Search results

Link to it again and I'll address it if I haven't already. I don't actually expect everyone to read through the cites I supply and I usually quote part of the salient source material anyway but I'll provide the whole link regardless. Up to folk if they address them or not. So, no shifting...

They weren't.

I don't have 'shifting standards' of evidence. The only sort worthwhile is the substantial kind, that's it. Not the 'scanty' sort. What article? Cite? Clinton conceded the election once the results were obvious. No bleating about it being stolen by the republicans and aided the transition of...

Um, nope. The forecasts were already in place on all manner of news outlets as to how Trump's lead was going to diminish once mail in ballots were counted and lo and behold, that's what happened. Nothing mysterious about it...you keep deluding yourself that Trump had the election stole from him...

Oh, there's been a fuss over his presidency since he took office for sure and with good reason but that didn't answer the point. Was there any of this baseless fraud allegation and the like or did Clinton concede and aid a smooth transition of power? I notice you didn't even touch on the...

The obvious is that there's no substantial evidence for fraud and in no way would I make excuses for it if there was, as on record.

Was there a big fuss kicked up when Trump won in 2016? Did the democrats cry fraud or was there a concession from Clinton and a smooth transition of power to Trump? Telling that you you use the term "much scantier evidence" in relation when you've attempted to berate others for wanting the...

No. Otherwise I'd still be waiting for Powell's kraken to be released and the like...

That measure of neural capacity could certainly dupe people into believing that.

That was no explanation. That's just the same tired conspiracy trope.

Just to actually address this article and to show you in the clearest terms how it doesn't apply to me so you'll know better than to try and use it again. This is the outlier: "Chronological snobbery is an argument that the thinking, art, or science of an earlier time is inherently inferior to...

This is the article you linked to after accusing me of yet another fallacy. Can you not even follow your own posts?! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronological_snobbery

Yes they are and no, they're not. You've just made an erroneous claim that you can't support for starters and it's hardly the first time either. Quote me where I've supported anything regarding 'chronological snobbery' as per your article. I'll wait while that doesn't happen (again). Get your...

Seems like Powell just can't help herself... https://uk.yahoo.com/news/sidney-powell-just-eviscerated-her-162126316.html

Sure I do, but I don't throw around silly 'fallacy' accusations as certain folk love to do as if it somehow makes an argument. No, they aren't. With the advent of forensic science and other procedures we have a much more accurate standard of establishing the likelihood of guilt or innocence...

No, it isn't but you sure do like to throw this kind of stuff around don't you? Are our standards more advanced in terms of science and the like now as opposed to the bronze age? Uh, yeah. There's no 'snobbery' whatsoever about that, it's just fact.

You're not being met with any.

That had absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote and is just another diatribe that can be dismissed accordingly.

What "stacked deck"? If she had this so called "proof" then why are her lawyers saying what they are? Do explain.

She expressed the truth and had the courage to do so. Plenty other republicans agree.