Depluribus Unum
User ID: 79035818 United States 11/10/2020 11:02 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The Left: No *proof* of widespread fraud, so don't investigate. Just bow down. For anyone leaning toward believing the left, here is a timeline of their argument in a nutshell: - "Accusations of fraud are not proof" - Proof appears - "Proof of fraud does not mean it's widespread" - Evidence that it is widespread appears - "Proof of widespread fraud does not mean it changed the result" -Results start reversing - "SHUT UP AND BOW DOWN" -Where we are today Accusations never come with proof. To obtain proof, you need investigations. They argue that because there is not already proof, there should not be any investigations. This is called a chicken-and-egg argument, and is a fallacy that needs to be dismissed upfront (no proof without investigations, no investigations without proof). Last Edited by Depluribus Unum on 11/10/2020 11:03 AMFrom many, covfefe |
diverdan01
User ID: 39516942 United States 11/10/2020 11:05 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: The Left: No *proof* of widespread fraud, so don't investigate. Just bow down. stevie wonder could see the fraud this time |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 74263008 United States 11/10/2020 11:06 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: The Left: No *proof* of widespread fraud, so don't investigate. Just bow down. :bigthis: |
Depluribus Unum
(OP)
User ID: 79035818 United States 11/10/2020 11:07 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: The Left: No *proof* of widespread fraud, so don't investigate. Just bow down.
stevie wonder could see the fraud this time
Quoting: diverdan01 Stevie Wonder is ridin' with Biden. He's not just physically blind. From many, covfefe |
Depluribus Unum
(OP)
User ID: 79618040 United States 11/10/2020 11:37 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: The Left: No *proof* of widespread fraud, so don't investigate. Just bow down. For anyone leaning toward believing the left, here is a timeline of their argument in a nutshell:
- "Accusations of fraud are not proof" - Proof appears
- "Proof of fraud does not mean it's widespread" - Evidence that it is widespread appears
- "Proof of widespread fraud does not mean it changed the result" -Results start reversing
- "SHUT UP AND BOW DOWN" -Where we are today
Accusations never come with proof. To obtain proof, you need investigations. They argue that because there is not already proof, there should not be any investigations. This is called a chicken-and-egg argument, and is a fallacy that needs to be dismissed upfront (no proof without investigations, no investigations without proof).
Quoting: Depluribus Unum From many, covfefe |