Zone1 Evidence vs Proof

[task0778]

What bothers me the most about this whole election fraud thing is that some people on both sides confuse evidence with proof. The vast majority of election fraud allegations were not dismissed based on evidence but on standing or jurisdiction. It wasn't that those cases had no merit, but there's little or no precedence or statute for a judge to base his/her ruling on, plus the basis for a lawsuit is the harm that was done to somebody. The Right can show numerous instances of questionable actions or decisions and all sorts of statistics that indicate the possibility or even probability of wrong-doing, but the problem is that real proof of fraud that resulted in the wrong person being elected or that actual harm was done hasn't been presented.

Which does not mean that there was no election fraud or that the right/correct person was elected (or not), and that is where the Left comes in. Absence of proof does not validate the election and does not mean all those allegations were false. So many on the Left hold the position that since the Right has no proof that the wrong person was elected then the election was valid and we should ignore the allegations and accept the result without further ado. Move on, nothing to see here. This despite the fact that a huge number of Americans doubted then and doubt now that elections in this country are legitimate. We won, you didn't so STFU. But any election that is believed to be suspicious ought to be scrupulously investigated, and the failure to do so is a clear indicator of a totalitarian gov't that is afraid of losing power. And if we cannot trust our election processes then we cannot trust our elected officials either and that is dangerous IMHO for our democratically elected republic.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

What bothers me the most about this whole election fraud thing is that some people on both sides confuse evidence with proof. The vast majority of election fraud allegations were not dismissed based on evidence but on standing or jurisdiction. It wasn't that those cases had no merit, but there's little or no precedence or statute for a judge to base his/her ruling on, plus the basis for a lawsuit is the harm that was done to somebody. The Right can show numerous instances of questionable actions or decisions and all sorts of statistics that indicate the possibility or even probability of wrong-doing, but the problem is that real proof of fraud that resulted in the wrong person being elected or that actual harm was done hasn't been presented.

Which does not mean that there was no election fraud or that the right/correct person was elected (or not), and that is where the Left comes in. Absence of proof does not validate the election and does not mean all those allegations were false. So many on the Left hold the position that since the Right has no proof that the wrong person was elected then the election was valid and we should ignore the allegations and accept the result without further ado. Move on, nothing to see here. This despite the fact that a huge number of Americans doubted then and doubt now that elections in this country are legitimate. We won, you didn't so STFU. But any election that is believed to be suspicious ought to be scrupulously investigated, and the failure to do so is a clear indicator of a totalitarian gov't that is afraid of losing power. And if we cannot trust our election processes then we cannot trust our elected officials either and that is dangerous IMHO for our democratically elected republic.

Well that was pretty convoluted..allow me to help..absent PROOF--you have nothing. The Democrats need not prove themselves the winners..on the face of it they won. It is up to the election deniers to prove their allegations..not present ambiguous, twisty anecdotal stories based on feelings and obscure, if not totally made up stories. That is why all the courts turned their backs.
For contrast, in the Gore/Bush debacle..there was proof..and it went to the SCOTUS almost instantly. I might add that Gore could have continued..most felt he had a case..but he chose, for the good of the country, to concede. I literally can't imagine Trump doing such a thing, can you?

Yes, if you have no proof of wrongdoing... the election is valid. Open and shut. Although I do appreciate the rhetorical lengths you went to..to assert otherwise.
Basically, it takes a lot more than belief, to spend the treasure, time and goodwill to assuage the feeling of losers.

Our govt. is not totalitarian and only a fool would so assert.

 

[Votto]

Well that was pretty convoluted..allow me to help..absent PROOF--you have nothing. The Democrats need no prove themselves the winners..on the face of it they won. It is up to the election deniers to prove their allegations..not present ambiguous, twisty anecdotal stories based on feelings and obscure, if not totally made up stories. That is why all the courts turned their backs.
For contrast, in the Gore/Bush debacle..there was proof..and it went to the SCOTUS almost instantly. I might add that Gore could have continued..most felt he had a case..but he chose, for the good of the country, to concede. I literally can't imagine Trump doing such a thing, can you?

Yes, if you have no proof of wrongdoing... the election is valid. Open and shut. Although I do appreciate the rhetorical lengths you went to..to assert otherwise.
Basically, it takes a lot more than belief, to spend the treasure, time and goodwill to assuage the feeling of losers.

Our govt. is not totalitarian and only a fool would so assert.

LOL

I've heard some democrats say they don't even think China is a totalitarian state.

But, being Marxists, the only totalitarian state for a democrat would be a free one that allows social platforms like Twitter to allow free speech.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

LOL

I've heard some democrats say they don't even think China is a totalitarian state.

But, being Marxists, the only totalitarian state for a democrat would be a free one that allows social platforms like Twitter to allow free speech.

Democrats are not Marxists----nor are Republicans Fascists~

Both parties do have more than their share of ignorant, knee-jerking puppets who can be counted on to demonize their opposition.

I think we all know where YOU fit in eh?

 

[jwoodie]

What bothers me is that some people confuse emotion and logic.

Well that was pretty convoluted..allow me to help..absent PROOF--you have nothing. The Democrats need not prove themselves the winners..on the face of it they won. It is up to the election deniers to prove their allegations..not present ambiguous, twisty anecdotal stories based on feelings and obscure, if not totally made up stories. That is why all the courts turned their backs.
For contrast, in the Gore/Bush debacle..there was proof..and it went to the SCOTUS almost instantly. I might add that Gore could have continued..most felt he had a case..but he chose, for the good of the country, to concede. I literally can't imagine Trump doing such a thing, can you?

Yes, if you have no proof of wrongdoing... the election is valid. Open and shut. Although I do appreciate the rhetorical lengths you went to..to assert otherwise.
Basically, it takes a lot more than belief, to spend the treasure, time and goodwill to assuage the feeling of losers.

Our govt. is not totalitarian and only a fool would so assert.

So many words, so little logic. Have you ever heard the phase "capable of repetition yet evading review?" According to you, there is no way an individual should be able to contest the defrauding of an election unless he can prove that his one vote would have been the deciding factor.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

What bothers me is that some people confuse emotion and logic.

So many words, so little logic. Have you ever heard the phase "capable of repetition yet evading review?" According to you, there is no way an individual should be able to contest the defrauding of an election unless he can prove that his one vote would have been the deciding factor.

errr...no, although I'd accept your judgement..so many words, so little logic--for the OP.
If you can prove that fraud took place, and you can prove that it made a difference..the election is bogus. Simple, yes?

So yeah..if one vote is proved fraudulent..unless indeed the 1 vote made a difference..the election stands. Not that the fraud shouldn't be prosecuted..it should

So much of the election denier's case rests on spurious stats and bogus claims. I see the same debunked shit put forth again and again. To be debunked again and again.

Confuse emotion and logic..hmm..gotta admit, first I've been accused of THAT. Usually I get shit for discounting the emotional argument in favor of logic.
As in..the case for voter fraud in the 2020 election is based purely on emotion..it was set up before the election even began by Trump and his surrogates.
You feel you were robbed, therefore you were, right? After all, Trump said you would be, right?

Still..the OP states that proof is not needed..and I stand by my rebuttal..that proof is absolutely needed..incontrovertible proof, at that..before we overturn a national election~

 

[Coyote]

The problem I have with this is twofold. You can’t order an investigation based on “belief”, it should be based on there being enough evidence to support investigating. To date, nothing has come close. The fact that the DoJ was specifically tasked with investigating any claims of fraud, and couldn’t substantiate any is telling.

In terms of the fraud claims made, many were found without merit because the couldn’t be substantiated or they were a normal part of the process that the poll watcher didn’t understand or they were based on select snippets of video out of context. Further investigation wouldn’t change “belief” if the Trump DoJ couldn’t, because they would just find another reason to doubt the results if it didn’t go their way as long as the president they supported continues to claim fraud.

The second issue is trust in our electoral system. If people have lost trust in it, even if baseless, we have a problem.

 

[task0778]

The second issue is trust in our electoral system. If people have lost trust in it, even if baseless, we have a problem.

There you go. We do have a problem, a very large one because many polls since that election confirm that a very large number of Americans have still have doubts in our electoral system and do not trust it. I thought there was well-known; there were many hundreds of allegations of wrong-doing, and IMHO everyone of those allegations should be investigated and if found to have some credibility then remedies should have been determined and implemented. In many states that did happen, to their credit. But the Left continues to deny that any investigation at all should have been done in the 1st place. We should have proof of any wrong-doing first? Really? Of election fraud? Kind of hard to come by, no? No proof of anything illegal, nothing to see here, no need to check it out. All those hundreds of people that came forward to report something? I wonder how many other people saw something and kept their mouths shut. Never mind, none of any of them had any proof so screw 'em. We'll investigate the crap out of the other side, but not us, no sir. All those people are probably MAGA types anyway and should be ignored.

Tell me again about the threat to democracy. The only people who should count are the ones on our side.

 

[Coyote]

There you go. We do have a problem, a very large one because many polls since that election confirm that a very large number of Americans have still have doubts in our electoral system and do not trust it. I thought there was well-known; there were many hundreds of allegations of wrong-doing, and IMHO everyone of those allegations should be investigated and if found to have some credibility then remedies should have been determined and implemented. In many states that did happen, to their credit. But the Left continues to deny that any investigation at all should have been done in the 1st place. We should have proof of any wrong-doing first? Really? Of election fraud? Kind of hard to come by, no? No proof of anything illegal, nothing to see here, no need to check it out. All those hundreds of people that came forward to report something? I wonder how many other people saw something and kept their mouths shut. Never mind, none of any of them had any proof so screw 'em. We'll investigate the crap out of the other side, but not us, no sir. All those people are probably MAGA types anyway and should be ignored.

Tell me again about the threat to democracy. The only people who should count are the ones on our side.

Disagree with some of this. You don’t need proof, but it has to be credible or you are wasting time, money and manpower chasing down every claim. And most of not all of those were investigated because election fraud IS taken seriously by both left and right, but that gets diluted when inundated with baseless claims from the highest pedestal. Of those people who claimed they saw something, many were investigated but it ended up being unsubstanytiated or people who saw something not understanding that it was a normal part of the process.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Disagree with some of this. You don’t need proof, but it has to be credible or you are wasting time, money and manpower chasing down every claim. And most of not all of those were investigated because election fraud IS taken seriously by both left and right, but that gets diluted when inundated with baseless claims from the highest pedestal. Of those people who claimed they saw something, many were investigated but it ended up being unsubstanytiated or people who saw something not understanding that it was a normal part of the process.

Not to mention the outright lies and misrepresentations presented. The recounts, followed by the audits..followed by more audits. Every time nothing substantial was found..all your side said was "dig deeper' It is all just a shitstorm ginned up by Trump. He manufactured the election fraud narrative BEFORE the election. All the Trumpkins bought it..were looking for it and found it..in their own febrile imaginations and in their angst.

Ballot drops that never happened...normal procedures during a count--some boxes with verified ballots under a table, where they were put, while the precinct workers took a break.
On and on and on. "Suspicious' halts in the count..as workers take a break. A large swing in the vote..as mail-in ballots were counted later..much of which was actually mandated by the laws Republicans put in place. Lawyers have been sanctioned for their lies and machinations, and yet, still the idiots persist. Disbarment looming...and still they persist.Lawsuits totaling millions--with a very good chance of winning, alleging defamation and outright lies. Provable lies. Easily provable lies. Still the idiots persist. No Krakon. No evidence..no nothing but ginned up B.S. and still the idiots persist. Now we have copycats like Kari Lake..who pursue the same futile course... and still the idiots persist.
Disbar Trump’s Lawyers Who Tried to Steal the Election | Washington Monthly

Rudy Giuliani violated ethics rules by pushing Trump’s election lies, review finds

Trump’s former lawyer could be disbarred, have law licence suspended or be formally censured

news.yahoo.com

Federal judge sanctions Trump attorneys for spreading false election fraud claims

It is the latest instance of the former president’s allies being penalized for their roles in spreading conspiracies about the 2020 vote.

www.nbcnews.com

Perhaps the greatest harm Trump has done is his deliberate destruction of Americans trust in their electoral system. He did that with malice aforethought...out of nothing but pique brought on by his loss. It's unforgivable..and I think history will judge Trump harshly--not that he cares.
The Red wave that wasn't and the poor showing by the election denier crowd does give me hope--that not everyone is fooled into thinking that the Democrats somehow have engaged in this huge conspiracy...to cheat the poor Repubs out of their wins. It's absurd..and still..the idiots persist~

 

[Frankeneinstein]

It is up to the election deniers to prove their allegations

that's the most honest answer I have seen yet on those who believe the election was stolen.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Perhaps the greatest harm Trump has done is his deliberate destruction of Americans trust in their electoral system.

Hillary in 2016 and Abrams in 2018 did the same.. yet, you don’t appear to have a problem. There are 2 major parties, and when people on one point fingers without admitting it’s wrong when they do it exposes them as not credible.

Either hold a standard or don’t. I think Trump, Hillary, and Abrams have a right to question or challenge elections, it’s not “anti-democracy”.

Yet, the left said Clinton and Abrams were justified while Trump was not. Standards don’t care about whether you feel you’re right, it was the mere action that has been condemned as a horrific evil by Biden, Harris, Democrats, etc. so they are rhetorically required to condemn Clinton and Abrams just as aggressively as Trump. They didn’t, they don’t, so they aren’t credible

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Hillary in 2016 and Abrams in 2018 did the same.. yet, you don’t appear to have a problem. There are 2 major parties, and when people on one point fingers without admitting it’s wrong when they do it exposes them as not credible.

Either hold a standard or don’t. I think Trump, Hillary, and Abrams have a right to question or challenge elections, it’s not “anti-democracy”.

Yet, the left said Clinton and Abrams were justified while Trump was not. Standards don’t care about whether you feel you’re right, it was the mere action that has been condemned as a horrific evil by Biden, Harris, Democrats, etc. so they are rhetorically required to condemn Clinton and Abrams just as aggressively as Trump. They didn’t, they don’t, so they aren’t credible

I think it's not the same thing at all. In the 2016 race, Clinton alleged Russian interference in our election with the intent to turn it for Trump..not Election fraud. Indeed, it's been proven that there was a concerted attempt on social media, orchestrated by Russian interests, that favored Trump. I don't think it made a lot of difference and I'm pretty sure it wasn't actually against the law. But it did happen.
Abrams refused to concede the 2018 election out of anger at what she perceived as Republican voter suppression. She may have been right, may not have been. But she had her day in court..lost...and moved on. Tried again in 2022 and lost. She conceded without whining...and moved on.

Trump's Big Lie has gone on now for 2 years..unabated despite the lack of proof--despite the many times outright lies have been caught--despite the many times spurious allegations have been blown up..all to the detriment of the country. His actions have gone far, far beyond 'questioning or challenging the election" at this point.

As an aside, credibility does not depend on the previous actions of others. No, partisans on the Left aren't going to condemn Hillary...I do note though, that Hillary is not on the news every day whining about her loss. Neither is Abrams.

The scope and scale of Trump's 'Big Lie' puts him firmly in an altogether different category. One that's orders of magnitude larger, more far-reaching, more egregious, and far more damaging than we've ever seen in this country, as regards elections~

 

[Harpy Eagle]

What bothers me the most about this whole election fraud thing is that some people on both sides confuse evidence with proof. The vast majority of election fraud allegations were not dismissed based on evidence but on standing or jurisdiction. It wasn't that those cases had no merit, but there's little or no precedence or statute for a judge to base his/her ruling on, plus the basis for a lawsuit is the harm that was done to somebody. The Right can show numerous instances of questionable actions or decisions and all sorts of statistics that indicate the possibility or even probability of wrong-doing, but the problem is that real proof of fraud that resulted in the wrong person being elected or that actual harm was done hasn't been presented.

Which does not mean that there was no election fraud or that the right/correct person was elected (or not), and that is where the Left comes in. Absence of proof does not validate the election and does not mean all those allegations were false. So many on the Left hold the position that since the Right has no proof that the wrong person was elected then the election was valid and we should ignore the allegations and accept the result without further ado. Move on, nothing to see here. This despite the fact that a huge number of Americans doubted then and doubt now that elections in this country are legitimate. We won, you didn't so STFU. But any election that is believed to be suspicious ought to be scrupulously investigated, and the failure to do so is a clear indicator of a totalitarian gov't that is afraid of losing power. And if we cannot trust our election processes then we cannot trust our elected officials either and that is dangerous IMHO for our democratically elected republic.

I spent many years on a Christian forum that had a large number of Flat Earthers. This was the same basic argument they used to defend their position the earth is flat.

 

[task0778]

I spent many years on a Christian forum that had a large number of Flat Earthers. This was the same basic argument they used to defend their position the earth is flat.

Whether the earth was flat was a question of science, easily disproved by hard facts. Whether the 2020 election was fraudulent and was sufficient enough to change the outcome is a matter of opinion and politics that cannot be proved/disproved at all. Your attempt to equate the 2 issues is bullshit.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Absence of proof does not validate the election and does not mean all those allegations were false.

Of course it does, as far as making a determination and moving on with our lives. Nothing is 100% certain. But the complete absence of evidence is more than enough for any rational person to determine that the election was free and fair and that the Republican Liars are all lying frauds and their allegations are all false.

The fact that they made their allegations at all without a shred of evidence demonstrates quite clearly that they are all frauds. So that much has already been proven Beyond any doubt.

 

[task0778]

Indeed, it's been proven that there was a concerted attempt on social media, orchestrated by Russian interests, that favored Trump.

Do you believe there was a concerted attempt on social media and the main stream media to favor Hillary? And do you think the level of trust in the entire field of journalism took a hit as a result? Not to mention in our current gov't?


This thread is not a question of whether or not the election was fraudulent or whether the wrong candidate was elected. The question posed is whether both sides of the argument have misused or transposed proof and evidence, which are 2 different things. No proof is not the same as no evidence, there was evidence but it wasn't enough to be conclusive in a court of law. It was however sufficient to create doubts in the minds of millions of Americans in our electoral systems, and investigations into the allegations that were made should have been made and supported by both parties to quell those suspicions. But the democratic party fought those investigations tooth and nail, and as a result at least in part we now have a greater distrust in our gov't.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Whether the earth was flat was a question of science, easily disproved by hard facts.

Yet the flat earthers have all sorts of CTs about why those cannot be trusted. Not unlike you all.

Whether the 2020 election was fraudulent and was sufficient enough to change the outcome is a matter of opinion and politics that cannot be proved/disproved at all.

Well it could be proven, but you are correct it cannot be disproven as that sort of a negative is impossible to prove.

 

[Mac1958]

If you think the election was rigged, just prove it in a court of law. Do that, and I'm in.

You've tried and lost 65+ times, but I'm patient. Prove it, and I'm in.

That applies to accusations made by either party on any issue. It's not asking too much.

"We have lots of theories, but no evidence." Rudy G

 

[task0778]

Yet the flat earthers have all sorts of CTs about why those cannot be trusted. Not unlike you all.

Total BS. Are you claiming that almost half the country believes in all sorts of CTs regarding that election? All those allegations and claims of wrong-doing by so many different people was just a bunch of conspiracies? Or all one big one? Sure, paint us all with the broad-brush of nuts and fruits, we just love that. It's very helpful to divide us further as a country.