3 ms·

Ah yes, the classic argumentative technique: "take the most reasonable and best-presented version of my side's arguments, and contrast with the craziest nutjob

Ah yes, the classic argumentative technique: "take the most reasonable and best-presented version of my side's arguments, and contrast with the craziest nutjob version of the other side's arguments." Here, I'll try: > There is a Grand Canyon of difference between these two that goes well beyond simply "anything one doesn't like": > 1. " Eliminating ID requirements in left-leaning cities, and extending early voting to before the debates affected the election." > 2. "Direct high-level collusion between one of the candidates and the Russian Federation, as part of a treasonous plot to overthrow American democracy and cover up the Pee Tape (they'll release it any day now!), stole the election." > The first are verifiable facts though the conclusion remains speculative. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wisconsin-voters-protection-voter-id-law https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wisconsin-voters-protection... https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/a-big-deal-for-voting-pennsylvania-relaxes-mail-in-ballot-rules-will-no-longer-match-voters-signatures/ https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/a-big-deal-for-voting-... https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/trump-or-biden-voters-north-carolina-could-pick-soon-next-n1235688 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/trump-or-bide... > The second is 100% pure made up BS, making the conclusion a summation of BS. You know the second is nonsense when even surreptitious recordings of CNN producers all loudly dismiss 2016 Russia collusion conspiracy theories as pure cow manure. Even Robert Mueller was VERY careful not to assert treason in his report due to the lack of evidence, even in front of a Democratic House of Representatives. Adam Schiff kept saying in front of cameras that there was evidence of widespread collusion. https://thehill.com/homenews/media/339632-new-okeefe-video-shows-cnn-producer-calling-russia-coverage-mostly-bullshit/ https://thehill.com/homenews/media/339632-new-okeefe-video-s... https://thehill.com/homenews/media/339867-okeefe-video-shows-cnns-van-jones-calling-russia-story-a-nothingburger/ https://thehill.com/homenews/media/339867-okeefe-video-shows... https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/21/adam-schiff-collusion-trump-12837cnn https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/21/adam-schiff-collus... https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/12/10/adam-schiff-russian-collusion-damning-sot-sotu.cnn https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/12/10/adam-schiff-r... > So yeah, I'd distinguish between the two. The first is speculative based on verifiable evidence while the second is demonstrably misinformation precisely because it lacks any evidence for its far more incendiary claims. The 2016 election taught me that the institutions I once believed to be respectable and honorable were actually completely dishonest and totally off their rocker. The 2020 election taught me that "my side" was capable of just as much insanity. To fix our problems, we must go beyond blind loyalty to our respective "teams."

ttfkam 3y ago
Thank you for illustrating the point. ID requirements were never "eliminated". In-person voting still requires some form of ID, your polling place is defined by your established place of residence, and anyone trying to submit another ballot in someone else's spot or trying to vote twice would immediately be flagged. Absentee ballots all have serial numbers (just look for yourself at the next election!), which are not just used to find duplicates during vote tallies but also when ballots that shouldn't exist are being submitted. The heightened ID requirements don't increase election security because fraud is already very rare. They do however disproportionately affect communities where folks were born at home rather than a hospital (a whole racist history in that nugget) and other folks where the name on their birth certificate doesn't match their current name—which affected many married women. Getting that ID also typically cost money and time getting the necessary documentation, bus fare, and lost wages. So without reducing fraud, folks with less money, people of color, and women are statistically less likely to be able to vote in the election: all demographics that are less likely to vote Republican. Quelle surprise! As for the Mueller Report, tell me you've never read the report without telling me you've never read the report. If you had, you would know it was clearly and forcefully stated that the ONLY reason no charges were recommended on the Executive Branch was because it was DOJ policy not to and that the gathered evidence should be taken up by Congress. That's it. The evidence was there; it was merely DOJ policy to not prosecute a sitting president. (Why yes, I have in fact read the entire report.) This information was then passed to Congress, where the House voted to impeach (the first time). The Republicans in the Senate, however, refused to allow witnesses in the impeachment trial and voted largely on party lines regardless of evidence. > On January 31, after a planned debate session, the Senate voted against allowing subpoenas to call witnesses, including former national security advisor John Bolton (who wrote in his forthcoming book mentioning Ukraine aid freezing) or documents with a 51–49 vote. 51 Republican senators voted against calling witnesses, while 45 Democratic senators, two independents who typically voted Democratic, and two Republicans (Mitt Romney and Susan Collins) voted for witnesses. https://archive.today/20200201193640/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/26/us/politics/trump-bolton-book-ukraine.html https://archive.today/20200201193640/https://www.nytimes.com... So yeah, "Grand Canyon".
- Georgelemental 3y ago

ttfkam 3y ago

Thank you for illustrating the point. ID requirements were never "eliminated". In-person voting still requires some form of ID, your polling place is defined by your established place of residence, and anyone trying to submit another ballot in someone else's spot or trying to vote twice would immediately be flagged. Absentee ballots all have serial numbers (just look for yourself at the next election!), which are not just used to find duplicates during vote tallies but also when ballots that shouldn't exist are being submitted. The heightened ID requirements don't increase election security because fraud is already very rare. They do however disproportionately affect communities where folks were born at home rather than a hospital (a whole racist history in that nugget) and other folks where the name on their birth certificate doesn't match their current name—which affected many married women. Getting that ID also typically cost money and time getting the necessary documentation, bus fare, and lost wages. So without reducing fraud, folks with less money, people of color, and women are statistically less likely to be able to vote in the election: all demographics that are less likely to vote Republican. Quelle surprise! As for the Mueller Report, tell me you've never read the report without telling me you've never read the report. If you had, you would know it was clearly and forcefully stated that the ONLY reason no charges were recommended on the Executive Branch was because it was DOJ policy not to and that the gathered evidence should be taken up by Congress. That's it. The evidence was there; it was merely DOJ policy to not prosecute a sitting president. (Why yes, I have in fact read the entire report.) This information was then passed to Congress, where the House voted to impeach (the first time). The Republicans in the Senate, however, refused to allow witnesses in the impeachment trial and voted largely on party lines regardless of evidence. > On January 31, after a planned debate session, the Senate voted against allowing subpoenas to call witnesses, including former national security advisor John Bolton (who wrote in his forthcoming book mentioning Ukraine aid freezing) or documents with a 51–49 vote. 51 Republican senators voted against calling witnesses, while 45 Democratic senators, two independents who typically voted Democratic, and two Republicans (Mitt Romney and Susan Collins) voted for witnesses. https://archive.today/20200201193640/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/26/us/politics/trump-bolton-book-ukraine.html https://archive.today/20200201193640/https://www.nytimes.com... So yeah, "Grand Canyon".

Georgelemental 3y ago