I would have said “responded to” instead of “debunked,” unless my intention was to be misleading.https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1346426245333065731 …
-
-
I'm not going to give the same weight to evidence offered by some rando on YT claiming they've found statistical anomalies as I do an elected official who has actual data & has testified to the same. Especially when the official is from the same party as the one claiming fraud.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
We'd have to hear them first. Do you have them? Is that the "good stuff" we'll be seeing in two weeks?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I but the debunk of the debunk has, as its object, something different than the original debunk - namely the debunk. So there's nothing confusing or mysterious going on.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Unsurprising pivot, Scott doesn't even realize he moved the goal posts. So typical it's a classic
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Can’t wait for that to happen. Weird how that part always stays a hypothetical.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The funny thing is that we haven't heard the debunks of the debunks yet
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.