Comments by "Killed The Cat" (@killedthecat1034) on "How Homegrown Disinformation Could Disrupt This U.S. Election | 2020 Elections" video.

@Sean-uq4ny OoOoOoR.... We are actually considering all relevant material. Instead of just looking at what information our narrative we've decided is true, already. Like, for the past two decades there has been report... after report... after report... after report... Of disinformation campaigns looking to affect our elections, from foreign entities. Not just Russia. What I find the most interesting about your comment is, you claiming that it was just normal for people to contested elections. Just stopping at the water's edge of "why". If someone's going to contest an election, they're going to have a reason to do so. You don't seem very interested in the why. That seems to be by Design. Could it be that if you look too closely into the contacts to your argument falls apart? Or maybe it's that people on your side of the aisle that think like you (not everyone) don't need an actual why, as long as it makes your side look better and the other side look worse, while claiming where the bias ones.
4
Ron Wuerch Mostly because nobody is worried about someone who thinks an adult form of political discourse involves name-calling like a toddler.
2
@Sean-uq4ny Well... By all means... Let me point it out to you then. So you can stop claiming "projection" with no basis, for lack of a better response.
1
@Sean-uq4ny See... You said this " but it did not cause any disruption", with no substantiating evidence to back it up.
1
@Sean-uq4ny Then you said this " You even said in your video they did a recent recount and then the sitting Governor acknowledged the results." Which is when I pointed out that you where curiously uninterested in the "why". Which is when I pointed out that most things gave these other things, called reason. Reasons are basically why something happens. See... We need to know why something happened, so we can deduce things like motive and whether it even really needed to happen in the first place. In politics and government, motives tend to be pretty important. If for no other reason than these are the leaders of our country and we really want them to be doing the things we need them to do for the right reasons and we really we need them to do things that make sense.
1
@Sean-uq4ny now, are we done playing like we don't understand what 2 + 2 is because you don't have a better argument or do you need me to keep breaking down every little part of your comment and why I responded to it the way that I did?
1
@Sean-uq4ny Except that's not all you said. It is all you paid attention to but it wasn't all relevant information. Also, it's failing would be a personal opinion of you words. Not actual fact. If you consider it all relevant information and not just heard what you wanted to hear and then stopped listening, it would have made more sense to you.
1
@Sean-uq4ny it is normal to contest an election and ask for a recount but it is not mandatory. That's why you have to request it. People who requested generally have a good reason for requesting it or they are, at least, supposed to. The part of the video that you just apparently didn't listen to was where he claims there are irregularities but doesn't offer any evidence towards that. Can you name the irregularities?
1
@Sean-uq4ny And that means? Who cares how close the race was, as long as there was no evidence of tampering?
1
@Sean-uq4ny Is that what he's cited as the reason for the recount or is that what you're claiming is his reason for the recount?
1
@Sean-uq4ny You have made the following claim that you have not provided any evidence for while claiming the New York Times can't do the same. " The rest was decided by around five thousand votes, so about half the population of a small town. That is the reason for a recount." " The New York Times claimed it cause disruptions, it did not." " A recount is not a destruction to a democratic election it is a necessity in the case of a razor-thin election." " There's no evidence provided by the New York Times that the Tweet had any contributing factor other than the galvanized angry groups of people and it did not disrupt or impact the results or aftermath of the election at all." So it's okay for you to use suggestive reasoning, just not the New York Times?
1
@Sean-uq4ny Once again, was that the governor's reasoning or are you making things up?
1
@Sean-uq4ny if you scroll down, you'll see that I respond to each and every little bit of what you say in multiple comments. I just haven't gotten to it yet. How about you try doing the same. Thanks
1
@Sean-uq4ny " There was Zero disruption to the Democratic process." Now you are changing what your claim was. Why is that?
1
@Sean-uq4ny Did he claimed that narrowness was the reason or is that a narrative you're trying to spend because you don't have a reason that 👉he👈 actually gave?
1
@Sean-uq4ny now you're missing the entire point of the New York Times made. It wasn't the disruption to the election. Though you have yet to use anything more then the reasoning you are arguing against, to refute the claim. It was the impact of a social media post on an elective process. Not just the end result.
1
@Sean-uq4ny what makes it a necessity? A necessity of something that has to happen. If you have to request it, it doesn't have to happen. You're claiming it's a necessity because that's the narrative that fits your argument. Accept the facts refute that. If you didn't request it it wouldn't happen and what would happen after that?
1
@Sean-uq4ny "you can rant all you want" So how about we take some personal accountability and note the irony of that statement, for a moment. I'm simply doing what you claim to be doing, while you're literally doing it. Refuting me or claims. But because I'm refuting your claims as you try to refute the New York Times claims, I'm ranting and you're just refuting things. Just because someone doesn't agree with your point of view and presents a reasonable argument for it, does not mean you need to paint them as some crazy ranting lady. It just means you have to come up with a better argument. Thank you! 😉✌
1
@Sean-uq4ny Did the governor claim the narrowness of the election as the reason behind the request for the recount or not?
1
@Sean-uq4ny is that what the governor stated as his reasoning for requesting a recount or not?
1
@Sean-uq4ny Googling only works if you double check your sources, try and prove yourself wrong and make sure you have all relevant information in order to make the most educated decision you can. You have to go in without a narrative you're trying to form. Otherwise all you're going to Google is ways to build an echo chamber.
1
@elisewitwer393 Not ig you actually read the commentary... But you are free to point out where you think I am lacking?
1
Jor Tra 1. Pointing out that he is making claims that he can not substantiate ... Or asking questions, for which he can not answer, is not rude. 2. My point from the start has been considering all relevant info, and not making things up, when questions based on substance, make your claims fall apart. You must use facts and all relevant facts to come to a reasonable opinion. Making things up to put your narrative is never a good argument.
1
Jor Tra Your attempt to paint me as childish, for holding him to the same standard as he is trying to hold the NYTs isn't relevant.
1
@Sean-uq4ny Sure! I'll give you a list. 1. " the sitting Governor contested a close election by requesting a recount, a necessary part of Democratic elections" Except by the mere fact that recount have to be requested, does not make that necessary. 2. " tempting to create fear" Having no substantial evidence yourself, this is yet another assumption you're making about motivations you cannot substantiate. 3. " The reason for requesting a recount was the small discrepancy between the votes for each candidate." On multiple occasions you've made this claim, yet, have not provided any proof that this was the motivations behind it. Yet another assumption made by you and then attempt to carve out a narrative. 4. " but it did not cause any disruption" Yet another example of you doing the exact same thing you're claiming the New York Times article is doing. The New York Times article not only put in this video several examples but also referenced several studies in regards to proprietary evidence. Those are just a few... But ig you want to narrow it down to a single issue... it would be the question you keep avoiding. Did the governor actually claim what you're claiming to be the reason as the reason or are you making that assumption? You're avoiding that question because he never claimed to that. So if that was the case, why wouldn't you just say that. That's perfectly reasonable. It's something reasonable people would completely understand. Yet he never claimed it...
1
@Sean-uq4ny My claim is not that you have not responded, with the exception of the last question, you keep avoiding about the governor actually claiming what you claim is the reason for the recount. It is that you are mostly just making things up. You saying things, proves 👉nothing👈.... Because... YOU ARE JUST MAKING THINGS UP AND TRYING TO INSIST THAT JUST SAYING IT, MAKES IT TRUE. It does not. I'll give you an example. 👇
1
@Sean-uq4ny This is you claiming I have not done my research and using this "fact" as an example of that. " if you had followed up on your own research on the elections you would know that a recount cannot be requested without the margin being within 1% of the electorate or voter fraud is suspected," 1. You did not specify any particular election. Being that we are talking about 1 state in particular and every state has different election laws. 2. Even if you just assumed that that would apply to Kentucky's elections, your imagined response is still incorrect. Show me here where Kentucky's election laws have that stipulation you just claimed they have? 👇 "Requested recount procedures In primary elections, any candidate may request a recount. In general elections, any candidate may request a recount, with the exception of candidates for the offices of governor, lieutenant governor, the General Assembly, and some municipal offices.[43] In both types of election, the requester is responsible for costs associated with the recount. State law does not mention any refunds of costs. Candidates requesting recounts must do so within 10 days after the election.[42] Any voter who was qualified to vote and did vote on a constitutional convention or ballot measure may request a recount in those elections. The requester is responsible for costs associated with the recount. State law does not mention any refunds of costs. Voters requesting recounts must do so not more than 15 days after the official canvass.[42] Kentucky does not specify a set deadline for the completion of any requested recount. For more information about recount procedures in Kentucky, click here." https://ballotpedia.org/Election_recount_laws_and_procedures_in_the_50_states,_2020#Kentucky
1
@Sean-uq4ny As I stated... You simply keep making things up. You have, not once, answered the question of whether or not the governor who requested the recount did so for the reasons you are claiming. You're refusing to do so because you know that he did not.... and with everything else, you are simply making a bunch of things up and expecting for it to be taken as fact, because you just said it.
1
@Sean-uq4ny I do my research.
1
@billyhgunn If you have proof of such, by all means, post it here! We will wait....
1