If someone is trying to achieve a goal through (what they might not know are) impossible means, "letting them be" isn't going to help them.
Although it might not seem very helpful (and indeed there are better ways of helping) pointing out the flaws in the approach is contributing more than "letting them be". Doesn't cost a thing to be civil about it though.
"If the claim is true", means they have to connect the account to someone related to a juror first. So if you make a troll post using a VPN, nothing will come of it (and rightly so).
What is a certainty was that a dozen+ candidates were murdered, but there weren’t any attempts of her or her family.
This means precisely nothing, as explained by the fallacy mentioned before.
It doesn’t make it untrue or very unlikely, though
But you called it 'probably' though, which is on the complete other end of the spectrum from 'very unlikely'... (aside from it being very unlikely to me, if all I have to go on is unrelated events, someone not being dead, and nothing else)
Aside from the correctness of the ruling or this situation. I'm guessing if Citizens United ruled 'money equals speech', then making/distributing a powerpoint probably also will be categorized as 'speech'.
You have deduced incorrectly that I have any thought about her whatsoever. I'm merely pointing out that your reasoning is flawed and therefore invalid.
I think the USA is plenty flawed, but on this one I'd have to agree with them. Would be way to easy to disqualify your opponent (especially as an incumbent president) otherwise. You should be able to let voters disqualify your opponent on merit.
ITT: people giving wrong answers to a post linked to a blog that answers the question 'What is PID 0?'