NO evidence of nationwide election fraud!!

I have some more Latin for you. "Against the man" is the usual last resort of the debater who knows he's been defeated. The entire thread is a persuasion technique that attempts to assign an opinion by equating evidence with proof. There is no proof. That does not mean there is no evidence. The purpose is to discourage attempts to investigate that evidence before it ever develops into a persuasive proof.

Take Da Silva's argument for example. He asserts that lawyers went to court with zero evidence. This is clearly false as they provided copious amounts of information at discovery. That information is their evidence. The media then plays a little persuasion game and makes a very specific claim. They said that there was zero evidence of mail in ballot fraud, as if without that no argument proving fraud can be made. The average Joe, who has no access to any of the information submitted at discovery, then has the opinion that there is zero evidence of any fraud at all assigned to them by this assumption.

 

You're building strawman and are trying to assign them to me. You made a silly comment and now you're on the attack because it make you look bad.

You've got to debate this with him, not me. I didn't make that claim. The only claim I made was that more people voted for Biden than for Trump, and until now, I'm right about that.

 

As usual, Trump was right. Look how they carried the democrats water over the Russia hoax.

 

Who's getting attacked? This is a discussion. Isn't that the point of this website? What strawman are you talking about? First you said my post was Non Sequitur, meaning my conclusion did not follow my argument. I showed that it did. I corrected your misstatement about my position. And now all you have is mud to fling. If anyone is on the attack, it's not me.

That's not the only claim you made. The claim I'm addressing is that my comment was non sequitur. The central claim of the thread is that there is no evidence of nationwide fraud. I provided evidence. I also take issue with the attempt to equate evidence with proof, because that's never a good idea no matter what you're trying to argue as a consequence.

 

Your comment was non sequitur. Comparing Trump to Hitler, actually he's more like a Benito Mussolini pastiche, and then imply that opponents of Trump would do ANYTHING to get him out of the WH is what is wrong with your comment. All they had to do is vote for the other guy, which they did. Your statement implied something nefarious where it wasn't the case.

 

We do. Shouldn't all votes count?

 

Lol. You can't be serious.

 

They're all being counted. Not many left. Not enough to give Trump the win.

 

Something democrats were concerned about before but now are curiously ignoring. The software was designed to steal elections for Chavez. One of the affidavits is from a Venezuelan military official that oversaw the design and watched it in operation. In fact, in the manual it states that changing the vote is a 'design feature'. The count is not even stored as an integer but a double. That means one vote could be 1.03 votes. In our elections the machines are not supposed to be connected to the internet but one of the affidavits states that it was.

 

President Donald Trump posted some fake news on Tuesday night, sharing a Fox News story by Tucker Carlson that Carlson himself had already apologized for broadcasting.

Trump’s tweet linked to a report by Carlson claiming that dead people had voted in Georgia, a state won by President-elect Joe Biden.

“DEAD PEOPLE VOTED” Trump shout-tweeted with a link to Carlson’s report, which noted in the first line that Carlson had to correct it. The initial story claimed that the late James Blalock had voted in the 2020 election. In reality, it was his widow who voted under the name “Mrs. James Blalock.”

Carlson apologized on the air on Friday.

 

If there was this many accusations of fraud, and confirmed errors and Trump was ahead, the left would be protesting in the streets. Even they know they would.

But shoe on the other foot, and they are quick to dismiss and ridicule those who desire at a minimum fairness and accuracy.

Such partisan hacks.

 

I agree there would be some protesting in the streets sort of like MAGA March.

 

My god. Do you believe everything you read?

 

Do you ignore everything you don't want to believe even if it is factual? Look up Dominion and the Smartmatic software. In fact, look up Hammer and Scorecard the system the CIA uses to interfere in foreign elections.

 

lol.

Yeah, i don't think so.

 

You don't think MAGA March was protesting the election results?

 

Nonsense. There's not some secret cache of evidence/information beyond the public eye. We can all read the legal complaints, responses, hearing transcripts, and judges' opinions and orders. All of which, thus far, reveal that the "copious amounts of information" doesn't even rise to the level of credible, let alone proof of anything.

 

None of which matter until scotus say they do.

 

You think SCOTUS is going to entertain this bullshit? Good luck.

 

I don't ignore christmas. Doesn't mean I believe in Santa Claus.

Tell me, how many of Trump's lies have come true? You can start with the birth certificate.

 

Pretty interesting, but I'm sure the armchair experts here at PF will surely tune their blinders to block the appropriate logical data and calls up the subroutine that replaces it with "willful Blindness"

 

Perfect. Please show me the documents provided by Trump's legal team during discovery in each of the cases where no evidence is alleged.

 

You mean evidence that isn't referenced, not once, ever, by either the plaintiff or defendant, in a single court document, not even by the judge - the finder of fact - in explaining the reasons, based on the evidence that has been presented, for their opinions and orders?

Boy, it must be really compelling to be so... invisible.

 

Are you disputing that some liberals compare Trump to Hitler? That's a bold move, Cotton.

I didn't just imply it. I came right out and said it. If you have a group of people with the motive, the means, and the opportunity to commit a crime, you also have evidence that some percentage of that group will commit a crime. If the motive is as moral and good as preventing Hitler from taking office, you can bet that percentage will be even larger. Is it proof they did? Nope. I never claimed it was. I claimed it was evidence. Which it is.

Are you claiming that all Anti Trump voters would leave electing Hitler up to chance? Doubtful. Fraud for sure happened. That fact has already been proven. What has yet to be proven is that scope of the fraud had any effect on the will of the American people. Running around claiming there's no evidence of it is not going to change the minds of people who see evidence that they are being told doesn't exist. You want to change people's minds? Say, "yup I saw your evidence, and here's why it didn't effect the outcome of the election."

 

Never show your hand in these matters, it only give the cheater a heads up..