[knaq]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

> 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]

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...

[rootusrootus]

> You should have thought about that when you supported weakening election security

It's difficult to take Republicans seriously when they didn't file a constitutional lawsuit against every state who implemented vote-by-mail in response to covid-19, just the four states that would need to be disqualified in order to make Trump the winner.

> Next time, maybe cooperate on election security? Is that too much to ask?

Sure, no problem. Fund the FEC and make it their mandate to find every eligible citizen and issue them a free election ID card. If your answer continues to be 'make it a state ID, and by the way we will make it so DMV is only open one day every two weeks for a couple hours in this black neighborhood over here' then it just looks like continued attempts at voter suppression.

You can't try to pretend you are acting in good faith when it is so obvious you aren't.

[knaq]

Nobody sane would waste money on a lawsuit in a state that doesn't matter.

It's just plain racist to suggest that black citizens don't have ID. It is required for guns, which are actually a constitutional right unlike voting for president. It is required to buy beer, rent an apartment, use most government benefits, or get a job. It's even required to enter many campaign events for democrats! So, that doesn't sound like good faith at all.

Funding the ID is fine. Some bullshit election ID card is no good. It needs to meet the normal standard, as specified by the Real ID Act of 2005. The US passport would be acceptable; let's make those free. The military ID would be acceptable.

Say, want to bias it against republicans who never travel to foreign countries? Make a US passport the only valid identification. I'm fine with that.