Actually, you are.
You are saying that a consistent and potentially organized campaign of voter fraud, specifically that of people voting multiple times in order to sway the victory, was a threat. We said that it wasn’t.
We are now looking at the actual results of the vote and are going, “huh, it looks like someone might have hacked the voting machines in this place to tip the victory”. We should check. You are saying that this is hypocritical.
However, the means are different, and the motives are different between these two cases, but this is a nuance that likely escapes you, given your literalist tendencies, so I will spell it out.
In your prior statements, you have made a big bugaboo about “People will go and attempt to cast fraudulent votes at rates that will tip the election”, and repeatedly insisted on this point despite there being no evidence for large scale voter fraud. You eventually admitted that, yes, it was an emotional appeal to you–that there was no actual concrete reason to suspect that this was happening, just a gut-level fear. You were not able to give any reason as to the motive beyond a baseless and vague handwave that “they have reason because both parties do it” and could not explain the means by which such a large scale fraud would actually be attempted.
However, now, in this case, we can point at a specific statistical anomaly that would have a major impact on the outcome of the vote. Furthermore, this specific anomaly is paired with an explainable, realistic and believable means (hacker intrusion and manipulation), and an explainable motive (flipping a state’s electoral college votes), and, furthermore, has a testable hypothesis: auditing the ballots.
And that is the difference between the two. One is baseless fearmongering. The other is “hey, this smells, let’s make sure our system is operating honestly.”
)
