Barr authorizes nationwide election fraud investigations

Post Reply New Topic

It can be difficult to tell if you really don't understand what you're doing wrong, or if you're just playing around.

Actually, deceptive "reasoning" would be more accurate, given the substantial use of judgemental framing and assumptions made...Let's have a look:



Well, excepting the use of "master" to deceptively indicate he is unable to make his own decisions, this would appear reasonable.



And then, unsurprisingly, it's down hill...Assumptions\innuendo in the form of "pretending to act", "based on spurious rumours", "originating from QAnon", designed to inflame rather than inform, and ignoring\trying to deflect from the possibility that the "irregularities" (which require evidence\predicate to investigate, not simply "rumours" as implied) may (or may not) point to fraud, not that fraud needs to have been determined in order for the irregularities to be investigated - "the evidence may point to a possible crime", not "you need to know that a crime has taken place before you can look at\for any evidence".


And yet Mr Carr did not mention Mr Barr in the quote (I don't recall noticing his use of the inflamatory term "reprobates", either), meaning the quote including\referencing Mr Barr was either deceptively altered (given no mention that the source "quote" was targetted towards a different person than the one it was presented as being aimed at), or was entirely fabricated, and deceptively labelled as a quote.

Similarly, given the "democratic process" includes provisions for these same investigations which you now falsely assert "disrupt the democratic process", this indicates a degree of deception rather than "reasoning" being used.

And, for the third time (I cannot believe it is that hard to understand), I seem to recall recently requesting that you cease addressing comments or communication towards me...I'm happy to discuss the topic, but as outlined in the link, that is the limit to which I feel comfortable interacting with yourself.

Last edited by Brictoria on 10 Nov 2020, 4:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

Just reporting the news brother

No problems Bric, I understand it's uncomfortable dealing with the truth. Plus you have a difficult job defending the far right of politics, not an easy job. Farewell and goodluck.

I really wish someone would put a stop to this.

I stopped, just the entire rest of the world still thinks Trump is liar

That's scary.
And I'm not even in the US.

To what? Cyberdad made an important point.
Just because you disagree with it is no reason to shut him up.

That's not what I'm talking about.

Seemed to me Cyberdad made two factual statements, which can be inferred as linked.
Turns out he can't prove the link as it is his own inference.
But he's still entitled to present his opinion.

I think this could be quite funny if these votes were cast for Trump.

I would gladly listen to some legal geek explaining the relationship between stopping Florida recount in 2000 and keeping several recounts and investigations now.
USA law is not my special interest, so I don't feel competent to make the comparison myself but I would be very interested if someone presented it.

One thing that was vastly different in the 2000 presidential election involves the problem with punchcard voting. There were hanging chads and dimples where the voter did not put enough force to fully pop the paper loose. Those votes became a contested issue because it was such a close race. That one state held all of the cards to winning the election. Literally the election hung on how they were being counted. After that election, that voting process was retired for obvious reasons.

That issue is not what is being contested in this election. One side just does not want to accept the results of the election, so we now go into a stall tactic to try to change the results of several states’ contests.

There's a bit more to it than that as discussed here: viewtopic.php?t=392050

However if the claim is totally without merit, then it shouldn't last very long, nor have any affect on Biden's status as president elect that I can think of.

If you don't mind a couple of hours discussing the election and potential cases related to it, have a look at:

Having re-watched almost the full first hour of it:
* Discussion of "Bush V. Gore" (Florida 2000 recount) starts at 12:00 (before that is discussion of seperate topic)
* From Around 31:00 discussion about how citizens can contest the results, with discusion of re-vote possibility at 31:56 - 38:45 and leading into constitutional issues\procedures relating to the election.
* interesting discussion about electoral college and conceding from 45:20 - 51:30
Discussion continues on (video is 2 hours, 20 minutes or so in total length) about potential issues known or believed to have occurred at the time of the discussion, but being 2AM, it's a bit late to watch the rest and note interesting portions at present.

That said, 2:08:24 - 2:10:10 is also interesting, related to SCOTUS. (fast forwarded a bit to see if more reference to "Bush V. Gore popped up, but skipped over lots, so may have missed more discussion of it.)

Sorry, Bric, I really don't like videos. Sensory and language processing problems, I don't process text linearily.
Can you just write a few sentences summarizing these parts of the discussion?
Also, care to say who the disputants are? Youtube is full of everything, from professional lectures to craziest conspiracies.