4 ms·

Re coin flip: yep! Very true. So even small things matter, and having foreign intelligence services hacking and leaking internal documents from one side is far

Re coin flip: yep! Very true. So even small things matter, and having foreign intelligence services hacking and leaking internal documents from one side is far from a "small thing" IMO. > So which high-level co-conspirators are serving life in prison? I thought you said there's no evidence! Are we moving the goal posts to "convicted to life in prison?"

throw310822 1y ago
> So even small things matter The real point is not how does a candidate get the few thousand votes that determine his/ her victory; it's the many tens of millions of votes that lie underneath and that make the last few thousand count. The result is a coin flip, but one between two candidates that are almost equally liked (or disliked) by 150 million voters. > Are we moving the goal posts to "convicted to life in prison"? More like using an official proxy to determine the value of those reports. If there is a credible report of a coup (which must involve a plan to illegally take control of the institutions of a country, especially those that have the "monopoly on violence"- National Guard, army, police, etc.) and which is one of the gravest crimes against the state, then there must have been severe convictions at the highest levels.
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  > The real point is It depends on what you're trying to argue. If someone is saying "Hillary/DNC is excused from blame for losing because the Russians backed Trump," they're wrong. If they're saying "the Russians backed Trump and there is clear evidence they backed Trump," then that's absolutely correct and I think is a "real point" standing on its own given that this intervention was invited by Trump himself. I think "don't invite hostile intelligence services to meddle in our elections" is like table stakes for holding office in this country, but what do I know. > If there is a credible report of a coup... then there must have been severe convictions at the highest levels. This is not even remotely sound logic and frankly I don't believe you believe it either. I'll ask you again directly: have you read the January 6 report? Or was I supposed to interpret "I haven't seen evidence for XYZ" to mean "I deliberately avoid exposing myself to evidence for XYZ?"
  - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
    (Too late to edit): Just to illustrate how silly your criterion is: leaders of the Confederacy weren’t even convicted of sedition or treason. Your heuristic is a self-defense mechanism, not a tool for thinking.
    - dragonwriter 1y ago
      > Just to illustrate how silly your criterion is: leaders of the Confederacy weren’t even convicted of sedition or treason. Not pursuing the charges after they were filed in many cases was a political decision made for purposes of reconciliation, not an indication of innocence. This is not an uncommon outcome of Civil Wars (neither is the opposite extreme, though.)
      - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        In other words: the criterion is a bad one, for this reason among plenty of others. Lack of convictions is unrelated to lack of existence or lack of evidence.

throw310822 1y ago

> So even small things matter The real point is not how does a candidate get the few thousand votes that determine his/ her victory; it's the many tens of millions of votes that lie underneath and that make the last few thousand count. The result is a coin flip, but one between two candidates that are almost equally liked (or disliked) by 150 million voters. > Are we moving the goal posts to "convicted to life in prison"? More like using an official proxy to determine the value of those reports. If there is a credible report of a coup (which must involve a plan to illegally take control of the institutions of a country, especially those that have the "monopoly on violence"- National Guard, army, police, etc.) and which is one of the gravest crimes against the state, then there must have been severe convictions at the highest levels.

sorcerer-mar 1y ago
> The real point is It depends on what you're trying to argue. If someone is saying "Hillary/DNC is excused from blame for losing because the Russians backed Trump," they're wrong. If they're saying "the Russians backed Trump and there is clear evidence they backed Trump," then that's absolutely correct and I think is a "real point" standing on its own given that this intervention was invited by Trump himself. I think "don't invite hostile intelligence services to meddle in our elections" is like table stakes for holding office in this country, but what do I know. > If there is a credible report of a coup... then there must have been severe convictions at the highest levels. This is not even remotely sound logic and frankly I don't believe you believe it either. I'll ask you again directly: have you read the January 6 report? Or was I supposed to interpret "I haven't seen evidence for XYZ" to mean "I deliberately avoid exposing myself to evidence for XYZ?"
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  (Too late to edit): Just to illustrate how silly your criterion is: leaders of the Confederacy weren’t even convicted of sedition or treason. Your heuristic is a self-defense mechanism, not a tool for thinking.
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    > Just to illustrate how silly your criterion is: leaders of the Confederacy weren’t even convicted of sedition or treason. Not pursuing the charges after they were filed in many cases was a political decision made for purposes of reconciliation, not an indication of innocence. This is not an uncommon outcome of Civil Wars (neither is the opposite extreme, though.)
    - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
      In other words: the criterion is a bad one, for this reason among plenty of others. Lack of convictions is unrelated to lack of existence or lack of evidence.