if it was him, that's exactly and all it could or would be.
This is what passes as empathy for conservatives. They're incapable of seeing things from other people's points of view, they can only take their own view and project it onto others.
Apply this to EVERYTHING they've ever said another people is going to do, or what the other person's motivations are, or really anything.
Accused of a crime? You can be held for to to 24 hours without official criminal charges.
Accused of being in the country without documentation? You can be held indefinitely, but maybe they'll let you out sooner rather than later if they decide to acknowledge that they were wrong to nab you.
So profoundly fucked up.
The modern concepts of conservative and liberal are born out of the French Revolution. Conservatives were the monarchists, and they still are.
So there's this phenomenon where a person can change their mind because of learning new information.
For example, a person can reasonably say "Our elections are safe and secure" and then, after learning new information, say "Our elections are so insecure."
The last four years don't undermine the current claims because there was no credible evidence that the election was compromised then. But new information contains evidence that this time the election may have been compromised. This new information can and should encourage people to change their minds about how secure our elections are. Changing your mind in the face of new information isn't hypocrisy, it's rational thinking.
As for your last paragraph, confirming the number of people who voted and the number of ballots recorded does nothing to verify that the ballots were recorded correctly. To do that they need to audit the paper ballots against the computerized count, which is a massive undertaking that will require a lot of time and money. There's nothing simple about that.
Look, I don't completely disagree with you. IMO the only thing that's going to stop the fascists (without taking us into full blown war) is a general strike. And it's frustrating to see nothing but planned demonstrations, schedule to a specific day, and only for that day. A protest with a scheduled end time is a protest that's planned its own failure.
But that's not what's happening in LA, and that's why the fascists are trying to put it down so hard. This thing is finally, organically, taking on a life of its own. Will it last? Does it have staying power? Who knows, but why discourage it? Why be cynical and reduce the chance that this time is different even further? You're literally the problem you just complained about.
All of that said, I genuinely understand why you're cynical. All I can really say is that you gotta be the change you want to see in the world. I hate using a canned phrase like that but in this case it's deeply true.
Ya hear that everyone? Cancel the protests! We just gotta buy some bumper stickers and t-shirts, and Trump will be done for! Thank goodness Melvin figured it out, we'd be in real trouble otherwise!
Interestingly, Mexico is celebrating a change in their constitution that let's them elect judges.
I don't think the problem in America is the fact these people are elected. I think the problem in America is Americans.
Well, that's the federal government and these are state governments. Of course not THIS federal government, they mean the other federal government, the shadow government. You know the one that disobeys laws, kills millions of people for financial gain, covers up the pedofilia and drug problems of their membership, ignores the Constitution, and is trying to change the world for their own benefit? Well not that one, the other one that tries to keeps everything functioning, root out corruption, and write rules to try and protect people. THAT shadow government. It's evil dontchaknow and these new laws will definitely show them that the states won't stand for it any more!
But that's not the point of insurance, which is a cost-sharing practice (presumably, ideally) designed so that the person who DOES get the ambulance ride doesn't have to pay for the whole thing themselves and go into financial ruin because of it.
Your argument is profoundly selfish and it's logical conclusion is the abolishment of insurance altogether.
They do it because it creates a premise, a justification, for policy changes and to bully private entities into following new policy. It doesn't matter that the documents they're using for justification are incorrect and mostly fiction because they'll never admit to that. Any attempt at rebuttal will be completely ignored and they just keep repeating "we have to do X because of Y justification and if you don't do X also then you hate America."
I think we can expect Iran to just keep on fighting back, but who I'm REALLY looking at now is Pakistan. They said that if anyone attacked Iran besides Israel, they would enter the war on the side of Iran. Even if America's participation in the war stopped here (not fucking likely) if Pakistan follows through with their threat then this escalation really, honest to God, could be the start of WW3.
Because here's the thing: India has been trying to goad Pakistan into their own war for a few months now. So here's my prediction, although be warned it gets a little crazy after the first 5 points:
Ultimately, the two sides:
THE AGGRESSORS
THE RESPONSE
Oddly I see Australia sitting this one out, as their politics are far enough right to not want to go to war with their traditional allies (eg, the USA) but not left enough to support the response in any meaningful way. Something would have to force their involvement.
As for Central and South America, it's a mixed bag. Obviously some countries like El Salvador will support Trump, but I think most of them will defend Panama if they get involved at all. I certainly can't see Argentina and Chile being ok with just letting anybody pass Cape Horn.
Africa I just have no fucking clue. China has been involved in a lot of African countries in very big ways that the African countries aren't entirely happy about. They could take advantage of the circumstances to seize and nationalize Chinese assets within their borders, which puts them at odds with China/Russia/Israel/et allies and I think they would be pretty ok with that. South Africa in particular I think may take a more active role against the aggressors, given their position controlling the Cape of Good Hope.
Tldr if this plays out anything even remotely like what I've written here, and I really REALLY how it doesn't, we're all VERY FUCKED.
(This is a work of total conjecture, I'm probably wrong, so don't waste your breath telling me I'm wrong. That said some of my logic may not be obvious, so I'm happy to answer questions to clarify my thoughts)