Nah, the communist are the demon rats.
For Those Who Still Insist That There Was Election Fraud
- Thread starter Arthur Brain
- Start date
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
What "stacked deck"? If she had this so called "proof" then why are her lawyers saying what they are? Do explain.
Derf
Well-known member
You can compare the depth of the “audits” prior to AZ’s as well as the transparency. You asked for the data on this one, and I agree. I ask for all the data and techniques used in the other ones that presume to show full compliance with the law when only samples were audited. You don’t have evidence to back your claims, just appeals to judgments based on standing.Audits have been going on for quite a while now, so where is the evidence of massive voter fraud? Remember, Trump lost the popular vote by 7 million, and he also claims that he won the popular vote by a landslide. So that's 7 million fraudulent votes plus millions more legitimate votes that didn't get counted. Such a large amount of voter fraud should be easy to prove. Why is this proof so long in coming?
How did Mike Lindell, a pillow salesman who used to be addicted to crack and who is now addicted to Trump, become a legal expert on the 2020 election? How is it that he can see things that federal judges and legal experts across the board cannot see? If I didn't know any better, I'd think Lindell was high.
And then we have Lindell's fellow travelers--people like Sidney Powell, Mike Flynn, Lin Wood, etc.--who are also QAnon grifters. And we know from no less an authority than TOL's own Pastor Bob Enyart that the QAnon crowd are all mentally ill. So the people who are foremost in promoting the claim that the election was stolen from Trump are actually insane, according to Enyart.
And then we have Trump's official legal team. What have they actually been saying in court, in front of the judges? Not what they've been saying to people like you. Why? Because they don't have the evidence needed to back up their claims:
In Court, Trump's Lawyers Aren't Claiming 'Massive' Fraud
While the President and his lawyers make histrionic claims in public, the campaign's legal filings are narrow in scopetime.com
This is where your standards have shown hypocrisy. You ask for full accounting from your opponent, but are unwilling to provide such yourself.
I don't make any claims, but you do. All I want is to see the evidence you have for your claim of widespread voter fraud. I'm still waiting.
Derf
Well-known member
No, you’re not just waiting. You’re asking for results of the audit before the audit is complete. It’s premature, and therefore divisive. Audits should be a uniting function—answering questions so that everyone can agree on the outcome. You are attempting to make people question the reason for the audit by saying the audit hasn’t produced anything, knowing that it can’t produce anything unless it is allowed to complete.
That’s hypocrisy.
You have already made assertions about the election that you now admit cannot be backed up by evidence, because in your words "the audit hasn't produced anything, knowing that it can't produce anything unless it is allowed to complete". That's hypocrisy.
Right Divider
Body part
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
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.
Right Divider
Body part
Just calling it the way that I see it. As if you don't do the same.
Dude... the standards for EVIDENCE are pretty much the same as they've always been. Why try to misdirect with "bronze age science"? Oh, wait... I know.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
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.Just calling it the way that I see it. As if you don't do the same.
Dude... the standards for EVIDENCE are pretty much the same as they've always been. Why try to misdirect with "bronze age science"? Oh, wait... I know.
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. That's not some wild claim, it's just common sense and self evident. It's not a case of some 'snobbery argument' where people in times past were 'less intelligent' because they didn't have access to the same techniques. I don't, not have ever made such an argument that equates to anything resembling.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Seems like Powell just can't help herself...
uk.yahoo.com
Sidney Powell Just ‘Eviscerated’ Her Own Legal Defense, Experts Say
Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via GettySidney Powell lost the plot.To protect herself from a billion-dollar defamation lawsuit, the Trumpist lawyer was supposed to stick to her wacky opinions that a voting technology company somehow stole the 2020 U.S. presidential election, and not try to...
Right Divider
Body part
They're not silly, they're true.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
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 facts straight.
Derf
Well-known member
Not true. The assertions came about because of evidence. The evidence is not sufficient, but the assertions are troubling. Thus the audit. And those words were attributed to you, or a reflection of your thoughts. Do you agree with them? You seem to.
What evidence?
Right Divider
Body part
No idea what you're talking about.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
This is the article you linked to after accusing me of yet another fallacy. Can you not even follow your own posts?!
Chronological snobbery - Wikipedia
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
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 that of the present, simply by virtue of its temporal priority or the belief that since civilization has advanced in certain areas, people of earlier periods were less intelligent."
Doesn't apply to me at all. If that actually defined my thinking then I'd be dismissive of renaissance art, baroque and classical music for starters except I'm not. The same with science. Groundbreaking advancements have been made in the arts, science, philosophy etc but that doesn't make people of an earlier time any the less intelligent at all. Is Steinbeck any the more intelligent than Dickens simply by virtue of his being born at a later time?
Of course not. I have never made such an argument.
Last edited:
Tell us all, exactly why have Republican-appointed judges dismissed charges of fraud in the 2020 election?
Fact check: Courts have dismissed multiple lawsuits of alleged electoral fraud presented by Trump campaign
Following President Joe Biden’s swearing in on Jan. 20, a Facebook post shared over 6,140 times has said: “Not one court has looked at the evidence and said that Biden legally won. Not one”. This is false: state and federal judges dismissed more than 50 lawsuits presented by then President...
Thanks for the warning.
Did you think that I was saying something wrong? Or were you just posturing?
Because you say so?
Because the way the Bible was written, it means evidence. "Witness" is used of both people AND non-human evidence in the Bible.