In another 4 years (or sooner), if this issue isn't cleared up to the satisfaction of all parties, do you think that the Republicans, who still feel that they've been wronged, won't retaliate in some way? So isn't it in everyone's best interest to do just that? I'm just using my safety imagination here, but I guess that makes me a nerd.
You don't give a young child what it wants every time it throws a tantrum, otherwise you merely teach it that tantrums get results and it'll throw them forever. Or you could view it as like putting a professor of geography up against a flat earther to debate whether the Earth is spherical, and declaring the conclusion must be half-way in-between. The satisfaction you want is unreasonable and based on a lie. It doesn't merit being met.
I love this idea "the Republicans are going retaliate". What a laugh! Perhaps you didn't notice, but they deliberately stacked SCOTUS by appointing a nominee in utter hypocrisy to what they argued four years before just because they could. I didn't hear you guys sitting around saying "Mm, maybe we shouldn't, the Democrats might retaliate", you were too busy whooping and hollering with excitement at the opportunity to skew the justice system your way for decades. The Republicans declared no-holds-barred war long ago, and haven't shown the slightest inclination of backing down. Unity is dead. Amity is dead. Constructive co-operation is dead. It is nothing but retaliation and naked grasping power, and that's how you and your boys have wanted it: our way or no way. The Republicans would not dream of offering the Democrats an inch, so the Democrats don't owe you one either. Sure, this will mean the USA will probably collapse into civil war or secession eventually, but that'll basically just be because of what Americans themselves wanted.
It's corroborated by not one, not two, but several affidavits that republican poll workers, when they were escorted out, everyone else cheered, and that there were people who were only there to agitate the republicans whenever their mask slipped, or they got more than six feet closer to anyone.
So it seems very likely to be true.
Firstly, I don't really give a monkey's if the staff cheered when Republican observers were ejected
for breaking regulations. It ain't a crime to cheer arseholes who break safety guidelines being shown the door. Maybe the Republican poll watchers shouldn't have broken regulations and got themselves thrown out, and maybe the counters might have been more friendly if you hadn't spent months calling them corrupt before they'd even started their job.
Seems to me all the bogus complaints that have flooded in are evidence that Republican poll watchers were there in bad faith. Lots of these affidavits are bullshit. Vague accusations of suspicions from which no conclusion can be drawn and in some cases are just insanity. Bless, your "chaotic good" women, allegedly fresh out of a suspended sentence for computer crime so I hear (!), declared by a judge to not be credible, hurling random accusations she can't hope to back up, and putting up pics of her and Giuliani on the social media accounts that she claimed in the hearing that public hostility had forced her to close down.
Well I guess the election isn't so important after all. If you can't dedicate resources to having a safe and secure election, then your priorities are backwards. You get what you pay for.
Indeed you do. Remind me, which party runs the legislature in these states and thus oversees their election organisation, and which party is obsessed with cutting taxes?
Also, I like how you're saying both "we don't have enough resources to prevent fraud!", "there was no fraud! Our elections are safe and secure", and "how dare you suggest disenfranchising people by requiring ID" at the same time.
I like how you can't exercise reading comprehension.
Not all fraud can be prevented. The key is to have reasonable measures to restrict fraud, accepting that measures to further restrict fraud have considerable cost increases for diminishing returns. One might therefore set an approximate target for acceptable error. The reality is that the USA's anti-fraud funding appears to be adequate, because as Bill Barr -Trump's cronytastic best buddy head of the DoJ - put it: "To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election". Nor will you, because it doesn't exist. And everyone is bored stiff of you yammering away about fraud, fraud, fraud, empty affidavits, the dregs of social media bullshit, hysteria and rumour, and never ponying up one substantial claim yet.
The problem therefore with what you're saying is to slap a massive load of expensive regulations on elections that basically don't do anything. There's no meaningful fraud to prevent. And then you're complaining about fraud in the
mail ballots to argue for voter ID used when they turn up to the polling station. As you are proposing a measure that will not prevent the fraud you claim is occurring, therefore you are dishonest and this is a scam to cover an ulterior motive.
