On audits, elections and public trust

[Mayan Elephant]

you might as well go blow your brains out.

you seem nice.

I am not throwing shade on democracy at all. I come from a family of veterans, career civic service folks and small business owners. I am saying, out of respect and in accordance with my standards I am not fighting it and I am not telling anyone to blow their brains out. I am, however, stepping away from a process that does not honor what I consider valuable and worthwhile. Y'all are free to do as you see fit. Y'all are free to vote for the candidate of your choice. You do you.

It is fascinating to me that such a fair and neutral position - to opt out of something that does not meet my standards or needs, is considered so threatening to anyone that has ever opted out of dutiful and complete loyalty to the Mormon church. That is curious as hell.

Can you imagine telling someone that if they do not like the temple recommend interview, they should blow their brains out? You probably can because you seem nice like that. But a less victimized person may find that rather extreme. I do not find you credible at all, given your suggestion of blowing my brains out and your armchair judgment of racists and other epithets. So, we will not be having beer or steaks together. No big deal. Your terms are not acceptable.

Now, back to the topic at hand.... those fault lines. It appears that post-mos and specifically Mormon Discussions post-mos are huge fans of extreme fault lines and extreme ideologies. I got no problem with that, actually. It ain't my thing but I damn sure ain't gonna ignore the facts. I can surrender entirely to that reality. Icarus describes it very well.

[Mayan Elephant]

ME,

Are you sure you’re not projecting Republican voter malfeasance onto Democrats? In 2018, a voting fraud scandal in Bladen County, NC caught our national attention span for a day or two when Republican Mark Harris’ win (this was for a seat in Congress, by the way) was voided because an operative for his campaign allegedly tampered with absentee ballots. Harris claimed to be ignorant, but his own son testified he knew what was up.

- Doc

Make no mistake here. I am not saying this is a Democrat or Republican issue. We were talking about fault lines for the love of god. I am not saying that one side is Jesus and the other is Pilate. I do not think this mess happens without the full consent from all sorts of people in all sorts of places.

I was not projecting onto the Democrats at all. I was looking at the terms and process, looking at standing/laches, looking at the laughable so-called audits which are as laughable as the so-called audits of theranos and madoff, and deciding to go mow the lawn or trim an oak tree instead of voting or legitimizing that process.

on Harris and NC, you omitted, cleverly, the most important part of that story. In fact, failing to include the relevant detail is another example of the ideological bullcrap being lobbed across fault lines. I am not laughing by the way. I find it disgusting.

That election had to be re-done. They revoted because the election was jacked up. That is exactly the opposite of standing/laches ruled in sequence. So, do not blame me for bowing out on this when, in fact, the courts bowed out of it long before I did.

[Gunnar]

You missed this edit of what I said:

. . . should he happen to lose, which, in fact, he did, which even top Republicans like Mitch McConnell and others freely acknowledge. Those of them who have been toppled from their leading positions were rejected only because they refused to support what they know to be a lie.

Why are you so seemingly eager to take Trump's side? Do you really have any serious doubts about his blatant corruption and pathological, self-serving dishonesty and narcissism?

[Mayan Elephant]

I very much prefer the convenience of voting by mail, and I don't believe the unwarranted, self-serving and thoroughly discredited nonsense spewed by Trump about that being inherently unsecure or fraudulent. It is blazingly obvious to me that Trump's sole purpose for pushing that nonsense was to plant unwarranted doubt in his sycophantic followers' minds about the validity and credibility of the election results, should he happen to lose, which, in fact, he did.

well. There you go. You have a preference. And, you choose to follow that preference while calling anyone with another preference part of nefarious sycophancy. Okay. There is difference and you want to make sure that your preference is couched in wonderfulness and convenience while the other side is couched in what you call blazing obvious nefarious intent.

You do not seem to care if there is a signature match, for example. And, if someone does care, do you agree with other posters that perhaps they should blow their brains out rather than just opt out of the game?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

[

on Harris and NC, you omitted, cleverly, the most important part of that story. In fact, failing to include the relevant detail is another example of the ideological bullcrap being lobbed across fault lines. I am not laughing by the way. I find it disgusting.

That election had to be re-done. They revoted because the election was jacked up. That is exactly the opposite of standing/laches ruled in sequence. So, do not blame me for bowing out on this when, in fact, the courts bowed out of it long before I did.

Of course it was redone. ?? I’m not sure what point you were attempting to make, though. I was pointing out that it seems, of late, the GOP is projecting its own worst traits onto the Democratic party with regard to to elections.

- Doc

[Mayan Elephant]

Of course it was redone. ?? I’m not sure what point you were attempting to make, though. I was pointing out that it seems, of late, the GOP is projecting its own worst traits onto the Democratic party with regard to to elections.

- Doc

The point is there are valid concerns for distrust. Blaming and shaming with insults and accusations of "projecting," especially with blatant omissions of things like an election being redone where past concerns or malfeasance was validated in comparison to standing/laches being evoked in other federal elections, is nothing more than ideological fits.

It does not seem like an election was redone and two years later the courts used standing/laches in sequence. It is fair to surrender to that fact without twisting it into some sort of victimization or threat.

[Gunnar]

You missed this edit of what I said:

. . . should he happen to lose, which, in fact, he did, which even top Republicans like Mitch McConnell and others freely acknowledge. Those of them who have been toppled from their leading positions were rejected only because they refused to support what they know to be a lie.

Why are you so seemingly eager to take Trump's side? Do you really have any serious doubts about his blatant corruption and pathological, self-serving dishonesty and narcissism?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I mean, it stands to reason the Congressional seat wouldn’t remain voided. I thought that would just be understood. Isn’t what you’re doing right now the very thing you’re claiming others are doing?

- Doc

[Gunnar]

Of course it was redone. ?? I’m not sure what point you were attempting to make, though. I was pointing out that it seems, of late, the GOP is projecting its own worst traits onto the Democratic party with regard to to elections.

- Doc

The point is there are valid concerns for distrust. Blaming and shaming with insults and accusations of "projecting," especially with blatant omissions of things like an election being redone where past concerns or malfeasance was validated in comparison to standing/laches being evoked in other federal elections, is nothing more than ideological fits.

It does not seem like an election was redone and two years later the courts used standing/laches in sequence. It is fair to surrender to that fact without twisting it into some sort of victimization or threat.

Despite your denials to the contrary you seem more like a delusional Trump sycophant with every post you make!

[Gadianton]

Mayan,

How would elections need to be set up in order for them to be trustworthy?

It's not an area on intense research for me, but it seems to me at the end of the day, you're stuck with either trusting a) people or b) technology.

subgenius offered several examples of technological "anomalies" he and his guys suspected as fraud during the election. None of it moved the needle for me.

People will always be suspicious, and technology is not understood well enough by most people, and in the end, it's implemented by people who can supposedly press a button and change everything. Including both the human and technology components, there are innumerable moving parts. Maybe one day there will be a simple blockchain solution that will be nearly invincible. But I don't believe for a second that such a system would be trusted, because the logic behind it would be too complex for most people to understand, and all they need is a reason to disbelieve it, such as, their candidate didn't win.

Anyway, what is your suggestion?