hmm is that wrong? maybe the election workers just knew that the people didn’t *really* intend to vote for Trumphttps://twitter.com/jsolomonReports/status/1424565433391255552 …
-
-
Replying to @soncharm
I mean, it seems reasonable. The story has one main example of such a ballot--the voter marked all Democrats with a check mark, including a check mark for Biden, but seems to have accidentally checked Trump and then scribbled it out.pic.twitter.com/f1lglC8wYl
4 replies 2 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @stuartbuck1 @soncharm
This is an example *against* the idea that the election officials were conducting fraud? The marks aren't signed so that looks exactly like a ballot where an election official did that would look.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @soncharm
By that logic, a perfectly-filled-out ballot would be even better evidence of fraud--who could ever do it perfectly except for an experienced election worker who was committing fraud? Fraud is apparently in no need of evidence, and is beyond disproof. It's a religious belief.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @stuartbuck1 @CovfefeAnon
You hit a truth here - election legitimacy ultimately relies on 'belief' - or rather, trust. Rigid, a priori, & less-subjective procedures are conducive to trust Improvised & more subjective/human-dependent procedures, less so (but might 'count more votes') So what's the goal?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @soncharm @CovfefeAnon
Agreed in theory, but in practice the former won't ever work when you're dealing with deliberately-stupidified people who don't know how anything works but just "know" that everything is fraud--they can never be satisfied.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @stuartbuck1 @CovfefeAnon
I mean, it's not like American election history - including recent history - is devoid of examples justifying their distrust It's a regular occurrence nowadays to hear about how 'ha ha Daley stole the election for JFK in Illinois' for example Did this stuff...stop?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @soncharm @CovfefeAnon
It's one thing to say, "A bad thing happened once (or twice)," and another to say, "Absolutely anything that I see--clean ballots, corrected ballots, anything --shows that the bad thing happened again, and there is no conceivable evidence that can falsify my religious belief."
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @stuartbuck1 @CovfefeAnon
Objective, a priori, transparent procedures give some cause for confidence that the bad thing was only 'once (or twice)', & is now less likely Surely you concede 2020 - if only due to its hastily-made-up & in some cases unlawful mail-in-balloting - wasn't exactly stellar at this
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
>Surely you concede... He'll never concede anything because why should he? Why are you buying into his frame that you have to convince him *of what he already admitted*?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.