|
In response to
"If you ignore everything she said leading up to her latest candidacy, sure!"
by
ML
|
This is just a massive false equivalency. Her objections were two-fold: First, that Kemp was the SOS overseeing the election and took explicit
Posted by
pmb (aka pmb)
Oct 18 '22, 10:24
|
actions that disproportionately affected voters that would likely lean democrat. Second, that various laws that have been enacted to further these issues. The actions were clearly identified and form the basis of genuine arguments of equity and fairness. She may have whined about it more than you would like (or even I would), but she never denied that he was elected in accordance with the laws of the land. The fact that you couldn't prove empirically that it had an effect is because it's not empirically provable. It is inherently speculative to determine what would have happened if those changes had not occurred or what would happen if these new laws weren't in place (hence the debate that Strongbad and I are having on B2). But it is a matter of policy that she is legitimately trying to change and her efforts to register voters to counteract this (to make sure people's votes are counted) are admirable.
Compare that to Lake who is just 100% full of shit. There is no basis for a single thing she says. It is purely to undermine the integrity of voting, not to improve it. It is not an argument made in good faith or supported by one iota of evidence. You may think that Abrams' arguments don't prove out, but that's a policy issue. Her arguments are based on actual facts.
|
Responses:
|