-->
@Double_R
The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim to provide evidence for their claim.
The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim to provide evidence for their claim.
The media is basically a cartel at this point lol
Irrational and unacceptable."if we didn't detect it and find a perpetrator it didn't happen"bingo
A fair analogy.We know Congress does insider trading because of the hundreds of millions of dollars they accumulate while in office (Obama was one of the worst)But there's no possible way to detect it other than seeing the effects.
President Obama signed a law banning insider trading by members of Congress, the president and federal workers.
President Obama signed a law banning insider trading by members of Congress, the president and federal workers.
I provided 11 examples, the list; the immediate context was going into the details of one of those examples. In that immediate context you start denying there is a wider pattern as a way to excuse the specific example.I could give the 11 examples again, you would say "nah uh none of those are examples, for instance [starts talking about specific example]" I point out how the specific example is misinformation/false by the standards applied to narratives promoted by the propagandist and you'll go "oh there is no pattern though"It's a big circle and I'm not following you around it.
The news report following this claims ICE agents whipped migrants.Yes, and since they keep lying and using egregious double standards it is not reasonable to believe news reports
people who counted the ballots -> couldn't possibly identify which ones were fraudulentthe supervisors they worked under -> couldn't possibly identify which ones were fraudulentthe officials they reported to -> could only check with the people who counted the ballotsthe officials tasked with verifying their results -> could only check with the officials the ballot counters were reporting to (or the machines that counted the ballots and had no way of detecting fraudulent ones) and thus could not possibly fulfill their task
Nobody needs a governor to cheat when there is mass mail in votes with signatures being the only verification of identity that can't be dumped from a voter roll database.
You completely dropped the discussion on the one example
So in other words... You accept that the election not being stolen is not just a claim that came from a few officials at the top telling us so.
Nobody needs a governor to cheat when there is mass mail in votes with signatures being the only verification of identity that can't be dumped from a voter roll database.So what exactly is the argument that the election was stolen? All I've gathered from you so far is that mail in ballots were susceptible to fraud, therefore they were fraudulent, therefore Trump really won.Does that sum it up?
The bread and butter of modern propaganda.
“How do you substantiate your belief that there were, in fact, whips involved?”Your lack of an answer leads me to conclude that some video footage provided sufficient evidence in your view of the presence of whips and the inexcusable whipping of people. Your standard of evidence, and that of the journalists involved as well as the Whitehouse, for what constitutes an act of an agent of the federal government whipping defenseless people seems to be rather low— too low to be consistent with reality, as it turned out.
Ok, so at the time a video surfaces showing ICE agents chasing migrants with whips…
You're waffling instead of admitting that they ran a false story about whips and millions of people believed it
That's what I said, that the only reason you have to claim accuracy would be the assertions of people who you think would be in the position to know and whom you trust to tell the truth.
This sums it up:
If it's susceptible to fraud and fraud cannot be ruled out in a timely manner (or in this case at all) it must be treated as fraudulent just as a bank which can't be audited, a scientific paper whose data cannot be reproduced, or evidence in a court case with no chain of custody.
It's also a clue that thousands of people needed to repeatedly certify election results (by law).
I already explained that. No one who "believed" the story gave a rats ass whether the agents were carrying whips, split reins, or oversized Twizzlers.
Naturally, because you have no evidence of fraud, your tactic is to try and reverse the burden into "proving innocence". That is not how it works.
We do not assume fraud at the outset.
Disagreeing with our system of voting is perfectly fine. We can debate that. But within the system we have, the results were clear.
You love to pretend that you are above everyone else because as you argue, the rest of us are just believing what were told, ironically unaware that every argument you make relies on information you were told. You are no different than anyone else, the only difference is that you seem to think credibility is determined by opposing the masses. It's not.
This sums it up:If it's susceptible to fraud and fraud cannot be ruled out in a timely manner (or in this case at all) it must be treated as fraudulent just as a bank which can't be audited, a scientific paper whose data cannot be reproduced, or evidence in a court case with no chain of custody.If I show up at a polling station with my ID
sign the form and cast a ballot
sign the form and cast a ballot, fraud cannot be ruled out.
Does this mean we get rid of in person voting as well?
This is a deeply flawed comparison. Running a bank, producing a scientific paper, or admitting evidence into a court case are not constitutionally guaranteed rights.
The idea that we should require the same standards to accept a ballot as we would evidence in court is patently absurd. Our entire democratic system would collapse.
Moreover, you pretend as if anyone could just fill out a mail in ballot and there are no checks and balances to ensure its integrity. That's total nonsense.
That's how it works. That's how it should work. That's how it will always work.
It's also a clue that thousands of people needed to repeatedly certify election results (by law).This is called a safeguard.
I have question; do you believe the 2020 election in Florida should be accepted as the accurate results?
I don’t confuse your weak sauce backpedaling for you never having made the claim as you seem to wish.
There were instances of this. How heavily it was reported compared to how often it was happening I don't know.
You can watch that video and take no issue with it all you want, that doesn't mean it didn't resonate with many people and no one who watched the video and took issue with it would have changed their minds if someone came along and said "duh those aren't whips those are split reins".