The OP who began this discussion did not specify that it was an exclusively hypothetical discussion of what might have happened, and in fact started us out by offering two pieces of evidence:
In the thread, I think we’ve dealt with these and they can now be dismissed, but they were evidence and suggested that that was what this thread was for.
No, you are completely misusing the word evidence. There isn’t even any evidence of any kind that TFG stole the 2024 election. And yet you want to use evidence of his unsuccessful attempts at election interference in 2020 as evidence of a crime that may or may not have been committed.
Stand back for a minute and think about what the legal system would look like if it worked the way you think evidence works. It’s even worse than @Velocity’s example of
What it would actually be like is saying John Smith tried to rob the Bank of America in 2020, and I think someone tried to rob Chase Bank in 2024, but I don’t have any actual proof that Chase Bank was actually even robbed in 2024. Nonetheless, this is evidence that John Smith robbed Chase Bank in 2024.
Or let’s put it in even simpler terms and see if it’s a society you want to live in: You tried to deal drugs 5 years ago. I suspect that someone must have dealt drugs last year. I have no actual evidence that that drug dealing actually even occurred last year. But you want the fact that you tried to deal drugs 5 years ago to be evidence that you dealt drugs last year. That’s not how evidence works. I still have no evidence that drug dealing actually even occurred last year, much less that you did it. And me pointing at you having tried to deal drugs 5 years ago as evidence that you dealt drugs last year is utterly absurd. And if that were actually to be accepted as evidence by courts, one may as well do away with the entire court system.
And yet again, that is why prior bad acts are neither evidence nor are they admissible in court.
The problem you’re facing is that you literally wrote that you had evidence of Trump’s election fraud in 2024. You used the word evidence. You used the year 2024. Everybody is responding to that sentence. Nothing good is coming from denying it ever existed. Each new post just digs the hole deeper. I would suggest putting down the shovel.
I literally did not write that. I literally wrote that there was evidence that Trump may have committed election fraud in 2024. I did not say I had proof that Trump committed election fraud in 2024. I have pointed out that evidence and proof are two different things. I have also pointed out the difference between saying Trump may have committed election fraud in 2024 and saying Trump did commit election fraud in 2024.
Yes you most certainly did. And then when everybody piled on to ask what that evidence was, you punted. Nobody is asking for proof, not one person here. Every poster keeps asking for evidence for Trump’s election fraud in 2024 and you keep going back to 2020, which, again, is not anything resembling evidence for 2024, as everybody has pointed out.
Your words are clear and your evasions are equally clear. Just admit you made a mistake by using the word evidence so that the rest of your posts are acceptable opinionizing.
I would also point out that even if Trump tried to hack the 2024 election, there’s a massive gap between “tried” and “did.”
Anyone can try to bribe Super Bowl refs with cash. “Hey, will you take my $55 in grocery money?” It by no means means the Eagles beating the Chiefs 40-22 was because of that puny bribe attempt.
I don’t think it is any more likely that it was rigged this time than in 2020. In 2020 we heard endless reports about how Biden stole the election and it was considered to be unfounded (to the point that Fox News had to pay out a massive lawsuit for even claiming the voting machines were rigged). If we believe that the massive voter turnout of 2020 was real (and I’m happy to assume that) then it isn’t that difficult to believe that the turnout of 2024 was real too. Lots of people were unhappy with the Democrats and didn’t like Harris, and Donald Trump seemed much more grown up and reasonable after a 4-year break (enough to fool a lot of voters). It’s easy to forget that Trump is much more popular than this forum would have us believe.
It’s not my fault if some people don’t understand what evidence is.
But past behavior is evidence of future behavior. And it doesn’t really matter if you agree with that or not.
It is however your fault that you don’t understand what evidence is.
Past behavior absolutely is not evidence of future behavior. And it matters a great deal not only that everyone else here doesn’t agree with it, but neither does the legal system, and with damn good reason.
No matter how deep you want to keep digging this hole, none of that is going to change. And neither is the fact that there is nothing to indicate that TFG did anything to illegally tamper with the results of the 2024 election.
Let me explain this in a non-political setting.
The Philadelphia Eagles and the New York Giants are going to play a football game tomorrow.
Philadelphia’s current record in 4-1. New York’s current record is 1-4. This is evidence that the Eagles are probably a better team and will probably beat the Giants. Because past behavior is evidence of future behavior. The Eagles are more likely to win because they have a history of winning games this season. The Giants are more likely to lose because they have a history of losing games this season.
But it is not proof that the Eagles will beat the Giants. There may be an upset and New York might win. Because evidence and proof are two different things. We have evidence of which team will win tomorrow but we do not have proof.
That is wrong.
This has nothing to do with the legal system. I’ve acknowledged that courts have a set of rules about what evidence is admissible. (Although you might note that they say evidence is inadmissible. They don’t say evidence isn’t evidence.)
This message board is not a court.
Apparently true. Your past behavior in this thread is definitely indicative of your future behavior in this thread.
And here it is in a nutshell: “indicative” is used correctly here; “evidence” is not.
If only the English language had a word for a thing which is indicative of another thing.
Not according to you. You’ve been arguing that a person’s past behavior has no relation to their future behavior.
Or is only specifically Donald Trump’s past behavior that has no relation to his future behavior?
Little Nemo, let’s just put it this way then:
How do you propose that Trump managed to get several hundred precincts to flip from being pro-Harris to pro-Trump, without being detected, considering that precincts use many different voting methods which cannot all be hacked in one go by a single ploy?
Since you think the 2024 election was dirty, then let’s put the microscope on it and explain where and how it was not legit.
Gosh, I thought I just literally posted the exact opposite. Silly me.
Thanks for the correction!
This is like the tenth time I’ve said this but I’ll keep trying.
I did not say I think the 2024 election was dirty. I said the 2024 election may have been dirty.
Okay, what I actually have been saying was that Donald Trump may have committed election fraud in the 2024 election. But I’ll work with your version of it.
You did just post the exact opposite.
What I wrote was that you had been arguing the opposite position.
Here’s you doing that:
So sometimes in this thread you’ve said past behavior is evidence of future behavior and sometimes you’ve said past behavior is not evidence of future behavior.