re: If Biden won 2020 legitimately

quote:

---

This is why I think we will never be told the truth about 2020

---

Trump has signaled the entire time that that whole narrative will be blown sky high. There is zero reason not to believe him.

Well, the Veruca Salt contingency will bitch that it hasn't happened on their arbitrary, juvenile schedule, but those malcontents can get fricked and stay fricked.

quote:

---

Well, the Veruca Salt contingency will bitch that it hasn't happened on their arbitrary, juvenile schedule, but those malcontents can get fricked and stay fricked.

---

quote:

---

NC Tigah wrote:
Just for clarification, the reference to "fact" was not to the election results. I've not contended the overturned election is a fact. The fact in that instance is that a litany of suspicious issues stacked in one direction and were not investigated.

---

quote:

---

CrystalPreserves wrote:
Nc_tigah, “the system is exploitable” quietly became “fraud drove the result” without evidence ever making the trip.

---

quote:

---

CrystalPreserves

---

Are you learning disabled?
Serious question, because if you are, I sincerely apologize for rubbing your nose in your own words.

quote:

---

Are you learning disabled? Serious question, because if you are, I sincerely apologize for rubbing your nose in your own words.

---

No apology is necessary. Your difficulty is not that I failed to understand your words, but that I understood them well enough to notice you quietly narrowing the claim once its evidentiary burden became inconvenient. You asserted that “the system was exploited” and that “the fraud is there.” You now retreat to the far more modest proposition that certain matters appeared suspicious and, in your estimation, were insufficiently investigated. Those are not equivalent claims. Suspicion may justify inquiry. It doesn’t establish exploitation, fraud, or an altered result. The distinction is elementary, which perhaps explains your growing reliance on personal insult. You’re not rubbing my nose in my words. You’re backing away from yours and hoping the commotion obscures the footprints baw.

I’ve noticed that’s become something of a habit with you, Bubba. Every time the evidence wanders off, you saddle up the insults and ride them into town like they’re carrying the argument.

They don’t.

I went back through the exchange, and you’re right. I attributed 808bass’s words to you. That was my mistake. What I can fairly hold you to is your own position that suspicious issues accumulated in one direction and were not properly investigated.

So I’ll correct my own record. That’s what grown men do when the trail shows they stepped wrong. The larger point remains unchanged though. Suspicion is not proof, exploitability is not exploitation, and an unanswered question is not a stolen election. You earned the correction, Bubba. Don’t mistake it for the whole ranch.

quote:

---

didn’t cross that evidentiary distance

---

please define what 'evidence' would get you to accept the other side of this issue.

YOU claim that is "no evidence"

WE claim that nobody in charge of the process would ALLOW anyone to 'examine' the evidence.

There could be evidence of a perfect election process hidden in the records and processes from that night (and the irregular extra time allowed for your side to get all their ducks in a row) - yet your side will not allow that possibility to be examined.

Psst - your queen is naked - and all you can do is say "DO NOT LOOK AT HER"

quote:

---

please define what 'evidence' would get you to accept the other side of this issue. YOU claim that is "no evidence" WE claim that nobody in charge of the process would ALLOW anyone to 'examine' the evidence. There could be evidence of a perfect election process hidden in the records and processes from that night (and the irregular extra time allowed for your side to get all their ducks in a row) - yet your side will not allow that possibility to be examined. Psst - your queen is naked - and all you can do is say "DO NOT LOOK AT HER"

---

You’ve changed the claim. First, the argument was that there is evidence. Now the argument is that nobody was allowed to examine it. Those are not the same thing.

So answer this plainly. What evidence would convince you that your conclusion is wrong? If the answer is “none, because the proof is hidden,” then you’ve built a position that cannot be tested, disproved, or corrected.

My standard is simple - show credible, independently verifiable evidence of unlawful votes or tabulation errors large enough to change the certified result. I would accept it. That is the evidentiary distance your argument still has not crossed.

Suspicion can justify looking. It cannot justify announcing the verdict before the proof shows up. I’ve told you what would change my mind. You have explained why nothing can change yours.

And that queen line has it backwards. I’m asking you to show the piece. You’re declaring checkmate with an empty square.

quote:

---

Bubba, you’ve mistaken consistency for partisanship. My principle does not change with the defendant’s name. Yours does.

---

example please

quote:

---

You reject election allegations for want of proof, yet dismiss every adverse finding against Trump as fraudulent by definition.

---

name one

quote:

---

Let’s get real.

---

game on !!

I have not heard you (don't follow you - just going by what I happen to see once in a while) criticize ONE instance of the now-proven (to any logical mind) the wholesale attack by the Federal Government, led by democrats and RINO, against Trump during his first term - practically 'imprisoning him in various courts and media traps. And that all intensified with even more vigor during the "biden admin" (or whomever was calling the shots)

And not one kickback by any of the legacy media on the UNFAIRNESS, if not completely illegality, of any of the crap.

What IS the most egregious act initiated by Democrats agains POTUS Trump during his first term? -- OR - do you see complete logic and fact of suspicion in ALL of the attacks.

Point me to a criticism you lodged THEN, and I will retract every comment I've made against you.

But as I sit here and read your inputs, I have you pegged as being totally devoted to whatever the DNC or legacy media tell you.

quote:

---

ou wrote there was “never a scintilla of actual evidence” against Trump. You called the charges “absolutely fake” and chalked the whole thing up to Democrats simply hating him. That’s exactly what I meant. You didn’t examine a particular allegation and explain why the evidence failed. You waved off the entire body of adverse evidence before weighing any of it.

---

OK - democrats have had 2 impeachments, dozens of lawsuits, 10 years, and billions of dollars spent by thousands of fellow travelers with the full fledged support of 3/4 the national media.

What have they produced? please name a result from all that investigation.

And what - in your opinion was this "evidence" thing you say WE lack in our questions about the 2020 election. Was THEIR 'evidence' OK with you??

All WE are doing is asking for law enforcement people to do their jobs - but notice WE are not out rioting in the streets and burning down buildings and assassinating people. WE are merely asking pertinent QUEStiONs that you nor anyone else can dare to try answering - you learned this little phrase "not enough evidence to get a reversal" as though it were handed down from God himself.

OF COURSE there is no 'evidence' by YOUR definition (whatever that is). YOU and your cohorts demand that WE - ordinary citizens with a brain - can look at a scenairo and think 'something wrong here' - same as if the same guy kept winning the lottery every time, and happened to be related to the sponsor = WE would suspect that someone should INVESTIGATE that - but YOU would demand WE find the EVIDENCE That it really happened.

YOU are the one just hiding behind what you think is a clever 'get out of jail free card'

SO - describe the 'evidence' they had again Trump in ANY of his 'criminal trials' - and where did that 'evidence' originate?'

WE are using the suspicious FACTs about a national election - completely divorced from reality in EVERY WAY - and asking - what went on behind those closed doors = doors they would not allow the usual 'observers' to 'observe close enough to see anything. (that darned COVID thing that just "happened' do occur from the Democrats best friendly nation = CHINA = that ALSO gave democrats carte blanche to change ANY and ALL election standards that they wanted - WITHOUT proper observation.

You bring up our 'dedication' to 'Donald Trump' while WE are merely trying to bring facts and rational observations to an election scenario that causes any democrat to falll into a fit === while YOU followed every piece of shite allegation against trump with your mouth drooling just hoping = WE GOT HIM ThIS TIME!!!! a dozen times or more. And alll the 'evidence' that must have passed muster with you then has ALL been found to be nothing but made up out of whole cloth from the Clinton campaign, illegally pushed thru by Obama on his way out of office to try any find SOMETHING - ANYTHING to stop the big bad orange man.

You have NOTHING - yet demand that WE single-handedly solve a problem that requires ALLOWING us to examine the actual EVIDENCE.

You say we got no evidence - that is because YOUR side has it all as refused to allow anyone to see it.

I'm done with you - unless you make at least one salient point in defense of the democrat action over the past decade.