3 ms·
So we're just going to keep moving the goalposts? I don't believe you're arguing in good faith. What does it take to convince you? Does video evidence of peo
by stray 10y ago
So we're just going to keep moving the goalposts?
I don't believe you're arguing in good faith.
What does it take to convince you? Does video evidence of people involved in the Clinton campaign bragging about voter intimidation suffice? Or do you not think voter intimidation counts as rigging an election?
So what's good enough? We've got some pretty damning emails that can be proven not to have been altered (DKIM) -- is that good enough?
Clearly, voting machines supplied by companies with ties to the Clinton foundation having "glitches" that always work in favor of Clinton isn't good enough.
Do we consider Clinton having received debate questions beforehand to be rigging? Or do we just ignore that a candidate for President of The United States has just been proven to have CHEATED -- because that cheating wasn't dishonestly counting votes with PROVABLE INTENT?
I could bring up the "coincidence" of the Democratic Party bus caught illegally dumping raw sewage on the side of a road in my hometown -- miraculously coinciding with an unprecedented early voter turnout. But why bother? We'll just move the goalposts further.
Whatever. It doesn't matter. Because even with a completely rigged system -- we're going to elect Trump anyway.
- AnimalMuppet 10y agoI'm not moving the goalposts at all. I told you several posts upthread what the word "rigged" meant to me. (That was your word, but you didn't define it, so I did, because I suspected that we didn't share the same definition. So if I'm moving the goalposts, I did it then, and it's taken you until now to notice :-)
- stray 10y agoI defined the rigged election as comically lopsided MSM support for Clinton and conflict of interest regarding voting machines -- but you wanted to define it instead, as "the votes are not counted honestly". I didn't think it completely reasonable to restrict the definition that way, but accepted it. You asked for evidence of your more restrictive definition -- and I provided it. There's plenty more now. And Pennsylvania State Police seem to be in the middle of a raid that'll likely provide yet more. You decided that machines removing or changing votes was "votes not being counted accurately" (apparently in your world, changing votes after they've been cast is only inaccurate -- not dishonest) -- and continued "It's only not being counted honestly if it's deliberate." So first we moved the goalposts to establishing evidence of votes not being counted honestly. Then when that evidence was provided, suddenly the goalposts move to proving it was deliberate? But not only that, you nudge the goalposts further by asking "Is there any evidence that this is systematic and country-wide? Or is it just one incident in Texas?" Let's review the movement of goalposts: - move from my assertion that the system is rigged to your more limited "the votes are not counted honestly" - move from there to "It's only not being counted honestly if it's deliberate." - move from there to "Is there any evidence that this is systematic and country-wide? Or is it just one incident in Texas?" There is in fact, evidence from the Dem primaries that voting machines with paper audit trails matched pretty closely to exit polls -- but machines without a paper audit trail disproportionately voted for Clinton. Widespread. Country-wide. So where shall the goalposts move now? Do we have to get video of somebody on team Clinton erasing and changing votes on paper ballots? (you do realize we have video of that too during the primaries, right? -- you know, the very recent rigged election where the nomination was stolen from Bernie Sanders)