3 ms·
Yes I have, thanks for your concern. I have a cache of these links from earlier when I cared enough to argue. So you agree that the framing of “they pulled out
by lovecg 6y ago
Yes I have, thanks for your concern. I have a cache of these links from earlier when I cared enough to argue.
So you agree that the framing of “they pulled out a mysterious box from under the table” is completely false? That was the part being debunked. The story is “people started packing up for the day, then got asked to resume the work”. I fail to see what’s illegal about it. Where’s the fraud? Sure, if you’re already inclined to be suspicious you’ll find hints of problems in any little hiccup. That’s a little bit thin as far as proving a coordinated multi-state conspiracy goes.
- djsumdog 6y agoHow is continuing to count without observers present even remotely a good thing in one of the most controversial elections of our time? Why didn't they call the observers back in? Why dismiss everyone and then tell some people to go back to work with the process half broken? It's bad optics and it's a blatant ethical problem. We're at an impasse because we're literally seeing the same thing and also seeing two totally different things. It's kinda amazing, and tragic. I'm sure you feel the same.
- lovecg 6y agoYes I understand where you’re coming from. To me, if these are the facts it just seems like your garden variety bureaucratic screw up. I agree it’s bad optics, and I’d like all of my government agencies to be supremely competent but we have what we have. It’s a pretty big leap for me to go full conspiracy mode based on this. My hope is that years down the road when the dust settles we all should be able to see more clearly what happened.