Aesop has a good one. Even small actions, in concert, will have a great deal of effect.
The hard part is doing so without getting caught..... or, in planning, not giving the government notice when someone informs.
Easy to plan, much more difficult to execute on a meaningful scale.
The comments, however, are priceless.
The hard part is doing so without getting caught..... or, in planning, not giving the government notice when someone informs.
Easy to plan, much more difficult to execute on a meaningful scale.
The comments, however, are priceless.
5 comments:
Hmmm... So a 'law-abiding' conservative, advocating for anarchy/insurrection, because an election didn't go the way he wanted. Interesting.
And before you start saying it's because of the 'damn Librals' using the court to change the election, remember the 2000 election.
Dale
What, Florida? Trying to change the outcome of a close election?? Yeah, the DNC tried then too.
And it isn't like they have changed their tactics even today. The DNC types tried in 2000 and failed, and yet, they will likely win this year in the Governors election with those same tactics. Were it up to me, ANYONE failing in their oath to keep the elections honest would be in prison....No matter what the party. The BLATANT attempts in Florida are but one example.
I sincerely hope that no one ever uses the tactics mentioned in the blogpost I linked. And it would seem that trying to get enough folks to act in concert would result in jail time.
But if the DNC wants to invalidate the Ballot Box, then they leave few options as to which other Box is used.
What are you talking about, B?
In Florida, now and just like 2000, the margin of vote totals was so narrow as to make a recount automatic. Bush led the election night count. The recount showed a narrower margin. Gore requested a recount manually and while that request was being considered, it was the Bush camp (R) that joined a lawsuit to stop the recount. Afterward, in the middle of a manual recount, Florida officials stopped the recount. Gore then sued to resume the recount that Florida law dictated.
Your vision of history is slanted and incorrect. It wasn't the Dems that tried to change the outcome of an election. They sued to follow Florida law and to recount the ballots. It was the Bush group that sued to halt the recount and NOT follow Florida's election laws.
Its really very simple. Follow the laws that are on the books. If you don't like the laws, elect representatives that will change the laws.
Now as for the other blog, I think its hypocrisy to claim to be conservative and law abiding, and then list numerous ways to cause disruption and chaos in our society just because he/she gets butt-hurt about and election on the other side of the country. (He/she lists themselves an being behind the 'Orange Curtain', ie Orange County, California)
You, me, and others can disagree on many topics. And we are fortunate to be able to discuss our opposing viewpoints in this country that allows the freedom to do so. But I should sincerely hope that by referring to that other blog, that you are not advocating the methods and mindset of someone who, on the surface, would rather create more problems than work to fix the ones we already have.
Again, your blog, you can have the last word.
Dale
So you think the shennanigans in FLoroda this election are OK? "Finding" bunches of provisional votes of dubious provenance in several counties? Then, against the law, comingling them with legitimate votes so that they can't be separated for a count?
At least in other states they follow the laws and the vote counts (whichever way they turn out) have some semblance of legitimacy.
Much like the 2000 vote count, wherein they tried to "determine" how the undervotes might have been intended...rather than simply counting them as non votes where the hole had not been punched for any candidate. ....and remember, EVEN BEFORE the 2000 election, they (the DNC) had their stories set that many people had been misled by the way the ballots were laid out.
How many times must votes be counted before the Dems will accept it if they don't get the result they want? Once, maybe twice when it is close...3 times? 5?
How many more "found" votes will they come up with? And isn't it odd that the votes that are "found" later are always disproportionally weighted to Democrats?
I trust no political machine. But when the attempt at fraud is so blatant, even a person as partisan an yourself must see it....if you are honest.
I do not advocate doing anything like the "Other Blog" suggested. And, in fact, I think it is a good way to go to jail, as getting enough people to do enough damage would result in a significant number of the people being informers, rather than actual participants. Having said that,... If your side keeps delegitimizing the elections (and getting ever more blatant about it), that sort of action might happen. I don't advocate it, but at some point, if the Ballot Box is no longer a legitimate way to express their wishes, people will turn to the Bullet Box.
Go ahead, tell me there is no voter fraud in Chicago, Florida, Philadelphia, or New Jersey....all DNC strongholds.
-100 pts. for poor reading comprehension.
Mischaracterizing the blatant and wholesale stealing of elections as mere "butthurt" is irredeemably dishonest. Bordering on deliberate disinformation. Gaslighting the prospect as though this is SOP and thus no big deal is even worse, and treads dangerously close to sociopathy.
Voting is "working within the system". And BTW, the election went exactly as I wanted it. It's the criminal conspiracy and serial federal elections felonies in the aftermath that pisses me off mightily, and should have the FBI, were they even minimally competent, swooping in like valkyries from Hell to root out the perpetrators. And now, the franchise of voting at all has been taken away, disenfranchising not merely me, but millions of citizens. This isn't some mere fit of personal distaste or disappointment, this is the outright theft of multiple congressional seats, in multiple states. And those nominally responsible for preventing that, or enforcing laws in response to it, are as lackadaisical about such criminal conspiracies as the commenter.
But worst of all, they failed to note that I advocated no such anarchy nor insurrection.
Sorry that obvious fact escaped you as thoroughly as the rest of the post, but it is what it is. Grammar: actually still a thing.
Post a Comment