2020 U.S. Presidential Election - Took place November 3, 2020. Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden assumed office January 20, 2021.

[murdered meat bag]

Both are positive claims, something neither side of this conversation seems to get.

woah nelly, i get it. i even showed that both claims can be expressed positively and negatively.

Nono, I don't have to prove that my horse was fucked at all. In the same way that you don't have to prove that there was fraud - I just assert it, give you some video clips. Look! Foot prints in the snow. Look! He's walking kindof funny. And you're not in a wheelchair. Coincidence? And I've proven it, it happened.

We will need to see an exacting list of all of your cellphone locations, the entirety of the footage from that gopro sever, and we will need to conduct interviews with every person who gives an alibi to conclude that you did not fuck my horse. I will then accuse a member of your family of doing the same thing, so I suggest you prepare their gopro-gps-diary situation as well.

The kavanaugh accusations were dumb bullshit kafkatraps. That doesn't mean that you now get to pretend that elections are "fraudulent until proven secure" despite that literally never having occurred in the long list of US elections you could've dredged up. This is the most basic way that law and accusation functions.

"There was not fraud" is not a positive claim, which is anyways not terminology that is useful here.
When you make a fraud accusation, you are asserting something that has differed from the norm. What, then, is the norm? How were any elections before this one rigorously proven "secure"?

None of your evidence has thusfar made it through a court of law, with one small exception in GA which hasn't even bothered with the state farm arena video.

"you fucked my horse" is a positive claim.

That is, in fact, a positive claim. Just as saying "There is no god" is a positive claim.

a positive claim of a negative assertion. requires a little more reading into reasoning and debate

i know people complained about my use of retard, but thats why i called it retard atheist logic

 

[Meat Target]

Take the horsefucking discussion to the Brony thread.

 

[Shroom King]

There are technically no clean waterways or inland lakes in Michigan, it is unsafe to eat anything out of any of them.

Any great Lakes area near a major river is going to be particularly bad. Besides being a literal toilet brimming with sewage, they have been used as industrial drainage and dumping for 200 years. Sewage is temporary, but dioxin is forever. As recently as 30 years ago it was common to be able to watch drums of who-knows-what float down rivers.

Maybe somewhere put in the deeps of the great Lakes you can find clean, but near land, inhabited land, you'll find that not.

The ships that haul stuff around the Great Lakes (namely iron ore and coal) take potable water right off the lakes, but there are only "good" areas to draw from. They also sanitize the water with bleach as it comes in. But yeah, those good areas are deep in the middle of each lake.

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

That is, in fact, a positive claim. Just as saying "There is no god" is a positive claim.

So what qualifies as a negative claim by your definition? Alluding to religion, for which there is no baseline, is not helpful here.
If I hand you an unopened bottle of dasani, is the baseline assumption that it is poisoned or that it is not poisoned?
If you ask, "prove to me that it isn't poisoned," and I suggest that I cannot conclusively prove a negative, do you assume then that it is or is not poisoned?

"you fucked my horse" is a positive claim.

"There was fraud" is a positive claim, which is the parallel.
"I did not fuck Rich Evans Apologist's horse" is what I'm asking you to prove.
"There was not fraud" is what you're asking other people to prove [and then ignoring their audits and investigations which have thusfar nullified the assertions barring 1 case in GA].

 

[Mewtwo_Rain]

"There was not fraud" is not a positive claim, which is anyways not terminology that is useful here.
When you make a fraud accusation, you are asserting something that has differed from the norm. What, then, is the norm? How were any elections before this one rigorously proven "secure"?

None of your evidence has thusfar made it through a court of law, with one small exception in GA which hasn't even bothered with the state farm arena video.

I think the issue here is there's also the middle ground users, not everyone is saying there was huge amounts of fraud, but they would like it at least looked into, and the fact that most politicians are claiming "It's the most secure election ever" which is not a good validation claim, and is most certainly disputable is an issue on its own merits. Otherwise it'd be easy to present proof of said claim. It's not.

This leads to neutral ground posters to question said claim and those claiming it's not fully legitimate as well.

This brings in moral quandaries, litigations and dilemmas such as: Why not insure it is as secure as claimed, why not provide evidence (and not just "X politicians said it was true" You know people who lie on the same level as lawyers?) of said claim. They don't have to prove it was the most secure election ever or is secure, but there should be a way to dismiss easily discernable oddities in this years election, ones that should be easily be put to sleep if they could be.

The fact they can't easily dispute those oddities, and anomalies is what gives a rise. That doesn't mean it's proof, but is at least some evidence to fuel the claims fire.

In this case as mentioned prior I'm more talking in general debate concepts not rule of law. Even if in a court of law a declaration is made, that doesn't mean literally that declaration is true. Just as not all rulings in a court of law are accurate which is where I have a major impasse with your argument.

 

[Übertroon]

They have to be desperate if they think a FBI subpoena is going to stop the Texas AG

 

[HumanHive]

They have to be desperate if they think a FBI subpoena is going to stop the Texas AG

Right now the Left is arguing that Paxton is only doing this to buy a pardon from Trump.

 

[murdered meat bag]

So what qualifies as a negative claim by your definition? Alluding to religion, for which there is no baseline, is not helpful here.
If I hand you an unopened bottle of dasani, is the baseline assumption that it is poisoned or that it is not poisoned?
If you ask, "prove to me that it isn't poisoned," and I suggest that I cannot conclusively prove a negative, do you assume then that it is or is not poisoned?



"There was fraud" is a positive claim, which is the parallel.
"I did not fuck Rich Evans Apologist's horse" is what I'm asking you to prove.
"There was not fraud" is what you're asking other people to prove [and then ignoring their audits and investigations which have thusfar nullified the assertions barring 1 case in GA].

you would test rhe contents for poison. you test claims. you could write out corollaries to prove its not poisoned but its faster tocrack the cap and drink it.

i will sit and write out corollaries/proofs foe the horse fucking thing later.

 

[Epsteindidnothingwrong]

They have to be desperate if they think a FBI subpoena is going to stop the Texas AG

The only thing they fear is the ATF going full Waco on them.

 

[Gehenna]

So what qualifies as a negative claim by your definition? Alluding to religion, for which there is no baseline, is not helpful here.
If I hand you an unopened bottle of dasani, is the baseline assumption that it is poisoned or that it is not poisoned?
If you ask, "prove to me that it isn't poisoned," and I suggest that I cannot conclusively prove a negative, do you assume then that it is or is not poisoned?



"There was fraud" is a positive claim, which is the parallel.
"I did not fuck Rich Evans Apologist's horse" is what I'm asking you to prove.
"There was not fraud" is what you're asking other people to prove [and then ignoring their audits and investigations which have thusfar nullified the assertions barring 1 case in GA].

In this case, there really isn't a true negative form. A positive claim is a claim of how the world is. "X Fact Is True". So, "Fraud occurred" and "Fraud did not occur" both assert how the world is. The negative is the reverse form, but the reverse form itself is a positive claim.

So in short, there IS no negative claim here that is not itself a positive claim of reality. This is why most atheists kinda dodge around saying "There is no god" and instead say "I do not believe in god".

 

[Corn Flakes]

They have to be desperate if they think a FBI subpoena is going to stop the Texas AG

Right now the Left is arguing that Paxton is only doing this to buy a pardon from Trump.

About that... the suit was already filed and there's a whole team carrying it out. The ball is already rolling. Would getting the Texas AG removed actually change anything besides just poisoning the well of public opinion even further?
(Not that it should be possible, I'm 100% certain that well is 99.9% poison already.)

 

[MrJokerRager]

Right now the Left is arguing that Paxton is only doing this to buy a pardon from Trump.

What is "the Left" that we referring to?

• The Bernie Bros
• The Woke Neoliberals
• The retarded subhumans on Twitter
• The Woke Progressives
• The idiot liberal hippie Baby Boomers
• The Chinese Communist Party

 

[All becomes gunt]

The question that you all dwell on is a wrong one, at this point its not if the horse was fucked, but who fucked the horse.

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

I think the issue here is there's also the middle ground users, not everyone is saying there was huge amounts of fraud, but they would like it at least looked into, and the fact that most politicians are claiming "It's the most secure election ever" which is not a good validation claim, and is most certainly disputable is an issue on its own merits. Otherwise it'd be easy to present proof of said claim. It's not.

This leads to neutral ground posters to question said claim and those claiming it's not fully legitimate as well.

This brings in moral quandaries, litigations and dilemmas such as: Why not insure it is as secure as claimed, why not provide evidence (and not just "X politicians said it was true" You know people who lie on the same level as lawyers?) of said claim. They don't have to prove it was the most secure election ever or is secure, but there should be a way to dismiss easily discernable oddities in this years election, ones that should be easily be put to sleep if they could be.

The fact they can't easily dispute those oddities, and anomalies is what gives a rise. That doesn't mean it's proof, but is at least some evidence to fuel the claims fire.

In this case as mentioned prior I'm more talking in general debate concepts not rule of law. Even if in a court of law a declaration is made, that doesn't mean literally that declaration is true. Just as not all rulings in a court of law are accurate which is where I have a major impasse with your argument.

How would you legally show that an election was secure? Well, to be insecure, an election has to have experienced significant fraud and irregularities, correct?

So the more often you prove in court that allegations of fraud or irregularities did not occur, the more you can assert that the election was secure. Otherwise, I have no grasp of how you would achieve this. Recounts have been done, which are one way. Various audits of the software/technologies as well as footage and testimony of the events are another, both of which have led to nothing.

The footage and erroneous numbers cited as "oddities and anomalies" have been dredged through repeatedly and given explanation - that the accusatory side refuses to believe these explanations even if they themselves cannot come up with a follow-up goes to show that it really doesn't matter in the court of public opinion whether you can prove or disprove something.

The popular one seems to be matching signatures - which involves trying to figure out which ballot matches which envelope based purely on the name alone, then comparing those signatures to database information on those signatures, and assuming that the amount of human error involved would be marginal.
There would be enormous cost involved in this, and I personally suspect that a full signature audit would do nothing to quell the allegations of fraud - if the SCOTUS turns this down and writes an opinion on their reasoning for doing so, it will be the case that every court in the country rejecting every suit bar one would not be enough to quell allegations of fraud, and nothing has stuck enough to get a court to compel a signature audit.

 

[HumanHive]

https://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/1001022/16

Texas rep wants to push secession in January. This would be bigger news if Texas didn’t do this all the time. Boy who cried wolf and all that.

 

[Meat Target]

Right now the Left is arguing that Paxton is only doing this to buy a pardon from Trump.

That's retarded. They also said Trump can't preemptively pardon someone if they haven't been convicted of a crime. Plus, even if this AG got indicted, the ensuing legal battle would last well beyond Jan. 20. Even if he's guilty of something, Trump can't help him.

 

[CrippleThreat]

That's retarded. They also said Trump can't preemptively pardon someone if they haven't been convicted of a crime.

They also said repeatedly that "Pardons won't save Trump from the 'justice' that's coming for him. And yet, they're complaining about the "worthless and ineffective" Trump pardons.

 

[Gehenna]

How would you legally show that an election was secure? Well, to be insecure, an election has to have experienced significant fraud and irregularities, correct?

So the more often you prove in court that allegations of fraud or irregularities did not occur, the more you can assert that the election was secure. Otherwise, I have no grasp of how you would achieve this. Recounts have been done, which are one way. Various audits of the software/technologies as well as footage and testimony of the events are another, both of which have led to nothing.

The footage and erroneous numbers cited as "oddities and anomalies" have been dredged through repeatedly and given explanation - that the accusatory side refuses to believe these explanations even if they themselves cannot come up with a follow-up goes to show that it really doesn't matter in the court of public opinion whether you can prove or disprove something.

The popular one seems to be matching signatures - which involves trying to figure out which ballot matches which envelope based purely on the name alone, then comparing those signatures to database information on those signatures, and assuming that the amount of human error involved would be marginal.
There would be enormous cost involved in this, and I personally suspect that a full signature audit would do nothing to quell the allegations of fraud - if the SCOTUS turns this down and writes an opinion on their reasoning for doing so, it will be the case that every court in the country rejecting every suit bar one would not be enough to quell allegations of fraud, and nothing has stuck enough to get a court to compel a signature audit.

I actually mostly agree with your post here, but I need to point out a concept called "The Weight of Evidence". If a man is caught carrying a bag of crack and he explains it as it being put on him by someone else. he has an alright explanation. If he is also found with a crackpipe in his jacket and he says that he must have mixed up his jacket with someone elses, he has a good enough explanation. If he was stopped just outside a known crackden and he says he was just meeting his brother, he has a good explanation.

He's also getting charged and convicted of crack use.

Individual explanations are fine and dandy, but when a trend and pattern of things keeps happening... those explanations sound more and more hollow with each instance. They sound more like convenient excuses or outright lies.

 

[Übertroon]

That's retarded. They also said Trump can't preemptively pardon someone if they haven't been convicted of a crime.

It also doesn't fit the timeline, It was announced early this week that Texas was suing. It was a massive suit that likely has taken some time to make. According to AP News the FBI began investigating after a anonymous tip in late November. So unless the Texas AG's office worked themselves to the bone cooking up the lawsuit as soon as the AP News story broke, then it's far more likely that the FBI investigation got triggered by rumors that the Texas AG was working on a large case regarding the outcome on election day.

 

[murdered meat bag]

How would you legally show that an election was secure? Well, to be insecure, an election has to have experienced significant fraud and irregularities, correct?

So the more often you prove in court that allegations of fraud or irregularities did not occur, the more you can assert that the election was secure. Otherwise, I have no grasp of how you would achieve this. Recounts have been done, which are one way. Various audits of the software/technologies as well as footage and testimony of the events are another, both of which have led to nothing.

The footage and erroneous numbers cited as "oddities and anomalies" have been dredged through repeatedly and given explanation - that the accusatory side refuses to believe these explanations even if they themselves cannot come up with a follow-up goes to show that it really doesn't matter in the court of public opinion whether you can prove or disprove something.

The popular one seems to be matching signatures - which involves trying to figure out which ballot matches which envelope based purely on the name alone, then comparing those signatures to database information on those signatures, and assuming that the amount of human error involved would be marginal.
There would be enormous cost involved in this, and I personally suspect that a full signature audit would do nothing to quell the allegations of fraud - if the SCOTUS turns this down and writes an opinion on their reasoning for doing so, it will be the case that every court in the country rejecting every suit bar one would not be enough to quell allegations of fraud, and nothing has stuck enough to get a court to compel a signature audit.

yup, sig match would prove the election was secure. tx is saying 4 states didnt conduct any or poorly performed them (ga).

the rejected ballot stats point to it too.