Indeed. So when a poll worker deviates from the stated rules, it necessitates investigating why that happened (and deciding if such a deviation was proper).
What an amazing coincidence it is that this poll worker just so happened to deviate from the guidelines in a way that aligns with their admitted personal opinions and biases!
If you believe (ab)using language to conflate "political party" with "political entity" is proper, does that belief extend to the other 51 cases of "political party" found in the guidelines? Or just the single case that aligns with your biases?
They didn’t deviate from the stated rules. The rules are open to interpretation, and they interpreted them to the best of their abilities.
There are poll workers of both major parties; presumably if they interpreted the rules in a flagrantly partisan way, poll workers from the other party would have objected.
> By the way, got any tips on how to learn mind-reading? You seem really good at it.
This is a particularly funny response given that your entire argument hinges on inferring someone’s motive for interpreting the rules in a particular way.
Yes, they allow me to mentally travel back and recall past events. Behold:
> So when a poll worker deviates from the stated rules, it necessitates investigating why that happened (and deciding if such a deviation was proper).
> What an amazing coincidence it is that this poll worker just so happened to deviate from the guidelines in a way that aligns with their admitted personal opinions and biases!
What an amazing coincidence it is that this poll worker just so happened to deviate from the guidelines in a way that aligns with their admitted personal opinions and biases!
If you believe (ab)using language to conflate "political party" with "political entity" is proper, does that belief extend to the other 51 cases of "political party" found in the guidelines? Or just the single case that aligns with your biases?