Well they're the closest thing to "leaders" this "movement" (if you can call wanting election transparency a movement) has. Would make sense to turn opinion against them.
I think there's also an element of "assuming the sale" in the way described by Scott Adams. The real sale is "there was no evidence presented" but then you go BEYOND that and assume that as a premise and make another claim on top. "Rudy sucks because there was no evidence! He let us down!"
Yep I agree with that. Even after seeing the evidence I've felt those feelings when reading comments like that. Always have to reassure myself that what I saw was REAL and ILLEGAL.
Well they're the closest thing to "leaders" this "movement" (if you can call wanting election transparency a movement) has. Would make sense to turn opinion against them.
That makes a lot of sense.
I think there's also an element of "assuming the sale" in the way described by Scott Adams. The real sale is "there was no evidence presented" but then you go BEYOND that and assume that as a premise and make another claim on top. "Rudy sucks because there was no evidence! He let us down!"
Yep I agree with that. Even after seeing the evidence I've felt those feelings when reading comments like that. Always have to reassure myself that what I saw was REAL and ILLEGAL.