“You must have cheated, because I would have.” No. We knew we were very likely to win (and we did). Significant cheating is very hard to get away with, and - - such cheating being proven, would leave us in a much worse position than simply losing.
-
-
Replying to @SignHexa @jrosen1033
No, that's old thinking. The press will make any cheating disappear, so there is no real penalty for the party, but perhaps for some individuals.
4 replies 0 retweets 22 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @jrosen1033
A) The press would not be able to hide fraud of that significance. The risk would simply be too great. B) You are now, without evidence, also accusing the press of partaking in fraud - because your accusations against the Dems are without evidence.
4 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @SignHexa @jrosen1033
What risk? The press got away with the Fine People Hoax, the drinking bleach hoax and the Russian Collusion Hoax and made money too.
5 replies 2 retweets 32 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @jrosen1033
Democrats would not be able to get away with election-altering fraud, and the press would not be able to hide fraud of that level. The results would always end up under scrutiny, because Trump would always dispute *any* election he lost. I knew that - everyone knew that.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Hence, impossible risk. The chance of in-depth scrutiny upon Dem victory, was always 100%. And we knew we were likely to win, regardless. So cheating would be idiotic. In other words; we didn’t cheat, Trump simply lost.
3 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @SignHexa @jrosen1033
This assumes people have not been routinely cheating and getting away with it for decades. And of course they have in cities.
2 replies 1 retweet 11 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @jrosen1033
Even *if* someone typically cheated, it would be impossible for them to get away with it *this time*, because of the irregular circumstances. And they’d know that. There would always be heavy scrutiny if we won. So cheating would be too risky, even IF you usually do.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @SignHexa @jrosen1033
When it comes to "stopping Hitler," there is no such thing as too much risk. But their blind spot was not knowing how much other cheaters were cheating too. They overshot the mark (78 million votes) and made it obvious. Now they will get caught.
3 replies 3 retweets 32 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @jrosen1033
Yes, there is obviously such a thing as “too much” risk when trying to stop Hitler. Any attempt with significant chance of failure, where failure is incredibly costly - and puts you in an even worse position - is obviously not strategically sound.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
Have you ever met a human? You only need a roomful of them to guarantee SOME will take stupid risks. And if humans consistently followed good strategies, nothing would look the way it looks.
-
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
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.