subgenius wrote: ↑Mon Jan 04, 2021 8:37 pm
canpakes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 04, 2021 2:49 am
No chagrin involved there. Just amusement that you have taken this long to seemingly admit that no ‘widespread’ fraud occurred.
"this long" ? because on November 25th (over a month ago) I posted:
Not widespread, but rather narrow and targeted.
You are like the
Alexandria Ocasio-CortezKG of this board.
You are dishonest, no corner, no paint.
Yes, “that long”.
Let me help you understand how words work, first by repeating your referenced post here, in its entirety:
subgenius wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 2:17 am
canpakes wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 1:54 am
Feel free to post examples of this widespread voter fraud, when you’re ready.
(... maybe right after you explain your figure of ‘7000 more Trump votes’ found in Georgia ...)
As uncomfortable as it is to stand more adjacent to Ajax than to...well, than to almost anyone else except Schmo or Icarus/Hawkeye/KG - I must interject.
Not
widespread, but rather narrow and targeted.
But for you anomaly and coincidence are easily exchanged and even more easily dismissed.
But alas, federal judges and State legislatures do not seem to share your sentiment.
You would notice two things, if you were alert:
1. At this point, I didn’t ask
you anything, let alone if you believed in any fraud. I’m not even asking ajax if he believed that it happened. I’m asking for examples.
2. Similarly, your response didn’t offer a statement of
your personal belief. Your attempt to merely modify the description or type of fraud is
not an assertion that you believe that fraud exists - be it widespread, or narrow, or targeted, or any combination of those.
Your repeated innuendo that you had
something to show for your claims as if you believed them in
any way led me to ultimately ask you directly if you even
believed any of them ... which was a question that you dodged for pages and pages, until you realized that continuing to do so would make you look either stupid, or dishonest. Or both.
Having painted yourself into a corner, you’ve now finally implied that you don’t think that
widespread voter fraud existed.
It took you a while, and you are still attempting to weasel out of a commitment to discuss what specific type of fraud you believe did exist, or whether it flipped the election ... but I applaud that you possess enough self-awareness to realize that your act is a dead end, and that you perceive that settling into ‘dishonest’ at this point is the safer bet. : )