Altering state voting laws in the run-up to an election — NOS4A2

Which changes to voting laws represent election interference? In what way did these changes prevent citizens from voting?

getting social media to censor opponents, — NOS4A2

Specifically, who has done this, by what means, and what is the content of what was censored?

threatening businesses with an army of astroturf protesters — NOS4A2

What evidence do you have of this army of protesters? Who recruited and organized them? How were business targets identified?

This is all just hand waving and gesturing without substantive content.

What was once a form of voter fraud became legal in many states right before an election, and it worked in the current president’s favor. “Democracy”, right?

Election interference is now “preventing or making it harder for people to vote”, according to Michael.

What was once a form of voter fraud became legal in many states right before an election, and it worked in the current president’s favor. “Democracy”, right? — NOS4A2

It made it easier for voters to vote, and the fact is that the majority of voters preferred Biden. So yes, that’s democracy.

Whereas the opposing view, that making it easier for voters to vote is a bad thing because it favours one’s opponent, is textbook anti-democratic authoritarianism.

Election interference is now “preventing or making it harder for people to vote”, according to Michael. — NOS4A2

Election interference is letting people vote, according to NOS4A2.

it worked in the current president’s favor. — NOS4A2

This is the real problem in a nutshell. If making voting more accessible had worked in Trump's favor there would be no objections. This is the same reason why Trump railed against mail-in ballots and wanted to call the results when it looked like he had a better chance of winning.

Election interference is now “preventing or making it harder for people to vote”, according to Michael. — NOS4A2

Not just according to Michael. Preventing or making it harder for people to vote is part of the definition of election interference.

Election interference is letting people vote, according to NOS4A2.

No need to lie about this.

It made it easier for voters to vote, and the fact is that the majority of voters voted for Democrats. So yes, that’s democracy.

Whereas the opposing view, that making it easier for voters to vote is a bad thing because it favours one’s opponent, is textbook anti-democratic authoritarianism.

If altering election laws in the run up to a contentious election is “democracy” and “making it easier for voters to vote”, what is threatening mass protest should their opponent win and advocating for the censorship of opposing views?

what is threatening mass protest should their opponent win and advocating for the censorship of opposing views? — NOS4A2

A First Amendment right?

Certainly not election interference as according to you it’s impossible to influence another’s decision to vote.

Given the mass violence and rioting of that year, you don’t think threatening the country with more civil unrest is any kind of threat to voters?

Given the mass violence and rioting of that year, you don’t think threatening the country with more civil unrest is any kind of threat to voters? — NOS4A2

What does it matter if it's a threat to voters? It's not election interference because according to you we can't influence other people, and so can't influence their decision to vote (or not):

Linguistic activity does not have the causal effects you claim they do. At best such activity makes concrete what the speaker thinks. Here they reveal what Isaac thinks, nothing more. The effects on me never manifest, however. I’ll be sure to let you know if they do, though. — NOS4A2

According to you, any Trump supporter who chose not to vote out of fear of what would happen were Trump to win only has himself to blame. You can't blame them not voting on Democrat protestations.

Are you finally going to abandon this position? And perhaps also argue that people shouldn't be allowed to threaten protests? That would also require abandoning your free speech absolutism.

Yeah, sorry, your words are still not influencing anything. They do not have the causal effects you pretend they do. Your words only reveal what you think. What influences me are my own fears of what might happen should you get violent and burn my business down.

Yeah, sorry, your words are still not influencing anything. They do not have the causal effects you pretend they do. Your words only reveal what you think. What influences me are my own fears of what might happen should you get violent and burn my business down. — NOS4A2

Then threats of protests aren't election interference. They don't prevent people from voting. They don't make it harder for people to vote. They don't dissuade people from voting. They don't persuade them to vote for someone else.

If Trump supporters didn't vote for Trump because they were afraid then they only have themselves to blame for his loss.

Threatening civil unrest lets people know your intentions, that you may become belligerent should things not go your way, and threat of this future activity is more than enough to get people to do what you want.

and threat of this future activity is more than enough to get people to do what you want. — NOS4A2

Sorry, but my words are still not influencing anything.

You can't even maintain a consistent argument across two posts.

Again, your words are not influencing anything. My belief that you may act on your words do. Is this going completely over your head?

Again, your words are not influencing anything. My belief that you may act on your words do. Is this going completely over your head? — NOS4A2

You believing what you do isn't me engaging in election interference.

Perhaps given your propensity for sorcery you can move me with your words to believe the same as you do.

Perhaps given your propensity for sorcery you can move me with your words to believe the same as you do. — NOS4A2

Well that's a transparent deflection.

I never brought up the influence angle, but should you remain consistent, maybe you can alter my mind with your words enough so as to influence me to believe that threatening civil unrest should an election not go your way is not election interference.

I never brought up the influence angle, but should you remain consistent, maybe you can alter my mind with your words enough so as to influence me to believe that threatening civil unrest should an election not go your way is not election interference. — NOS4A2

What is election interference if not the unjust influence of an election? In what way do threats of civil unrest interfere with an election if not by influencing the result? And in what way do threats of civil unrest influence the result if not by influencing voters?

It certainly does influence voters. It does so because people will believe you will act on your threat.

Are Russian tweets and Facebook ads the unjust influence of an election, but threats of civil unrest aren’t?

It certainly does influence voters. — NOS4A2

So my words can influence you, the voter.

The fear of you acting on them influences me, the voter.

The fear of you acting on them influences me, the voter. — NOS4A2

Then your fear is the election interference, not my words.

And in what way do threats of civil unrest influence the result if not by influencing voters? — Michael

What would Trump say about protest and civil unrest when he is the one who calls for it, as he did with the Capital riot and is now doing with the Manhattan DA investigation? Who is he trying to influence?

If altering election laws in the run up to a contentious election is “democracy” and “making it easier for voters to vote”, what is threatening mass protest should their opponent win and advocating for the censorship of opposing views? — NOS4A2

There's nothing wrong with threatening mass protest if there's a defensible reason for that mass protest. However, making knowably false assertions about election fraud is indefensible. Even though demagoguery is legal to practice, it ought to be kept within the strictest legal boundaries to minimize its risk.

You didn’t mention that Trump spoke with Abdul Ghani. That’s because the propaganda you dine on doesn’t tell you these things. — NOS4A2

What??? That's your counter line?

If he spoke with the ghost of Mullah Omar, the deal he made was really a surrender.

The propaganda tells you the deal is bad; you think it’s bad. — NOS4A2

Yeah, right.

Listening to the WHOLE news conference that Putin and Trump made seems to you propaganda. Well, that's how I came to the conclusion that Trump has some perverse relationship with Putin, because that wasn't normal.

Or the actual written document of the "peace" with Taleban. Have you read the actual terms? Likely not.

Trump has warned of "death and destruction" if he is arrested. I think he has control of an asteroid and is able to direct it towards the earth. :grimace:

He knows some of the idiots who support him are unhinged and will riot if he's arrested.

He knows some of the idiots who support him are unhinged and will riot if he's arrested — Michael

I guess they could march around somewhere. I wouldn't expect a lot of death and destruction.

Trump is sleazing his way up the polls. Is he shooting his wad too early?