safe.
What has been said elsewhere is "if you are ethical, then showing us you are ethical won't cost you anything, in fact, you would be going out of your away to not only show integrity, but to avoid any perception of malfeasance."
So if someone is acting with integrity, the answer should be "let's go look at the video together, I'll also provide documents, and let's work through this."
That used to be normal human nature. Like the observation if you want kids to be interested in something, tell them they can't have it. At least until they get into school and are "properly educated" to accept authority and challenge nothing.
In deed it is. It is our duty as parents to teach our children to question, to think, to decide for themselves. Starting with questioning authority. Which is annoying when you are the authority they are questioning but it's part of our duty as parents ;-).
I suppose in that scenario you do the best you can based on your beliefs. A tough spot to be in for sure.
In my case, I had a Jewish mom backing me up ;-). Yes, my son was "difficult" sometimes, and more than once my wife/his mom would eject, stomping into whatever room I was in instructing me to "go deal with YOUR son!".
Not only that, but if you look at the county map, only a handful of counties in the entire country went to the democrats. They've just rigged the game so that's all they need to stay in control.
Here's one other thing. Suppose there had been a "red tsunami" then what? I think this election turned out the way it did for a reason. And that reason is if it had gone completely red, and nothing changed, well then it would be revealed that it all has been a smoke and mirrors game by the swamp that are unelected.
A lot of people have been disenfranchised by both dominant parties, I think for the reason you hint: Lack of faith in the GOP to be any different. It was this independent group abandoned by both parties that voted in Trump in 2016. After the actions of the GOP during the Trump term, they have even less reason to support the GOP, and since Jan 2021, even less reason to believe the GOP is anything other than the other half of The Party.
It's not really the parties themselves, but rather the state. The problem is, that no matter who is in power, the state seems to win. Maybe with conservatives, it is a Government LiteтДв, but still there is a belief that government, in the right hands, is the answer.
I personally think Texas knows better than I do what their border policy should be, same for the most northern states, or any state that receives immigration. Do we really need a central government making these decisions? And what do you think the track record is for a more centralized power making all the decisions for areas it is out of touch with?
тАЬDo we really need a central government making these decisions? And what do you think the track record is for a more centralized power making all the decisions for areas it is out of touch with?тАЭ I actually learned this lesson - the one implied by your questions- in the corporate world. тАШCorporate office vs field officesтАЩ. This was a constant issue, decision-making 3000 miles away with nary a clue about how things really worked on the ground.
The structure of our representative republic is that of independent states participating in a limited federal government. We are a nation of multiple governments. The federal government has a purpose, things best done collectively by the states. Immigration and naturalization and the common defense are things specifically defined as roles of the federal government. Per our constitution, we need a federal government for these two things. This doesn't mean states can not provide for independent defense, in deed this is a tradition as old as our nations.
The independence of the states exists for a lot of very good reasons. There's significant differences between the several states, and representation of the people requires local control of representation by the people. National political parties have circumvented that concept. National parties enact, through control of the legislatures of the states, national policy, controlled by interests other than the people of the state. In recent decades, this has become overt: billions of dollars spent by the national party flood and dominate local elections. Money not from the people of that state. In many states, The Party has control of the courts, too. More recently we've seen The Party also in control of the electoral process in many states. And what we see is a national agenda being enacted without regard for the people of the individual states.
What we've been seeing for several decades (at least 4) is an attack on this independence of the several states, the very foundation of our republic. The outrage over USSC decisions that reject the role of the court to create national legislation from the bench, and restore the states' responsibilities to legislate per local and regional interests, is characterized as disaster. There is nothing intellectually honest in demanding the courts do what congress and the legislatures of the states refuse to do. But that's where we are: we ask the court to rule to amend the constitution, to enact national law, instead of look to the constitutionally defined process for achieving the desired outcome.
Yes, the courts are not supposed to legislate from the bench, but rather uphold the laws already written. But we have seen this also with Covid. People with no actual authority to enact restrictions and regulations took advantage of the concept of "emergency powers" and basically unilaterally made decisions about the population. We, the population, should have told them to go pound sand.
What Florida Governor DeSantis did was enact laws in his own state to prevent Florida itself from being stolen. Guess what happened? In Miami-Dade county, a major metropolitan area owned by the Left for decades, DeSantis won in a shift of 16 points from his last race. When was the last time any Republican elected official accomplished a swing of that magnitude in a city? 1950, maybe?
No integrity whatsoever. Trust your gut. You know it was not a valid result. We all know it. Some of us cannot face it yet. But we know. We KNOW. Here's an important substack that ties so many things together. Warning it is painful to read. But I believe necessary. https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/a-grand-unified-theory-of-the-ftx
Sorry, but whose to say it was absolutely wrong? Do you honestly have any faith in the integrity of our elections systems as they stand? At the same time, keep in mind how many people did fall for the very policies you are railing against and find foolish, or how many of us "went along to get along."
I find your concerns about the electoral integrity founded. For one reason, it is something we are not allowed to question. A historical truth is that to find those that would rule over you, find those that can not be questioned. Even a reasonable inquiry gets you labeled "denier". This is in fact a clear sign something is wrong.
A process with integrity can withstand scrutiny. An election process that can not be scrutinized can not sustain integrity.
Yes, an indicator that something is amiss is the proactive denial of it. We even had mantras fo that as well "fair and secure" elections. Sounds eerily familiar to "Safe and effective" vaccines. If something is effective, does it need advertising? If something is "fair" does it need to announce that it is "fair?"
It's why I steer away from saying things like "honestly" and "to be frank" because in the end, it's you who decides that. Have I acted honestly and frankly? Are my words and actions in line with one another. There is a lot of wisdom in the words "let another praise you, and not your own mouth."
I think there is a legitimate use of reassurances, even when you have a sound process and ethical basis. A response to questioning with a reassuring "let me show you" is different from "trust me, and don't look behind the curtain", and miles from "don't ask any questions you evil election denier" and calling challenging the results treason.
For the record, I am not saying the election were corrupt in all states. I'm sure they were not in many states. Perhaps in all 50. But, I am seeing valid reasons to question, and a dictatorial reaction to the questions. The latter is a red flag. The tricky part is what do we do about it?
If you step back you will realize that the national party (in my mind there is only one) has been trying to centralize control of elections in the federal government for decades. Our constitution distributes this power to the states for good reason. Efforts to characterize the electoral college as "obsolete" for are intellectually dishonest. The purpose is take control away from the states. A single point of corruption is far worse than the many points we have now. Be careful of "solutions" that include federal oversight - that is like reassuring the chickens that the brigade of foxes will keep them safe.
What has been said elsewhere is "if you are ethical, then showing us you are ethical won't cost you anything, in fact, you would be going out of your away to not only show integrity, but to avoid any perception of malfeasance."
So if someone is acting with integrity, the answer should be "let's go look at the video together, I'll also provide documents, and let's work through this."
The powerful only censor the truth. Whatever they censor, whoever they cancel, THAT'S what I want to know.
That used to be normal human nature. Like the observation if you want kids to be interested in something, tell them they can't have it. At least until they get into school and are "properly educated" to accept authority and challenge nothing.
It is our duty to question everything
In deed it is. It is our duty as parents to teach our children to question, to think, to decide for themselves. Starting with questioning authority. Which is annoying when you are the authority they are questioning but it's part of our duty as parents ;-).
What if you find yourself raising kids with someone who does not believe this and leaves you bc you are so тАЬdifficult?тАЭ
I suppose in that scenario you do the best you can based on your beliefs. A tough spot to be in for sure.
In my case, I had a Jewish mom backing me up ;-). Yes, my son was "difficult" sometimes, and more than once my wife/his mom would eject, stomping into whatever room I was in instructing me to "go deal with YOUR son!".
The only correct answer was "yes ma'am".
Precisely
Not only that, but if you look at the county map, only a handful of counties in the entire country went to the democrats. They've just rigged the game so that's all they need to stay in control.
https://dystopianliving.substack.com/p/there-are-no-blue-states
Here's one other thing. Suppose there had been a "red tsunami" then what? I think this election turned out the way it did for a reason. And that reason is if it had gone completely red, and nothing changed, well then it would be revealed that it all has been a smoke and mirrors game by the swamp that are unelected.
A lot of people have been disenfranchised by both dominant parties, I think for the reason you hint: Lack of faith in the GOP to be any different. It was this independent group abandoned by both parties that voted in Trump in 2016. After the actions of the GOP during the Trump term, they have even less reason to support the GOP, and since Jan 2021, even less reason to believe the GOP is anything other than the other half of The Party.
It's not really the parties themselves, but rather the state. The problem is, that no matter who is in power, the state seems to win. Maybe with conservatives, it is a Government LiteтДв, but still there is a belief that government, in the right hands, is the answer.
I personally think Texas knows better than I do what their border policy should be, same for the most northern states, or any state that receives immigration. Do we really need a central government making these decisions? And what do you think the track record is for a more centralized power making all the decisions for areas it is out of touch with?
тАЬDo we really need a central government making these decisions? And what do you think the track record is for a more centralized power making all the decisions for areas it is out of touch with?тАЭ I actually learned this lesson - the one implied by your questions- in the corporate world. тАШCorporate office vs field officesтАЩ. This was a constant issue, decision-making 3000 miles away with nary a clue about how things really worked on the ground.
The structure of our representative republic is that of independent states participating in a limited federal government. We are a nation of multiple governments. The federal government has a purpose, things best done collectively by the states. Immigration and naturalization and the common defense are things specifically defined as roles of the federal government. Per our constitution, we need a federal government for these two things. This doesn't mean states can not provide for independent defense, in deed this is a tradition as old as our nations.
The independence of the states exists for a lot of very good reasons. There's significant differences between the several states, and representation of the people requires local control of representation by the people. National political parties have circumvented that concept. National parties enact, through control of the legislatures of the states, national policy, controlled by interests other than the people of the state. In recent decades, this has become overt: billions of dollars spent by the national party flood and dominate local elections. Money not from the people of that state. In many states, The Party has control of the courts, too. More recently we've seen The Party also in control of the electoral process in many states. And what we see is a national agenda being enacted without regard for the people of the individual states.
What we've been seeing for several decades (at least 4) is an attack on this independence of the several states, the very foundation of our republic. The outrage over USSC decisions that reject the role of the court to create national legislation from the bench, and restore the states' responsibilities to legislate per local and regional interests, is characterized as disaster. There is nothing intellectually honest in demanding the courts do what congress and the legislatures of the states refuse to do. But that's where we are: we ask the court to rule to amend the constitution, to enact national law, instead of look to the constitutionally defined process for achieving the desired outcome.
Yes, the courts are not supposed to legislate from the bench, but rather uphold the laws already written. But we have seen this also with Covid. People with no actual authority to enact restrictions and regulations took advantage of the concept of "emergency powers" and basically unilaterally made decisions about the population. We, the population, should have told them to go pound sand.
What Florida Governor DeSantis did was enact laws in his own state to prevent Florida itself from being stolen. Guess what happened? In Miami-Dade county, a major metropolitan area owned by the Left for decades, DeSantis won in a shift of 16 points from his last race. When was the last time any Republican elected official accomplished a swing of that magnitude in a city? 1950, maybe?
Outstanding.
No integrity whatsoever. Trust your gut. You know it was not a valid result. We all know it. Some of us cannot face it yet. But we know. We KNOW. Here's an important substack that ties so many things together. Warning it is painful to read. But I believe necessary. https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/a-grand-unified-theory-of-the-ftx
Lol, they canтАЩt count the votes in one county in AZ in two weeks after the election.
CA and NY are still counting too.
What else do you do when the outcome isn't the one you determined was "right" before the election? Keep counting until you get the right answer ;-).
Actually an even simpler explanation: those doing the count were educated in the public schools ;-).