Altering state voting laws in the run-up to an election — NOS4A2
getting social media to censor opponents, — NOS4A2
threatening businesses with an army of astroturf protesters — NOS4A2
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 worked in the current president’s favor. — NOS4A2
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 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.
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
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
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
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
And in what way do threats of civil unrest influence the result if not by influencing voters? — Michael
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.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
What??? That's your counter line?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
Yeah, right.The propaganda tells you the deal is bad; you think it’s bad. — NOS4A2
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.