Please critique my proposed policy to ensure an honest vote

[NotfooledbyW]

NFBW: In Post ** #368 ** I, NFBW suggested and I meant in a spirit of bipartisanship that CONGRESS PASSES A LAW. . . .

“that directly states if a one term president does not concede his loss officially by mid December following certifications of electors in all fifty states and do everything in his or her power to facilitate the peaceful transfer of power to the incoming president / he will be stripped of all the benefits of being a former president including secret service protection, plus do prison time for a minimum of one year and up to 20 years max.”​

NFBW: Here is the first and second response to Post ** #368 ** from a couple of conservative melting snowflakes on this thread, including the OP Foxfyre who I thought was seeking ideas here on how to put an end to the widespread distrust of our election process including mistrust based on hearsay and disinformation from losers of elections.

ART221014-#397 “You are an idiot of the highest caliber! Congratulations, dumbass!” from the eloquent Admiral Rockwell Tory

Foxfyre221014-#399 “Won't call anybody names but he sure is trying to derail the thread”

NFBW: Apparently suggestions dealing with the deliberate and direct cause of the mistrust is classified as “derailing the thread by idiots” in lieu of a meaningful discussion across ideological lines for my contributions to this thread.

So again my question is to Foxfyre is why my suggestion in Post ** #368 ** in your opinion “derailing your thread” ?

Once again when challenging a conservative and/or a religious right Christian of any degree I am in a situation where my questions are the answer when they do not respond intelligently and sincerely or at all.

END2210160848

 

[NotfooledbyW]

We CARE about the INTEGRITY of our vote. I will not have my vote stolen or diluted.

NFBW: Are you equally concerned about having your vote count after the election results has been certified and sealed by all fifty states on the specific timeframe that is constitutionally mandated, of which Mid December following a presidential election and January 6 and January 20 are two more of the most critical dates?

Do you understand what is unconstitutional and perhaps unintended but misinforming about Foxfyre ’s affirmation. . . .

What the Jan 6 protest was all about until a few idiots decided to start a riot was to convince Congress to delay that certification until the investigations and audits could be completed.

END2210160913

 

[scruffy]

Scuzzy....So the same standard applies to believing in unicorns, bigfoot, and the Easter bunny.... zero proof exists for the existence of any of those items as there is zero proof exists for this mythical voter fraud you "believe" happened. Right?

Why do you keep lying?

You're a liar

Fuck off

 

[scruffy]

. Eventually they will either stop or go away or stop voting all together....

No, eventually the people doing this will get their sorry asses beaten to a pulp.

You heard it here first.

Any of the 3 three are wins for the left.

If you say so

 

[scruffy]

You said earlier that we used to count ballots by hand.

I asked you when the last time a place like Orange County counted their ballots by hand.

You, of course, never answered.

Why? Because it would point out how tragically stupid the idea is of hand counting 3,000,000 ballots with 40-50 observers watching every counter.

---

When Trump runs again, and loses again, you'll swear that election was illegitimate if he tells you to. So for you to talk about honor is rather hilarious.

STFU and GTFO

 

[scruffy]

NFBW: Are you equally concerned about having your vote count after the election results has been certified and sealed by all fifty states on the specific timeframe that is constitutionally mandated, of which Mid December following a presidential election and January 6 and January 20 are two more of the most critical dates?

Yes. I care about the fucking bastards stealing and diluting my vote

Hell yes I care.

Do you understand what is unconstitutional and perhaps unintended but misinforming about Foxfyre ’s affirmation. . . .

What I know is you're derailing the thread by talking about some bullshit succession law.

Dude - get this through your thick leftard head. The more you bullshit, the more you will be EXCLUDED from everything that matters

That is correct. Excluded. The opposite of diversity and inclusiveness.

 

[postman]

NFBW: In Post ** #368 ** I, NFBW suggested and I meant in a spirit of bipartisanship that CONGRESS PASSES A LAW. . . .

“that directly states if a one term president does not concede his loss officially by mid December following certifications of electors in all fifty states and do everything in his or her power to facilitate the peaceful transfer of power to the incoming president / he will be stripped of all the benefits of being a former president including secret service protection, plus do prison time for a minimum of one year and up to 20 years max.”​

I would still provide the former president with secret service protection as a national security issue, since you don't want somebody knowing the nations highest secrets to be kidnapped by a hostile power, and out nations secrets water-boarded out of him.

And i'd make the punishment more definitive. Six months in jail for every day that the transition is delayed by. So complete blocking of the transition from December 12th to January 20th, would be forty days, or 20 years.

I would also reduce his presidential pension by 4% for each day the transition is delayed. Which means if denied through January 6th, the point the pension would reduce to zero, and for the next 14 day be charged an annual amount of up to 50% of the presidential pension.

 

[scruffy]

I would still provide the former president with secret service protection as a national security issue, since you don't want somebody knowing the nations highest secrets to be kidnapped by a hostile power, and out nations secrets water-boarded out of him.

And i'd make the punishment more definitive. Six months in jail for every day that the transition is delayed by. So complete blocking of the transition from December 12th to January 20th, would be forty days, or 20 years.

I would also reduce his presidential pension by 4% for each day the transition is delayed. Which means if denied through January 6th, the point the pension would reduce to zero, and for the next 14 day be charged an annual amount of up to 50% of the presidential pension.

Can you find another thread please?

 

[candycorn]

No, eventually the people doing this will get their sorry asses beaten to a pulp.

Ahh, more veiled threats from the Internet tough guy... you're hilarious.

You heard it here first.

No...You guys have been threatening to beat up people for decades now.

 

[candycorn]

STFU and GTFO

I guess she can't defend herself so she has to rely on a trained monkey like yourself.

 

[scruffy]

Ahh, more veiled threats from the Internet tough guy... you're hilarious.

That wasn't a threat dumbass, veiled or otherwise.

You leftards are very fucking retarded.

No...You guys have been threatening to beat up people for decades now.

Yeah really?

You seem to know an awful lot about someone you never met

 

[scruffy]

I guess she can't defend herself so she has to rely on a trained monkey like yourself.

Excuse me

That's Highly Trained monkey, to you.

Which makes me more qualified than the jackass in the White House.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I would still provide the former president with secret service protection as a national security issue, since you don't want somebody knowing the nations highest secrets to be kidnapped by a hostile power, and out nations secrets water-boarded out of him.

And i'd make the punishment more definitive. Six months in jail for every day that the transition is delayed by. So complete blocking of the transition from December 12th to January 20th, would be forty days, or 20 years.

I would also reduce his presidential pension by 4% for each day the transition is delayed. Which means if denied through January 6th, the point the pension would reduce to zero, and for the next 14 day be charged an annual amount of up to 50% of the presidential pension.

Thank you. I can agree with everything you say. On the national security issue I do not know what it would take to protect our national security from a violating former president who cannot be trusted to keep national secrets from our enemies outside of some form of justifiable custody of an untrustworthy former president who has shown no respect for the constitution in the first place.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

So I propose what I believe is a system/policy that, if implemented, will ensure roughly 99.9% honest and fair elections. Do you agree? If not please state your reason why it would be bad policy.

What is your data baseline starting point to get to 99.9% honest and fair elections?

in the category of presidential elections since WWII ENDED will you tell me what you Foxfyre believe is the current percentage point and how much below 99.9% honest and fair elections are we with our current process?

END2210161311

 

[NotfooledbyW]

(Millions of Democrats never conceded that Bush won that election.)

Gore conceded. His is the only concession that mattered.

2000 was an election that was not a question of fraud. It was a process discrepancy that had to be settled in court. We are obligated as Americans to accept the final decisions of the courts. That is what we need right now.

I criticize this thread for having no concern that the losers of the last election have respect for the rule of law and the courts and the constitution.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I do think it quite possible under the systems used in 2020 to steal an election whether that favor a Republican or Democrat.

Are feewings now going to replace the rule of law while you tinker with voting machines for the rest of your life.

 

[scruffy]

I criticize this thread for having no concern that the losers of the last election have respect for the rule of law and the courts and the constitution.

Go tell Nancy Piglosi.

We all operate by the same rules here.

If you want respect, show some

 

[Lisa558]

What is your data baseline starting point to get to 99.9% honest and fair elections?

in the category of presidential elections since WWII ENDED will you tell me what you Foxfyre believe is the current percentage point and how much below 99.9% honest and fair elections are we with our current process?

END2210161311

Right now we have about 40% of the population, who, after observing all the anomalies and shenanigans, question the integrity of the election. That’s a BIG problem when nearly half of all voters don’t trust the process.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Right now we have about 40% of the population, who, after observing all the anomalies and shenanigans, question the integrity of the election. That’s a BIG problem when nearly half of all voters don’t trust the process.

That is not my question. Here is my question again:

In the category of presidential elections since WWII ENDED will you tell me what you Foxfyre believe is the current percentage point and how much below 99.9% honest and fair elections are we with our current process?

I say we are at 100% based on the FACT that 100% of the states in the last election certified their results by the December 14 deadline. And there was absolutely no evidence that the certified results were corrupted by fraud in any way.

 

[scruffy]

That is not my question. Here is my question again:

In the category of presidential elections since WWII ENDED will you tell me what you Foxfyre believe is the current percentage point and how much below 99.9% honest and fair elections are we with our current process?

I say we are at 100% based on the FACT that 100% of the states in the last election certified their results by the December 14 deadline. And there was absolutely no evidence that the certified results were corrupted by fraud in any way.

You keep repeating this LIE.

IT'S A LIE

You're a liar.

(Or an ignorant lemming, or both).