What’s the right standard of evidence for a claim like this if made by a neutral disinterested party, and what would constitute ‘evidence’? 🤔
What different standard applies to a highly interested party with an interest in claiming the benefit of doubt from absence of evidence?
Conversation
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.”
2
1
7
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.
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.
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”
2
25
