What is evidence?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Yes, Duchess64, it's called LYING. Are you familiar?

Go look in the mirror, Duchess because you are the biggest LIAR this board has ever had.

@techsouth said
Is this not evidence?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG2RkKBHX0M

I don't think most of you will watch this. It will invoke cognitive dissidence in the first 3 or 4 minutes and you'll feel too uncomfortable to keep watching.

Edit: for most of you, your news bubble will protect you from any such discomfort.

Perhaps you confuse testimony with evidence. Testimony is what someone says or alleges. Evidence is something else. Examples of evidence corroborating the testimony given in the YouTube video would be a video taken in the counting center showing ballots getting jammed in the tabulators wherein one could, after the fact, see and replay what the person who gave testimony described. And then we would want to see the physical ballots wrinkled in a manner consistent with having been jammed in a tabulator. And then we would want to recount all the ballots which ran through a given tabulator and compare that with the counter on that same tabulator to see whether they matched. That is what evidence looks like, physical objects which can be examined aftet the event.

If someone alleges a murder took place, the evidence consists of physical objects: a dead body, a murder weapon, blood of the victim and fingerprints of the assailant on the knife, etc.

@no1marauder said
Actually Trump gave up on the idea of recounts a long time ago. His legal pleadings don't ask for recounts, but for courts to declare him the winner of States because the election was tainted by "fraud". One such case got slapped down this morning in Federal Court in Michigan:

"But, to be perfectly clear, Plaintiffs’ equal protection claim is not supported by any alleg ...[text shortened]... m_campaign=snd&utm_content=wdiv&fbclid=IwAR18TP0ayn246w29N78HiRDtUMiAokZkqj3ckOMgqQYk-R4pFKkoJUSN73E

What is dangerous about Trump is that he denies not only the validity of the election result, but also the validity of the process itself. As you say, Trump is attempting to get himself appointed president by the courts since he cannot get himself elected president by the people. He gave us warning of this in advance of election day when he declared that if he lost the election he would take his case to the Supreme Court, having previously packed the court with his own appointees.

The flaw in trump’s demented strategy is that if the election is so flawed that it does not return a clear winner, the courts have no authority to appoint him president. The constitution specifies who will assume the office if there is no clear winner, and it will not be the incumbent.

So far the courts have refused even to hear his case much less rule on it. This suggests that at least the judiciary branch has not yet been completely corrupted by Trumpism.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

That's hearsay!

😀

@moonbus said
What is dangerous about Trump is that he denies not only the validity of the election result, but also the validity of the process itself. As you say, Trump is attempting to get himself appointed president by the courts since he cannot get himself elected president by the people. He gave us warning of this in advance of election day when he declared that if he lost the electi ...[text shortened]... This suggests that at least the judiciary branch has not yet been completely corrupted by Trumpism.

Can I summarize your contention as this:

Since it is dangerous to question the validity of an election, it is therefore impossible to cheat in an election?

Tell that to the people of Venezuela.

@moonbus said
Perhaps you confuse testimony with evidence. Testimony is what someone says or alleges. Evidence is something else. Examples of evidence corroborating the testimony given in the YouTube video would be a video taken in the counting center showing ballots getting jammed in the tabulators wherein one could, after the fact, see and replay what the person who gave testimony descr ...[text shortened]... dead body, a murder weapon, blood of the victim and fingerprints of the assailant on the knife, etc.

Let's stipulate that what you're saying is true. It sounds like you'll have a hard time reconciling your views with that of Democrats that you probably realized.

If physical objects are "evidence" but nothing can be evidence unless it is also proof, then you'll have impossible court cases.

Fingerprints of a suspect in the room that a murder took place. It is "evidence" true, but Democrats only accept things as evidence when they are sufficient to prove the case. The fingerprints, therefore, must be proof. But what if there are someone else's fingerprints in the room. That also proves another murderer. And if fingerprints are "proof", why bother getting more evidence. Only one piece of "evidence" ought to be required for any case, because "evidence" and "proof" are the same thing.

If this all sounds like non-sense, welcome to the world of Democrats. I'm not mocking you. I'm mocking those who persist that Trump has no "evidence".

Why I'm I being so seemingly pedantic? It seems to me that words are being used to funnel thoughts, much like in the book 1984. Just for now, when talking about the 2020 election, much of the world will be tricked into conflating the meaning of "evidence" and "proof". But people who are being influenced by psy-ops have pretty faulty memories. I suspect that come next year, when we're no longer talking about the 2020 election, everyone will suddenly be able to distinguish "evidence" and "proof" again.

@techsouth said
Let's stipulate that what you're saying is true. It sounds like you'll have a hard time reconciling your views with that of Democrats that you probably realized.

If physical objects are "evidence" but nothing can be evidence unless it is also proof, then you'll have impossible court cases.

Fingerprints of a suspect in the room that a murder took place. It is "eviden ...[text shortened]... about the 2020 election, everyone will suddenly be able to distinguish "evidence" and "proof" again.

It sure makes it easier if you simply ignore the "widespread fraud" part, doesn't it?

The testimonial evidence presented, even if it was not contradicted by video and physical evidence like the poll books (which it is), fails far short of the relevant legal standards to overturn an election.

@no1marauder said
It sure makes it easier if you simply ignore the "widespread fraud" part, doesn't it?

The testimonial evidence presented, even if it was not contradicted by video and physical evidence like the poll books (which it is), fails far short of the relevant legal standards to overturn an election.

Seems like lots of evidence of small fraud it exactly evidence of widespread fraud. The only way you can say that is false is by conflating "evidence" and "proof".

@techsouth said
Seems like lots of evidence of small fraud it exactly evidence of widespread fraud. The only way you can say that is false is by conflating "evidence" and "proof".

Do you belong to an official rambling society or are you just out for a wander on your own.
Evidence is whatever will convince a court or judge that :-
A) a crime was committed
and
B) who committed the crime

Evidence is certainly not Trump and his 73million supporters being shocked and upset that 80million people voted for Biden.
Perhaps you could provide the evidence required or are you in the guilty of electoral fraud until proven innocent, and / or my candidate wins camp?

@techsouth said
Seems like lots of evidence of small fraud it exactly evidence of widespread fraud. The only way you can say that is false is by conflating "evidence" and "proof".

It doesn't work that way; a few affidavits alleging misconduct at some precincts doesn't entitle plaintiff to a presumption that there is similar misconduct at other polling places.

@kevcvs57 said
Do you belong to an official rambling society or are you just out for a wander on your own.
Evidence is whatever will convince a court or judge that :-
A) a crime was committed
and
B) who committed the crime

Evidence is certainly not Trump and his 73million supporters being shocked and upset that 80million people voted for Biden.
Perhaps you could provide the evid ...[text shortened]... or are you in the guilty of electoral fraud until proven innocent, and / or my candidate wins camp?

You're still under the intentional delusion they're using to funnel your thinking.

Someone mentioned a dead body (i.e. with a bullet wound) as evidence of a crime. That piece of evidence doesn't say anything about who committed the crime. So your criteria are false. Unless you are saying that a gun next to a dead body with two bullet holes in the head is not evidence without knowing who pulled the trigger.

You've just found another way to reword things that conflates "evidence" with "proof". I expect that you're a smart enough person that come next year, when there is another topic about evidence and proof that doesn't relate to this election that you'll be able to understand the difference then. But right now, you can't see the psy-op of which you're a victim.

As far as evidence, I've already provided a link with witness testimony. That is evidence.

@no1marauder said
It doesn't work that way; a few affidavits alleging misconduct at some precincts doesn't entitle plaintiff to a presumption that there is similar misconduct at other polling places.

You're just rewording things and have found another way to conflate "evidence" and "proof".

My contribution to this thread is limited to a disagreement on whether there is evidence or not. I am not making an argument that the plaintiff is entitled to any presumption.

Edit: Let me ask this... What does the legal term "insufficient evidence" mean? If evidence is always defined by what it can prove, then it seems like this term would be an oxymoron.

@techsouth said
You're still under the intentional delusion they're using to funnel your thinking.

Someone mentioned a dead body (i.e. with a bullet wound) as evidence of a crime. That piece of evidence doesn't say anything about who committed the crime. So your criteria are false. Unless you are saying that a gun next to a dead body with two bullet holes in the head is not evidence ...[text shortened]... ctim.

As far as evidence, I've already provided a link with witness testimony. That is evidence.

Why are you rambling again I explained this quite clearly.
A body with two bullet holes is either evidence of murder or very determined suicide.
Of course it doesn’t say anything about who committed the crime in and of itself. But if a person is found standing over the body holding a gun and if the ballistics of the gun match bullets in the body you might be very suspicious of that person.
Are you saying that someone claiming electoral fraud ( which they may do for all sorts of motives ) should be accepted as evidence of electoral fraud with or without corroborating evidence?