5 ms·
You're begging the question by calling it a "free and fair election". The dissent is whether that is actually the case. And if it is not, then the eradication
by dbsights 6y ago
You're begging the question by calling it a "free and fair election". The dissent is whether that is actually the case. And if it is not, then the eradication of that dissent is terrifying.
- danaris 6y agoThe question has been raised in over 60 different legal challenges. Every single one has failed utterly to show any evidence that it was not. At this point, claiming there is any doubt means you are asserting an unprecedentedly massive conspiracy. It doesn't make you fair-minded, nonpartisan, or somehow above the fray. It makes you either deliberately attempting to sow unfounded doubt, or so ludicrously and willfully blind that you might as well be complicit in the attempt to overthrow the government.
- dbsights 6y ago"Agree with me or you're guilty too". Those challenges were defeated on procedural grounds, not because of a lack of evidence. The investigations of the 2016 election were started for less.
- slowhand09 6y agoThis initial point you make in this statement... applies exactly to the impeachment that already happed. And to the Kananaugh hearings... Orange Man Bad is emotional, not factual.. Most proponents of this are unable to pinpoint much if anything "Bad" done by Orange Man.