Who is Denying the Stealing of the 2020 Election

[Into the Night]

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.

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Anyone with a functioning brain

Mantra 1a. Lame.

 

[Into the Night]

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?

Argument of the Stone fallacy. RQAA.

 

[SlaveForChrist]

Mantra 1a. Lame.

Argument From Being A Retard fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Still waiting for your evidence that you claim exists but can't be found anywhere.
Sworn affidavits are not public records.

They are public record.

Sworn affidavits only become public record when released to the public usually through a court proceeding or court filing.

No court necessary. They are public record.

Since I have looked at all the affidavits that are public record

Blatant lie.

and there were not thousands of them,

There are thousands of them.

I am waiting for you to provide evidence that thousands of them even exist. (The RNC said they only had 500.)

They are public record.

The affidavits that Giuliani used were rejected by the courts because there is no evidence of fraud in them.

No court necessary. They are public record.

There are simply people complaining about the process or the people involved in the process.

No. They are sworn testimony of election fraud by Democrats.

Giuliani had to admit that his claims of fraud were false and he was lying. He lost his law license for his fraud.

Strawman fallacy. You cannot make the evidence of Democrat election fraud just disappear.

 

[Into the Night]

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."

Redefinition fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

There is nothing artificial or irrelevant about needing to show fraud is widespread. It is simple math.

Math error: Void equation.

If an election is won by 100,000 votes then 20 fraudulent ballots would not have changed the outcome.

Attempted proof by contrivance.

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.

Math error: composite failure. Logic errors: False dichotomy fallacy. Strawman fallacy. Attempted proof by contrivance.

If you can't show ballots were fraudulently changed then you would be required to show 100,000 ballots were fraudulent.

False dichotomy fallacy. Divisional error fallacy.

The only way to steal an election is to have enough fraud to change the outcome.

Or to put the outcome into an irrevocable question.

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.

False dichotomy fallacy. Attempted proof by negation.

 

[Into the Night]

If you cheat in a casino, just a tiny bit, to win the jackpot, should the casino be required to pay you anyway?

Obviously not. Indeed, you may be charged with theft.
In Nevada, if the theft is great enough, or if you are caught with devices to cheat, it's a life sentence at the State penitentiary.

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.

He is not using calculus. He is attempting a proof by contrivance. He's just making up numbers and trying to argue a false dichotomy with it.

Your entire fallacy is dismissed.

As all fallacies should be. They are errors in logic and invalid arguments.

 

[Into the Night]

Your analogy is really stupid.

The analogy is valid. Argument of the Stone fallacy.

The one person that cheats should be tried for their crime.

And all people that cheat in elections should be tried for their crime. That includes a lot of people in the Democrat party.

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.

In the old days, such a person was simply dispatched by the mob and taken out into the desert and put in a shallow grave for the coyotes to dig up, or he found himself broken into pieces, stuffed into a barrel with cement, and tossed into nearby Lake Mead.

Now it's a bit nicer. If you are caught cheating or robbing a casino, they will take you to the back room to explain the courtesies of casino gambling to you THEIR way, then call the cops to pick up the mess (they're sort of like the janitors). You will be tried in court for theft, and if convicted, may find yourself with a life sentence at the Nevada State penitentiary.

Don't fuck with casinos. You only need to get caught once.

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.

DON'T TRY TO BLAME DEMOCRAT ELECTION FRAUD ON TRUMP!

Your analogy is dismissed.

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

Your argument about denying the Presidency to a party that cheats is dismissed

So you have no problem with cheating to gain the 'Presidency'. Good to know.

since you clearly don't have that as a standard that you are willing to apply.

Correct. He doesn't have the standard that you can cheat to gain the 'Presidency'. He doesn't believe in election fraud like you obviously do.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

They are public record.

Where are thousands of affidavits showing election fraud public record? I can find no such public record of thousands of affidavits. The RNC claimed they only had 500.

Either support your assertion or be content to have your argument summarily dismissed.

In the case of Costantino vs City of Detroit there were only 7 affidavits. The judge found they were not credible or were simply hearsay.
In the case of Trump v Michigan Sec of State there was only 1 affidavit. The judge found the person did not understand the vote counting process.

So where are these thousands of affidavits proving fraud? It seems you don't know where they are. GFM doesn't know where they are and IBDaMann doesn't know where they are. The obvious conclusion is you are all lying since you haven't even provided one affidavit let alone 500 or thousands as was claimed.

 

[Into the Night]

Let's make this simple for the simpleton you are.
Present one affidavit that you think shows fraud in the election.

RQAA

I do love your argument that courts can throw out an affidavit but they can't reject it.

No court is necessary for an affidavit.

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.

No court is necessary for an affidavit.

In the affidavit where the person swore that a poll workers was wearing Black Lives Matter clothing, where is the evidence of election fraud?

Not what the affidavits say, moron.

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?

Not what the affidavits say, moron.

Let me repeat this yet again.

Why? Do you think your paradox is 'progress'??

Give us one affidavit that you think shows evidence of election fraud then we can examine your veracity.

RQAA

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.

Argument of the Stone fallacy.
Attempted proof by Stone.

 

[Into the Night]

When are you going to give us this overwhelming and incontrovertible body of eyewitness testimony.

RQAA

You have provided zero instances of this testimony you claim exists.

Argument of the Stone fallacy. Blatant lie.

We can simply dismiss your arguments since you can't provide any evidence to support your claim.

Attempted proof by Stone.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

RQAA

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 and I never had the evidence that I claimed to have. I was simply lying like normal."

 

[Into the Night]

Argument From Being A Retard fallacy.

Mantra 1. Lame. Denial of logic.

 

[Diesel]

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.

More than 60 courts looked at those "affidavits" and told Trump to fuck off. And you're still out here trying to catch your breath as you scream into the wind. Move on with your waning life. Focus on the next 4 years and not the last 4 years if you have any ability whatsoever to have a single individual thought that Trump didn't tell you to have.

 

[Into the Night]

Where are thousands of affidavits showing election fraud public record?

All over the country.

I can find no such public record of thousands of affidavits.

You never looked. Argument of ignorance fallacy.

The RNC claimed they only had 500.

Affidavits are not filed with the RNC, moron.

In the case of Costantino vs City of Detroit there were only 7 affidavits. The judge found they were not credible or were simply hearsay.
In the case of Trump v Michigan Sec of State there was only 1 affidavit. The judge found the person did not understand the vote counting process.

No court is necessary for an affidavit, moron.

So where are these thousands of affidavits proving fraud?

RQAA.

It seems you don't know where they are.

Yup. I do. They are all over the nation.

GFM doesn't know where they are

Yes he does.

and IBDaMann doesn't know where they are.

Yes he does. He also told you where they are.

The obvious conclusion is you are all lying

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

since you haven't even provided one affidavit

Blatant lie. Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

let alone 500 or thousands as was claimed.

Thousands.

 

[Into the Night]

More than 60 courts looked at those "affidavits" and told Trump to fuck off.

Argument from randU fallacy. Courts are not required for an affidavit, moron.

And you're still out here trying to catch your breath as you scream into the wind.

You are describing yourself.

Move on with your waning life.

It's not waning.

Focus on the next 4 years and not the last 4 years

Take your own advice.

if you have any ability whatsoever to have a single individual thought that Trump didn't tell you to have.

Trump did not tell me anything. He is not a king nor a god. He simply makes a damn fine Preident.
Democrat election fraud has been occurring long before Trump entered politics.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Redefinition fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacy.

Into the Night to English translation -

Into the Night - "Redefinition fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacy."
English - "I'm an idiot that doesn't know what the hell I am talking about."

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Thousands.

You claim thousands and you can't even show us one?
I would suggest that proves you are lying and will only continue to lie because you can't make any valid arguments.

 

[IBDaMann]

Your analogy is really stupid.

... because it highlights just how stupid your argument is, I get it.

The one person that cheats should be tried for their crime.

All people who cheat should answer for their cheating, not be protected by others who are also cheating or who are supporting the cheating.

So, if a group of people in a casino, regardless of the size of the group, cheat individually and each to a small extent, should the group be rewarded with the jackpot, and the casino punished for daring to even question the cheating?