Joe Biden Wins - Becomes 46th president of the United States

[Lacius]

There's evidence. However, there is no compelling reason why I should believe you.

If you are going to claim there is evidence of widespread election fraud, the burden of proof is on you to provide it.

 

[Cryoraptor]

Tbh the expectation of 1 million witnesses is very ridiculous.

That's my point. Eyewitness testimony alone can't possibly seek to prove something of this scale.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Ok come down sparky...
The convo was about the seditious coup rioters and if they can be charged with sedition or treason( if payments were from foreign entities) The convo was not about the President... unless You’re categorizing him as a rioter or the money man.

No, you insinuated that Trump was the one who gave MAGA degenerates the cryptic payment, and thus makes it treason, if I'm correct?

 

[KingVamp]

There's evidence. However, there is no compelling reason why I should believe you.

We mean credible evidence.

 

[tabzer]

You remind me of creationists; trying to ignore requests of hard evidence and trying but epically failing to 'prove' your view by using logic games. No matter how many logic games you try to play, you still can't solve the problem of there being no credible hard evidence to suggest widescale, coordinated election fraud in the 2020 elections. It doesn't matter if you think every election since JFK has been rigged and just by pure probability we should assume that Biden actually lost and let Trump wreck the place for 4 more years, that does fuck all to prove that it's actually happening.

First, the burden of the proof is that there is a legitimate election. That's like a god for democracy, yet I am expected to believe in it because of whatever is defined as "status quo"?

Second hard evidence isn't properly defined by you as for whatever was considered "hard evidence" for the past 100 years is no longer hard evidence. The current time. Seeing as video isn't enough, evidence cannot logically exist.

 

[Cryoraptor]

First, the burden of the proof is that there is a legitimate election. That's like a god for democracy, yet I am expected to believe in it because of whatever is defined as "status quo"?

Second hard evidence isn't properly defined by you as for whatever was considered "hard evidence" for the past 100 years is no longer hard evidence. The current time. Seeing as video isn't enough, evidence cannot logically exist.

No you doughnut, you are the one making the claim that the election was rigged, so it's up to you to prove that this is the case. I bet you're a creationist as well, right? Because you're using the exact same logic they do.

Your second paragraph is just more logic games nonsense. What the standard of proof was 100 years ago has fuck all relevance to this conversation, so I'm not sure why it's even being brought up. Yes I've seen the videos, but they are single instances of possible foul play. What you and other trumptards are claiming is widescale, coordinated rigging. All the other stuff about mail ballots is unsubstantiated speculation that was stirred by none other than Trumpie himself. You're falling for his shit; HE'S the one who started spreading rumours about mail ballots being tampered with.

 

[djpannda]

No, you insinuated that Trump was the one who gave MAGA degenerates the cryptic payment, and thus makes it treason, if I'm correct?

Large bitcoin payments to right-wing activists a month before Capitol riot linked to foreign account
lol looks like Treason is possible!!!!

Treason is "helping another country to overthrow the government "

....There

 

[Cryoraptor]

....heres some Preparation H for that "HURT" you got

Right, I misread. There's no need to be a knobhead about it.

 

[Lacius]

First, the burden of the proof is that there is a legitimate election. That's like a god for democracy, yet I am expected to believe in it because of whatever is defined as "status quo"?

Second hard evidence isn't properly defined by you as for whatever was considered "hard evidence" for the past 100 years is no longer hard evidence. The current time. Seeing as video isn't enough, evidence cannot logically exist.

What you've done here is a shifting of the burden of proof fallacy. You are the one who has made the positive claim, and it must be demonstrated with evidence. You made the claim that there was "probably" widespread election fraud, and that is the positive claim that needs to be demonstrated.

If I made the claim that you, tabzer, are a pedophile, I don't get to make that claim baselessly. I would have the burden of proof. By your standards, however, the burden of proof would be on you to prove you're not a pedophile, and we should all believe you are "probably" a pedophile until then. That would be absurd.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

What may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence. If you are going to assert there was widespread election fraud without evidence, we can dismiss your claim without evidence.

 

[djpannda]

Right, I misread. There's no need to be a knobhead about it.

Sorry, now is the time for "Unity"

 

[Plasmaster09]

Ay up, first it was 1000, now it's thousands? Keep to the story mate.

And yes, in a country of 330 million people, it's hardly a stretch of the imagination that 1000 of them are brain dead enough to fabricate testimonies.

Considering Trump's base is bordering on a cult at this point, it's not that much of a stretch that millions would lie straight out of their ass. After all, Trump is their role model...
Oh wait, they don't even have anywhere near THAT much "evidence"!

 

[tabzer]

I'm done for now. I'll be back later when things get interesting. BTW, if you want to prop up a puppet show as being in the interest of everyone it's really up to you to convince me and everyone else.

The whole political system is a cult wars situation.

 

[Lacius]

I'm done for now. I'll be back later when things get interesting. BTW, if you want to prop up a puppet show as being in the interest of everyone it's really up to you to convince me and everyone else.

The whole political system is a cult wars situation.

Each time you refused to substantiate your claims of widespread voter fraud with evidence was a metaphorical white flag of surrender, so we are in agreement that you made things uninteresting, and it's not surprising you had to throw your hands up and walk away.

 

[Cryoraptor]

I'm done for now. I'll be back later when things get interesting. BTW, if you want to prop up a puppet show as being in the interest of everyone it's really up to you to convince me and everyone else.

The whole political system is a cult wars situation.

lol ok

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Sorry, now is the time for "Unity"

No worries

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Each time you refused to substantiate your claims of widespread voter fraud with evidence was a metaphorical white flag of surrender, so we are in agreement that you made things uninteresting, and it's not surprising you had to throw your hands up and walk away.

It really is creationist logic isn't it? 'No, you prove to me that god doesn't exist and science is real and yadda yadda yadda'

 

[djpannda]

White House officials blame Rudy Giuliani for both of Trump's impeachments, New York Times report says
they look hungry

 

[Doran754]

1000 witnesses is not good evidence. There's several hundred thousand Trumptards, so to clear any likelihood of false testimony, you would need at least 1 million witnesses for something like this.

Witness statements should not be considered evidence of anything unless they can fit two criteria:

1. Multiple unrelated witness statements correlate and agree with each other
2. It is beyond reasonable doubt or likelihood that said witness statements are lies

Right now, 1000 statements for election fraud only barely satisfies the first, and does not come close to satisfying the second. For something as monumental as election fraud, you need actual hard evidence. 'Some people say so' is not good enough. Any old trumptard can come forward and claim that they saw Mr. Brown the democrat intefere with his vote, or Mr. Smith the democrat gave the guy in front an extra vote. We're talking about a country of nearly 330 million people. 1000 witness statements and a couple slip ups are not good enough to start claiming the entire thing was rigged. In a country that big, election fraud is bound to happen, but on nowhere near the kind of scale we're talking about.

I believe your side of this because you're fair and balanced and use words like Trumptards, I'd be stupid not too.

 

[Cryoraptor]

I believe your side of this because you're fair and balanced and use words like Trumptards, I'd be stupid not too.

I am fair and balanced. Earlier in this thread I literally said 'I think at the time Trump was still the better option over Hillary in 2016', expressed how much of a shitty person I think she is, and called Biden, I quote, 'a demented old retard', because he is not much better than Trump, politically speaking. He will very likely be a 3rd term Obama and get nothing done. Get your head out of your arse before claiming bias because I said a few naughy words, you poor little snowflake.

 

[Plasmaster09]

I am fair and balanced. Earlier in this thread I literally said 'I think at the time Trump was still the better option over Hillary in 2016', expressed how much of a shitty person I think she is, and called Biden, I quote, 'a demented old retard', because he is not much better than Trump, politically speaking. He will very likely be a 3rd term Obama and get nothing done. Get your head out of your arse before claiming bias because I said a few naughy words, you poor little snowflake.

For calling us "snowflakes" and whatnot when we try to prevent hate speech and bigotry, they sure do love the tone argument! A classic way to shut your opponent up by making it seem as if their very act of arguing with you is their problem, while also not having to prove your point whatsoever!

 

[Doran754]

I am fair and balanced. Earlier in this thread I literally said 'I think at the time Trump was still the better option over Hillary in 2016', expressed how much of a shitty person I think she is, and called Biden, I quote, 'a demented old retard', because he is not much better than Trump, politically speaking. He will very likely be a 3rd term Obama and get nothing done. Get your head out of your arse before claiming bias because I said a few naughy words, you poor little snowflake.

Calling somebody a Trumptard despite knowing absolutely nothing about them makes you bias. Stating he was better than Hilary has absolutely no reflection on this currect election. You're talking shit, I've also not acted like a snowflake. I didn't complain you said it, I said you're bias. There's a difference, learn the meaning of words.

For calling us "snowflakes" and whatnot when we try to prevent hate speech and bigotry, they sure do love the tone argument! A classic way to shut your opponent up by making it seem as if their very act of arguing with you is their problem, while also not having to prove your point whatsoever!

Well you see the problem is who decides what's hate speech, you? Are you the arbiter, are you the speech police? Do you see where I'm going with this. There's a man who plays for Manchester United who recently shared a post with the word 'negrito' on it. He's called Edison Cavani, He's Uruguarian. He was banned for 3 days and called racist. Turns out 'negrito' was his friends nickname his WHOLE life. Not only this but It's a common greeting in Uruguay and there was no racial overtones at all. It's his culture, so was that hate speech? Who draws the line. Do you see the problem, just because you consider something 'hate speech' doesn't make it so.

 

[The Catboy]

I'm done for now. I'll be back later when things get interesting. BTW, if you want to prop up a puppet show as being in the interest of everyone it's really up to you to convince me and everyone else.

The whole political system is a cult wars situation.

You've still yet to provide any actual proof outside of "Dude trust me." Hell, thus far no one in the "Mass voter fraud" cramp has providing anymore more than just attacking people for asking or giving weak sauce posts like "1000 witnesses" and nothing to actually prove why these "witnesses" should be trusted. In short, I don't think you have any decent sources and your constant dancing around the issue and shifting the burden of proof is more than proof of that.

 

[Plasmaster09]

Calling somebody a Trumptard despite knowing absolutely nothing about them makes you bias. Stating he was better than Hilary has absolutely no reflection on this currect election. You're talking shit, I've also not acted like a snowflake. I didn't complain you said it, I said you're bias. There's a difference, learn the meaning of words.



Well you see the problem is who decides what's hate speech, you? Are you the arbiter, are you the speech police? Do you see where I'm going with this. There's a man who plays for Manchester United who recently shared a post with the word 'negrito' on it. He's called Edison Cavani, He's Uruguarian. He was banned for 3 days and called racist. Turns out 'negrito' was his friends nickname his WHOLE life. Not only this but It's a common greeting in Uruguay and there was no racial overtones at all. It's his culture, so was that hate speech? Who draws the line. Do you see the problem, just because you consider something 'hate speech' doesn't make it so.

First off, the guy you accused of bias is so aggressively centrist that it honestly pisses me off a little (though I won't bother clashing with him on this because we're too busy fighting the common foe that is misinformation)- so he was quite possibly one of the worst people to try to No True Scotsman out of the argument. (So calling someone a "Trumptard" for spouting election misinformation is too biased to make a valid point, but calling someone a libtard- because I bet there's a good 90% chance you've done that at least once- for fact-checking said misinformation... isn't?) It's a transparent fallacious attempt to cry "BIASED!" so that you don't have to actually prove your point, and we all know it. (Also, I may not like its use either, but "Trumptard" is a term generally used exclusively to those stupid enough to cry foul on the election- similar to "voteflake"- so it provides its own descriptor.)
Secondly... hate speech does actually have a definition. According to Cambridge, hate speech is "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation". Context matters, but the anecdotal example you gave was a result of people not knowing said context. The stuff Trump and his supporters have said... is NOT a result of improper contextualization, and is just a result of them being bigots. All the bans being dished out to major Trumpers and accounts tied to QAnon isn't some Orwellian "Big Brother decides what you're allowed to say" situation, it's the equivalent of being forcibly removed from a store because you were screaming obscenities and pissing on items as well as other customers.
Get out of here with your elementary-school-level arguments, and come back when you can provide hard evidence instead of throwing fallacies around at random trying to "disqualify" people from the discussion.