>>>To the bad actors out there who want chaos and to erode the people’s confidence in our elections, enough is enough.
>
>If you're trying to apply that selectively- lets not forget your endorsement and support for certain claims that obviously erode people's confidence in elections, forcing Ohio all the way to the SC to be allowed to continue its good works.

I did not make the original claim about the "people over 116 years old voting". If you took my initial reply as a correction to your statement, this thread would have been much shorter.

>Whereas my light-hearted commentary about skeletons voting was withdrawn as soon as Husted confirmed the explanation for the stereotyped date of birth.
>
>To paraphrase Keynes: "when the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?" Apart from pushing a narrative all the way to the SC and then criticizing the unfavorable decision for being "only" 5-4.

The facts have not changed. Your initial statement was not based on facts, but rather on a (mis) interpretation that you found "checking online", as you said. And let's not forget that you brought up the Supreme Court decision, to which I commented that, since the decision was very disputed, the process must have had merit, and thus it would be unfair to blame the litigants as frivolous. You took that as "criticizing the unfavorable decision", which I never did.

>For the rest, today I see a disappointed GOP candidate alleging that Ohio electoral malfeasance cost him the election, while others insist that Russian interference stole redirected votes to the Greens, costing a Democrat the win. No wonder Hulsted is getting exasperated about partisan criticisms of electoral integrity he's obviously quite proud of. Meanwhile perhaps we can share a big LOL that people have found a way to blame the Russians. Surprised nobody has blamed Trump- yet.

Yes, both sides have extremes, and a red herring (Thank you, Bill) is also "a dried smoked herring, which is turned red by the smoke" :)
*