Words mean things.

[aadler]

Three years after the fact, despite massive efforts on the part of elected officials, the entrenched government bureaucracy, the near-entirety of the news/entertainment media, and the near-entirety of establishment academia, a substantial proportion of the American public — possibly but not certainly a majority, certainly enough that disregarding their concerns is not only dishonest but foolish — believes that the 2020 presidential election was marked by an amount of fraud sufficient to change the result.

Honestly, there shouldn’t be anything remarkable about that. Al Gore spent years — assuming he isn’t still doing so — claiming that the Supreme Court ‘gave’ George W. Bush the 2000 election (rather than telling him, “No, you can’t keep recounting till you get a result you like and then say ‘Yes! Yes! THIS one counts!’). Hillary Clinton started the Russian collusion meme pretty much the moment she conceded defeat to Trump, if not well before then. Stacey Abrams all but made a career of claiming she actually won the Georgia governorship, and had it stolen from her by fraud. Of course, all those people were Democrats … maybe that’s the formula, Democrat claims of election fraud are automatically valid and Republican claims are automatically bogus, foolish, and corrupt.

Sure. Sounds reasonable to me.

One thing that does stand out, though, is that the Democrat side — or the liberal/‘progressive’ side, to the extent that there’s any difference — keeps claiming that there’s “no evidence” of vote fraud in that election. Also that there’s no evidence of Joe Biden taking massive foreign bribes, and no evidence that Hunter Biden’s laptop was actually Hunter Biden’s …

Yes, it’s dishonest and partisan, but it’s a particular type of dishonesty that I’m willing to take the time to point out.

Evidence? Oh, hell, yeah, there’s plenty of evidence. Is there enough evidence to establish proof? well, that’s something that would have to be determined by investigation and then trial … but you can’t get either because “There’s no evidence!”

What’s happening there is that the fraud deniers are using the terms ‘evidence’ and ‘proof’ interchangeably … but not freely so, they switch from one to the other entirely on the basis of which is more advantageous to their side of the argument at a particular moment. ‘Proof’ comes from evaluating the evidence; evaluation requires that somebody actually look at the facts; evaluation is taken off the board because the proof isn’t already there. And, in the absence of the investigation that could establish proof one way or another, the cry is repeated that no investigation is justified because “There’s no evidence!”.

Lies, of course. But then, leftists lie, because they are the enemies of truth, and truth is the enemy of everything they try to force on us.

Comments

[slaymesoftly.livejournal.com]

This is extremely disappointing. I know we are not exactly political allies at all - but this is a very different kettle of fish. I'd ask for your proof - but life is too short. I'm sorry for you.

[aadler]

Wasn’t that … kind of … the entire point of the post? Proof comes from examination of the evidence. If examination of the evidence is rejected in advance because “There’s no proof!”, then there can never be any proof.

Getting to the heart of what I think you may mean:

If I believe there’s sufficient evidence to conclude (as my view of what happened, rather than something presented in court, where a higher standard prevails, and should) that the result of the presidential election was determined by massive fraud, and you believe there isn’t sufficient evidence, then clearly one of us must be wrong. I think it’s you, you think it’s me.

If I’m wrong, then I’m NOT living in a nation ruled by a cabal that came into power by violating the law. That would be a good thing, and I wish I could believe it.

If you’re wrong, then you ARE living in a nation ruled by people who have successfully proven that there’s no need to convince voters when they can simply manufacture votes … and you’re unaware of having been demoted to serf.

And, in either instance, the people who ignore any evidence, and then say there’s no evidence, aren’t being honest.

[texanfan.livejournal.com]

I have told myself repeatedly that there is no point in discussing anything political with you as I really dislike getting into useless arguments. So, this is against my better judgement but here goes.

In regards to the 2020 election, many Republicans claimed widespread voter fraud. They had every right to investigate this and they did. They brought 63 cases before various courts in various states, some red, some blue. Several of the judges were appointed by Trump. None of these went through due to lack of evidence. Trump's own attorney general says there was no evidence of widespread voter fraud that would have changed the outcome of the election. Every legal recourse, was exhausted in an attempt to prove that the 2020 election was rigged. There was no credible evidence. Millions of people could think differently but that doesn't change facts.

[aadler]

Can I remind everyone that the main point of my post was a commentary on the careless (or dishonest) statements of there being “no evidence” of this or that? Whether or not there is enough evidence to constitute proof, or to justify further action, is a separate issue; what I was focused on is that saying there is “no evidence” is factually untrue.

[gillo]

I'm half a planet away, and I doubt we'd agree politically anyway, but it seems to me that you are assigning a very broad definition to the word "evidence", to the extent that you are accepting wild, sometimes bizarre claims of election-rigging to that category. What evidence actually does exist beyond those claims. Plenty of evidence to the contrary exists, without a shadow of doubt.

It should be possible to disagree on politics without seeing the other side as corrupt and evil. The tragedy of our times is that in my country as in yours that is becoming virtually impossible.

[texanfan.livejournal.com]

May I ask what evidence you are referring to? Dominion is currently winning defamation lawsuits because of bogus claims that they changed votes. In court, Giuliani admitted he had no evidence, not insufficient evidence, no evidence. So, I'm very curious, what evidence do you know about that I don't?

This has been thoroughly investigated, audits were made by both parties. No evidence has been found despite people waving sheets of paper around claiming they were about to blow the lid off this thing. Only to have absolutely nothing when called to account. There have been multiple federal, state and local investigations. None have found evidence.

You claim there is plenty of evidence. To my knowledge at this point no one has produced any evidence that they have been able to back up with facts. Loudly proclaiming that the election must have been rigged without anything to back it up is not evidence, it's hearsay and wishful thinking.

Li

[slaymesoftly.livejournal.com]

Like I said. Life is too short.

[aadler]

My response exceeded LJ’s allowed comment length. You can see it here.

[aadler]

My response exceeded LJ’s allowed comment length. You can see it here.

No, I don’t view people who disagree with me politically as being corrupt and evil. Some of them are, though, and many who aren’t nonetheless take that attitude toward those who disagree with them.

[texanfan.livejournal.com]

I must say, I do appreciate the effort to collate all that information. I could go step by step and we could end up in a prolonged argument but, as you suggested, that is not likely to be profitable for either of us.

I will acknowledge the Hunter Biden laptop as I believed it was nothing only for it to turn out to be a legitimate problem. Honestly, Hunter Biden is far from innocent in my mind but I've yet to see evidence linking the president with his son's business dealings. As the House is currently pursuing an impeachment investigation perhaps they shall find some.

I would contend that in regards to Hunter Biden the same prosecutor that Trump appointed to investigate him has been on the case for several years, that he has been granted special prosecutor status and that the fact he's taking his own sweet time about presenting what he has found is hardly on the president's shoulders.

To say any more would be to prolong the argument and I do not wish to do that. I have respect for you for your service to our country and your formidable writing skills. As to politics, as you say, you will not change my mind and I will not change yours so let us part ways.

[aadler]

These are issues — because they matter so strongly to us — where it is so easy for people to go to war with each other. Throughout our disagreement, I have been able to see how carefully you worked to express that disagreement without acrimony. I appreciate your efforts, agree that neither of us is likely to change the other’s mind, and am pleased that we can continue to regard one another as people with different opinions rather than as enemies. Thank you.