I thought old housey was banned from his fraud conspiracy argument around here?
Okay, so the drunk then.She is the lady that many falsely claimed to have been drunk, yes.
And a forensic investigation would reveal why the votes matched the poll book tallies, and put this matter to bed once and for all.There are a lot more checks and balances, though, aren't there? Like Ms. Carone, who claims an extra 30,000 ballots were scanned through. And yet when queried why the votes matched the poll book tallies, could merely claim, apropos of nothing, that they fixed the poll book. It doesn't matter how genuinely concerned witnesses sounded, or what their perceptions were: without corroborating evidence it's just so much hot air.
I'm responding to the claim "And there isn't anything that can give them that security that it's never rigged" with "this is what can give them that security", and that led us to go over what was and wasn't done, and whether or not it should be viewed as sufficient. I'm not spreading any conspiracy, just showing empathy.I thought old housey was banned from his fraud conspiracy argument around here?
... by spreading conspiracy theories.I'm not spreading any conspiracy, just showing empathy.
No, you're not. You're, at best, enabling and, at worst, spreading the conspiracy hoping no one sees through your rather meagre disguise.I'm not spreading any conspiracy, just showing empathy.
No you're not. You only see the people who spread the conspiracy theories as real people with genuine concerns. All those who have put hours and hours of efforts to ensure the elections went smoothly and than ended being harassed and threatened were of no concern to you.Yes, I watched dozens of hours of hearings, and dozens of witnesses giving testimony about how they were obstructed from doing their jobs, their jobs as the "checks and balances" you talked about. The observers, challengers, and workers, and nothing came of it. I think Arizona subpoenaed the ballots and wanted them to be forensically audited by Jovan Pulizer, but some other authority is currently blocking him from doing that.
I see these people who I watched testify, democrats, republicans, and independents, not as grifters or charlatans, but real people with genuine concerns.
Just like when someone is killed by the cops, their family's grievances don't go away just because a judge says "not guilty", or rules that something isn't admissible in court on a technicality.
Yeah sure, but the "empathy" line was a straight up lie. He's on record as being uneducated on American politics and law, doesn't fact check, doesn't check sources, and gets his talking points from a donaldtrump like subreddit site. That anyone believes he still posts in the politics threads in good faith is beyond me.Real empathy would be helping those who believe in this conspiracy come back to reality with the rest of us. It would be providing education on how they're wrong and giving them training in the critical thinking skills necessary to not fall back into such delusion.
There's no irony here. I don't empathize with you or your beliefs anymore than I do with flat eathers or moon landing deniers. Two sides of a debate don't have two equally compelling arguments. That storks deliver babies is not a competing theory in medical school.Is the irony lost on you?
"No, you're not showing empathy and understanding! Let me just call you and everyone who disagrees with me a liar! That's REAL empathy!"
You don't have to. I'm not (or at least I wasn't), the subject of discussion. The subject we're supposed to be discussing are the REAL PEOPLE with legitimate grievances who stood in front of congressmen and senators to testify about their doubts in this recent election.I don't empathize with you or your beliefs
Those "grievances" were dismissed in due process by other REAL PEOPLE who were equally concerned with the matter. That you or anybody else is still hung up about it means nothing.The subject we're supposed to be discussing are the REAL PEOPLE with legitimate grievances who stood in front of congressmen and senators to testify about their doubts in this recent election.
They do not have and never had "legitimate grievances" anymore than flat earthers do. This is the whole "not obligated to validate your feelings" part. It doesn't matter if they truly in their heart of hearts believe the election was stolen, they're wrong. And reality doesn't need their approval, and neither do facts. That's the beauty about facts; they're true regardless if you know them or not.You don't have to. I'm not (or at least I wasn't), the subject of discussion. The subject we're supposed to be discussing are the REAL PEOPLE with legitimate grievances who stood in front of congressmen and senators to testify about their doubts in this recent election.
Those "grievances" were dismissed in due process by other REAL PEOPLE who were equally concerned with the matter.
Legitimate grievances are dismissed in due process by REAL PEOPLE all the time. For example, Tamir Rice, Trayvon Martin, Breonna Taylor...They do not have and never had "legitimate grievances" anymore than flat earthers do.
There is a difference between a legitimate grievance, and a "legitimate grievance". The one is quotes is the one the election deniers are using. The quotes are used to denote a lack of credibility and that what they are is in fact not that. The "legitimate grievances" of the election deniers were based on provable untrue assertions, made up graphs and numbers, purposefully edited information, and straight up lies. That is not a real legitimate grievance, that is a "legitimate grievance", ie the not real one.Legitimate grievances are dismissed in due process by REAL PEOPLE all the time. For example, Tamir Rice, Trayvon Martin, Breonna Taylor...
Should the people who suffered the loss of these people just say "oh well, I guess I shouldn't have a grievance after all" and go on with their lives?
They should just stop being "hung up" on these injustices, right?
Their grievances aren't legitimate, they're simply "wrong" in the face of "facts" as SilentPony put it. They're on the wrong side of history.
It seems like the difference is whether or not you agree with the grievance.There is a difference between a legitimate grievance, and a "legitimate grievance".
A forensic investigation into why everything appears to be normal and proper? Are you serious?And a forensic investigation would reveal why the votes matched the poll book tallies
How much empathy are you showing people upset and angry at their election being derailed and their choice of president undermined by a lie? How much empathy are you showing the officials accused of cheating, or who have faced threats to lose their jobs and even their lives?So like I said, that's partisanship and lacking in empathy.
Not into "why everything appears to be normal and proper", into why these witnesses (plural!) saw what they saw, and yet, the books matched.A forensic investigation into why everything appears to be normal and proper? Are you serious?
That's who I'm showing empathy for, the people upset and angry at their election being derailed and their choice of president undermined by a lie.How much empathy are you showing people upset and angry at their election being derailed and their choice of president undermined by a lie?
None, because they have the power to turn that around by doing the audits. That's all anybody ever asked for.How much empathy are you showing the officials accused of cheating, or who even have faced threats to lose their jobs and even their lives?