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!".
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