CatOfTheDecade t1_ir2axmz wrote on October 4, 2022 at 8:27 PM

Reply to comment by Thecrawsome in Trump allies interviewed nearly 200 election officials in PA, elsewhere to probe for weaknesses by Open_Veins_8

Whenever I see someone arguing and they throw out a "gotcha", I always immediately assume their argument has no merit whatsoever and the other guy won.

CatOfTheDecade t1_ir1vxkg wrote on October 4, 2022 at 6:54 PM

Reply to comment by Odd-Seaworthiness330 in Trump allies interviewed nearly 200 election officials in PA, elsewhere to probe for weaknesses by Open_Veins_8

It gets better. They filed dozens of lawsuits alleging just about everything under the sun, and when asked for evidence, they (1) refused to produce any, (2) were unable to produce any, (3) claimed that producing any would unfairly harm their case, or (4) presented something like an alleged secret agent who would only give his codename of "Wolverine" and demanded the court sign an affidavit declaring the trial to be held under maritime law or whatever.

They lost every single time. The judges have already shut them down, over and over and over again.

CatOfTheDecade t1_ir1vkzt wrote on October 4, 2022 at 6:52 PM

Reply to Trump allies interviewed nearly 200 election officials in PA, elsewhere to probe for weaknesses by Open_Veins_8

For anyone wondering, here's how these "interviews" typically go:

Interviewer: "So who did you vote for in the last election?"

Interviewee: "Candidate X"

Interviewer: "Did you verify that?"

Interviewee: "No, I ... what?"

Interviewer: "Can you prove beyond any shadow of doubt that your vote was actually registered for Candidate X?"

Interviewee: "I chose Candidate X. I don't know what you're asking."

Interviewer: "So you admit that you have no idea what the source code of that voting machine looks like."

Interviewee: "No, I've never seen the source code."

Interviewer: "So you can not definitively say that you voted for Candidate X."

Interviewee: "I can definitively say that. I voted for Candidate X."

Interviewer: "But you just admitted that you do not know what the source code of the voting machine looks like, and earlier when I asked you to definitively prove beyond all shadow of doubt that your vote was actually registered for Candidate X. Why are you refusing to just answer the question? It's a very simple question. What are you hiding?"

They aren't interested in "auditing the election" or "just asking questions". That's a sham front designed to burn people out from arguing with them. It's about replacing democracy with a permanent ultraconservative ruling party under the guise of "the will of the people".