Search results for query: *

Let's pick one example that's impossible to contest. He said 'about 300'. The number is actually 216. An obnoxiously large reaction image does not change the fact that 216 is not about 300. That's not 'stupid minutiae'. That is a clear and verifiable discrepancy between Trump's words and facts...

Sure, some of those are matters of interpretation. But I submit that a lot of them are objective and verifiable. Trump said that Biden would ban all fracking. Biden did not say that he would ban all fracking; he said that he would not expand fracking on federal land. Trump said that he...

I don't see any of that makes Donald Trump the sort of person whose word you should believe in a case like this. He lies consistently and blatantly - he lies about what's in front of your very eyes. If Donald Trump told me the sky was blue, I would go to the window to check. The point is that I...

You know, the character who said that was intentionally deceiving the man she said it to, and then went on provide aid and comfort to his enemies, undermine his rule over a planet, and defect to his foes. Just for context. You have more faith in Donald Trump's word than you do in, well...

Relevant update: I may not be American, but Krebs seems to have been a fine example of a civil servant in a time of chaos, and I applaud his actions. Standing up for truth - and for the professionalism and integrity of your subordinates - when your own job is on the line takes courage, and...

He's just an evangelical Anglican professor I'm a fan of. I'm not presenting him as an expert or anything. He's just a guy I like.

Krebs was head of CISA, a cybersecurity agency in the DHS. It handled election security, and also countered lies and rumours about the election. Turns out Jacobs' read was correct: it would indeed stay up until Trump fires the director and replaces him with someone willing to lie.

Well, now I'm curious. Who am I actually, as a person?

I think I will stick with my current policy of only saying what I sincerely believe to be true.

*shrug* And they say I'm a covert rightist. I can't win. Aldarion, even if it were correct that you could predict Democratic strategy in the 2020s from Yugoslavian communists in 1945, that would have no bearing on the simple, empirical question of whether or not this election was legitimate...

It's true, I haven't used this topic to condemn something entirely unrelated to this topic and to what I was talking about. Wait, what? I do not consider myself to be on the right or on the left. Sometimes people call me conservative (usually left-wingers), and sometimes people call me...

Fair enough for biting the bullet. :) I'm not sure what that has to do with me?

If that's your standard then every single US election should have a full audit. I would say that all irregularities should be investigated, but a full audit is only required after a threshold of irregularities is reached. What on Earth are you talking about? I'm sorry, but this is flatly not...

Irrelevant. We're not talking about Russia, and I do not intend to be sidetracked. In your last few posts, you've had a few sentences like this - they just cut off in the middle. You might be having computer trouble? I think that if there is no real evidence of fraud - and there isn't - then...

I don't see where I made any claim about Russian interference. As such this is not a valid response to me. Hm? Recounts are perfectly fine. Georgia's going to have a recount, and I have no objections. Close results should have multiple counts. That's just good practice. I don't see how that...

Media outlets have always called elections prior to the electors meeting. They did in 2016, they did in 2012, and they did in 1912. There is absolutely nothing nefarious about media outlets trying to project the winner of the election as early as is reasonably possible. So let me put it this...

Let's take it as read that pretty much every media outlet, from Fox to the BBC to the People's Daily over in China has called the election for Biden. One possibility is that there's some sort of conspiracy or shared malicious agenda whereby a small handful of owners are all pushing a shared...

Remember that 'the media' in this case is not a single organisation with a single voice. We are talking about dozens or hundreds of independent media organisations all over the world. A key part of my argument is that this is not a matter of, say, the New York Times playing down something...

Oh, the media certainly hate Trump. That was never in question. But that's not what the question is. The question is not, "Does the media hate Trump?" The question is, "Was there election fraud?" This is the same media that did not hesitate to call the election for Trump in 2016. Today we are...

My response would be basically, "Such scandals do occur, but the scandal or conspiracy alleged here is far, far larger than that". This is not a case of left-leaning papers spinning the news uncharitably. For the fraud argument to be plausible, you don't just need the New York Times to be lying...