2 ms·

And no one is suggesting blocking a manual recount in the states where a candidate is entitled to one. > Suppose that's true. So what? We analyze the results.

And no one is suggesting blocking a manual recount in the states where a candidate is entitled to one. > Suppose that's true. So what? We analyze the results. We apply science. It can't change the result if it wasn't supposed to. You are implying that it is perfectly fine for Trump to spread wild conspiracy theories with no evidence because if those conspiracy theories are false then they will be proven false and no harm will be done. Except irreparable harm WILL be done to the democratic process in America, because there are tens of millions of Americans who worship Trump as an infallible god and will forever believe his claim that the election was stolen from him, even if all the allegations are thoroughly debunked and no evidence turns up demonstrating any kind of fraud.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> And no one is suggesting blocking a manual recount in the states where a candidate is entitled to one. There are plenty of people suggesting that Trump should concede immediately without going through any of those processes. > You are implying that it is perfectly fine for Trump to spread wild conspiracy theories with no evidence because if those conspiracy theories are false then they will be proven false and no harm will be done. The problem with Trump is that just about everything he says is a half-truth. It won't be entirely true but it also won't be entirely false. Some people think he does this on purpose. It causes his opponents to cover him by pointing out the part that's false and his supporters to defend him by talking about the part that's true, but in either case they're both talking about Trump and they're both talking about the issue Trump wants people to talk about. I assume that anyone who can figure out how to get Trump to stop doing this would be awarded a Nobel Prize. The trouble is that it means you can't just dismiss everything he says as a lie, because it's only half lie. I expect that when this is all over he'll have uncovered some modicum of voting irregularities but probably not enough to flip as many states as he needs to win, if any. But he's entitled to try. Now if only somebody would win that Nobel Prize.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> And no one is suggesting blocking a manual recount in the states where a candidate is entitled to one. There are plenty of people suggesting that Trump should concede immediately without going through any of those processes. > You are implying that it is perfectly fine for Trump to spread wild conspiracy theories with no evidence because if those conspiracy theories are false then they will be proven false and no harm will be done. The problem with Trump is that just about everything he says is a half-truth. It won't be entirely true but it also won't be entirely false. Some people think he does this on purpose. It causes his opponents to cover him by pointing out the part that's false and his supporters to defend him by talking about the part that's true, but in either case they're both talking about Trump and they're both talking about the issue Trump wants people to talk about. I assume that anyone who can figure out how to get Trump to stop doing this would be awarded a Nobel Prize. The trouble is that it means you can't just dismiss everything he says as a lie, because it's only half lie. I expect that when this is all over he'll have uncovered some modicum of voting irregularities but probably not enough to flip as many states as he needs to win, if any. But he's entitled to try. Now if only somebody would win that Nobel Prize.