Which tells us much, I think about the veracity of previous complaints, doesn’t it? Not really, your reasoning is illogical.
If you were intimating that the machines were error prone and unreliable then what you said would make sense. However you say: untrustworthy companies like Diebold may seriously and fraudulently alter election results This clearly suggests that in your view the main complaint in the past has been that the machines are rigged in the Republican’s favour. If so one might expect Pelosi to comment that they won the election despite Diebold machines and so a lack of complaint now does not speak to the veracity of previous complaints.
One could argue that if she had the strength of her convictions and strength of character Pelosi would call for an investigation into the machines simply because she did not trust them even though the Dems have won. That would perhaps make her consistent (assuming she has called for investigations before - I assume she has from your premise) but a lack of calling still would not speak to veracity of previous complaints but rather to a complacency engendered by the result; the ’let sleeping dogs lie’ mentality. |
| |
Written By:
Kav
URL:
http://livingrealworld.blogspot.com
|