Right, and they're using those claims to support their participation. Can't have it both ways.
The part you're harping on is their justification for having taken 5 steps to assure themselves the vote was not tampered with.
-
-
again, why cite it if it's not relevant?
-
It IS relevant. To explaining why they took 5 steps to review the election. It's as if you've taken claim & put it 7 ¶s later.
-
ok, we can agree to disagree. Words matter, they included that for a reason. Again, hope Judge is a little more skeptical
-
Yes, words matter. So does logic. And what you're doing is treating words like bird splat rather than a logical construction.
-
that feeling is mutual. Thanks for the conversation.
-
Anyway, I think we've established you haven't proven you case w/either Hillary or Stein. Just that you found A Word. Bye!
-
who is we? The mouse in your pocket? "We've" established you'll ignore info that doesn't support your narrative. Cheers
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.