American election.

[Immanuel Can]

It’s unfathomable that anyone would chance an action to their own detriment without any corresponding benefit.

Oh. So it's to the Democrat campaign's detriment that the truth should be manifest? And you're saying they must know that it would be? You don't think there's any chance they won legitimately, and that any recount is bound to show they stole the election? It can't possibly solidify their majority, and make it publicly legitimate?

Just asking.

But if that were the case, is it at all in the American people's interest that there should be no recount? That's a much better question. Because after all, the election derives its legitimacy from the allegation that it reflects the public's will, and the public can only benefit if it becomes manifest that the election was fairly won...

But you don't think that's what will happen? You think that an impartial recount is bound to destroy, not solidify, the Democrat story?

[Nick_A]

It’s unfathomable that anyone would chance an action to their own detriment without any corresponding benefit.

Oh. So it's to the Democrat campaign's detriment that the truth should be manifest? And you're saying they must know that it would be? You don't think there's any chance they won legitimately, and that any recount is bound to show they stole the election? It can't possibly solidify their majority, and make it publicly legitimate?

Just asking.

But if that were the case, is it at all in the American people's interest that there should be no recount? That's a much better question. Because after all, the election derives its legitimacy from the allegation that it reflects the public's will, and the public can only benefit if it becomes manifest that the election was fairly won...

But you don't think that's what will happen? You think that an impartial recount is bound to destroy, not solidify, the Democrat story?

You are behind the times. In the old America it was believed that the government works for the people. The idea of American citizenship was respected. Then what you say would be true. But people have come to accept the new proper politically correct reason that the people now work for the government. This means the people As a whole have been determined by imaginary experts that these deplorables are both unworthy of and too stupid to be anything but slaves to the government. American citizenship has become meaningless. It is the government's obligation to con the people. It is for their own good. Politically correct reason knows that the deplorables are only capable of believing in, obeying, and paying the bills of their statist superiors. The goals of the agenda have become far more important than the Constitution for deplorables. Naturally then, dead people vote

[commonsense]

It’s unfathomable that anyone would chance an action to their own detriment without any corresponding benefit.

Oh. So it's to the Democrat campaign's detriment that the truth should be manifest? And you're saying they must know that it would be? You don't think there's any chance they won legitimately, and that any recount is bound to show they stole the election? It can't possibly solidify their majority, and make it publicly legitimate?

Just asking.

But if that were the case, is it at all in the American people's interest that there should be no recount? That's a much better question. Because after all, the election derives its legitimacy from the allegation that it reflects the public's will, and the public can only benefit if it becomes manifest that the election was fairly won...

But you don't think that's what will happen? You think that an impartial recount is bound to destroy, not solidify, the Democrat story?

You’re not listening. There’s a chance that the action of recounting votes will result in the winner becoming the loser. You have gone a long way off from there.

A recount may produce a different result, not necessarily the truth. Perhaps there would need to be a recount of the recount for the sake of having a tie breaker.

But that could just be a false result and then you are still faced with the conundrum of what to believe.

To put a few wild claims you made about me to rest:

- I did not say that it’s the Democrats’ detriment that the truth be manifest. You are the one who is confusing a recount with a necessarily true count.

- And I believe that the Democrats recognize this confused fallacy of yours, not that they have prescience of the results of a recount.

- You cannot possibly know what I think about the unknown results of a hypothetical recount or of its public reaction.

- I said that a recount is a possible detriment to the winner, any winner, not to Americans.

- And no, I didn’t say that a recount will destroy the Democrats.

I didn’t say any of the things you say I did. Calm down, read carefully and make the solid arguments you are capable of.

[Immanuel Can]

There’s a chance that the action of recounting votes will result in the winner becoming the loser.

No, there isn't. Not if the recount is fair and impartial. There is only one possibility, then...that the legitimate winner will win, and be declared legitimate. And that's in everybody's interest.

To put a few wild claims you made about me to rest:

- I did not say that it’s the Democrats’ detriment that the truth be manifest.

No, you didn't say it. You didn't have to.

You implied that a fair count was not in the Democrat interest. That's the very same thing, by implication. If you didn't mean that, you'd welcome a recount, for the sake of establishing the Democrats as legit.

- And no, I didn’t say that a recount will destroy the Democrats.

Then you want there to be one?

Or is it your view that whereas the original count cannot possibly have been corrupt, a review by impartial or bipartisan officials would be bound to be corrupt? That's a hard claim to sustain, if so. Why would you assume that having watchers from both parties or impartial judiciary officials review the ballots would necessarily be corrupt, but a unilateral declaration of victory by the Democrats would necessarily have to be uncorrupt?

[commonsense]

Nothing about corruption was on my mind.

[commonsense]

There is nothing about a second count that means it is more accurate than a first count.

[Immanuel Can]

Nothing about corruption was on my mind.

Oh, well, then...you should be in favour of a recount. Nobody's going to corrupt it, then.

And that will be great for the legitimate winner, whomever he is.

[Immanuel Can]

There is nothing about a second count that means it is more accurate than a first count.

Then it will only confirm the truth, and put all allegations to rest. You should be happy for the recount.

[commonsense]

But 30 recounts—now that could really be something.

[Immanuel Can]

But 30 recounts—now that could really be something.

Just do one good one, of all ballots, just like what was supposed to have been done on election day, except with referees in place instead of partisan counters. And count all ballots that are not manifestly phony.

What can you lose -- if you're the legit winner?

[commonsense]

But a second count just cannot be legitimate.

[Immanuel Can]

But a second count just cannot be legitimate.

Of course it can. It's got to be more legitimate than any count that happened with no referees in place. And it's the legitimacy of the election that is at question at the moment; this would settle it, once and for all.

What is anybody afraid of? If you want the winner to be the guy whom everyone actually voted for, it's the right thing to do, isn't it?

[commonsense]

But a second count just cannot be legitimate.

Of course it can. It's got to be more legitimate than any count that happened with no referees in place. And it's the legitimacy of the election that is at question at the moment; this would settle it, once and for all.

What is anybody afraid of? If you want the winner to be the guy whom everyone actually voted for, it's the right thing to do, isn't it?

In which state(s) were there no referees?

[commonsense]

But a second count just cannot be legitimate.

Of course it can. It's got to be more legitimate than any count that happened with no referees in place. And it's the legitimacy of the election that is at question at the moment; this would settle it, once and for all.

If a second count can be legitimate, then so can a first count, so long as referees were in place.

No election counts were performed without the supervision of election officials.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytime ... d.amp.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.co ... ts-mail-in

[Immanuel Can]

In which state(s) were there no referees?

Impartial ones? Many, apparently. I'm very surprised the American system allows the exclusion of one party's observers and the counting of votes by supporters of only one party. That seems obviously dodgy. So why not clear that up?

In fact, I can't figure out how any candidate, from whichever side, can be known to be legitimate if those who are already declared for his party are permitted to be the only ones counting. What's that all about?