“this is part of DeJoy’s equation, and we have no reason to believe it’s not given the Trump administration’s track record”
This is unfortunate phrasing. It’s weak justification for the conclusion. It leaves impression you don’t really have support for your conclusion.
The “And we have no reason to believe it’s not“ is used by folks like Fox News types as justification for believing all sorts of ridiculous things. It’s basically forcing any counter argument into proving a negative. “Obama is coming to take your guns! Can you prove he’s not?“ “I have a list of names. The state department is filled with pinko communists. You can’t prove it’s not, so we have to naturally conclude that it is.”
Far better (and more accurate) would be “And we have every reason to believe it IS, given their track record.“
(Why appear nitpicky or pedantic and bring this up? Because it actually is important. Using phrases like “and we have no reason not to believe it“ suggests we don’t really have a strong argument and we undercut ourselves. That we don’t really fully believe what we’re saying, or, as I commented in another article here yesterday about using “without evidence“ that we’re afraid of speaking directly and offending somebody.)
“Donald Trump and his fascist co-conspirators have to be held accountable”
Absolutely. This cannot be stressed strongly enough.
When Trump is out of office, there will be pressure is put on his successor, By both Republicans AND Democrats, to not investigate Trump. The main argument will be that it sets a bad precedent and (The main reason that will be given) it will lead to the next Republican president investigating *their* predecessor in retaliation.
In other words, however politically correctly it is phrased, the main argument will just be to “Become a co-conspirator and give into the bullies for fear that they will strike back if held to account.”
But it is essential that it is made very, very clear that the rule of Law does still actually exist in this country.
What happens if disgruntled or political postal workers find mail-in ballots and hide them--like Newman did in the Seinfeld episode?
“this is part of DeJoy’s equation, and we have no reason to believe it’s not given the Trump administration’s track record”
This is unfortunate phrasing. It’s weak justification for the conclusion. It leaves impression you don’t really have support for your conclusion.
The “And we have no reason to believe it’s not“ is used by folks like Fox News types as justification for believing all sorts of ridiculous things. It’s basically forcing any counter argument into proving a negative. “Obama is coming to take your guns! Can you prove he’s not?“ “I have a list of names. The state department is filled with pinko communists. You can’t prove it’s not, so we have to naturally conclude that it is.”
Far better (and more accurate) would be “And we have every reason to believe it IS, given their track record.“
(Why appear nitpicky or pedantic and bring this up? Because it actually is important. Using phrases like “and we have no reason not to believe it“ suggests we don’t really have a strong argument and we undercut ourselves. That we don’t really fully believe what we’re saying, or, as I commented in another article here yesterday about using “without evidence“ that we’re afraid of speaking directly and offending somebody.)
“Donald Trump and his fascist co-conspirators have to be held accountable”
Absolutely. This cannot be stressed strongly enough.
When Trump is out of office, there will be pressure is put on his successor, By both Republicans AND Democrats, to not investigate Trump. The main argument will be that it sets a bad precedent and (The main reason that will be given) it will lead to the next Republican president investigating *their* predecessor in retaliation.
In other words, however politically correctly it is phrased, the main argument will just be to “Become a co-conspirator and give into the bullies for fear that they will strike back if held to account.”
But it is essential that it is made very, very clear that the rule of Law does still actually exist in this country.