5 ms·
If I were arguing in court, you would be absolutely right. The only thing you are missing is this pesky little thing called me arguing in court. I don't have a
by jtxxwl 6y ago
If I were arguing in court, you would be absolutely right. The only thing you are missing is this pesky little thing called me arguing in court.
I don't have any reason to believe it would be possible to prove in a court that election fraud took place at this point, outside of confessions. That doesn't mean it didn't take place, or that it isn't reasonable to believe it took place.
- arolihas 6y agoIt turns out there are places outside of court that care about actual evidence. Like in science, history, or reputable journalism. I know you don’t care about that though, so I wish you good luck in life.
- jtxxwl 6y agoI listed clear, undisputed evidence that the local election officials and workers had the means, motive, and opportunity to cheat in the election. While it is not a smoking gun, it definitively establishes that the known facts are consistent with the assertion, and it is relevant to any honest treatment of the topic. Honest historians and journalists would note that it's completely plausible and reasonable to believe that substantial election fraud occurred, even if it could not be proven sufficiently in court to nullify the results. If they were honest in covering the election, they would not force the words "no evidence" or "without evidence" into every sentence, as though a smoking gun is the only good reason to believe anyone has ever done anything.