You're inserting yourself into other people's conversations and then getting upset from the inevitable confusion.
There are no private conversations in a public thread. If I had something I wanted to say over an 'overheard' conversation I
sometimes interjected in the hope of carrying an issue not (yet) mentioned, perhaps because I'm the only one to think of it, perhaps because of the asychronicity and intermitenf nature of thread participation with many people from various timezones with further dispirate patterns of free time. (And someone who has clearly read new things can
later go back and respond to earlier items, as you have. Which may be due to the New Replies mis-linking/dislocation, or just a stroke of inspiration.) If I'm confused over what has been said between two others, I may ask.
I didn't actually give you a reply on this. I noticed - but didn't want to pester A "false dilemma" is a logical fallacy creating a false choice between two options. You can allow "544" fraudulent votes OR you can disenfranchise "countless thousands" of voters. It does not consider the possibility for preventing fraud while also making sure legitimate votes can cast their votes.
Given it has been demonstrated that the 'attempts to prevent fraud' , as discussed, were actively disenfranchising non-fraudulent voting, then this remains a true dilemma. This is regardless of the degree of disproportionatality (whether it has a net effect of swinging the vote-difference) or intent (whether the choice of solution was deliberately chosen to 'fix' the alleged problem but also/primarily to enact such a partisan influence over the total).
You also inserted yourself into my conversation with Duuvian:
...
I actually replied to you on this one, saying: "I don't need to show that to prove what he was asking for."
This is what I mentioned I was taking great pains not to aggressively/insultingly/whatever reply to, so eventually did not. The final reply (which was very tame, of the "maybe you believe this" level of acceptance) sat unsent overnight while I slept on it,
then discarded it in the morning. Your lack of response to other items encouraged me to let it drop. In a moment of weakness, I take your current flurry of responses as licence to try to properly close off my part in this by tying up the loose ends.
In context, Trump is asking Raffensperger to "find 11,780 votes" that went to Biden but were fraudulent and should not be counted. That's perfectly legal if (hypothetically) there are 11,780 fraudulent votes and Raffensperger throws them out, netting Trump a win. It's also perfectly legal if (more likely) there aren't 11,780 votes and Raffensperger doesn't throw out any legal votes.
It's difficult to prove Trump is asking Raffensperger to throw out legal votes when looking at the full context of the call. ...
"You will find", "you know that", etc, are strong language, when coming from a 'superior'. If it is not a command of "do as I say", it's a terrible misunderstanding of what is true and false, and/or a breakdown of theory-of-mind, and/or a sign of being misbriefed. At best, it shows that the President was not well-advised, but that may just be one aspect of an ultimately ill-advised attempt at reality-bending.
{{mulitiple issues}}
{{disputed}}
{{unbalanced}}
{{geographical imbalance}}
{{speculation}}
{{political POV}}
But in Fulton, where they[who?] dumped ballots[weasel words], you will find that you have many that aren’t even signed,[verify source] and you have many that are forgeries.[example needed]
{{fiction}}
OK, you know that.[citation needed] You know that.[clarification needed] You have no doubt about that.[better source needed] And you will find, you will be at 11,779[according to whom?] within minutes,[dubious - discuss] because Fulton County is totally corrupt,[original research?] and so is she,[neutrality is disputed] totally corrupt.[self-published source]
...at the time I decided it was too sanctimonious, and I've not really changed that opinion (plus I can now see some better tweaks, if I wanted to continue down that particular rabbithole), but it was still sitting on another tab that I hadn't yet closed but will do now.
I hope that clears things up.
Not particularly. I understand where you're coming from, but remain unconvinced that you are not just fronting it up/in blissful denial. I'm not qualified enough to try to negotiate an Intervention for you on either of those fronts, if you don't already see this.
Author
Topic: AmeriPol thread (Read 3593231 times)