Democrats are employing some excellent brainwashing technique to defend the election as fair. Here are some of their tricks. 1. "Refuses to concede" is making you think past the sale that Trump's legal challenges will fail. This is their main persuasion trick. continued...
-
-
4. "No WIDESPREAD fraud" is the defense against the allegation of TARGETED fraud in specific swing state cities. This is misdirection aimed at low-information voters, which is most of the public.
Show this thread -
5. Massive fraud would be "obvious" if it happened, so therefore it didn't happen. This ignores the entire nature of the allegation -- that it is totally obvious to about half of the country. No one believes Biden got far more votes than Obama.
Show this thread -
6. Trump lawsuits are being tossed out of court. The fake news does not tell you the strongest evidence of fraud has not yet been presented to the courts. The first lawsuits were probably just to keep the fraud argument alive while lawyers dug for the good stuff.
Show this thread -
7. Character assassination by bad analogy. The fake news is labelling Trump's legal challenges to the election as McCarthyism, racism, and the work of a dictator staging a coup. All of that is fear-persuasion based on bad analogies.
Show this thread -
8. Experts and trusted media say no fraud has been detected. What they leave out is that they were not looking for it, and in some cases the people responsible for preventing election fraud are just saying they did a terrific job. This is misdirection.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
What they mean is "no forensic evidence", like videos of a guy showing up with 100,000 phony ballots. They completely ignore the eye witness testimony, which is corroborated, and absolutely admissable.
-
I haven't seen any of the eyewitness testimony come to anything, because it's all people with a strong partisan lean who don't understand the nature of what's going on but have an unsubstantiated hunch that something is bad. Hearsay within hearsay.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
How can you say "plenty of evidence" if you haven't seen the supposed evidence! That's like me telling you I have plenty of money in my savings account, without even knowing if I have a savings account!
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.