I get that reading is difficult for you so you don’t want to mess with it, but if you read, and then you watch the video you didn’t watch yet, she says the same thing I did.
The guy was right before, we should do a recount, she just wants to pretend that “conspiracies” aren’t real despite the elector fraud scheme that happened 4 years ago.
while she literally lists conspiracies that happen every election season from the Republicans.
I can see why you were confused by the video, but I appreciate its support for my points.
The guy was right before, we should do a recount, she just wants to pretend that “conspiracies” aren’t real despite the elector fraud scheme that happened 4 years ago.
Need I go on? This “lifelong Republican,” (as he stated in his letter to Kamala Harris) has previously campaigned to reverse the 2004 election in which George W. Bush beat John Kerry–the year Bush won even the popular vote, by the way, not the year he actually stole the election in Florida.
He never questioned the 2000 election. She agrees that that one might have been stolen, but the dude claimed that 2004 was stolen. Not 2000.
So, what did you edit your comments for, if not for editing you calling her “right wing”. I can’t prove it, because lemmy doesn’t preserve edit history, but you called her right wing twice, then edited them, then called me a liar for referencing that.
So, why did you edit your posts? Why are you claiming pi-oting on what the video says? How is it defeatist, if it actually agrees with your points?
I get that you don’t like edits, but you should get into that because you make a lot of mistakes with what you write.
I use speech to text and then edit manually.
doesn’t change the facts Jack.
I edited my comments before you asked me any questions or made up your little stories.
also stop talking about 2000, the guy was right about the 2004 election (that’s another edit I made again before you asked me the question).
you can scroll up and try reading for a change.
"How is it defeatist, if it actually agrees with your points? "
because she isn’t calling for a recount, she’s telling everyone to calm down and just accept this possible conspiracy even though we all know that conservatives perpetrated a similar conspiracy for years ago.
she doesn’t like conspiracies I guess.
The word scares a lot of people.
it just means a group of people working together to do something.
I get that you don’t like edits, but you should get into that because you make a lot of mistakes with what you write.
Wrong. I edit all the time, since I make typos a lot. What I don’t like is backpedaling liars.
I use speech to text and then edit manually.
Then edit them before you hit send. 🙄
doesn’t change the facts Jack.
Don’t call me Jack.
made up your little stories.
What did I make up?
I edited my comments before you asked me
That’s a horrible way to write on lemmy.
you can scroll up and try reading for a change.
I read your comments. It’s not on me to check every minute wether or not you edited them since then.
also stop talking about 2000
You brought it up, smartass.
the guy was right about the 2004 election
Sure he was. /s
(that’s another edit I made again before you asked me the question).
If you write shit you didn’t want to and I reference what you wrote first, that’s on you, not me.
because she isn’t calling for a recount
wrong again. From the transcript:
Over the coming months, officials in every county will be certifying that the election was fair. Or as “fair” as our elections get these days. If that includes some hand-counting of ballots, I’m all for it. If someone wants to file a lawsuit to force the hand-counting of ballots, I’m all for that, too. Election transparency is good, even if it tells us something we desperately do not want to hear: that Donald Trump won the 2024 election.
and just accept this possible conspiracy even though we all know that conservatives perpetrated a similar conspiracy for years ago.
okay, but I guess if you don’t even know about the fake electric spot I understand why you keep making things up and don’t understand what I’m talking about.
I’ll let the rest of this slide
go read up on the conspiracy that involved voting and fabricating votes 4 years ago, maybe you’ll find it less outlandish that your buddy Trump might be trying it again.
There’s edits which clarify and there’s edits which completely change the message retroactively. Guess which one is horrible?
yeah dude if you don’t understand what I’m saying that’s on you.
That’s what the madman shouting gibberish at the town square claims, too.
bully for you. I’m not getting bogged down in your tangential nitpicking.
ok, so I take that as an admission that you didn’t watch the video. You’ve yet to mention one singular point she actually made. And you called her “right wing”. XD
what, did I guess your actual name accidentally? The most common name in the states?
Sugar, you’re adorable if you think you’re clever.
it’s insane you don’t know about the fake electors scheme and you have the hollow temerity to speak about politics.
Willie knows and Willie doesn’t care.
so… how was the 2004 election stolen? The one where the most popular candidate won and all that?
lol, nope. Not what she said in the video. That guy didn’t complain in 2000. He did so in 2004, though.
You didn’t watch it.
sure, that’s how I referenced all of her points and showed that they matched up with exactly what I said and what the article says.
We just happened to guess the exact right stuff together about a video that’s been circulating.
What? When? Where?
Lol, sure. /s
literally above.
I get that reading is difficult for you so you don’t want to mess with it, but if you read, and then you watch the video you didn’t watch yet, she says the same thing I did.
The guy was right before, we should do a recount, she just wants to pretend that “conspiracies” aren’t real despite the elector fraud scheme that happened 4 years ago.
while she literally lists conspiracies that happen every election season from the Republicans.
I can see why you were confused by the video, but I appreciate its support for my points.
That’s not what she said. You can read it up in the transcript.
He never questioned the 2000 election. She agrees that that one might have been stolen, but the dude claimed that 2004 was stolen. Not 2000.
So, what did you edit your comments for, if not for editing you calling her “right wing”. I can’t prove it, because lemmy doesn’t preserve edit history, but you called her right wing twice, then edited them, then called me a liar for referencing that.
So, why did you edit your posts? Why are you claiming pi-oting on what the video says? How is it defeatist, if it actually agrees with your points?
I get that you don’t like edits, but you should get into that because you make a lot of mistakes with what you write.
I use speech to text and then edit manually.
doesn’t change the facts Jack.
I edited my comments before you asked me any questions or made up your little stories.
also stop talking about 2000, the guy was right about the 2004 election (that’s another edit I made again before you asked me the question).
you can scroll up and try reading for a change.
"How is it defeatist, if it actually agrees with your points? "
because she isn’t calling for a recount, she’s telling everyone to calm down and just accept this possible conspiracy even though we all know that conservatives perpetrated a similar conspiracy for years ago.
she doesn’t like conspiracies I guess.
The word scares a lot of people.
it just means a group of people working together to do something.
those are the facts Jack.
Wrong. I edit all the time, since I make typos a lot. What I don’t like is backpedaling liars.
Then edit them before you hit send. 🙄
Don’t call me Jack.
What did I make up?
That’s a horrible way to write on lemmy.
I read your comments. It’s not on me to check every minute wether or not you edited them since then.
You brought it up, smartass.
Sure he was. /s
If you write shit you didn’t want to and I reference what you wrote first, that’s on you, not me.
wrong again. From the transcript:
Where does she claim that? I’d like a quote.
Don’t call me Jack.
so you don’t mind edits, but then you tell me that you specifically think me editing my comments is a terrible way to write?
yeah dude if you don’t understand what I’m saying that’s on you.
“I’d like a quote.”
bully for you. I’m not getting bogged down in your tangential nitpicking.
Jack.
what, did I guess your actual name accidentally? The most common name in the states?
maybe don’t broadcast that.
it’s insane you don’t know about the fake electors scheme and you have the hollow temerity to speak about politics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot
okay, but I guess if you don’t even know about the fake electric spot I understand why you keep making things up and don’t understand what I’m talking about.
I’ll let the rest of this slide
go read up on the conspiracy that involved voting and fabricating votes 4 years ago, maybe you’ll find it less outlandish that your buddy Trump might be trying it again.
There’s edits which clarify and there’s edits which completely change the message retroactively. Guess which one is horrible?
That’s what the madman shouting gibberish at the town square claims, too.
ok, so I take that as an admission that you didn’t watch the video. You’ve yet to mention one singular point she actually made. And you called her “right wing”. XD
Sugar, you’re adorable if you think you’re clever.
Willie knows and Willie doesn’t care.
so… how was the 2004 election stolen? The one where the most popular candidate won and all that?
also, the first open letter was written by eight different computer scientists who are not the guy you’re trying to nitpick about.
Stop making things up.