Who is Denying the Stealing of the 2020 Election

ZenMode said:
Unfortunately, I have no idea what you are accusing me of denying.
Click to expand...
Sure you do. I have explained it to you at length, many times, over more than a year.

Your schtick is to pretend you simply don't remember what you were just told, or recall any of the posts to which you responded.

It's all you have, i.e. denial of sworn eyewitness testimony under the belief that sufficient denial erases any and all fraud

How is it working out for you?
 
IBDaMann said:
Sure you do. I have explained it to you at length, many times, over more than a year.

Your schtick is to pretend you simply don't remember what you were just told, or recall any of the posts to which you responded.

It's all you have, i.e. denial of sworn eyewitness testimony under the belief that sufficient denial erases any and all fraud

How is it working out for you?
Click to expand...
So, on one side I have actual data related to fraudulent votes. I have the AZ Cyber Ninjas audit which found nothing close to what was required to change the result in the state.

I have the results of Georgia's audit which also found nothing close enough fraud to change the results in the state.

I have investigations done into multiple claims of fraud that were found to not be fraud.

I have a movie that claimed thousands of "mules" that couldn't produce one mule.

I have an awareness of the security measures in states' election process. I also have an awareness of what would be required to actually "steal" a national election and how incredibly difficult it would be to do so.

On the other side, there are ~200 pages of people saying they believe they saw something.

So, looking at the evidence for the two possibilities, why would I align my beliefs with the option that has so little support?
 
IBDaMann said:
I have a great idea. Hold your breath while you wait. You had four years to participate in the discussions. I don't care what you believe, or rather, what your thought-masters require you to believe. The affidavits are public records and you are free to access all you wish, just as you were free to participate in the discussions occurring over the preceding four years.

Enjoy.
Click to expand...
Still waiting for your evidence that you claim exists but can't be found anywhere.
Sworn affidavits are not public records. Sworn affidavits only become public record when released to the public usually through a court proceeding or court filing.
Since I have looked at all the affidavits that are public record and there were not thousands of them, I am waiting for you to provide evidence that thousands of them even exist. (The RNC said they only had 500.)
The affidavits that Giuliani used were rejected by the courts because there is no evidence of fraud in them. There are simply people complaining about the process or the people involved in the process. Giuliani had to admit that his claims of fraud were false and he was lying. He lost his law license for his fraud.
 
Into the Night said:
DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

RQAA

Math error: scalar used as mathematics.
Logic error: redefinition fallacy (scalar<->mathematics). Argument from randU fallacy.

Math error. Attempt to define scalar as arithmetic. Logic errors: Redefinition fallacy. Pivot fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacy. Mantra 1a. Lame.
Click to expand...
Into the Night to English translation -

Into the Night - "RQAA"
English - "I'm an idiot that doesn't know what the hell I am talking about."

I don't deny my posts. Feel free to link to the post where I claimed "an absence of millions of fraudulent ballots is a change in voter turnout."
I'm confident you won't be able to link to such a post by me.
At this point I think we can summarily dismiss your argument if we follow a certain posters advice.
IBDaMann said:
Nope. Either support your assertion or be content to have your argument summarily dismissed.
Click to expand...
 
IBDaMann said:
... and eliminate the artificial and irrelevant requirement to prove that any given case of fraud is somehow "widespread" or any other immaterial technicality that avoids addressing the fraud and errs on the side of stealing elections.

Spot on.
Click to expand...
There is nothing artificial or irrelevant about needing to show fraud is widespread. It is simple math.
If an election is won by 100,000 votes then 20 fraudulent ballots would not have changed the outcome. Simple math requires you to show that at least 50,001 ballots were fraudulently marked for the wrong party to have an opportunity to change the outcome of the election. If you can't show ballots were fraudulently changed then you would be required to show 100,000 ballots were fraudulent.

The only way to steal an election is to have enough fraud to change the outcome. Read your statement. You claim the fraud is enough to steal an election but then claim it is irrelevant to prove the election outcome was affected by fraud. That is idiotic.
 
ZenMode said:
So, on one side I have actual data related to fraudulent votes.
Click to expand...
Nope. You simply echo, without question , without any doubt, the dishonesty of those who perpetrated the steal or of those who are of your same dishonest position.

You dismiss, out of hand, anything from the overwhelming and incontrovertible body of eyewitness testimony. You pretend that you are open-minded, but you refuse to consider any actual sworn affidavits and instead insist on discussing bogus, fabricated red-herrings that are not true.

The 2020 election was brazenly stolen and you are locked into flat-earther denial. Enjoy.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
There is nothing artificial or irrelevant about needing to show fraud is widespread.
Click to expand...
If you cheat in a casino, just a tiny bit, to win the jackpot, should the casino be required to pay you anyway?

Should We the People be required to give the Presidency to the political party that cheated to only the bare minimum extent necessary to defeat the will of the people? You are making the fallacious argument that a small enough quantity of fraud somehow makes it all OK. You don't consider the unacceptability of the result anywhere in your calculus.

Your entire fallacy is dismissed.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Since I have looked at all the affidavits that are public record and there were not thousands of them
Click to expand...
Then you obviously haven't looked at all of them. It appears you haven't looked at any of them. Obviously you only want to look at sufficiently few of them to assure yourself that the cheating was obviously OK.



Poor Richard Saunders said:
The affidavits that Giuliani used were rejected by the courts
Click to expand...
No sworn affidavits are rejected by courts. They can be thrown out as evidence but testimony is not rejected.

Giuliani's argument was unjustly discarded by an activist judge aiding the steal, relying on the "widespread" fallacy.

Poor Richard Saunders said:
because there is no evidence of fraud in them.
Click to expand...
You haven't read any of them. Every one of the affidavits is evidence, i.e. eyewitness testimony.
 
IBDaMann said:
If you cheat in a casino, just a tiny bit, to win the jackpot, should the casino be required to pay you anyway?

Should We the People be required to give the Presidency to the political party that cheated to only the bare minimum extent necessary to defeat the will of the people? You are making the fallacious argument that a small enough quantity of fraud somehow makes it all OK. You don't consider the unacceptability of the result anywhere in your calculus.

Your entire fallacy is dismissed.
Click to expand...
Your analogy is really stupid.
The one person that cheats should be tried for their crime.
A better analogy would be if one person cheats in the casino can the casino refuse to pay out any jackpots which is what you are demanding we allow.
The other problem with your attempt is that the majority of election fraud that has been found has been committed by Republicans or in support of Republicans so if we follow your idiotic rules then Trump can't be President since there was election fraud in his favor.

Your analogy is dismissed. Your argument about denying the Presidency to a party that cheats is dismissed since you clearly don't have that as a standard that you are willing to apply.
 
Last edited:
IBDaMann said:
Then you obviously haven't looked at all of them. It appears you haven't looked at any of them. Obviously you only want to look at sufficiently few of them to assure yourself that the cheating was obviously OK.




No sworn affidavits are rejected by courts. They can be thrown out as evidence but testimony is not rejected.

Giuliani's argument was unjustly discarded by an activist judge aiding the steal, relying on the "widespread" fallacy.


You haven't read any of them. Every one of the affidavits is evidence, i.e. eyewitness testimony.
Click to expand...
Let's make this simple for the simpleton you are.
Present one affidavit that you think shows fraud in the election.

I do love your argument that courts can throw out an affidavit but they can't reject it. It seems you have decided to argue that when the court rejects the affidavit's testimony because it contains no evidence of any fraud, you think that means they accept it as evidence of fraud.

In the affidavit where the person swore that a poll workers was wearing Black Lives Matter clothing, where is the evidence of election fraud?
In the affidavit where the person swore that they were not allowed to examine the ballots up close where is the evidence of election fraud?

Let me repeat this yet again. Give us one affidavit that you think shows evidence of election fraud then we can examine your veracity.
Until you do present us with an actual affidavit, you are only proving you can't support your assertions so we can follow your advice and your argument can be summarily dismissed.
IBDaMann said:
Either support your assertion or be content to have your argument summarily dismissed.
Click to expand...
 
IBDaMann said:
You dismiss, out of hand, anything from the overwhelming and incontrovertible body of eyewitness testimony. You pretend that you are open-minded, but you refuse to consider any actual sworn affidavits and instead insist on discussing bogus, fabricated red-herrings that are not true.
Click to expand...
When are you going to give us this overwhelming and incontrovertible body of eyewitness testimony.
You have provided zero instances of this testimony you claim exists.
We can simply dismiss your arguments since you can't provide any evidence to support your claim.
IBDaMann said:
Either support your assertion or be content to have your argument summarily dismissed.
Click to expand...
 
IBDaMann said:

The 2020 election was stolen. Who disputes this?​


2020 Election​

  • Joe Biden (Democratic): 81,283,501 votes
  • Donald Trump (Republican): 74,223,975 votes
  • Total Votes: 159,633,396

2024 Election​

  • Kamala Harris (Democratic): 71,187,463 votes
  • Donald Trump (Republican): 74,784,939 votes
  • Total Votes: 145,972,402
original.jpg

hq720.jpg

images
Click to expand...
Anyone with a functioning brain
 
ZenMode said:
No. I'm accounting for the election fraud I've heard about.

  • The lady in AZ who illegally took 3 peoples' ballots to a dropbox.
  • The 3 or 4 old people in Florida who voted twice.
  • I believe there was another small group of people who voted in multiple states
  • I heard about a guy who voted for his dead wife, or vice versa, because they "knew" who their spouse would want to vote for.
  • Georgia actually found about a handful of illegally cast votes.
I'm sure there's some more, but nothing that came remotely close to changing the outcome in any state.

What examples do you have?
Click to expand...
RQAA. Argument of the Stone fallacy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top