An epistemic hygiene problem precipitated by Trump’s machine-gun bullshit production is that or only differs in degree rather than kind from what everybody does, so it’s a question of drawing a line at “reasonable level of speculative spitballing.”
-
-
Show this thread
-
Note that others have made the exact same claim, just with different implied sources of delay. So it’s not prima facie an unreasonable claim. The problem is people like me think he’ll be the source of any delay or fraud. He’s pretending he’ll be the victim of it.
Show this thread -
Objectively, he’s got the most ability to both cause delays and (were he an entirely different person) mitigate them upfront. If things go south, the option to cause delay will be crated by some rogue elector or governor in a red swing state, but he’ll be the one to exercise it.
Show this thread -
I think that’s the fundamental problem with a lot of Trump claims: he acts like he’s a helpless spectator in situations where he has the most agency to reduce uncertainty. The correct version of this headline is “Trump threatens to cause weeks of delay if he’s losing”
Show this thread -
If I said the exact same things, I’d be making predictions. In his case he’s making promises.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
He doesn't need evidence; he's declaring his intent.
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.
What different standard applies to a highly interested party with an interest in claiming the benefit of doubt from absence of evidence?