The strongest case for PRC/DNC collusion was spending 2016-2020 accusing Trump of working for every hostile foreign power, except the PRC. Explanation one is the Dems could not afford to have people looking at their relationship with the PRC. Explanation two is simply that the Dems could not afford to piss the PRC off.

I would note that the newer claims are not the same as shifting the blame to the PRC to spare the DNC. Executing on this possible means of fraud requires a lot of Democratic organizations, who to fit the pattern would have needed to have been around for some time.

The basic problem with election security is that as professions, politicians, lawyers, and electrical engineers have handled a multidisciplinary problem in an extremely destructive way. Not all EEs are security types, but the ones who are realize that software security rests on hardware security rests on physical security. Potential mistake number one was the politicians telling us that we had to be wary of hostile state actors; By implication this includes the PRC, whose ability to fabricate compromised hardware means that safeguards require either physical security and unprecedented levels of bipartisan inspections, or a complete return to purely paper and purely paper/mechanical systems. Then the lawyers screwed up by refusing to to discard 'votes' from precincts where physical security has not been verifiable. We are left with a situation where anyone can justly conclude that the claim of fairness must be a knowing lie, and hence there is no moral claim that an election resolves anything..

My main concern is not any one technical claim or statistical anomaly. It is being told very strongly that there is no possible explanation other than 'the election was fair'. Charitably, Bill Barr and the heads of law schools may have no real idea what the facts actually are, while having confidence that their background makes them experts.

Now, I do have many other concerns about electoral process. I have a much more comprehensive view of the level and scope of reforms that would be necessary and sufficient. But, the hardware security situation is the most clearly and conclusively troubling element.

Since the ACW, or at least since the end of Reconstruction, there had been a sorta peace agreement between Democrats and Republicans, to almost lay the war to rest, and let bygones be bygones. Part of this was letting the Confederate symps have their war memorials, which are even somewhat justified, because the Confederate fighters then were honest, valorous, and respectable compared to moderns who are serious Democrat partisans. Another part of this was pretending* that Democrat electoral victories were anywhere near fair and decisive, despite that everyone could have understood that the Democrat victories could be explained by the use of terrorism to suppress the Republican vote. JFK was frauded** in, but that was less of a problem, despite his buddy buddy with white supremacist terrorism, because Americans in general could trust that he was not a communist, and would not be carrying out a general mass murder of Americans. Now, A) Democrat leadership is stupid enough to be caught making messaging decisions that could be explained as them being communists out to commit mass murder B) they have comprehensively disavowed the old peace deals between Democrats and Republicans. Biden and Biden's backers made a stupid decision in not taking the L, and can eat the costs in Biden being viewed as illegitimate, and in subsequent officials feeling entirely free to reverse any or all of Biden's 'accomplishments'.

My personal suspicion is that the Democrats have been comprehensively frauding since the 1990s, and that the claim that they have any actual popularity with voters is a bit questionable. But, we don't need to go that far, we can test it with elections that are reasonably verifiably honest. All we need to do is ignore the possible legitimacy of any elections until we have the process adjusted to no electronics, no mail in, repealing motor voter, auditing aspects of how federal courts are handled, and the DoJ Civil Rights division are not the only lawyers allowed to file law suits contesting elections.

Caveat: I am hugely partisan, and incredibly biased against the Democrats. I have not for a moment believed the 'the parties switched places narrative' since my early to mid teens. There are fifty sets of state parties, it is substantially untrue in at least one state, and it would need to be true in all fifty states for it to have the weight that has been claimed for it since the 1960s. In my view, Jim Crow means that the same arguments apply to the Democrat Party for 'it would be inherently immoral, as well as practically stupid, to support a political organization with that history and that track record of tactics' that apply to the NSDAP. The most generous I will be to Democrats is 'screw both parties, the Republicans have an extremely troubling history of being relenting in hostility towards the Democrats, and frequently even cooperate with Democrats'.

* ** Yeah, look at EVs for the states that rebelled over the course of the 20th century. When you add in the unions, and the big city machines in the North, it is possible that /no/ Democratic President of the 20th century was honestly elected. Sure, a lot of white voters were extremely salty about Reconstruction, and about pretending that the strategically insane*** decision of succession was at all a matter of them being hard done by. I haven't looked into the proportion of blacks enough to figure out if those states would have been competitive for the Republicans if the there had been a way to prevent the Democrat Confederate veterans from carrying out terrorist insurgency**** after the war.

***There was no way to ensure that separate nations could have delivered peace, because there would be little grounds to prevent further successions. And, 'Lincoln started the war' misses that an exit without a negotiation defaults to a state of war. The CSA committed to a Civil War, and was very optimistic about being able to win, and being able to enforce peace. The Union was actually closer to realistic, and much closer to pulling it off. Still, I hate to say it, but we /owe/ Robert E. Lee for it being even possible to pull enough of it off as we did.

****The mainstream histories never***** line up the details for you, but an interesting number of the 'wild west' 'bandit gangs' were to themselves and to their supporters revolutionaries preparing for the South to Rise Again.

*****Yeah, the teacher's unions pissed me off when I was a kid. The historical narratives just happening to line up to their political interests is too convenient.

Posted by: PatBuckman at 08:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1135 words, total size 7 kb.