3 ms·
False equivalence. She literally said “this is not to challenge the result of the election. George Bush won the election, and that is not in dispute” Further,
by the_gastropod 3y ago
False equivalence. She literally said “this is not to challenge the result of the election. George Bush won the election, and that is not in dispute”
Further, her reason for doing this was to bring attention to actual voter disenfranchisement [1]. Comparing this to perpetuating obviously fabricated fraud claims with the sole intent of overturning the election is nothing short of absurd.
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/ohio-s-voter-purges-were-upheld-supreme-court-doesn-t-ncna882146 https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/ohio-s-voter-purges-we...
- koolba 3y agoIt’s exactly the same thing as both boil down to objecting to the certification of a State’s electors due to concerns about the electoral process. The “why” is completely irrelevant and claiming one is some heroic noble pursuit is laughable. I’ll ask again, what exactly did Zeldin do that Pelosi did not? Both exercised their right to speak out and either neither is in the wrong, or it’s the usual case of double standards.
- the_gastropod 3y agoThey’re exactly the same in the sense that pinching someone and shooting someone in the head are exactly the same: inexcusable violent acts.