You keep saying that. You should work for CNN. As Rand Paul pointed out today there are two legitimate sides to this story. I know you don’t accept that
-
-
Replying to @BlueBoxDave
Dave, you know better. Trump's stolen-election stuff was wrong. Wrong on the law, wrong on the facts, wrong in how a president should use power. Do you disagree?
19 replies 1 retweet 18 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank
I don’t love how he handled it. But your hyperventilating over it is ridiculous.
2 replies 4 retweets 55 likes -
Replying to @BlueBoxDave
It is not a matter of love. It is a matter of what is true or false.
8 replies 1 retweet 23 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank
So you think there was nothing irregular or wonky in pandemically challenged election? I strongly disagree.
7 replies 13 retweets 138 likes -
Replying to @BlueBoxDave @baseballcrank
Come on, man—a massive increase in mail-in ballots + massive drop in invalid ballots + rule changes removing signature requirements etc—that = “most secure election ever.” Obv.
10 replies 56 retweets 236 likes -
Replying to @davereaboi @BlueBoxDave
The standard is not “most secure election ever,” it is whether there is competent evidence that the outcome was fraudulent.
3 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank @BlueBoxDave
I think it’s clear that those things (which are largely not identifiable after the fact) contributed to influencing millions of votes. If it had made a difference, maybe. I’d call that a kind of fraud because it was absolutely pre-meditated to give this result.
4 replies 21 retweets 80 likes -
Replying to @davereaboi @BlueBoxDave
"contributing to influencing," in the absence of any assertion of falsifiable fact, is not an argument tied to evidence or law at all.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank @BlueBoxDave
I agree it’s beyond scope of legal challenge. But it’s still clearly intentional fixing of the election on a massive scale. If minority-area polling places were closed early, you’d have no problem admitting there was “fraud” even if we’ll never know if it would’ve changed result.
5 replies 9 retweets 45 likes
This is...an assertion highly inconsistent with my writings over the years. I have often argued against precisely this style of contention about "voter suppression" from the other side.
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.