The Instagram post you've linked to here came up with a giant "false information: verified by independent fact checkers" label. You're citing random links and assertions, and when they're knocked down, you move on to new ones. That's what a Gish Gallop is.
The fallacy you're exploiting is the notion that we're not supposed to see your assertions failing (and you refusing to acknowledging those failures) and draw conclusions about the rest of your assertions. A reasonable person looks at this exchange and concludes that there's no particular reason to take any of your arguments seriously.
Just because a thinking falls in to a pattern of fallacy doesn’t mean that what I claim is wrong. You can check the video and read what I claim, think logically and ask yourself what are the cases where someone could check box for option A then fill another box. And honestly that’s just minute nothing of the many irregularities if you do go though the links.
Also, I’m not citing random links all of these show that there are many irregularities and there is suppression of information and free exchange. I choose only four out of thousand cause I don’t have the time and I don’t get paid.
Again, I dont live in America so Trump winning or losing directly doesn’t matter to me.
If you're unfamiliar with American politics, perhaps you're not Gish Galloping on purpose. I buy that could happen! But you should be aware that's what you're doing here, at the very least so you can understand why few people will be persuaded by your comments, despite the effort you're putting into them.
Verified by independent fact checkers, based on the same tweet from an official government account. Which claims that those were spoiled ballots. My comment and assertion still stands.
Just because you see “don’t look, trust me” doesn’t mean you should stop thinking there.
The overwhelmingly Republican Oklahoma State Board of Elections, appointed by the Republican governor of Oklahoma with the consent of the Republican Oklahoma State Senate, debunked this video specifically, down to the subprecinct.
This doesn't seem like a good faith argument, but that doesn't matter; I'm not interested in the argument, so much as I am in how this thread does in fact provide a pretty good illustration of what a Gish Gallop is.
Again, people who understand what a Gish Gallop is aren't going to be persuaded by anything you're saying, because they know the same tactics could be used to establish that up is down, or that pants are shirts. That's why 'harryh pointed this out to you.
You can't persuade people simply by being too tedious to argue with --- like you are here, where, when confronted with a refutation of one of your claims, you pretend not to have seen that and retreat to abstraction.
The fallacy you're exploiting is the notion that we're not supposed to see your assertions failing (and you refusing to acknowledging those failures) and draw conclusions about the rest of your assertions. A reasonable person looks at this exchange and concludes that there's no particular reason to take any of your arguments seriously.