If you're going to try to explain this to leftists, consider what you're really arguing.
You might think this is a did it happen or didn't it argument. Arguable speaking the only truly valid position is to be agnostic.
I would not try to convince to the left that it did happen. Instead that they can't know that it did, which is true.
We have suspicions and probable cause but lets stick to what we know including what we don't know. We started with the latter. Now onto the former.
What we know is what they are doing is a cover up in plain sight. We don't know if it was or wasn't stolen for certain.
We know that they're not actually simply saying that it wasn't stolen. They're saying because of this you're not allowed to investigate what happened. You're not even allowed to run an investigation that could demonstrate it wasn't stolen.
For example, there is currently an audit being obstructed. That's something you know is happening for certain. That's a fact. If it wasn't stolen then that can do no harm. It's entirely redundant.
If it was stolen then that would prohibit you from finding out. So that is what is happening for real. We're making it unlawful, potentially criminal to try to find out if an election was stolen.
The argument here isn't for whether an election was stolen or not but whether you're allowed to believe whether it was stolen or not based on whether it was stolen or not. They're using a pseudo logic that there's an absolute presumption of innocence and therefore investigation should be prohibited.
That's the only thing that can achieve. Whether this election was stolen or not the damage is already done at this point. That in the clear and in the open.
The result of that is not one stolen election. That establishes the standard to allow all elections to be stolen.
If you're going to try to explain this to leftists, consider what you're really arguing.
You might think this is a did it happen or didn't it argument. Arguable speaking the only truly valid position is to be agnostic.
I would not try to convince to the left that it did happen. Instead that they can't know that it did, which is true.
We have suspicions and probable cause but lets stick to what we know including what we don't know. We started with the latter. Now onto the former.
What we know is what they are doing is a cover up in plain sight. We don't know if it was or wasn't stolen for certain.
We know that they're not actually simply saying that it wasn't stolen. They're saying because of this you're not allowed to investigate what happened. You're not even allowed to run an investigation that could demonstrate it wasn't stolen.
For example, there is currently an audit being obstructed. That's something you know is happening for certain. That's a fact. If it wasn't stolen then that can do no harm. It's entirely redundant.
If it was stolen then that would prohibit you from finding out. So that is what is happening for real. We're making it unlawful, potentially criminal to try to find out if an election was stolen.
The argument here isn't for whether an election was stolen or not but whether you're allowed to believe whether it was stolen or not based on whether it was stolen or not. They're using a pseudo logic that there's an absolute presumption of innocence and therefore investigation should be prohibited.
That's the only thing that can achieve. Whether this election was stolen or not the damage is already done at this point. That in the clear and in the open.
The result of that is not one stolen election. That establishes the standard to allow all elections to be stolen.