Leaky Lefty Commenter

Unable to Find Facts

I can understand why some refuse to leave comments online. They do not want to inflame an argument. Others do comment for the sake of emotional release. But at times, some go on a rant displaying their emotions, showing their emotions have overwhelmed their rational faculties.

On one of my previous posts, someone commented and made numerous errors. First, they mistook me for the British writer Andrew Sullivan who was editor of the New Republic and still writes today. I am not him. I am Andrew L. Sullivan of Omaha, Nebraska, and a solid USA citizen. The L is the initial for the name Llewellyn, the name of the last Welsh King, and the surname of one of many family names in my ancestry. Gees, I could identify with the dragon on the Welsh flag and claim my pronouns are smoke and fire!

But as much as I tried to correct the commenter, they never caught on. The commenter stated they were a socialist although they demonstrated they do not know what such beliefs entail. And it went on.

The commenter insists there is nothing wrong with tearing down statues (in Britain) ignoring the fact such rage against inanimate objects improves nothing but to demand perfection of the living. Translation: if you are not perfect, we will do to you what we did to this statue. That is brutality and intolerance in one.

Odd how there is so much talk about slavery, and no commentary about those who ended it. Odd how there is so much talk about the cause of the American Civil War, but no kind comment or clear tolerance displayed for the one man who ended it: Robert E. Lee. It is facts like these the left just trips over, covers up, and lies about.

Instead of reading the information the Heritage Foundation has about election laws, the commenter instead engaged in flat-out defamation refusing to evaluate the information as it was a “prescribed template”, clearly shooting the messenger instead of addressing the message. To the commenter, it is all about racism. However, fraud or no fraud, the problem with US elections is: transparency is no longer apparent and the same problems will repeat themselves again and again for the lack of transparency.

Recently, Dinesh D’Sousa and Joe Walsh did an interview on the election and January 6 mayhem. I was stunned to the extent of how naive Walsh is. He did not realize what actual political persecution looks like when confronted with it. At the same, the same circular arguments over fraud occurred. “There is no evidence of voter fraud” is an empty statement and does not mean anything, particularly when those making such statements have never stated what evidence they need. Evidence is not what is at issue. Doubt is.

When I see a video of a man sticking three ballots in a drop box, I see a problem. Maybe this man picked up his neighbors’ ballots, opened them up, changed the votes, sealed them up, and dropped them in the box with his. There is no way to know and no one to investigate. None, because the process is not transparent and is vulnerable to corruption. Also, those mailing-in ballots are not being sent by registered mail. An honorary system is what the USA has for an election system.

Elections without transparency create two distinct, passionate, and polarizing views:

Fraud-denier: You are paranoid!
Election-denier: You are naive!
Which name do you prefer to be called?

But the commenter goes on and claims “Andrew Sullivan” lives in a bubble pushing conspiracy theories. The commenter makes claims about police and Blacks being shot, never mentioning any of it being related to crime rates.  And on, and on......