And how exactly does the fact that my vote is lazy diminish the apparent fact that Ike is refusing to even provide evasive answers for a basic line of questioning?
This kind of voting patterns seems absurd to me, someone is under suspicion, they are questioned about it, and refuse an answer, and somehow, this makes the person who votes for them suspicious?
Did you leave your heads hanging off of your hat racks? At best you're losing track of an obviously suspicious target in favour of someone who made the simple mistake of taking their obvious and suspicious nature for granted and at worst you're falling pray to a diversion from someone who is obviously a wolf and clearly looking to find any excuse to run up somebody else.
Do I even have to defend myself really? If Ike can refuse to do so and is apparently getting away with it scot free, why should I have to justify voting for an obvious candidate?
The vote for the lazy voter is in the end, just as lazy, in the fact in this case, even more so because we're giving up an actual case in favour of some kind of memetic, brainless, gut response that results from playing and not understanding, something which I see has infected the best of us too.
Regardless, I stand by my vote, refusing to defend yourself makes me think you're guilty, and that's only considered a lazy vote because it's basic logic 101, which is, as I found out now, apparently forbidden for no discernible reason other than there's now an apparent trend of coming up with the best asinine reasons to vote for someone, rather than lynching someone who is begging to be lynched.
.png){kind=avatar}
