A straw man argument
Yesterday, I posted the following
Overnight, I received the following comment.
Every single "summary of evidence" listed would have benefited Donald Trump in 2020 because he was the one in power. In fact, this is what Donald Trump would now very much like to see happen.
With the Project 2025 in heated discussion, and with his latest verbose garbage about telling "Christians" to go out and vote because after this election, "you won't have to vote anymore, it will all be fixed", it is precisely this type of rhetoric that invites what the article proclaimed happened. To the public's knowledge, there is absolutely no evidence that Smartmatic engaged in any of these illegal activities.
To be sure, FOX news got caught up in making these accusations and had to pay a judgement of over 800 million dollars to Smartmatic Dominion Voting.
Sorry, but your article simply doesn't wash.
I really don’t know what to do with such comments. What do you do in a situation where someone takes something you never said and then shoots that down.
That’s called a straw man argument.
I never mentioned Sidney Powell beyond the headline and providing a video segment of her on Fox news for context.
Perhaps my mistake was the headline and invoking Sidney Powell?
The item came out of watching a video which talked about one of the items. After doing just a little more research I found other evidence dating back to 2006, including an item from the Wikileaks cables ( a sign of objectivity, I would have thought).
But no objective evidence (evidence, not proof) can ever compete with this loud opinion (no doubt straight from CNN):
To the public's knowledge, there is absolutely no evidence that Smartmatic engaged in any of these illegal activities
I just happen to be old-fashioned and think that we should look at evidence and context WHATEVER.
It is that which has , for example, led me to reconsider views that I had about Chavez and socialism based on listening to others’ views without proof.
Most of my life since the covid PLANdemic has been about questioning comfortable old assumptions.
If I am rebelling it is against my old self.
For that reason I would not want to meet a person who says the following in a dark alley”
Every single "summary of evidence" listed would have benefited Donald Trump in 2020 because he was the one in power
That is dangerously close to saying that truth doesn’t matter - only politics and opinions unsupported by evidence.
Another example of reassessing past views is in the area of socialism and social justice. I have come to realise that as an -ism, although “fair” and “just” it goes against human nature as illustrated by the following:
I remain in favour of helping the underdog so long as their dignity and sense of responsibilty is not taken away.
This is perhaps achieveable on the individual or even community level.
On an institutional level we only achieve what we’ve got - a generation who are after a free lunch.
Dear Mr. Westenra,
Your comment deserves a response. It appears that I was too quick to implicate you when, in reality, I should have been writing to J. Michael Waller. You are correct; you never made the comments to which I attributed to you. I am curious however, why you would employ an article by Mr. Waller to bolster a headline that was, I have to assume, authored by you? I can understand your frustration with those who jump the gun. For that, I apologize. My question, however, still stands: do you take the view that the Smartmatic voting machines corrupted the presidential election?
On the second point, I don't visit dark alleys; I prefer scenic routes. Concerning the statement in question: "Every single 'summary of evidence' listed would have benefited Donald Trump in 2020 because he was the one in power", I stand by that statement. The point is noted that it has nothing to do with what you wrote; I simply stand by it. Although I don't agree with some of the work you put forward, I do enjoy reading your work as I find it thoughtful.
Best wishes,
Riad Mahayni