Lack of evidence of crime doesnt mean there wasnt a crime. Libs realize that right?

[sandaltan]

100,000 vote dumps at 4am when the centers are shutdown... a reasonable person would conclude fraud occurred

no, thats what a dumbass would do

a reasonable person would ask himself "why did that happen?," actually look into it, and conclude based on the preponderance of the evidence

you guys think your claims themselves like, are the evidence

like just saying "100k vote dump at 4am" is evidence lmao

[navid93]

100,000 vote dumps at 4am when the centers are shutdown... a reasonable person would conclude fraud occurred

How about you do some research.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.jso...amp/6165435002

[sandaltan]

op is right you know

no evidence of fraud doesnt mean fraud didnt occur irl

it just means you cant do anything about it lol

[navid93]

no, thats what a dumbass would do

a reasonable person would ask himself "why did that happen?," actually look into it, and conclude based on the preponderance of the evidence

you guys think your claims themselves like, are the evidence

like just saying "100k vote dump at 4am" is evidence lmao

A smart person on the misc? Reps on recharge

[me12inch]

op is right you know

no evidence of fraud doesnt mean fraud didnt occur irl

it just means you cant do anything about it lol

Wrong way to think about it.

This is not philosophy class, this is a matter of fact and law.

You can - as a matter of fact - assert no voter fraud if there is no cogent evidence of voter fraud.

You cannot - as a matter of fact - assert voter fraud if there is no cogent evidence of voter fraud.

[GreatOldOne]

You’re going to reinvigorate the three-year Russia hoax talking like that.

Unlike Trump’s wild assertions of voter fraud, there was evidence that his team sought out and received help from the Russians. And well documented, at that.

You can say there's no evidence of Russian involvement, but you then have to argue against the following being true which is not going to succeed.

https://www.justsecurity.org/63838/g...-on-collusion/

I. Summary of Major Findings

The redacted Mueller Report documents a series of activities that show strong evidence of collusion. Or, more precisely, it provides significant evidence that Trump Campaign associates coordinated with, cooperated with, encouraged, or gave support to the Russia/WikiLeaks election interference activities. The Report documents the following actions (each of which is analyzed in detail in Part II):

1. Trump was receptive to a Campaign national security adviser’s (George Papadopoulos) pursuit of a back channel to Putin.

2. Kremlin operatives provided the Campaign a preview of the Russian plan to distribute stolen emails.

3. The Trump Campaign chairman and deputy chairman (Paul Manafort and Rick Gates) knowingly shared internal polling data and information on battleground states with a Russian spy; and the Campaign chairman worked with the Russian spy on a pro-Russia “peace” plan for Ukraine.

4. The Trump Campaign chairman periodically shared internal polling data with the Russian spy with the expectation it would be shared with Putin-linked oligarch, Oleg Deripaska.

5. Trump Campaign chairman Manafort expected Trump’s winning the presidency would mean Deripaska would want to use Manafort to advance Deripaska’s interests in the United States and elsewhere.

6. Trump Tower meeting: (1) On receiving an email offering derogatory information on Clinton coming from a Russian government official, Donald Trump Jr. “appears to have accepted that offer;” (2) members of the Campaign discussed the Trump Tower meeting beforehand; (3) Donald Trump Jr. told the Russians during the meeting that Trump could revisit the issue of the Magnitsky Act if elected.

7. A Trump Campaign official told the Special Counsel he “felt obliged to object” to a GOP Platform change on Ukraine because it contradicted Trump’s wishes; however, the investigation did not establish that Gordon was directed by Trump.

8. Russian military hackers may have followed Trump’s July 27, 2016 public statement “Russia if you’re listening …” within hours by targeting Clinton’s personal office for the first time.

9. Trump requested campaign affiliates to get Clinton’s emails, which resulted in an individual apparently acting in coordination with the Campaign claiming to have successfully contacted Russian hackers.

10. The Trump Campaign—and Trump personally—appeared to have advanced knowledge of future WikiLeaks releases.

11. The Trump Campaign coordinated campaign-related public communications based on future WikiLeaks releases.

12. Michael Cohen, on behalf of the Trump Organization, brokered a secret deal for a Trump Tower Moscow project directly involving Putin’s inner circle, at least until June 2016.

13. During the presidential transition, Jared Kushner and Eric Prince engaged in secret back channel communications with Russian agents. (1) Kushner suggested to the Russian Ambassador that they use a secure communication line from within the Russian Embassy to speak with Russian Generals; and (2) Prince and Kushner’s friend Rick Gerson conducted secret back channel meetings with a Putin agent to develop a plan for U.S.-Russian relations.

14. During the presidential transition, in coordination with other members of the Transition Team, Michael Flynn spoke with the Russian Ambassador to prevent a tit for tat Russian response to the Obama administration’s imposition of sanctions for election interference; the Russians agreed not to retaliate saying they wanted a good relationship with the incoming administration.

[Harbinger]

Perfect. That's what Trump wanted. For all of you to not trust anything: elections, intelligence, judicial, legislative, and the list goes on. A true American patriot.

Some of the people I work with are former FBI, and it's not a secret that they don't like him. He pissed them off, and the CIA before even taking office. Like I said, it's no secret.

[BunkerBoy]

You look at my face, you see the face of a killer, you know i have it in me to do it. I havent explicitly said i did it but you can tell by the way i am and the way I think, my world view. Its clear, im a killer. Heck, I might kill again...

but you have no proof so therefore i never killed anyone...

(make sense?)

Nobody could look at your face and know anything about you.
It would be just be a random assumption based on a result that they wanted to believe.
Similar to the random assumption that Trump was cheated just because his followers lack the ability to take a loss.

That makes a lot of sense.
Your post does not.

[lildave]

While you are right, you cannot say a crime was committed without it.


In a lack of evidence, it is appropriate to assume it didn’t happen.

But you guys are claiming for a fact it did happen.

Lol at thinking this is taking the logical high road. You are only further embarrassing yourself.


Trump and his blind followers made the claim for no other reason than the fact he lost. That is all the “evidence” they need.

Lets be perfectly honest. If Trump had won the same thing would be happening. It would just be people on the left saying someone hacked the machines to help Trump. What really needs to happen is all the governors need to get together with all the parties and come up with a solution to these election issues. Have a standardized system across the country that everyone feels comfortable with an do audits to look for abuse.

[KingSWRV]

Wrong way to think about it.

This is not philosophy class, this is a matter of fact and law.

You can - as a matter of fact - assert no voter fraud if there is no cogent evidence of voter fraud.

You cannot - as a matter of fact - assert voter fraud if there is no cogent evidence of voter fraud.

Nope not at all.

Again theres a difference between REALITY and what you can prove in a court of law.

Think of reality being a theoretical God-like ability to see everything that happens present or past and you can rewind or fast forward or travel around at will like an active scene in a video game where you can move the camera and go anywhere in a recording and see anything that happened. Something like that would be considered what is actually happening.

What you can prove in a court of law is totally different and severely gimped in comparison. A bad actor needs to merely cover their tracks to commit the "perfect crime"

Another example: lets say someone sneaks into someones house with gloves and booties on shoes etc...(no footprints or tracks) and theres no video and snipes someone with a silenced pistol (like Mark Wahlberg in the ending of Departed) and leaves... leaves no evidence.

In reality he killed the guy. But by your logic he didn't do it because there was no evidence that could be proven in court...

This isn't philosophy class, nor law, its just raw reality. What really happened?

In that sense everything including context, motive, the way people "look", clues, gut feeling, knowing the human condition and the nature of man... Those are all the clues you have available to reverse engineer raw reality in absence of actual evidence since nobody has God powers to see everything everywhere. Its basic logistics.

I don't care about what you can prove, I only care about what actually happened. Just because you can't prove something, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[BunkerBoy]

Lets be perfectly honest. If Trump had won the same thing would be happening. It would just be people on the left saying someone hacked the machines to help Trump. What really needs to happen is all the governors need to get together with all the parties and come up with a solution to these election issues. Have a standardized system across the country that everyone feels comfortable with an do audits to look for abuse.

Not only is this false when it comes to Democratic voters, but Democratic politicians would also not play along with this like Republican politicians have.

[lildave]

Not only is this false when it comes to Democratic voters, but Democratic politicians would also not play along with this like Republican politicians have.

https://www.********.com/FairFightAc...26025844690277

Stacey Abrams is part of this group. She has kept her mouth shut about this now.

As a side note someone posted a link to this in the comments section:
http://harvardpolitics.com/united-st...ing-landscape/

Which is gone. Thank god someone used wayback machine back in February to archive it.

https://web.archive.org/web/20200203...ing-landscape/

[miscinbro]

Nope not at all.

Again theres a difference between REALITY and what you can prove in a court of law.

Think of reality being a theoretical God-like ability to see everything that happens present or past and you can rewind or fast forward or travel around at will like an active scene in a video game where you can move the camera and go anywhere in a recording and see anything that happened. Something like that would be considered what is actually happening.

What you can prove in a court of law is totally different and severely gimped in comparison. A bad actor needs to merely cover their tracks to commit the "perfect crime"

Another example: lets say someone sneaks into someones house with gloves and booties on shoes etc...(no footprints or tracks) and theres no video and snipes someone with a silenced pistol (like Mark Wahlberg in the ending of Departed) and leaves... leaves no evidence.

In reality he killed the guy. But by your logic he didn't do it because there was no evidence that could be proven in court...

This isn't philosophy class, nor law, its just raw reality. What really happened?

In that sense everything including context, motive, the way people "look", clues, gut feeling, knowing the human condition and the nature of man... Those are all the clues you have available to reverse engineer raw reality in absence of actual evidence since nobody has God powers to see everything everywhere. Its basic logistics.

I don't care about what you can prove, I only care about what actually happened. Just because you can't prove something, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

So you want the US election to be overturned based on your feels. You trumpers get more pathetic by the day.

[DouLou]

Nope not at all.

Again theres a difference between REALITY and what you can prove in a court of law.

Think of reality being a theoretical God-like ability to see everything that happens present or past and you can rewind or fast forward or travel around at will like an active scene in a video game where you can move the camera and go anywhere in a recording and see anything that happened. Something like that would be considered what is actually happening.

What you can prove in a court of law is totally different.

Another example: lets say someone sneaks into someones house with gloves and booties on shoes etc...(no footprints or tracks) and theres no video and snipes someone with a silenced pistol (like Mark Wahlberg in the Departed) and leaves... leaves no evidence.

In reality he killed the guy. But by your logic he didn't do it because there was no evidence that could be proven in court...

This isn't philosophy class, nor law, its just raw reality. What really happened?

In that sense everything including context, motive, the way people "look", clues, gut feeling, knowing the human condition and the nature of man... Those are all you have to reverse engineer raw reality.

I don't care about what you can prove, I only care about what actually happened. Just because you can't prove something, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

So now you're just arguing for the mere possibility that fraud existed, yet your second post in this topic was to call out Libs for being mentally ill because they supposedly know it 100% happened but don't care.

It's funny how you sit here and admit there is no evidence, having to stretch the boundaries of rational thought just to end up with "Look guys, can we all agree anything if possible?"

It doesn't really make sense. Apparently by your own admission you can not be 100% sure fraud existed, but the Trumper narrative is that Libs are 100% sure and just don't care.

In your analogy a dead body would exist, or a missing person at least, which would allow us to conclude a crime happened. In the election the "Dead body" is that Biden won. So the crime that has you looking for a suspect is that the opposition won? It's certainly weak.

It sounds like you know that no evidence will come out, but if you're talking about gut/clues/human condition etc... then I find it insane that someones instinct would have them believe with complete conviction that a mass conspiracy involving hundreds (if not thousands) of perpetrators is more likely than the simple truth being "Biden beat Trump". If you want to be open to possibilities, then fine. However don't sit here calling out Libs for their ignorance, saying they're mentally ill etc.. when their stance is far more rooted in reality than yours.

[KingSWRV]

So you want the US election to be overturned based on your feels. You trumpers her more pathetic by the day.

I want them to get caught. But if they don't get caught, it doesn't necessarily mean they didn't fraud. It just means they didn't get caught.

[miscinbro]

I want them to get caught. But if they don't get caught, it doesn't necessarily mean they didn't fraud. It just means they didn't get caught.

Do you accept the results of the election currently?

[Seatard]

I want them to get caught. But if they don't get caught, it doesn't necessarily mean they didn't fraud. It just means they didn't get caught.

[vickissick07]

Do you accept the results of the election currently?

You haven't accepted 2016 after 4 years

[Jayarbie]

Nope not at all.

Again theres a difference between REALITY and what you can prove in a court of law.

Think of reality being a theoretical God-like ability to see everything that happens present or past and you can rewind or fast forward or travel around at will like an active scene in a video game where you can move the camera and go anywhere in a recording and see anything that happened. Something like that would be considered what is actually happening.

What you can prove in a court of law is totally different and severely gimped in comparison. A bad actor needs to merely cover their tracks to commit the "perfect crime"

Another example: lets say someone sneaks into someones house with gloves and booties on shoes etc...(no footprints or tracks) and theres no video and snipes someone with a silenced pistol (like Mark Wahlberg in the ending of Departed) and leaves... leaves no evidence.

In reality he killed the guy. But by your logic he didn't do it because there was no evidence that could be proven in court...

This isn't philosophy class, nor law, its just raw reality. What really happened?

In that sense everything including context, motive, the way people "look", clues, gut feeling, knowing the human condition and the nature of man... Those are all the clues you have available to reverse engineer raw reality in absence of actual evidence since nobody has God powers to see everything everywhere. Its basic logistics.

I don't care about what you can prove, I only care about what actually happened. Just because you can't prove something, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

So what you are saying is that there is absolutely no way you are going to believe the election wasn't stolen regardless of the fact that there is no evidence of it? Gotcha, chief. Definitely not a brainwashed cult. LMAO.

While lack of evidence is not ironclad proof of a lack of a crime, lack of evidence is clearly not proof of a crime, either.

[miscinbro]

You haven't accepted 2016 after 4 years

What about!!! What about!!!!!!!!

Sad. It’s more sad because it’s not true - Hillary conceded the day after the election.

And even if it was true, which it’s not, you’re now defending that behavior.

[Judgment]

Unlike Trump’s wild assertions of voter fraud, there was evidence that his team sought out and received help from the Russians. And well documented, at that.

You can say there's no evidence of Russian involvement, but you then have to argue against the following being true which is not going to succeed.

There was 50m+ spent on many people with special access, over a course of three years, that found no evidence of collusion. Your fourteen-point forum essay isn't changing anybody's mind.

[z4v4]

Some of the people I work with are former FBI, and it's not a secret that they don't like him. He pissed them off, and the CIA before even taking office. Like I said, it's no secret.

Exactly. Nobody likes him, so it's not a surprise that the people voted him out of office. The surprise is he got 74 million votes.

But what do these former FBI guys you work with think when you tell them that they don't have the honor and integrity to abide by the oath they swore to uphold as federal agents?

[miscinbro]

So what you are saying is that there is absolutely no way you are going to believe the election wasn't stolen regardless of the fact that there is no evidence of it? Gotcha, chief. Definitely not a brainwashed cult. LMAO.

While lack of evidence is not ironclad proof of a lack of a crime, lack of evidence is clearly not proof of a crime, either.

It’s like they set out to be a comically overblown version of everything they mocked for 4 years. Their hissy fit over losing blows anything even purple haired college uber libs did, feels >>> facts to a whole new level, openly questioning democracy and the constitution itself, trying to toss hundereds of thousands of votes over the mail man being hours late, bragging that the Supreme Court just has to “go trump” because he appointed some judges ....

It’s amazing. Personality cult of projection and denial of reality.

[dakensta]

Polls exonerated. NO COLLUSION.

[billclintonnn]

Trumpers are now at the "Mueller not finding collusion doesn't mean there wasn't collusion" stage of cope.

Sad!

I support Trump, but this. People who support Trump can't use the same logic they used with Russia saying there is no evidence so drop it. I haven't looked into what they have with this election it does sound fishy, but also Trump isn't having press conferences either.

[Ironmanlet]

Lets be perfectly honest. If Trump had won the same thing would be happening. It would just be people on the left saying someone hacked the machines to help Trump. What really needs to happen is all the governors need to get together with all the parties and come up with a solution to these election issues. Have a standardized system across the country that everyone feels comfortable with an do audits to look for abuse.

I don't necessarily disagree with your statements, but I do question the significance and relevance of them. Perhaps, if Trump won, the left would have behaved like this, maybe not. That isn't what happened though. What does speculating about this hypothetical situation accomplish?

[miscinbro]

I don't necessarily disagree with your statements, but I do question the significance and relevance of them. Perhaps, if Trump won, the left would have behaved like this, maybe not. That isn't what happened though. What does speculating about this hypothetical situation accomplish?

I agree a national system for national elections makes sense - but let’s not pretend the cult of trump and dems are equal here. Hillary conceded the day after the 2016 election.

[mp83]

Also, your potato analogy just fuggin sucks and lacks any reasonable thinking.

There is plenty of evidence to show a bear chit in the woods without physical or video evidence.

Any lawyer could easily show (with or without the help of professional experts) a basic understanding of bear metabolism and digestive systems. They can also show that bears exist, and that one of their living environments includes wooden areas.

Without the bear, the chit, or the woods, or any video evidence of the chit, there is still overwhelming evidence that the bear does chit in the woods.

You missed that mark by a mile.

Not that I expect anything else from you.

Trumpers are still coping hard. They think just because they assert things because they don't understand how elections work that there was fraud. They think Trump is super popular because they never leave their safe spaces, then are overwhelmed with emotions when they see that he's not as popular as they think he is

[AltarOfPlagues]

in problems of philosophy bertrand russell called this "epistemological coping"

[KingSWRV]

So what you are saying is that there is absolutely no way you are going to believe the election wasn't stolen regardless of the fact that there is no evidence of it? Gotcha, chief. Definitely not a brainwashed cult. LMAO.

While lack of evidence is not ironclad proof of a lack of a crime, lack of evidence is clearly not proof of a crime, either.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, its a duck.

Keep in mind the DEFAULT human condition is corruption. Power tripping. Mental illness and insecurity disguised as "leadership"

Everywhere you go weather its 3rd world Europe, or Africa or South America, Asia... there is corruption and abuse as the status quo. Power, money, corruption, everyone knows.

What made America in its prime amazing is we had such a surplus of wealth and happiness that we raised whole generations of happy people who had good will, forged in freedom and Christianity and idealism. Unlike any other place on earth. We invented modern ethics and morals on a mass scale as we know them. we led the evolution of integrity and peace. Ended slavery. Showed by example how to be the best humans we can be.

Now with the internet era and overpopulation upon us that is changing and we are turning into a banana republic led by and plagued by jews in the media, overpopulation of minorities (the only valid explanation for a potentially legitimate "win") and anti Americans over breeding.

So corruption is the default, prove there wasn't corruption. Prove all those trash human beings didn't do what is normal for them to do. Driven by hate and brainwashed by the media to hate the white race and be jealous of Americans living the American dream and wanting to tear it down.