To the BOLD: That's because "proof" requires evidence that is true, accurate, and verifiable. I demonstrated that neither of your fake "proofs" were any of those things. Thus they only constitute "proof" to the uneducated for whom "Because I said so" is good enough.
NO, you did NOT demonstrate that. Not at all. Quite the contrary i demonstrated that my Proof A is 100% true, accurate, verifiable,and UNDENIABLE. By objective people that is. One doesn't expect a liberal robot to say anything other than what his his university masters have programmed him to say.
And I already trashed your empty
"Because I said so," line.
Ho hum.
Really? Proof "A" is true, accurate, and verifiable? Then you should have no problem providing evidence to dispute my dissection of your "proof":
Yes it certainly IS evidence. BOTH A & B. Best evidence there is. Better than the FAKE liberal reporters
Really? Let's look at that "proof" under "A", shall we?
Proof A
1 Trump said he would deport illegal aliens.
Well, yes he did claim that. Unfortunately,
according to the data, while Trump is
arresting more people than Obama did, actual deportations is
down by 1.2%, so he's not actually living up to that promise, now is he? This is called separating fact from rhetoric. I understand if that is a concept that seems a bit complicated to you.
2. Illegal aliens do things illegally. (a way of life for them)
See? This is the popular myth. Unfortunately it simply isn't supported by
actual data, and evidence. That makes this opinion, not fact. And opinion, as much as you might like it to be so, is not "proof" of anything beyond your own personal biases.
3. There are virtually no barriers to voting illegally.
Note: this is called INTELLIGENCE
Now
this is, arguably, a true statement. However, again, the
vast body of
actual evidence indicates that this is because they aren't needed, as in person voter fraud is so rare as to be almost statistically non-existent. Note that statistically non-existent does
not mean that it
never happens; rather it means that it is so rare that, statistically, it has absolutely no effect on elections.
So, sorry. When examined, your "proof" actually isn't. Since your "evidence" is true, and accurate, you should have no problem demonstrating that the data that I provided links to is not accurate. Otherwise, I very much
did dissect your inaccurate, untrue, and unverifiable evidence.
