Is this the Dark Winter he was referring to?

thumb_up14thumb_downchat_bubble1

More from RhetHypo

A Brief Rant: Election Integrity TL;DR: The Democrats want the exact opposite of election integrity, and that's an objective fact. Ever heard of CIA? No, not the organization. It's an acronym for the security triad. Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability. The problem with security is that each of these points oppose each other, and must be carefully balance. You can make a server entirely confidential by encasing it in cement, but now you can't check the integrity of that data, and it's certainly not available to anyone. While Dems and Reps seem to be more or less on the same page in regards to confidentiality in elections, the other two points are where they disconnect. Dems want absolute availability, which necessarily hinders integrity. If you remove all barriers for voters, than you make it far easier for fraud to occur. Meanwhile, Reps are focused on integrity, establishing practices that make sure you don't get duplicate votes, fraudulent votes, stolen votes, etc. The primary method for doing this is ensuring you verify a person's identity before they are allowed to vote. While Dems call such verification suppression, I don't quite agree, consider Dems also want to force increasingly burdensome regulations that require those same voters to provide identification in different scenarios. The immediate example that comes to mind is background checks for guns. Which I think is reasonable, personally. We should perform at least rudimentary verification before selling someone a weapon so they are less accessible to criminals. Reps are largely on agreement with this, even if they oppose additional arbitrary restrictions on guns for law abiding citizens. It is the Dems that suffer cognitive dissonance on the fact that they want people they would not trust with a weapon weighing in on the direction of our country. It's strange, isn't it? Reps actually don't propose making voting unavailable for the citizenry, they just want to strike a balance. It should be Confidential and Available, but without sacrificing Integrity. Meanwhile, Dems want it Confidential and Available, no matter the cost to Integrity. All while they beat the drum about the Integrity of our democracy. That rhetoric all rings a little hollow for me. They are complaining we are losing something that they deliberately did everything in their power to discard.

More from RhetHypo

A Brief Rant: Election Integrity TL;DR: The Democrats want the exact opposite of election integrity, and that's an objective fact. Ever heard of CIA? No, not the organization. It's an acronym for the security triad. Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability. The problem with security is that each of these points oppose each other, and must be carefully balance. You can make a server entirely confidential by encasing it in cement, but now you can't check the integrity of that data, and it's certainly not available to anyone. While Dems and Reps seem to be more or less on the same page in regards to confidentiality in elections, the other two points are where they disconnect. Dems want absolute availability, which necessarily hinders integrity. If you remove all barriers for voters, than you make it far easier for fraud to occur. Meanwhile, Reps are focused on integrity, establishing practices that make sure you don't get duplicate votes, fraudulent votes, stolen votes, etc. The primary method for doing this is ensuring you verify a person's identity before they are allowed to vote. While Dems call such verification suppression, I don't quite agree, consider Dems also want to force increasingly burdensome regulations that require those same voters to provide identification in different scenarios. The immediate example that comes to mind is background checks for guns. Which I think is reasonable, personally. We should perform at least rudimentary verification before selling someone a weapon so they are less accessible to criminals. Reps are largely on agreement with this, even if they oppose additional arbitrary restrictions on guns for law abiding citizens. It is the Dems that suffer cognitive dissonance on the fact that they want people they would not trust with a weapon weighing in on the direction of our country. It's strange, isn't it? Reps actually don't propose making voting unavailable for the citizenry, they just want to strike a balance. It should be Confidential and Available, but without sacrificing Integrity. Meanwhile, Dems want it Confidential and Available, no matter the cost to Integrity. All while they beat the drum about the Integrity of our democracy. That rhetoric all rings a little hollow for me. They are complaining we are losing something that they deliberately did everything in their power to discard.