Is it the “without evidence” that seals it for you? That’s what’s at issue here IMO. Disagreement over what the threshold of evidence is. I think data anamolies justly deserve investigation (just like in bank fraud) as well as attempts to conceal counting activity.
-
-
W odpowiedzi do @IAmSunnyDan
Justin Jackson podał/a dalej Nathan Quarry
Dude. The PRESIDENT should not make allegations of large-scale fraud (and theft of the election) without evidence. He’s sowing discord and mania.https://twitter.com/NateRockQuarry/status/1324484399052677120 …
Justin Jackson dodał/a,
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 4 polubione -
W odpowiedzi do @mijustin
Do you remember the last 4 years of yelling about the President’s illegitimacy, racism (but somehow increased his share of POC vote), russian collusion? Yeah, all pushed by these same people trying to act like they have a history of being calm and reasonable.
2 odpowiedzi 0 podanych dalej 0 polubionych -
W odpowiedzi do @IAmSunnyDan @mijustin
And while there’s no smoking gun evidence yet (maybe there won’t ever be) there’s still enough signal for a reasonable person to question IMO. (Subtracting confirm. bias of course)
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 0 polubionych -
W odpowiedzi do @IAmSunnyDan
There’s no reasonable suspicion yet by anyone credible. Who, besides the President’s entourage, is saying this? What proof have they presented? Show me your references Dan!
2 odpowiedzi 0 podanych dalej 0 polubionych -
W odpowiedzi do @mijustin
Credible? Seems you’re only relying on the appeal to authority heuristic to make your decision here. Here’s what makes me think there really *could* be fire behind the smoke. Statistical anomalies. Banks detect fraud this way (they’re NOT Trump cultists afaik).pic.twitter.com/wYnJtfrdTY
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 0 polubionych -
W odpowiedzi do @IAmSunnyDan
Sorry, did you just reference a credit card pamphlet and an anonymous Twitter account as your primary sources?
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 2 polubione -
W odpowiedzi do @mijustin
I realize you’re falling back on ad hominem attacks because you’re avoiding the actual argument. Try again
If data anomalies are used as the primary mechanism for detecting bank fraud, why isn’t it appropriate for detecting vote fraud?1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 0 polubionych -
W odpowiedzi do @IAmSunnyDan @mijustin
And by the way Justin, I don’t expect you to be convinced that there IS fraud based on what I’m saying. At this stage confirmation bias almost guarantees that you won’t be. (I’m not either... just suspicious) But maybe open your mind a bit to see you’re in a bubble too?
2 odpowiedzi 0 podanych dalej 0 polubionych -
W odpowiedzi do @IAmSunnyDan @mijustin
Dropping this here because it’s relevant. If the danger on the right is to fall for unfounded anon rumors, the danger on the left is to simply believe anyone with “credibility”.pic.twitter.com/n7GmS9l6Me
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 0 polubionych
In that quote, Carl Sagan uses the President as his example of “authority.” You can have a hypothesis, but it needs to be supported by facts. https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/ …pic.twitter.com/HFZUBbjSJs
-
-
W odpowiedzi do @mijustin
I agree with this. But IMO appearance of wrongdoing begs a closer look. (And you wouldn’t argue that Dems have no motive would you?) Here’s an example of what appears like intention to obfuscate. Can you honestly say you could detect ballot irregularities from that distance?pic.twitter.com/UTWfIfxk2Q
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 0 polubionych - Pokaż odpowiedzi
Nowa rozmowa -
Wydaje się, że ładowanie zajmuje dużo czasu.
Twitter jest przeciążony lub wystąpił chwilowy problem. Spróbuj ponownie lub sprawdź status Twittera, aby uzyskać więcej informacji.
building